Conference noted::bicycle

    	I use the heart monitor attachment (earclip) on a cateye II
    solar with an alarm set for the high end of my target range.  There
    isn't any memory, but I don't think this would help me if it did,
    since I wouldn't remember the particular hill or valley I was going
    through at the time.  Cost was about $160.00 (I think).
    
    	If you need the memory, I'd go for it, but this system is enough
    for me.
    
    		Drew
    

           <<< Note 1374.0 by KRAPPA::ROWLEY "Win or die trying " >>>
                               -< Heart Monitor >-

The memory is nice if your going to use it for intervals or hill repeats and 
you want to chart your heartrate each time you do a particular workout.  It is 
a pain to dump the data, tho.  They make an interface to attach it to an IBM 
pc, but the last I heard it was $1400!  Without the interface, I don't think 
the memory is very useful (but it is interesting).

Kevin (I've got to get mine fixed!)

    I have the 100$ one from Performance.  It does everything I need
    it to.
    
    Phil

    Gee, Kevin, what broke?
    
    ed

    I use a heart monitor that does not have memory, but has alarm limits
    for upper and lower target limits. I don't bother with the lower range but
    do like to know when I am exceeding the upper range (not too hard for
    me to do).  It is the kind that you can find for about $60 - $70 I
    picked it up at a hamfest for $8.00).  It uses a cuff that straps 
    around the end of a finger.
    
    I use it currently on my exersize bike (I live in Minnesota, so I'm
    done riding till the spring).  I did get to use it on a few rides this
    fall, it worked fine most of the time, but when the weather get cool,
    (like in the 40's) the circulation in the fingers gets poor and the
    infra-red sensor can't sense the blood flow (hmmm... looks like I'm
    dead!! 8-) ).  If I had the money, I would have probably invested in
    the kind with the chest sensor, but I don' know if I would have
    bothered with the hassel of strapping it on every time I went out for
    a ride (I already feel like a matedor preparing for a bull fight).  At
    least this one is convenient to use.
    
    Dave
    

     I've got the CIC that does not have the memeory but does 
    have the high/low threshold. I use it all the time and like
    it a lot. I think having memory would be great. The one I 
    have cost was in the 230 range and it'll tell you how long you 
    were in the target area or how long you were out of it (i.e
    how long you were high or low). To find my resting rate
    I just wore it to bed one night and when a woke up just 
    look over at the receiver and there you have it. One thing 
    you'll need to keep a close eye on is the batteries,when mine 
    started to die it showed my heart beat above 200 during a 
    workout,nothing like popping the old eye balls out when you 
    see that, but they were easy to replace. I figured that I was
    spending all of this money/time/effort on stuff to make my 
    body look and function good why not spend a little on what 
    every thing evolves around.. My Heart..
    
                                             Tom
    

    I also have one of those CIC units... it was a bit expensive when
    I got it, there are cheaper versions (like the Performance device)
    around that do much the same thing.  It does work well and satisfies
    my curiosity about heart rates.  I don't actually feel the need to use
    it regularly, since I know if I'm working hard enough or not - but
    it does provide a calibration of sorts.

    Note that wearing the sensor overnight (.7) is a bad idea, (aside from
    the discomfort) since it drains the battery by enabling the transmitter.

    - Jim

    I too use a wristwatch style monitor like the one in .6 with a cuff
    that straps over the end of a finger.  I can't find a brand name
    anywhere on the monitor, documentation or packaging.  It cost about
    $AUS100 here so I would expect it to be about $US60.  It's useful,
    but has one serious problem from my point of view.  If I put any
    pressure on the finger being used to measure my pulse, the reading
    fluctuates.  It does this too if I tense the muscles in that hand
    or if I have the finger pointing downwards like with my hands on
    the brake hoods.  The only way I can get a stable reading is to
    take the pressure off my hand/finger and to hold the hand in a
    relatively relaxed manner.  This is OK for an occasional reading
    to check progress on a training ride, but it makes the upper and
    lower limits meaningless - the alarm is constantly going.  Does
    anyone else have this problem?
    
