Help! Polar M51 problems.....

[naughtoj]

Ok, well I finally got my HRM!! So far, I am pretty confused...


I managed to set my "profile". I also managed to do the Fitness Test (after a heavy meal and TV disturbances however) and scored 60. The OwnZone deal is confusing me ALOT. I have to read that part over again apparently, but I went out yesterday with my new gadget. I hadn't established my "ownzone", however you do that, and I just went out and turned the HRM on. I set my OwnZone to "High". Well, everything is set at "high" since I am an advanced exerciser.


I know the OwnCal says that it does not start counting calories until 100 bpm. Why is this??

Ok, so I went for a 9 mile WALK with my sister...seemed pretty brisk at around 4.0 miles per hour, but my HR was consistently in the 90's! What is up with that? I was so pissed that the monitor was not going to count calories until 100 bpm. Turns out, for the whole walk, I burned 215 cals because apparantly that was the only amount of time my HR was over 100!!!!!!!

Ok, I don't want to get cocky here and since I purchased an advanced HRM I don't think this is the case, but am I too fit for my HRM? I mean, how outrageous is that? This means I can never just go out brisk walking and take my HRM and expect it to do anything neat? That is what I got it for!

I was a little confused because my Polar A5 barely ever measured me under 100bpm for anything! Just changing to go workout it was around 105. Walking brisk it was always around 120+. I know they say you should replace the transeiver every year and a half. Is it possible that my old HRM was not reading right? Either that or man, I got alot fitter in the last couple days. The HRM readings are consistently low, so it doesn't seem like it is the HRM. I was yelling at my husband about it this morning (all upset and all that I can't figure out my new "toy") and my HR was dropping into the 40's!!!!! I never got readings this low with my old one.

Any ideas? For those of you that have this HRM and are advanced Cathe exercisers, do you have this same problem?

Also, I did a rough Karvonen calculation and the zone is 149.4/170.7 for 70% and 85%. Does this mean when I go out and briskly walk I am doing absolutely nothing for myself cardiovascularly? I am kinda sad now.....thinking my days of walking for exercise and fitness are over?

Totally confused,
Janice

 

[veekcee]

Hi Janice!

I have the Polar M52 and haven't completely figured the thing out so I can't really help you with your problem.

A couple of sites to check out that may be of some help:

http://www.howtobefit.com/polarwalking.htm

http://www.heartratemonitorsusa.com/index.html

http://www.polarusa.com

I bought my Polar from the second web site and they provide a lot of information. I had a really good site bookmarked that provided a lot of great info but my DD decided to clean out the Favorites folder and now I can't find the site! You could probably send an email to Polar directly as I am sure they could help you out.

HTH,

 

[Debra L]

Hmm, you're certainly pissed at your HRM.

Please wear both HRM's to see if there is a difference in the reading. If so, contact Polar. As for replacing the "transeiver" (the battery?) every 18 mo's, forget that. Polar now requires a $60+ upfront fee for any service.

I've never given much credence to the calories burned reading on a HRM or a cardio machine. My gym is Precor happy with lots of wonderful hr programs but I was told to lie about my age (by decades) to use them effectively. The 220-age formula is a rough approximation. Karvonen is better. Is the calories used estimate really important to you?

What's your resting HR? I mean true resting HR tested before you get out of bed in the a.m. The usual resting HR of 70 may be way off for you - it's about 20 bpm high for me which means 100 bpm is actually moving. Maybe the flashy features of your new toy don't work for you but that doesn't mean a HRM isn't a very effective training tool. .

I've walked across England, climbed Mt. Whitney as a 12 hour day hike, along with doing lots of cycling centuries & a couple of 1/2 marathons. I think walking & hiking are wonderful fitness activities(the Brit's don't understand why Americans distinquish them) & my HRM has been a very useful training tool.

Please don't let a computer chip affect your fitness & lifestyle choices. From your posts, you & your DH are avid hikers - it's a great activity. Let your intuition rule, not the computer program.

Debra

 

[MariaS]

Hi Janice,

it does sound like something is wrong with either HRM, like you said, quite a change in a couple of days... I'm really not much help in figuring out that part.

I have a Polar M62 (I don't remember how the models go, but it also has the Own Zone -function and fitness test, so it's probably very similar), and have found that even on a brisk walk it's hard to get my heart rate up much over a hundred (and I consider myself an advanced exerciser, but by no means exceptionally fit (my fitness test gave 51 as a result, taken a some months ago, a few months after starting to do CAthe). My resting heart rate is somewhere around 45, a Cathe workout is usuallly around 125-160, intervals around 150-175.

I don't know for sure why the HRM doesn't count calories under a hundred, but I am under the impression that the idea is to only count calories that are spent "extra" as a result of exercise, that is, your basic metabolic spenditure is counted out of it. (That would partly explain the huge differences on estimations on calories burned). That doesn't mean you wouldn't spend more calories at a 99 BPM than at a lower rate, but I suppose these calculations are always pretty much rough estimations anyway. Therefore I suppose it is estimated that a heart rate less than a hundred is "normal daily activities", though as said, obviously you burn much more calories (and do some good for your fitness level!) on a brisk walk than say laying on the couch. So by all means trust yourself in deciding what's good exercise. (Though I have to say I was a little disappointed too when wearing my HRM on a walk for the first time, and ending up having burnt only 60 calories after about 40 minutes...! After that I just never bothered to take it for walks)

I think these toys can be a great tool to get to know your body's response to different type of workouts, how hard to push yourself etc., but in the end only you can tell what works for you and what doesn't, a reading on a HRM really can't. From what I understand, these calorie calculations are always pretty rough estimations, so they really shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway (though I know, it 's so nice to get big numbers of calories burnt on there...and think of what all you could eat with those extras ).

Anyway, hopefully you'll get your HRM fixed and start burning hundreds of more calories .

Maria S

 

[naughtoj]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you guys, been real busy for me this week.

Thank you for all your ideas on this, they helped alot. I did my "own zone" thingie this week and got limits of 182/162 for the "high" zone. However, running I could not get my HR over 145 bpm, so I don't know. I am doing IMAX 2 next week and that will be the true test. If I don't hit atleast 170 doing that, I will know something is seriously wrong!!!

Maria, Debra...you are very sensible regarding the HRM. I share your belief fully, and really only got a HRM as a motivational tool..it is NOT a necessary part of my routine. I just thought it would "psyche" me up to see all those burnt calories, but I wasn't aware that with my new toy it would be so hard to get my HR up. Time will tell, I really have not had too much of a chance to play with it yet!!
Thanks everyone!

Janice