Im looking to get one, been meaning to for a while. Want to train for a half marathon, am already good for 8-9 miles in an hour or so on a steady run but want to be able to monitor my pace so I don't over cook it.
fanks.
Kev
Chat Forum
[closed]
Which HRM for running
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Polar s725, you can use it for running (with a foot pod, to measure pace, distance etc) and then switch it to bike mode for all the usual bike measurements (speed, cadence, distance etc etc). Has training modes and user definable intervals plus lots of other options. Can be uploaded to the Polar training software as well.
Big fan of mine, on my 2nd. (First one gave up after being subjected to my heavy sweating)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Have a look at the Garmin Forerunners
Posted 2 years ago # -
Garmin Forerunner 405, also use the bike sensor on my road bike. The website for recording logs isn't too bad either
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have a 405 as well....bit pricey tho if the OP only wants the HRM function. All the same its a great bit of kit and Amazon are doing it for £199 at the mo.
Posted 2 years ago # -
oh didn't know they can measure distance as well. That would be really good. I don't even have a stop watch at the moment, just check the clock before going out and guess the distance. I'll have a look at some of those they seem pretty smart.
ta.
KevPosted 2 years ago # -
Knowing your HR rate is only useful if you can relate it to your training zones and for that you need to know your max HR. I've got one but nowadays I really just use it as a stop watch and go by perceived effort. When I used it for races I found that because of the nerves/adrenalin speeding up my HRM I was taking it too easy if I used my HR to control how fast I ran.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The new 405 (the blue one) they claim has a 'better' calorie calclation based on your heart rate, and who knows what. So last years 405, the black one can be had for around £200, but loads of places are still selling them at RRP so be aware. I had mine from Amazon in a bundle with bike mount and cadence sensor.
Posted 2 years ago # -
By the way, if you do not mind the size and fancy saving £60 then the 305 is always worth a punt.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Garman Forerunner 50 can be picked up for well under 100 quid, it uses a foot pod rather than a GPS but is pretty accurate in my experience (inertial guidance on your foot effectively!). Does all the standard things (heart rate, zones, laps, min/km, etc) you need and also connects wirelessly to the computer to download everything for training analysis.
You can also change the batteries in the heart rate strap, foot pod and watch yourself, rather than having to send them off like you do with polar
.Posted 2 years ago # -
right ok... I had a look at a few of these last night. What I don't want is something which is over specced, difficult to set up and fiddly to use - I have no use whatsoever for functions like sending my routes & workouts etc to another user, syncronising with another user and setting up a virtual training partner. What I do want is something which will :
A) measure hr (obviously)
B) measuring distance would be god send
C) be small and light - if it's slightly bulky and awkward I won't want to use it. Im small myself... 56-58kg and 5'4".Now... as some of these use GPS to measure distance do they also calculate elevation ? That would be really useful as I like to run hilly routes and I run hill reps occasionally. And... do they record the minutes per mile for every mile run rather than just an average for the whole run... that would be really useful too.
The PC bit... when a route is downloaded what data is actually saved and recorded, is it all of the above and the mapped route ? That would be really useful too.
ps.. cost doesn't really matter, if it does what I want Im happy to pay for it.
fanks,
KevPosted 2 years ago # -
do they also calculate elevation - yes, it's reasonably accurate for your needs
do they record the minutes per mile for every mile run rather than just an average for the whole run - yes, there are all sorts of options
when a route is downloaded what data is actually saved and recorded, is it all of the above and the mapped route - yes all of that - you can use free software like Sportstraks or Garmin Training centre to record & collate it
All easy to set up too
Posted 2 years ago # -
I use a Suunto T3c, which has all sorts of "stuff" on it like, training effect and EPOC (eh?) Generally I like it, not neccesarily because of all the features, but because it's got a big easy to read display plus the usual Suunto barometric qualities and well.
I like to see lap splits, hrm and speed (it uses a footpod) all on display and to download the sessions later to keep an eye on progress.
Overpriced though.Posted 2 years ago # -
do they also calculate elevation - yes, it's reasonably accurate for your needs
In my experience the elevation calculation on the Garmin units (which is GPS-based) is very variable; typically they will over-state the climb/descent quite significantly because the error in the altitude calculation is quite large - the unit constantly registers ascent/descent which doesn't really occur. The Polar units (which use a barometric-based sytem) seem to be better.
If you're in any doubt about using a GPS-based altitude device then try and find a GPS receiver that shows an error figure for the altitude, and watch it for a few minutes...
Posted 2 years ago # -
I use a Garmin 305. Have done since it was released; great bit of kit.
By the way, if you've just started running and you're running 9 miles in 60 mins then you have the makings of a damn good club runner. Good luck with it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just to give you an example, the following shows the altitude readings from Polar and Garmin devices on the same ride; two different riders so one is sometimes slightly ahead of the other.
Ultimately it's not the end of the world if you just want to know your current elevation, but if you have/buy a Garmin, don't fall into the trap of thinking you really did do 1000m of ascent in your run/ride!
Posted 2 years ago # -
uplink - Member
do they also calculate elevation - yes, it's reasonably accurate for your needsIn my experience they are quite poor without software correction.
Posted 2 years ago # -
but barometric altimeters have there own issues, weather fronts.
Posted 2 years ago # -
In my experience they are quite poor without software correction.
As I said - IMO they're fine for an idea of what you've done on a run
How accurate do you need?