    Richard.

     I thought about heart monitors, but I'll generally use, as a
    rule, is if the crushing feeling in my chest gets to be too
    much along with blood coming from ears and nose, I'll back
    off a little :-). Just listen to your body, when you absolutely
    have too.
    

    I own the CIC Pro and its worth the investment if your into some
    serious racing. The monitors with earclips are not accurate when your
    heartrate is high from the information I read on them. There are many
    times doing interval training that I feel like I am going hard only to
    look at my monitor and see my heartrate at 170 instead of 180
    indicating I still have some more to go.One rider I train with opted
    for a cheaper version of a monitor and ended throwing it away. So I
    would say if your a serious racer invest in the better one.

    	Thanks for all the info. yes I am buy the CIC. This one does have
    memory. I race alot. Last year I did no winter trainning. I was a Cat
    IV in the beginning. I won my district Crit and came in third in the
    District Road Race. I up graded to a Cat III. Since then I have been in
    the top ten 14 out of 19 races. So I am hoping to do alot of trainning
    and move from a Cat III to Cat II But before that I want to win the
    District again. A man with a goal. Maybe the Olympics in 92.
    
    Love my trek
    Mike

    I've got the CIC Trainer, no memory, but it gives me pulse information
    and its accurate as near as I can tell.  I got it on sale and bought it
    based on the recommendations from folks in here about training and
    middle-age and aerobic stuff and all that...  
    
    Works great.  Nothing fancy, but I use it when riding on the trainer to
    get myself into the right range.  
    

    I thought I might hi-jack this note as a followup to the John's winter
    training note to discuss specifically training with a Pulse-meter.
    I have read through this thread (and 962) and there's a lot of people
    out there using Pulsemeters, but not much detail on how/why/what.
    
    I just bought a Pulsemeter.  It's wonderful.  I'm a gadget freak so I'm 
    bound to like it (as a side issue wouldn't it be nice to have a
    display for speed, cadence, heartrate, alititude, rate of
    climb, and power output - from that Look ergo-hub I'm trying not to
    buy)  However I have been wondering how to use it to get better quality 
    training out of my (limited) training time.
    
    My mate who sold it to me (An Ironman triathlete who's motivation in
    selling to me was that he wanted a waterproof one) recommended a book
    whose title is something like ``Training and lactic acid thresholds'' - C
    an anybody give me the precise title and author ?
    
    Since I haven't found this book I've been try to see how my body behaves and
    grow my own training schedule.
    
    What I want:
      My aim right now is basic fitness with a view to Road Racing and (maybe 
    even more importantly) Alpine touring and Robin's Cyclo-sportives. 
    Right now I just want basic fitness.
    
    What I do:
      I workout on a Versa Climer which has an ergonometer on it (graduated
    in a futile measure but at least graduated so I can keep a constant
    workload up).  My basic training is 40 minutes of work made up as 8 reps
    of (2 minutes aerobic+1 minute anaerobic+2 minutes aerobic).  Each rep 
    is separated by 1 minutes rest.  I try to combine two reps (ie remove 
    every other rest period) depending on how I feel.
    
    What I've noticed:
      - During the work period the average heart-rate goes up, and at the
    	same time it get harder and harder to keep the same power-output.
    	(No suprises there huh ?)
    
      - My heart lags my work by a suprising amount. In a typical rep - say
        minutes 25-30 (at which time pain has normally dulled the senses :-)
    	I will start at 140, climbing to ~160 after 2 minutes, climbing
    	during aerobic work to maybe 175-180, but when I back off for the 
        next 2 minutes _I stay at the high 170's_ although I am aerobic (One
    	thing you learn quickly with a pulsemeter is where your thresholds
    	are)
    
      - I recover very quickly (the booklet I got with the beast says that
    	If you are above 120 after 5 mins you overdid it - typically I drop
    	to 110 after 3 minutes and stay there)
    
    The questions:
      - What does the above mean (if anything) ? 
      - Am I working Harder enough? Too hard ? Too Long ? Too Short ? 
    	Is my training completely out ?
      - Such books as I have read say `stay within Aerobic and Anaerobic
        limits'.  The only measure I have for this are are
    		Aerobic = 0.70x(Max-Rest) + Rest
    	      Anaerobic = 0.85x(Max-Rest) + Rest
    	where Max is 220-age.  For me this makes Max at about 152/172. I am
    	not unhappy about going above 172 and don;t think I'm working much
    	until about 158 (my perceived limits are in fact 160/175).  But there 
    	are people in here talking high 180s and 190s !! What does working out
    	at this range mean ? 
    
