heart rate monitor question

E

Elaine Keller

Cathlete
OK. I got a heart rate monitor for Christmas but what I'm supposed to deduce from the information it's given me so far has left me stumped. I got the thing mainly so I could monitor my exertion while running so that I could keep my pace consistent for the long haul. Well, I wore it the other day while doing IMAX Extreme from The Terminator DVD. The highest my heart rate got was 162. I wore it again today when I did a 4 1/2 mile tempo run. For the majority of the run my heartrate hovered around 160, getting up to 172 at the point of my hardest effort. Now, I was amazed because it was during the IMAX2 intervals when my heartrate got up to 162 and I needed (had) to slow down and recover when the interval was done. BUT, today I could have run for miles with my heartrate in the 160 zone. I don't get it..... Do any of you who use a heart rate monitor see differences between what your perceived level of exertion is and what your heart rate is?
 
Yes, I definitely see this happen with running. My heartrate is always at it's highest when running even when I don't feel like I'm really pushing myself. When I do another intense cardio workout - like Spinervals - I have to work very hard to get my heartrate anywhere near as high as it is when I'm running and I can't sustain that level of exertion.

Different activities will have different ranges of heartrates for you and you just have to determine what your zones are for each activity.

Erica
 
Oh, OK. I just assumed that my heart rate would be the same for an equal amount of effort regardless of what I'm doing.

Does that mean that I'm not getting as good of a work out with IMAX2 that I thought I was?

You can see there is still some confusion.....
 
I had this discussion today with a fellow cyclist. I find the perceived effort is much harder doing a Spinerval than when out on the road on a bike (for the same heart rate). I have to work really hard to get my heart rate up to 160 on the trainer, but out on the road doing some hill work, it easily went up to 165 but didn't feel as hard.

Jeanette
 
Elaine,
I have always thought that the monitor has a bit of a delay factor in registering a reading. So if during an IMAX interval your heart rate spikes and then goes back down, there is a brief lag time before it registers. With running, you may be in the higher range for longer than the relatively brief intervals in IMAXes. If you have a monitor that has a lap time option, you can assess your level of exertion within an interval or split time and get a better idea.

I have done an interval workout on the treadmill while watching IMAX 2 or 3 and measured the distance --- it's a short interval for fast running, but a plenty long interval for plyometrics.

You might want to use the monitor for steady state workouts to establish a baseline and then go from there.

Hope this helps,
Barb
 
I've seen studies showing that running has the lowest perceived exertion per calories burned, biking is intermediate, and swimming is highest. I don't know where step falls on that scale. What it means is that you can burn the most calories for the least "perceived pain" running rather than biking or swimming (or stepping probably.)
I also think there's a difference in perceived exertion when you are in steady state vs doing intervals. Intervals just seems harder because you are quickly pushing your heart rate up. But...intervals supposedly create an afterburn of calories way more than steady state cardio. So you may be getting more bang for the buck on IMAX 2 than you think.
Beth
 
Elaine... I have wondered about this myself and I've read the above responses with interest.


During IMAXs my heart rate jumps up to the high 160's, sometimes in the low 170's. When I run, my heart rate stays in the 160's consistently and I don't feel like I am exerting as much on the run as I do during the intervals. On the intervals, I am really breathing hard afterwards to catch up the oxygen supply. On my runs, after I "settle in" after about the first 1/2 to 1 mile, my breathing seems effortless even though my heart rate is in the 160's. I've always wondered why this is.
 
My suggestion is to check out 2 books by Sally Edwards about Heart Rate training. I have read both and the are very informative. They have those and more at amazon.com "Heart Zone Training" and "Heart Rate Monitor Book" are the two I have and I reccommend them highly. This site might have some helpful info too http://www.heartzones.com/ ...:)...Carole
 
Elaine, I have been thinking about this for a few days now...could it be that with running, after a few miles, our breathing settles in, gets comfy at the higher rate and we achieve flow and it feels effortless. However, with intervals like IMAX's, our heart rate is never held at that higher level long enough to settle in and become comfortable??? Maybe that is the whole point of intervals??? Just throwing this out to see what yall think...so, what do yall think??
 
I could probably benefit from some heart rate education since I thought that my heart rate would match my perceived level of exertion. I was wrong and so that means I've got to buy more stuff!

Sarah, I agree with you about the interval thing. I have not yet worn my monitor while *running* intervals and I just might see the same thing as I when I do IMAX intervals. How has your running interval heart rate compared to IMAX heart rate?
 
My heart rate really jacks up when I do speed work on the treadmill but I hold the peak interval longer and I know I am pushing harder on the treadmill. The IMAX's do incorporate different muscle groups and it still is tough...no doubt. I just don't know what to make of the numbers either!

LOL!!!I am laughing at us right now...the average person has no desire to get off the couch and here we all are trying to crunch the numbers in an effort to bust our own asses even harder!!!LOL!!! I consider us lucky!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top