VeeshanVault

I recently replaced my old Reebok HRM with an inexpensive Polar F6. I think at some point in the future I might upgrade to a S625X, but for now I do not need the extra functionality, so I cheaped out. After I did the recommended intervals for determining my OwnZone, it resulted in 127 to 143 which just seems off to me. The manual calculation that I've always used is this: ((220 - age - RHR) * intensity) + RHR. For me, this is 132 - 157 (intensity .6 - .8 HRR). My RHR is 56. Since I've never tested to find out my actual MHR, I've always used the estimate of 182 (220-38 ) which yields an HRR of 126.

My question for other Polar owners is how accurate do the calculated OwnZone results seem to you?

edit to add: The 127 to 143 OwnZone result is for the moderate range, which would be 144 to 157 by my calculations above.

hahahahaha













WHAT????

Engrish Prease

I don't want to go on a rant, here, but that makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative defenestrates it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate...

Heart Rate Monitors for those of you scratching your heads.

This question is directed at those here who do know what all of that means.

For those that are curious, this is related to Polar's heart rate monitor (HRM) products. For the purpose of cardio training, one should train at a target heart rate (THR) that is a portion of their maximum heart rate (MHR). This is calculated by multiplying your HRR (heart rate reserve) by a percentage of your MHR (.7 to .8 for moderate exercise) representing intensity. This result is added to your resting heart rate (RHR) to identify your THR.

I never used the Polar's measurements. There are other ways to determine zones which I use often (3 mile full effort TT is the one I use the most), and honestly I never compared the two. 220-your age-RHR is shitty too.

Are you running or biking or swimming?

Running mostly, but I also use an elliptical trainer . I know that 220 - age is not the best place to start, but lacking any better it's what I've used for the last several years. The HRR method is what we used when I was in the military, so it's what I've always stuck with. For my own personal needs, it's not critical that it's 100% accurate, as long as it's reasonably close. A difference of a few bpm here or there wouldn't phase me, but there was more than a small difference when I looked at Polar's OwnZone results which made me wonder. I'm not a competitive athlete, and I'm not looking to eek out every last bit of performance. I just want to get the most (within reason) out of the time I'm spending on cardio.

I'll PM you. God forbid we talk about anything that other people don't understand...

lol

It's not that we couldn't understand it, but wow, the original post doesn't give any clue what so ever that this is about cardio, heart rates, biking, or training. Not complaining, it's just funny. I almost thought the original post was a joke.

feh - It says exactly what it's about: Polar's OwnZone rate accuracy hehe. I suppose I could have included more info, but I figured that would be enough for the Polar owners out there to go on

I knew exactly what you were talking about, I just didn't have an answer to your question!

seriously, just exercise.

The sad part is that in most university level HPS courses, they still teach the 220 - your age shit. I thought it was stupid then and I still think it's stupid.

And yes, I knew what he was talking about too.

I"ve got a F6 as well and noticed the same thing. Just set it manually.

The 220-age and 217-(age*.85) are both just a rough estimate. From what I've read both are decent enough for most people. What's a better method that doesn't require a visit to a sports medicine place?

Not long after getting the F6 I was thinking that I should have spent more but still haven't found one I like enough to spend the money.

Yeah, I set the upper & lower limits on my watch to use the range that I've been using, I was just a little suprised by the difference between that & the OwnZone results. I agree that the various methods of roughly estimating MHR are not necessarily ideal if you're a serious or competitive athlete, but for people who are just looking to improve the efficiency of their cardio workout, the estimates are good enough. The (220 - age - RHR) method is just what I've used for so long that I stuck with it. It's only a couple bpm off from most other methods (205.8 - (.685 * age)) or (217 - (.85 * age)), etc. If I was really anal about it, I guess I could just average them heh.

The F6 is good enough for my current needs, but I did toy with the idea of going ahead and buying the S625X running computer (mainly for the foot pod functionality), but just couldn't bring myself to spend the money on it. If I get to the point that I will actually use the extra features, then I'll make the switch. I had a Reebok HRM that measured time in zone, and had a few other basic features, and it was plenty for me. I'd been using it for 3 years, but the wrist strap broke, and I needed to get a new chest strap anyway, so I just decided to get a new watch.

For Noel - Thanks for the PM. I tried to respond, but you have incoming PMs disabled!

Fixed.

Btw, the prices are a lot better than what I mentioned to you.