    FWIW I count myself as being very unfit right now.  In a couple of weeks 
    I'm going to get a fitness apraisal done, at which I'll ask all these
    questions again....

    
    Rod, a brief read through your note makes your workout and performance
    sound pretty reasonable.  I do very little indoor workout, but based on
    my heartrate analysis (AT, resting, etc.) and performance on the bike
    with the monitor, you are doing fine.
    
    I'll now yield the floor to a true expert...
    
    -john

    RE .-1
    I'm certainly no expert, but am also interested in using mine as a
    training tool. Early indications seem to reflect also that I work
    too hard (or at least harder than what is required to make gains).
    How about intervals? Working for weight loss, speed, determining
    max, etc?
    
    John

    They say a little learning is bad so watch out:
    
    Since I posted .-3 I've played a bit more and also spoken to a
    post-grad vet (who is also the ex captain of Ediniburgh Uni Cycle club
    which is one of the better local clubs).  I've also bought a book
    called the `The High Performance heart' which is `disapointing')
    
    The books says that one should not go above 180-age � 5 depending on
    your fitness.  This seems too low - bourne out both by my conversations
    but also by the graphs they show of 170 continuous (they won't be from 15
    year olds ?).
    
    The vet (who said cyclists were animals?) maintains that the 220 method
    is a much better metric.  Certainly since speaking to this bloke I have
    changed my training to one hour at 163 (which is midway between my
    calculated aerobic and anaerobic thresholds) and the improvement is
    impressive.  Obviously this only makes one better in the 1 hour period
    but I was on the bike yesterday for the first time in 14days and it was
    not as painful as I deserved...
    
   > Early indications seem to reflect also that I work
   > too hard (or at least harder than what is required to make gains).
    
    That's what I found (3 weeks experience here !)  Not only that, I
    didnt get fitter whereas moving to aerobic-only training really
    made improvements (and aparantly it's important to stay aerobic in all
    training during this phase)
    
 >   How about intervals? 
    
    Why would you want to do intervals at this time of the year? (John,
    Chip & Ed and any EUCC people needn't answer). Intervals are supposed to
    be a thing you do during the racing season and work _against_ aerobic 
    fitness.  If you do them, you want to go high (dunno what that means, 
    for me it ~180) but always be back to the aerobic threshold before
    re-starting the next interval.
    
    > Working for weight loss, 
    I am told that (180 - age) is maximal for burning fat.
    
    > speed, 
    intervals presumably ?
    
    > determining max, etc?
    I find the 220 method remarkably effective tho' apparantly continuous
    assesment during effort (with blood samples + air uptake measurement &c)
    is the only perfect way.
    
    Just fwiw
    	rod

    RE .-1
    Thanks Rod, I'll try dropping my h/r for longer work and see what
    happens. I'm sure it'll feel uncomfortable, but it's worth a try
    for a month or so at least.
    The 220-age for max always bothered me. I like to think I'm fitter
    now than when I was 18, but don't like to think that my heart can't
    pump as fast as it did back then. I also have no problem hitting
    180+ without feeling like I'm anaerobic. 188 would technically be
    my max, but 195 is easily doable. I think actually working as hard
    as you possibly can (with someone pushing you) is the only way to
    know it for sure.
    There's also anaerobic threshold, which I've seen mentioned here and
    there. How one determines this (outside of a formula) is beyond me.
    I assume it involves measuring VO2, lactic acid production, and
    other fun things previously reserved for race horse training
    exclusively.
    Speaking of lactic acid... I remember a George Sheehan (avid runner,
    former coach, writer, speaker, etc) article where he discovered some
    coach using antacids with his runners. Taking these seems to lessen
    the production of lactic acid during training. He split the team up,
    giving the antacids to half, none to the other. They went thru some
    time training together, and measured lactic acid levels after sessions.
    The ones taking it produced less, and had better training results.
    Placebo, or does it actually work? You be the judge...
    
    John

To synthesise all the foregoing to a child's level (that'll do me nicely);
if I'm using a wind-trainer without a heart monitor, and I want to burn
fat, and I want to get fit, then I shouldn't be killing myself on short
hard sessions but cruising through longer, slower sessions?


Rod

    That's what I've heard (in here). Putter along at 60% of max for
    as long as you can stand, to trigger the body to burn fat. How it
    avoids glycogen beats me. I always thought that got used first
    regardless. It must figure a lower energy output means a longer
    duration event, so it needs the long, slow burning fuel. Whereas
    a high energy output indicates short duration, so the fuel is the
    fast, quick burning type?
    
    John

    220-age is onl an AVERAGE measure of max HR.
    
    One way to get your actual max is to push yourself to the max.
    I found that this is easiest early season (when I'm less fit)
    which I accomplish by hammering uphill until I see God and fall
    over.  My actual max is 192; (220-age=188) - pretty close.
    Other riders have a larger discrepancy; eg. a teammate 41 years
    young who has a max well over 190 (220-age=179); another teammate
    33 years old with a max OVER 200 (220-age=187).
    
    If you are going to rely on MAX HR for your training levels I'd
    recommend a more accurate measure than 220-age ...
    
    Laboratory testing is safer & perhaps a tad more accurate than the
    'see God' method; but both are generally more accurate than 220-age.
    
    Regards,
    Mark

    	Mark,
    
    	Your "see God" method is pretty interesting, although
    	a tad tough on the body, what with the extreme HR and
    	then the fall to the ground.
    
    	I had to chuckle, though.
    
    	Scott

     I think that Mark's method (however Spartan) is cool - had to chuckle
    too. Question:
                   By actual do you mean it's the most you've max'd the
                   ticker out?
    
     The reason I ask is that the formula seems a little conservative to
    me. I had some testing done at Fitchburg State a few months ago. I
    did get my heart rate up to 194 (I think I saw the Father, Son, and
    the Holy Ghost). By the formula, my max would be 161. I think I blow
    that during sex. When I train at 161 (then take into consideration
    the recommended "training range" (85% of the max) I don't even sweat
    or breathe hard...
    
     P.S. Last year I banged a 196 h/r and was diappointed with the 194.
    But then, I'm a year older too and body is revolting more than it
    used to when I abuse it.
    
      Chip

    
>     P.S. Last year I banged a 196 h/r and was diappointed with the 194.
>    But then, I'm a year older too and body is revolting more than it
>    used to when I abuse it.
    Exactly why the 220-age is faulty, imo. It may indicate what is
    "safe" to push, but certainly doesn't measure true maximum capability.
    
    John

    There is an article about heart monitors in this month's (February)
    edition of the UK magazine, Bicycling (you can also see Rod MacFadyen's
    article).
    
    Richard.

    	One of the latest bike mags I read said the same thing, that
    	the 220-age is not always as good an indicator as one might
    	want. I assume it would be best to be tested by some sports
    	physiologist if you really want to do it right.
    
    	I still like the "see God" method, although I use the 220-age
    	method.
    
    	Scott

    I think 220-age is reliable for anyone who hasn't reached the state of
    Nirvana, ah, err, aerobic fitness.  Once one becomes aerobically fit,
    most of us can easily tac on 10 or so and go further.
    
    Heck I'd find it hard to beat legally if I wasn't allowed to breat the
    h/r limit.
    
    ed

    
    I was talking to a fellow bike-fiend yesterday about this... does
    aerobic fitness (through training at your AT, etc.) *increase* your
    maximum heartrate?  That seems to be the slant of the last couple
    replies.  Anyone know?
    
