| I thought there was another note in here about pulse meters that I
replied to a while back, but I can't find it now.
Anyway, the latest pulse taking technology is the chest belt that wraps
around your chest, and reports by low-power RF to a device you wear on
your wrist like a watch. They seem to be available all over the place.
I didn't think much about it till my wife offered to by one for me for
Valentine's day (Awwwwwww! "Heart" monitor? :-).
I now see that they go anywhere from around $60 dollars to over $300.
Whew! I think the main difference is that the more expensive models
store data for a full workout at intervals, and then allow you to dump
it to your PC for analysis. Well, I have *zero* interest in that.
On the other hand, I don't want to get another piece of cr*p like the
one I got at Lechmere for $5 that you hold between your thumb and
forefinger, and is *never* accurate under *any* situation, but wildly
inaccurate during exercise, which is what I bought it for.
So, can anyone give me any feedback on these things? Do they work?
Why do the proces vary? Are any features on the high end model worth
it?
About all I want is to konw my pulse, and maybe get a warning if my
target is exceeded.
Thanks!
jeb
|
| To follow up on this note...
I bought a mid-range model, the Polar Edge NV ($139), and so far, I
really like it. It is quite responsive, and as far as I can tell,
accurate. They have five models above it, and six below, though the
prices really skyrocket above my model.
As far as I can tell, the only difference is the device you wear on
your wrist. The transmitter you wear on your chest appears to be
identical across all models.
The lowest end model (Polar Beat) simply reports instaneous heart rate.
It doesn't even bother with a time of day, or count down clock. Two
models up comes the "Fitwatch", which allows you to set heart rate (HR)
high and low limits in five beat increments. An alarm sounds when the
low or high threshold is exceeded.
The next model up (Polar Pacer) adds typical wristwatch functionality,
and the "NV" models include the "indiglo" style backlighting for night
and low-light conditions.
Which brings me to the one I bought (Edge NV). It adds a stop watch
which is useful for timing workouts, and it calculates two metrics,
exercise time, which begins when you instruct the device to start
monitoring your heart rate, and "quality" exercise time, which is the
time you spend in the HR zone that you set it for. I haven't found any
real use for these yet, but they may be interesting further down the
road. The NV also features a multi-purpose display that gives more
information at once than the lower models.
Above that, the features become more esoteric, with corresponding
prices. The one feature I think I would have liked that comes on the
next model (Protrainer) is the "average heartrate" for the workout.
Higher models include lap times with HR, recovery heart rate, interval
timers, multiple hi/lo range settings, and the top of the line includes
a device for downloading heart rate performance data into your computer
for analysis by a computer program that comes with the device.
The best part of the purchase was the book that comes with it. Not the
instruction book. Shrink-wrapped against the box that the device came
in was a book called "The Heart Rate Monitor Book" by Sally Edwards, a
triathelete. Its quite well written, and explains the target heart
rate (THR) system. The information was at least partly new to me, so
I'll quickly outline it, since the concept of a heart rate monitor
makes much more sense once you understand it.
Everyone has seen the little heart rate graph on the exercise shows
that places age and heart rate on the two axes, and draws a swath
indicating the acceptable range. This is based on the concept of
maximal heart rate (MHR), which is 220 (for men, 226 for women) minus
your age. The chart typically colors in the area that represents
60%-80% of the MHR. So, for a 40 year old male, the chart will show a
range of 108 bpm (.6 * (220-40)) to 144 bpm (.8 * (220-40)).
What they DON'T bother to tell you, is that training above even 50% has
health value, and there are specific results from narrower ranges as
follows:
50-60% "Moderate"
60-70% "Weight loss"
70-80% "Aerobic"
80-90% "Anerobic"
90-100% "Red line"
It explains in more detail than I can provide here what the values of
the different training ranges are, and why there may be a need to
structure an advanced training program to include workout segments from
each of the ranges (the so-called "red-line" range pertaining only to
extremely fit individuals, such as marathoners or triatheletes).
It also talks about related rates, such as resting heart rate, and how
it factors in as a measure of overall health.
The more advanced training monitors allow you to set up a program for
two or more ranges at once, as well as a timing interval for each, so
you can easily perform each segment after the other, without taking
time to fiddle with different settings on your monitor. Think of it as
a multi-step program on a microwave.
Hopefully I've done the concept justice. I'm no where near needing
anything like the higher end models, but I never realized how complex
it all was. Its a far cry from the "run faster, run farther"
philosophy that predominated in my youth.
By the way, you'll find more than you ever wanted to know at:
http://www.polar.fi/
jeb
|