I've got a Cardiosport 2000 that's several years old now; they're updated to
something else in the 'new' range. I have a generally unhealthy liking for
gadgets, but I must say that if your budget stretches to it, I would say go
for the gadgets. I think being able to record heart beat is very usefull for
training and racing, and in fact I find it is possibly the most usefull
function of all.
I think it's also quite handy to be able to record splits and things on one
watch, without having to wear the monitor on one arm and a wach on the
other. Through the London marathon, I was able to record my pulse every
second for 2 hours seven minutes. No that's not when I finished, that's just
when the memory is full for recordings each 30 seconds. Also, I was able to
see my split for each mile as I passed the marker by a single button push.
This showed the split for the last mile, without any need for mental
arithmatic. It That also stored all my mile splits for later perusal in
post-race, where-did-it-all-go-wrong mode, together with a heart rate as I
passed each of the mile markers. There's still a few left over functions on
the watch, but I find all those functions to be genunely usefull, and as I
mentioned, once the monitor is zeroed, single button pushes are the limit of
what is required each mile.
The only problem I've had with the monitor is the original old-style chest
strap, which I got replaced free when it broke. The new style one has ben
Discoveries are made every 15 years. Yours is particularly good; it hasn't
been made for 150 years.
"The Doctors Dileema" GB Shaw
>I would like to buy a heart rate monitor that displays
>heart rate only. I do not need "fancy" functions.
>I came up with two models:
>- Polar Beat
>- CardioSport Start 2
>Polar has a good reputation but the "company" changeable
>battery bother me. CardioSport has an unknown (to me)
>reputation but their chest transmitter has a user changeable
>Does anyone have some recommendations?