Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenn Equestrian
PowerMan:
From a scientific perspective HR is one of the more objective measures for cardiovascular conditioning and is often more relevant than speed or distance. With HIIT, subjective reasoning isn't always the most effective.
|
Yes, from a purely scientific standpoint you're right. HR is a good measure for the CV training effect.
Quote:
|
I was curious what you mean by measuring peak HR is difficult? By peak HR are you refering to HRmax or a HR around 85%? HRmax is a calculation and never changes, even with improved cardiovascular condition. It is very possible to obtain accurate HR monitoring up to HR max, but that is dependant on what you use to monitor. If one is holding onto the elliptical or the sensors on the treadmill it will not be accurate. We've used multiple HR monitors in our labs, and the watch with band (which wraps around the hypochondrium) which tends to range from $75-$400 is actually as acurate as you'll get without being hooked up to a machine. I won't mention them, but some brands are also more reputable and well known for reliablility and accuracy.
|
If spending 75-400 bucks is worth it to you, by all means do so.
Point being most average monitors aren't accurate enough to keep pace with the changes in HR over the times that it will vary, and are pretty useless for tracking things.
This is just striking me as a case of needless attention to a detail that isn't all that important. You can tell when the anaerobic stuff is kicking in.
But, hell, if you've got the disposable income, why not?
I'm just speaking from my usual pragmatic viewpoint.