I've been using a HRM consistently for about a year now. Tracking all information in excel. It's a great motivation for me to track all training data, showing gaps when I'm not doing enough, but also showing me the improvements in time and heart rate I've made this far on trails I often take.

Training wise, I do think it's helped me, as it allowed me not to push myself too hard on certain days and harder on others. Especially on interval training days, it's been essential as before I'm sure I never pushed hard enough. In short: for me it's been a helpful tool.

I've used one for years. But if you have a more direct measure of your power output (or speed) then that is the ultimate performance measure. HR has value as an approximation to power output, as well as how you are recovering. Most importantly, it's a tool that helps force systematic improvements in your conditioning, if you are willing to put in the pain.

blazin wrote:I've been thinking about getting a heart rate monitor for a while, but can't quite convince myself that it will have significant impact on my training.

radson wrote:I like a HRM, it shows when I am slacking. In my workouts if my HR drops below 160 I know that I need to pick up my pace.

Exactly.

if it works for you, then use it. If it doesn't, then don't.

I used a HRM for many years for the same reason as radson. It was just another tool to motivate me to run.

I bought a Garmin HRT monitor last month, and use it during cardio at the gym. I've also used it for some minor hiking and climbing.

For much of my life, I've thought that I have a weak/bad heart. The HRT has shown me that I hadn't done enough cardio (I have been weightlifting since I was 15).

Interestingly, I also learned that my maximum heart rate is 183, despite my 220 - 43 = 177 formulaic estimate.

LesterLong wrote:I bought a Garmin HRT monitor last month, and use it during cardio at the gym. I've also used it for some minor hiking and climbing.

For much of my life, I've thought that I have a weak/bad heart. The HRT has shown me that I hadn't done enough cardio (I have been weightlifting since I was 15).

Interestingly, I also learned that my maximum heart rate is 183, despite my 220 - 43 = 177 formulaic estimate.

What do you mean by "maximum?" How have you calculated your 183 figure?

Everyone's heart can beat faster than their calculated max rate- that's just a number used to keep people from going overboard. My "max" is 186, using

HRmax = 205.8 − (0.685 × age)

But I've had my heart rate higher.

I calculated my maximum by pushing myself to 100% on a stepclimber. Interestingly, that 183 maximum was increased to 187 last week, because I'm getting in better shape.

I don't agree that people can go higher than their maximum.

That formula kinda sucks, and I think works worse for people who stay in great shape over many years. I think if you train intensly enough, your max heartrate will not decrease much. Anecdotally, my max is 194 (done repeated VO2max tests) over 7 years with no drop.

LesterLong wrote:I don't agree that people can go higher than their maximum.

You're disagreeing with the fucking wind.

Nope. I just spent 15 minutes searching various websites and stand behind the statement that one cannot exceed one's maximum heart rate, which may differ from one of those formulae like 220 - age.

LesterLong wrote:Nope. I just spent 15 minutes searching various websites and stand behind the statement that one cannot exceed one's maximum heart rate, which may differ from one of those formulae like 220 - age.

Will you please go back and reread my statement? Make sure you read each one of the words... they all mean something.

Yes, the calculated max =/= actual max.

For anyone who likes to nerd out on this stuff, here is a link to a fantastic article by the Journal of exercise physiology about the history of the 220-age equation and why it, and almost every other HR max equation, are no good.

THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE “HRmax=220-age” EQUATION:
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf