HELP- heart rate monitors? Feathertop?

Does anyone have experience with heart rate monitors? Feathertop you're qualified, do you know? I'm lost. LOL.

I borrowed DP's, it's a polar F55 if that means anything to anyone.

I'm a bit confused by it as DP says he finds it very accurate for him and it seems a bit off to me. It knows my height, weight, sex, age and the fitness category i'm in (high, there is only moderate, high and elite and high is runs 10-20km (i run 15-20) a week or spends 2-3 hours a week in physical exercise. I run 5k 3-4 times a week, do one 60min bodypump class and swim 0.5-1k a week). From this it gives me various numbers and through doing a resting heartrate test it tells you your VO2max. Here's what it says.

My resting heartrate is 45. That is right, i've checked it before and it's been that low quite a while. Before i was medicated for my thyroid problem it was 37i.e. Nearly dead.

My sitting heartrate is 60. That seems fine.

My maximum is 193. I actually got it up to 192 yesterday and felt i had more. I ran to my limits up a hill pushing the buggy (until i felt like i couldn't run harder or breathe faster and my legs got heavy) today and got it to 197, does that mean it has my max wrong? It lets me change it but changes it back next time i put it on to exercise. Maybe i need to change it before each session?

My VO2max is 52. That can't be right as i am not an elite athlete by any stretch of the imagination. That was based on my resting heart rate though, which theoretically could be a bit low because of my thyroid thing, though i am medicated to normal blood levels.

It also wants me to run in the 135-153bpm zone. I can't do it, i've only run with the buggy so far, but i run at about 90% max hr. If i go REALLY slow i can get down to about 80% but that's it. I got into that zone earlier by walking kind of fast (not as fast as i could by any means, but faster than a wander). I know some of it will be the resistance of the buggy, but surely that can't be right? Also the book says that athletes at the top of their sport train at this level for up to an hour but that normal people can't, and i run for 30+ minutes at that level no worries at least 3 times a week. I run 10 minute miles, i am NOT an athlete!

I might try it in the pool and at bodypump tonight and see if the results are different, but i can't get my head around the facts that a) i am so unfit that running 10/min miles puts me at 90%max but b) i can do that 4 times a week and not feel anything but an endorphin rush.

What do i do? I feel like to exercise "in zone" i'd have to quit everything i do now and just walk a little bit faster than normal all the time...?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Bx

The calcs are based on your resting heart rate which is low in your case so it only wants you to work in a certain zone based on the low heart rate - which means you are hardly breaking a sweat.

Maximum heart rate calc is generic - I get mine over the limit as well. It isn't cast in stone.

If I did the 135 to 156 I would be strolling around the block, but my husband is killing himself at 140......he is an athlete

I don't like you working out at the 190 mark though - that is too hard - hopefully it is just for a short spurt. Around the 170 might be better for you.

Don't worry about the figures ont he HR monitor - just do what you need to do and use it to make sure you are constantly in the zone you want to be in - around 170.

Thanks Tracy!

The 190's was just to see how hard i could work. THe monitor had said my max was 193 and i'd run at 192 (it's just on the uphills with the buggy that i get up above 90%) and didn't feel like there was nothing left, so i wanted to see what my REAL limits were, and to get 197 i sprinted up a 300m hill with the buggy.

I did wonder about the range and my resting rate since as you say i have to work at about 80% just to sweat. It's funny you said that about 170 too - if i am running on the flat at a comfy speed my rate is almost always 174. You've made me feel so much better!

Now, how do i get faster? By running slower for longer?

Also, when it says "578 calories (20% from fat)" (that was my 32min 90% max hr workout) or "640 calories (50% from fat)" (that was bodypump). What difference does it make if it was from fat or not? Like if my body NEEDS 3200 calories (2000 to live and 1200 to exercise) and i ate 2000 (which i didn't, i ate more like 3200, lol) then surely if i use fat when i exercise my body will use my carb/glycogen to just live and if i use my carb/glycogen to exercise my body will be forced to access my fat to just live? So what difference does it make if it was fat or carb/glycogen i burned? Or is just a gimick because people like to see how much fat they burned?

Bx

Hey Hoobley, sorry haven't replied earlier, have had visitors all week.

The Polar monitors are the best in my opinion, and it sounds like you've set it up right. It may be inaccurate at the higher heart rate levels - you could do a comparison by running to a high heart rate, seeing what the Polar says, and doing a manual HR on yourself using pulse and watch. Also, estimating VO2/max stuff just from your data is quite inaccurate so I'd ignore that. Best way to get that tested is in a sports lab, and really it isn't useful information for most people anyway. And the 'fat burned' thing? A gimmick. Not useful info for someone like you with a lot of knowledge, just ignore it!

I reckon around 170 would be the max for you, or you could try to use the Borg scale of perceived exertion (we have used it with people who have cardiac conditions where using HR to estimate how hard they are working is inaccurate).