Thanks to fetch sorting out the 5 zones I've realised I've not been running at a high enough bpm according to my zones shown here. Today I ran my zone 3 section above 174 bpm rather than above 165bpm (the X zone on my table). How hard should zone 3 feel and what are your thoughts about my zones. It's taken from the 8020 endurance website.
My initial thought on seeing those heart rates TBR was that they are too high. Zone one with a "low" of 132 .. that "low" doesn't seem low enough at all. I'm guessing that at those HR:s you're always pushing above what's required for positive training effect. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm sure you and others will come to a good conclusion.
Having looked at the same sort of data over a couple of days now, it's pretty clear that the OH1+ inherently has a slight delay compared to the FR645 of somewhere in the region of 2-3 seconds in how it responds. Definitely not an issue over a normal running session, but might have some impact on stop and start sessions, either races or shorter intervals.
That pretty much matches my experience when doing things like the MaxHR test on short hill reps where the HR just after hitting "lap" is higher than the HR on the moment of hitting "lap".
Other than that, pretty happy so far that the two recording options (watch HR or OH1+) are bang on. Other users' mileage may vary!
I think there's a general acceptance that there's normally about a 2-3 seconds delay between what a HR strap measures and what a watch's OHR reads, due to the physical time it takes for the blood to pump from the heart ( where the HR strap is reading ) to the wrist ( where the watch is reading ).
Interesting to hear that you think there is a further delay from the watch to the OH1+ strap on the upper arm - that can't be due to a physical delay can it, that must be software ??
Exactly Gus. It's easy to overlook the fact that whatever an optical sensor reads, there is then a "computer" which does something to it. That could range from simply rounding the time stamp, to the timing of the bluetooth transmission, through to more complex error correction (e.g. "I detected a beat 7 bpm higher than the last beat, if the next beat is 7bpm lower then discard recording as likely error") or smoothing. I suspect the Polar does a little bit more computation as it is a specialist tool, but that might not be correct.
I'd be surprised if there is as much as a 2-3s delay between the hearts electrical signals and the associated "pump" in the arms though, but clearly it won't be instantaneous.
I've actually got a red HRM strap, maybe time to crack that out and do a similar comparison; the Polar can record to itself so I could have all three devices and start to pretend I'm someone like DCRainmaker
Whilst I've been praising the FR645 for the optical accuracy (or at least, consistency with the Polar), I have used the watch independently on a couple of bike rides and stupid runs where the max HR has been quite a bit higher than I've seen on the OH1 in previous use. But for the time being I'm avoiding any high intensity running so it will be a while before I can test out both devices in that sort of use-case.
You can't measure heart rate, or speed for that matter, at a moment in time. It has to be done over a period. The shorter the period, the lower the accuracy.
Both devices appear to have similar "measurement windows" in that they report beats changing up or down more than once over similar timeframes. But the Polar seems to timestamp when it has detected a change slightly later than when the FR645 does.
So I don't think they differ vastly in their measurement periods or their approach to accuracy (that I can see from the data).
Everything you need to know about training with a heart rate monitor. Remember the motto "I can maintain a fast pace over the race distance because I am an Endurance God". Mind the trap door....
Gobi lurks here, but for his advice you must first speak his name. Ask and you shall receive.
A quote:
"The area between the top of the aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold is somewhat of a no mans land of fitness. It is a mix of aerobic and anaerobic states. For the amount of effort the athlete puts forth, not a whole lot of fitness is produced. It does not train the aerobic or anaerobic energy system to a high degree. This area does have its place in training; it is just not in base season. Unfortunately this area is where I find a lot of athletes spending the majority of their seasons, which retards aerobic development. The athletes heart rate shoots up to this zone with little power or speed being produced when it gets there." Matt Russ, US International Coach
Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.
Fetcheveryone lets you analyse your training, find races, plot routes, chat in our forum, get advice, play games - and more!
Nothing is behind a paywall, and it'll stay that way thanks to our awesome community!
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023