    -john

    >I was talking to a fellow bike-fiend yesterday about this... does
    >aerobic fitness (through training at your AT, etc.) *increase* your
    >maximum heartrate?
    
    I have been told no.  It just increases the work it takes to produce
    this pain (err heartrate).  However I could believe that this is really
    only the case for already-fit people (getting super fit does not
    increase the threshhold but getting fit might).
                                                   
    I read an article in 220 magazine (wonder where that name came from!)
    and their calculation factored in resting pulse (which does go down
    with fitness).  
    
    Aerobic = (220-age-RP) * 0.7 + RP
    Anaer   = (220-age-RP) * 0.85 + RP
    
    [Trouble is that this _reduces_ your thresholds as you get fitter.....]
    
    The preceding articles have persuaded me that the only real measurement is
    done in a fitness lab and I'll be there before too long....

    re .-1
    I don't believe so - at least not in direct corrolation with your
    increase in fitness.
    I think increases in aerobic fitness raise your *AT* closer to you
    max (letting you work harder without going anaerobic), and allow
    you to work at AT for longer periods of time. As your heart muscle
    becomes fitter, it can pump more blood with each contraction, allowing
    it to beat fewer times to pump what it did in the past, to move the
    same amount of blood. That allows you to push yourself more since you
    have a few beats to spare, so to speak. As you get fitter, this cause
    and effect results in better c/v and physical performance.
    
    Johnb

    The theory of late is that you should train at just below your
    anerobic threshold to make your body more efficient at that
    pace.  I spent last summer working at just above the threshold
    (I'm always chasing my riding friends) and became efficient at
    tolerating pain.  This year I'm going to try out this other
    approach - I'll let you know in the fall.  For actual training,
    it's good to go between just below to just above (1-2 bpm) 
    at intervals like a minute or two.  I have too many hills around
    to get that scientific about it.
    
    As for finding your anerobic threshold, we did a test which is
    fairly simple with the wind-trainer.  Warm up (15+ min) then set
    the gearing so you are cruising at about 120 bpm and maybe 40-45
    rpm cadence.  Then take the pulse reading every 30 seconds and
    increase your speed by 5 rpm each minute untill you cannot go
    further (or see God!).  It helps to have someone taking the readings
    and cheering you on...  Plot the cube of the speed (rpm) on the
    Y-axis and the heart-rate on the X-axis.  I saw a distinct knee
    in the plot where I went anerobic.   
    
    Of course you can save the trouble and pain by taking 90% of max
    (calculated by the 220-age-RP method in the previous note).  I
    think that the 85% is a little low.
    
    mark 

    
    There's "pain" and then there's "pain" - before I started training regularly
    with swift riders, I was not used to maintaining a level of effort that
    taxed breathing and heartrate.  I regarded that as "pain" (psychological)
    and something to be avoided.  All my training was for distance and
    efficiency.  But as we all know, efficiency is almost self-defeating
    as a training-methodology. 
    
    Anyway, now I'm able to ride near or occasionally above AT with people
    at 25-40 miles at a time, and feel fine about it.  My whole body no
    longer cringes, because it has learned that being "taxed" is just fine.
    To what extent that is psychological and what extent physiological, I
    don't know.
    
    -john

Does anyone on Notes-land have the Vetta HR1000 combination computer and
heart rate monitor? If so, any comments on it?
						-- Tom

no real problems so far but a couple of nit-picky things:

1. mounting hardware leaves something to be desired. You have to provide your own
tie wraps and disregard how they say to mount it.

2. The HRM seems to have a much different algorithm than my previous model 
(Nissei PU801). The Vetta seems to not respond to sudden sharp intervals but 
tends to average them out (lots of hysteresis). The PU801 responded much faster.

-tom

The back cover on the computer unit has about 1/16 of a turn of thread to hold itself
on so be very careful if you remove it from the mount lest the cover comes off,
the battery drops out and rolls away and you loose all those hard earned miles.
(like I did about 2 weeks ago).

