Heart Rate Monitors vs. Speed and Distance Monitors

Heart Rate Monitors vs. Speed and Distance Monitors

Post by Christopher Marchett » Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:41:00


My Nike chronograph watch recently died and I am looking for a replacement.
With all of the talk on this list and in everything I have been reading
about triathlon training, I was thinking about replacing it with a HRM or a
speed and distance monitor.  I was looking at Polar HRMs and the Timex
bodylink system. My main question is what is more important to training, how
far/fast you go or your heart rate during that time? With that in mind,  I
have a limited budget, so I can't go for the whole timex bodylink system,
but was thinking about buying it piece by piece starting with either the HRM
or the speed and distance monitor, or just going with a Polar HRM.  Does
anyone have any advice on which of these products is better?

Also, I have been a runner for years, but am just getting into the tri
scene.  My plan is to compete in my first this spring after a winter of
swimming training.

Any help is greatly appreciated.  Thanks

Chris
--

 
 
 

Heart Rate Monitors vs. Speed and Distance Monitors

Post by Andy Cogga » Tue, 09 Sep 2003 22:14:27


Quote:
> My Nike chronograph watch recently died and I am looking for a
replacement.
> With all of the talk on this list and in everything I have been reading
> about triathlon training, I was thinking about replacing it with a HRM or
a
> speed and distance monitor.  I was looking at Polar HRMs and the Timex
> bodylink system. My main question is what is more important to training,
how
> far/fast you go or your heart rate during that time? With that in mind,  I
> have a limited budget, so I can't go for the whole timex bodylink system,
> but was thinking about buying it piece by piece starting with either the
HRM
> or the speed and distance monitor, or just going with a Polar HRM.  Does
> anyone have any advice on which of these products is better?

> Also, I have been a runner for years, but am just getting into the tri
> scene.  My plan is to compete in my first this spring after a winter of
> swimming training.

Obviously, the *only* thing that counts when *racing* is how/far fast you
go...and since 1) the purpose of training is to improve racing performance,
and 2) there is a specificity to training (e.g., you won't get better at
marathoning by doing 100 m sprints), it makes perfect sense to base training
paces off of actual race performance. This works very well for running (as
I'm sure you know), and in fact for that sport alone I think a HR monitor is
nearly worthless...you can do your structured training on a measured track
or course, and your unstructured base mileage based on perceived effort. The
same could be said for swimming, and probably even more so, since 99.9% of
people do their swim training in a pool of known length. Where the use of
speed/pace falls down as a measure of training intensity is when 1)
resistivive forces vary dramatically (e.g., running or esp. cycling up and
down hills, against or with the wind), 2) environmental condition vary
dramatically (e.g., trying to train for a cool fall marathon by running in
summer heat), or 3) knowing your actual speed/pace is difficult (e.g.,
running through the woods on an umarked trail). Under these conditions,
knowing your HR can be useful to help judge the exercise intensity (if you
know what you're doing), although it isn't as perfect a measure as many
believe (being affected by things like lack of sleep, recent illness or
infection, etc.). Given your situation, I think your plan of going with the
Timex system makes a lot of sense, as it will (should) allow you to measure
speed/pace under all conditions.

Andy Coggan

 
 
 

Heart Rate Monitors vs. Speed and Distance Monitors

Post by Peppe » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:34:26

Chris, I have both and tend to use the body link system more.  I like the
ability to see my heart rate and see how fast I am going at the same time.
I have one of the newer bodylink systems that will show HR, speed and
distance all at once.  It really is a great system that works very well.  My
old polar my be up for sale soon...
I thought the arm unit may be a little too bulky when I first started using
the system, but I really never noticed it.  The only real issue is that my
polar will work under water and Timex says the body link system will not.  I
have not tried it yet to see...
Npep


Quote:
> My Nike chronograph watch recently died and I am looking for a
replacement.
> With all of the talk on this list and in everything I have been reading
> about triathlon training, I was thinking about replacing it with a HRM or
a
> speed and distance monitor.  I was looking at Polar HRMs and the Timex
> bodylink system. My main question is what is more important to training,
how
> far/fast you go or your heart rate during that time? With that in mind,  I
> have a limited budget, so I can't go for the whole timex bodylink system,
> but was thinking about buying it piece by piece starting with either the
HRM
> or the speed and distance monitor, or just going with a Polar HRM.  Does
> anyone have any advice on which of these products is better?

> Also, I have been a runner for years, but am just getting into the tri
> scene.  My plan is to compete in my first this spring after a winter of
> swimming training.

> Any help is greatly appreciated.  Thanks

> Chris
> --


 
 
 

Heart Rate Monitors vs. Speed and Distance Monitors

Post by Watch Gu » Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:01:25

If you are looking to save a little money you may want to start with
one of the 50 lap speed distance systems and add the bodylink data
recorder (they are now in stock).  You can download all your runs to
you computer and monitor your progress.  You can add the 59571
bodylink later to give you heart rate and use your gps unit from the
speed distance.

for more information check out http://bodylink.timexstore.com



Quote:
>Chris, I have both and tend to use the body link system more.  I like the
>ability to see my heart rate and see how fast I am going at the same time.
>I have one of the newer bodylink systems that will show HR, speed and
>distance all at once.  It really is a great system that works very well.  My
>old polar my be up for sale soon...
>I thought the arm unit may be a little too bulky when I first started using
>the system, but I really never noticed it.  The only real issue is that my
>polar will work under water and Timex says the body link system will not.  I
>have not tried it yet to see...
>Npep



>> My Nike chronograph watch recently died and I am looking for a
>replacement.
>> With all of the talk on this list and in everything I have been reading
>> about triathlon training, I was thinking about replacing it with a HRM or
>a
>> speed and distance monitor.  I was looking at Polar HRMs and the Timex
>> bodylink system. My main question is what is more important to training,
>how
>> far/fast you go or your heart rate during that time? With that in mind,  I
>> have a limited budget, so I can't go for the whole timex bodylink system,
>> but was thinking about buying it piece by piece starting with either the
>HRM
>> or the speed and distance monitor, or just going with a Polar HRM.  Does
>> anyone have any advice on which of these products is better?

>> Also, I have been a runner for years, but am just getting into the tri
>> scene.  My plan is to compete in my first this spring after a winter of
>> swimming training.

>> Any help is greatly appreciated.  Thanks

>> Chris
>> --