It's not a space shuttle mission, just a runPosted 2 years ago # -
david_r, Thanks very much. I've been a runner on and off for a number of years but have just come back to it since recovering from several injuries.... all stemming from a broken ankle ten yrs ago from a bike crash (another stroy) I've always felt comfortable around the 10k mark but now I reckon I can do more as Im really enjoying it. 10k measured times are around 42-43 mins for an undualting xc run, 5miles is about 33min for road and 36min for a tough xc (Barbury Castle). I've started adding a bit more distance recently and guessed the 8-9mile distance as I ran for about an hour... although I felt fine during and after the run I was significantly knackered the next day. I did the same route again, slowed down my pace and added another little loop and it took 1hr 15min... again I felt absolutly fine throughout and after the run but woke up the next day feeling rather knackered again - I did have a few beers that afternoon though! ...hence the idea of an hrm just so I can pace things out a bit and not overcook my training - Im 40 this year and I really do not want anymore injuries... things are going well at the moment and I want to keep it that way.
Kev
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's not a space shuttle mission, just a run
Yes, but you can easily get a 50-100% over-reading on climb/descent if you don't understand the limitations of the device. If you were training for an event that involved climb this could be an issue - you thought you had prepared but hadn't.
but barometric altimeters have there own issues, weather fronts
Agreed, but this tends to introduce a different type of error which is easier to compensate for than the oscillating variations produced by GPS devices.
Posted 2 years ago # -
ok... so how inaccurate are they and how do you compensate for the error ?
If I don't get the correct reading, or at least know how to read what Im seeing correctly, to me it's a pointless feature.
Kev
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mrs S is borderline elite runner (looking at sub 3:00hr for her next marathon having done 3:15) and wont get up a sweat without her 305 on. Its probably been the most useful addition to her training in terms helping her manage her training structure in much greater detail than she ever used to.
Word of warning though, in older versions of the 305 there was a tendency for a battery connection to fail. This has been fixed on later models, but be wary if buying a second hand one, as if it fails it wont be covered by warranty but by a reconditioned replacment unit for about £80 I think.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The Gadget Show was testing them on last weeks show, they had loads of different ones from cheapies to expensive. They tested them by running little circuits with an Olympic champ, Suzi Perry did the testing in a crop top and tight leggings. Conclusion was that Suzi had a cracking arse. Glad to help.
Posted 2 years ago # -
As a fairly serious runner (amongst many other sports), generally doing hilly to mountainous stuff, altitude and climb is often more important to me than distance covered. As such, there's no way I'd consider using a device which relied on GPS for altitude - there's just no way it's anything like accurate enough. With a barometric altimeter, you can see continuously how much you're climbing - I tend to monitor how much I'm gaining every minute to the nearest metre. There's just no way you could do that accurately with a GPS altimeter.
I have a Suunto T6c with a seperate GPS pod for measuring distance. Not sure I'd recommend that for what you want - for one thing it's very expensive (I didn't buy mine with real money!) The trouble is you seem to need to go to that level to get both a baro altimeter and a speed measurement (the Polar equivalent is just as expensive). Had a Polar S710 before (older version of the S725), which was just as good apart from the lack of a distance measuring system for running. Seriously contemplated getting a cheap GPS watch to go with that, thus having the altitude/HR and speed separate, but like to be able to record both together - just a bit disappointed the the Suunto software is rather pants compared to the Polar stuff.
The alternative of course is to strap a Garmin Edge to your wrist - still have no idea why they can't manage to put a baro altimeter in a wrist unit when the bike computers come with one (even sent an e-mail requesting they did that!)
Posted 2 years ago # -
so how inaccurate are they and how do you compensate for the error ?
On a barometric device you can get a good indication of any errors by checking the altitude reading at the start (when you should reset it to be correct) and end of your ride/run (assuming it's circular!). If there's any variation then you know that a change in atmospheric pressure has had an effect, and adjust accordingly. If you were out for a long time you could also tag key points (e.g. summits) and check these against a known reference (such as a map) when you get back - again, just to understand if there is any variation and how big it might be. For a normal run, of up to an hour or so, I've never seen a varation big enough to worry about (typically it's no more than 5-10m)
For a GPS device I'm not sure that there's an easy way to do a similar correction as the error is varying every few seconds. I don't know how big this inaccuracy is on average, but I've seen records from someone's Garmin 305 that showed he'd done almost 1000ft of ascent in a 1hr circuit running around on the floor of a river valley. I can't imagine the actual ascent was more than 200ft.
EDIT: I've just done the sums on the raw data for the chart I posted above. In that ride the Garmin shows ascent of 886m, the Polar 383m. That's in 1.5hrs of riding.
climb is often more important to me than distance covered. As such, there's no way I'd consider using a device which relied on GPS for altitude - there's just no way it's anything like accurate enough
aracer speaketh the truth.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have a Garmin without the HRM because I question the value of it.
Like Mrs S I seldom run without mine and I run daily.
Some of my runs involve fells however not regularly enough to factor it into my training schedule. The majority of my training is non mountainous so time over distance is the key factor.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Regarding problems with GPS elevation - handheld GPS elevation accuracy is notoriously inaccurate. The best way I know of to counter this is to upload your HRM and GPS tracks into a free bit of software called Sporttracks. There is an elevation correction plugin you can download which extracts the elevation from the SRTM DEM and uses that instead. You can also use other DEMs I believe though I've never bothered. It's also the best training analysis software I've come across, worth a go.
Being a cheap skate I run with an etrex gps I already have, and a cheap HRM from decathlon - using a little data logger that picks up the hrm belt signal from oregon scientific off wiggle (code is WM100 I think). You can combine the separate datasets easily in sporttracks.
Posted 2 years ago # -
altitude and climb is often more important to me than distance covered
eg - my half hour lunchtime run today I did 220m climb. No idea how far I went, as I wasn't using the GPS thingy - would have been fairly irrelevant in the context of that run anyway. I sometimes do rather more climb than that of a lunchtime!Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