-tom

    Great idea, terrible execution.  Luckily this is a Nashbar
    special. (it's going back :-)  The HRM algorithm is terrible.
    It seems to only update the display every 20-30 sec, and it
    must do some sort of weird averaging.  I was in the rest phase
    of an interval workout, and when I half-way through my sprint,
    the display updates, and the heart rate drops! At the end of 
    the sprint, it displayed a more reasonable heart rate.
    
    

    
    Here's a question. How exactly does an HRM count your pulse? Really how
    frequently does the monitor update? Does it time between each pulse, or
    does it takes a sample over, say, 5 seconds?
    
    Only reason I ask is that I'm considering getting one, but I have a
    defect in my heart (no smart comments Chip :-) that causes my pulse to
    be extremely erratic. As a result, I have always found it really hard
    to work out what my pulse is, and it seems to get worse as I get
    older/less fit. I'm just not sure that I want to pay �100 on something
    that will be for little more than entertainment value for me.
    
    Any comments?
    
    Graham.

    
    
    From observation, I would say that it takes a sample over about 5
    seconds, and then maintains some type of moving average. The reason 
    I say this is that it takes about 5 seconds (after you enable it) from 
    the time that if first pick up your heart beat until the first readout. 
    
    Someone (in this notesfile or on the internet) recently had two Polar 
    Pacers at $75 each. At that price, you could try it for a bit and then 
    sell it for that same amount if you decided that you don't
    want/need/like it. 
    
    
    doug
    

I did think of having one of these toys because I was in the market for a new 
compteur and thought about having on of the ACT's which do all the functions 
including pulse and are completely wireless.  I find the wires infuriating on 
the velo, and I know that most of the heart monitors are wireless anyway.

I borrowed a Polar from a tri-athlete at work and I must say it was 
interesting but after � day I knew all I wanted to know.  Unless you are a 
really serious, and I repeat really serious, athlete I think they rapidly 
turn into being a superfluous piece of poser-gear.  I know my resting pulse 
is 40-45, I know when I am working pretty hard and according to the charts I 
got from the bike-test that my pulse is at about 160.  At my age I know my 
maximum is about 175 and I always run out of legs before I run out of heart. 
I must admit that I might have been interested 20 years ago, but not now.

cue rambling on....

For my type of riding I would have been more interested in an altitude + 
normal compteur, but then I came to the conclusion that I would throw away 2 
satisfactory compteurs anyway.  As it happened I can't see the hands on the 
old watch I use on the bike anymore because of deteriorating close sight so I 
have bought a monstrous Casio watch with analog time read-out and the 
altitude functionality you get on an Avocet....  Considering this watch cost 
less than the cheapest Polar, I think it is better value...

My advice - borrow a pulse-meter from some-one for a week if you can, and 
then decide whether you would rather have that or (say) upgrade your 
transmission on the bike, what is the best value?

    	I used BICYCLING's training program this year (on rollers)
    	as preparation for the road. That program is based on heart
    	rate.
    
    	When you get on the road, there are so many variables that
    	a HRM is not as useful. Anyway, I've been riding better this
    	year and the early season prep indoors using the monitor made
    	a difference.
    
    	Scott

    Graham,
    
    If the 'defect' you mentioned is an irregular heartbeat, then I had the
    same concern before I purchased my HRM.  I have an irregular beat, and
    murmers in a couple of chambers.  I wondered how the irregular beat 
    would be sensed by the monitor.  
    
    The results are very good.  The averaging function works fine, and I
    get a very accurate reading.  I believe the HRM picks up on the
    electrical impulse, not the actual pulse.  When I was measuring my
    own pulse manually, I found I needed to really count for a complete
    minute, sometimes more, to get the same averaging effect that the 
    HRM can do in a few seconds.  Naturally, after a hard effort, my heart
    rate would drop significantly by the end of a minute, making high-end
    manual readings much harder.
    
    So I would definately say that the HRM is even more beneficial to
    people with an irregular beat, based on my own experience.
                  

