|
Aug 2020
10:31am, 19 Aug 2020
37,001 posts
|
Nellers
My running has all been pretty gentle with the wrist sensor so far so I guess I'm not jiggling it enough to cause problems?
|
|
Aug 2020
10:32am, 19 Aug 2020
30,920 posts
|
SPR
I think everyone agreed with the 5k rule Glenn. It's the HM rule that was odd as an alternative given it will give a different pace for most runners. I don't see that as being pedantic when (from what I can see) the rules are supposed to be getting you to the same pace.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:39am, 19 Aug 2020
2,926 posts
|
J2R
Here's my take, again, on wrist HR monitors. For some people, they work fine, and for others they're pretty well useless (and it's not a case of not following the instructions properly or whatever). I'm in the second category, as is my partner. She has a TomTom, I have a Polar M430, and neither of them give anything like reliable readings, on either of us (we've swapped back and forth). Mine is reasonably OK once I've warmed up, and it's a warm day, but even then it will suddenly start giving nonsense readings.
As it happens, I'm not especially bothered most of the time as it's not usually critical to get an accurate HR reading for an entire run, I can just glance at my watch from time to time when I know I've warmed up to get a reading. As a result I don't wear my chest strap much these days, but I certainly would (or an upper arm strap) if I needed to get an accurate reading for an entire run.
As Big_G says above, it worries me that people might be basing a whole HR training programme off readings from one of the wrist HR monitors, and will have it quite wrong as a result. But then again, it seems that they work just fine for a lot of people. That's why you can't really go off a positive review - what works brilliantly for the reviewer might be next to useless for you.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:44am, 19 Aug 2020
9,661 posts
|
chunkywizard
Also all Optical heat rate monitors are not created equal. Garmin are on their 4th generation now with the 245/945/F6 having the best results. They are markedly better than say a FR225 (there first OHR device)
|
|
Aug 2020
11:02am, 19 Aug 2020
11,738 posts
|
larkim
Worth being clear that when people are saying "optical" HRMs they are saying wrist-based / watch-based optical HRMs. The upper arm dedicated optical HRMs are great and reliable, either because they are typically more securely placed on the skin or because that part of the skin is better for reading from.
|
|
Aug 2020
11:27am, 19 Aug 2020
30,921 posts
|
SPR
The thing is HR is a tool. How many people's HR stats really tell them that they should run at paces that are significantly different from what rules based on current race shape would say easy is (eg the 5k rule Glenn quoted +/- say 30 secs)?
|
|
Aug 2020
11:32am, 19 Aug 2020
2,927 posts
|
J2R
chunkwizard, you may be right, and I should try one some time. I will say, though, that the reviews of the TomTom Runner my partner has and the Polar M430 I have all said how much better the optical HR monitoring was on these than the previous models, and that the earlier issues with wrist-based monitors had been resolved. So I remain sceptical!
Yes, larkim, the upper arm ones seem fine. The only real issue I have with them is that once you have lost the convenience of having the HR monitor built into the watch, why not just use a chest strap?
|
|
Aug 2020
11:57am, 19 Aug 2020
12,668 posts
|
Badger
J2R, for me, if I wear a chest strap for more than an hour or so, it starts tearing up my skin unless I cover myself in micropore (and even that tends to come off after a bit), and the upper arm monitors don't have that problem.
How many people's HR stats really tell them that they should run at paces that are significantly different from what rules based on current race shape would say easy is (eg the 5k rule Glenn quoted +/- say 30 secs)?
I think the problem with the rules Glenn quoted is that for most of us the difference is a lot more than 30s between the two rules alone!
That said 5k + 3 is about the pace I'd sustain comfortably deep in Z2 when not very fit, half+90s is the same when in top form (that is using heart rate reserve divided into 5 zones, so definitely easy).
|
|
Aug 2020
12:00pm, 19 Aug 2020
30,924 posts
|
SPR
Badger - I'm referring to the 5k rule only.
|
|
Aug 2020
12:18pm, 19 Aug 2020
12,669 posts
|
Badger
My point in my last paragraph still holds, though - the pace from 5k is about right when I don't have a lot of endurance fitness, but is out by well over 45 seconds when I do, because my 5k pace shifts a lot less than the pace I can sustain for >10 miles in Z2 does. It's not a bad starting point at all, but I think I'd be doing myself no favours by continuing to run 10:45 miles when I can do 9:30 easy, and yes, it is more than 30 seconds away from the rule.
What's your take? Would you go with keeping a consistent pace for easy runs & consider the lowering HR to be improving your aerobic capacity & an efficient use of the training time?
|
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023