    Has anyone had any experience with POLAR heart rate monitors.
    I am contemplating getting the EDGE model and wondered if anyone has
    any comments.
    Do you really need an alarm when you reach your anaerobic threshold?
    
    ..Simon

    Better question... Do you really need a heart monitor. I'll get
    pounded on this one :-). I had one and dumped it.
    
    Unless you're intent is one-serious-training-program or there is a
    medical condition that requires intensity regulation I'd recommmend
    not spending the money and get something titanium for your machine.
    
                                    :-)

    like, ahhh, a titanium heart monitor.  :-)
    
    ed

    -.1 yea, yea that's the ticket... :-)

    I just bought an Edge to replace one which got stolen last year
    and I'm very impressed thus far.
    
    Do you need an HRM ? probably not if you feel that you have the
    concentration to keep yourself at a particular intensity for any
    length of time.   I use mine mostly when coming back from a period of
    rest (ie Christmas) or when practising another sport which I do not
    know well.   I also use it extensively when doing inside workouts
    (turbotrainer, versaclimber, rowing) since it is something else inane
    to think about.  I could probably survive without one but would
    certainly have one sooner than Ti, since I have more weight aorund my
    girth than I could ever save by using exotic metals...  All my best
    runs have been done with an HRM, but I doubt that there is much
    advantage for anything longer than 3 hours (I once used it in the alps
    and vowed never again)
    
    Do you need an alarm? probably not, but my habit is to back off without
    realising that I'm doing it and so an alarm at (say) 155 you get jerked
    back into concentration.
    
    A final use for an HRM - ie used the 220 rule last year to prove that
    in fact I'm 7 years younger than I thought !
                          

    There's an athlete in our group who is into serious workouts (he's
    on the US Rowing Team and has been for a few years now).  He says
    that some of the good reasons for an HRM are to keep you from
    overworking and burning yourself out early as well as to make sure
    you are working hard enough.  The former case is one of those days
    where you just feel great and go all out but work so hard that you
    don't have the energy to finish the workout.
    
    ed

  I'm another fan of HRM's.  I use mine almost daily.  I find it a little
better running then riding.  I use my resting pulse as an indication of 
recovery from the previous days workout.  If my pulse is to high I ease up
for the workout.  If my pulse is where it should be I'll stick to my planned
workout.  I vary intensity of my workout by heart rate.

  Here's an example of my winter running schedule...

The numbers I use are:

     MAX HR = 190
         AT = 178
OPTIMAL ATR = 168  (ATR stands for Aerobic traning rate)
NORMAL REST = 55


    Easy day - 30 to 40 minutes with a heart rate of between 150-160.

Moderate day - 30 to 50 minutes with a heart rate of between 165-170.

    Hard day - 40 to 50 minutes with a heart rate of between 168-178

  Killer day - 40 to 60 minutes with a heart above 175 and in the 180
               to 190 range.  (Very painful)

  If my resting pulse is over 65 I have not recovered or I'm sick. I'll
do no more than 30 minutes at a heart rate not to exceed 160.  I've also 
been known to just bag the workout altogether.


  I had my MAX HR, AT and optimal training rate measure a few years ago
as a part of research project I was guinea pig for.  You can pretty much
figure your AT out by experience.  One of the great things that HRM can
help you with on the bike is Time Trials.  You can train right at your AT
and then use the HRM during the race to make sure your working at your
peak output.

  JC

    my buddy mentioned that he uses his HRM to really compare the different
    workouts he gets from riding, running, rowing, and using the nordic
    track machine.  And he was surprised to discover that his long flat
    rides provide a better intensity workout than his hilly routes.
    
    DougO

    I've wondered about that.  I have a flat and hilly way to work, and I
    feel the flat is more aerobic - probably because the bike speed is
    consistently higher.  The hills surely burn more calories and strength,
    but once I'm over the crest there is an aerobic let down while the
    muscles recover.  I occasionally catch myself moseying along quite some
    time after a big hill - I sort of shift into "lazy" mode.
    
    Of course, I spend a lot of time in that mode...   ;-)