Weirdness from HRM, or heart

Weirdness from HRM, or heart

Post by Robert Grumbi » Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:55:48


  I conducted some of the forewarned experiment on breathing vs.
heart rate.  I didn't see entirely the results I was expecting, but
may have learned something else much more interesting.  

  I first jogged for about 5 minutes, stretched, and then chatted some
with club members who were arriving then.  As a result, my heart rate
was only about 75 (+- 10 -- standing and walking around casually shows
a very variable rate) as I walked up to the 'line'.

HR  Lap Time  Total Time
 80   1:27      1:27
 86   2:07      3:33  (I was off on my starting/stopping these two laps, the
                        1:47 average is correct for pacing)
 77   1:45      5:19
 65   1:47      7:06  
148   1:43      8:49  
134   1:44     10:43  Began forced deep 5/4 breathing
129   1:50     12:23
152   1:43     14:06
146   1:49     15:56  Free Breathing (shallow, unsynchronized)
152   1:46     17:42  Began forced deep 4/3 breathing
136   1:47     19:29
153   1:45     21:15
-- lost track of breathing experiment here, but while running I was
keeping an eye on the HRM and from here on, and heart rate was fairly
independant of breathing pattern from here on.  Pretty solid at 154 +- 2
(73% HRR, +- 1.3%).

  But what the heck is going on in those first 8 minutes? (rate
didn't break 100 until shortly before I clocked it at 8:49 into the
run)  I do understand that the HRMs are slow to respond, but thought
the time scale of 'slow' was about 2 minutes.  In this case, not
only did my pulse not rise from the 'walking around to the starting
line' value, it actually dropped significantly(?) (it'd be significant
if we trusted the HRM).  

  What phenomenology do others see in HRMs as far as time to
start registering higher than starting line pulses?  Does anyone
else see lower than starting line values?  If I'm having a real
drop, does it mean anything beyond 'you're strange'?

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

 
 
 

Weirdness from HRM, or heart

Post by Layne Wallac » Fri, 06 Jun 2003 01:30:38


Quote:
>  But what the heck is going on in those first 8 minutes? (rate
>didn't break 100 until shortly before I clocked it at 8:49 into the
>run)  I do understand that the HRMs are slow to respond, but thought
>the time scale of 'slow' was about 2 minutes.  In this case, not
>only did my pulse not rise from the 'walking around to the starting
>line' value, it actually dropped significantly(?) (it'd be significant
>if we trusted the HRM).  

>  What phenomenology do others see in HRMs as far as time to
>start registering higher than starting line pulses?  Does anyone
>else see lower than starting line values?  If I'm having a real
>drop, does it mean anything beyond 'you're strange'?

Good question. Beyond me being strange, my HR immediately before and event
starts is ~55 but by 2:00 or so I'm up to 100 and climbing (according to my
handy dandy graphs). I wonder if your starting HR was just a little high.
Hmm, that still wouldn't explain why it went down. UNLESS!!! Who were you
talking to before you started running <G>.

Layne

-------------------------------------------------------
The rec.running report archives may be found at http://kinder.cis.unf.edu/rec.running

 
 
 

Weirdness from HRM, or heart

Post by MJuri » Fri, 06 Jun 2003 02:10:48


        I'd go with your HR monitor is screwing up. I would highly
doubt that you could do ant significant movement, light alone running
at a 65 BPM pace. I've had times were my contacts are not good and it
showed lower average readings I.E. HR of 10-15 BPM while sleeping for
10-15 min. As you continued to run maybe you produced more sweat and
created a better contact and better readings.

~Matt

Quote:
>  I conducted some of the forewarned experiment on breathing vs.
>heart rate.  I didn't see entirely the results I was expecting, but
>may have learned something else much more interesting.  

>  I first jogged for about 5 minutes, stretched, and then chatted some
>with club members who were arriving then.  As a result, my heart rate
>was only about 75 (+- 10 -- standing and walking around casually shows
>a very variable rate) as I walked up to the 'line'.

>HR  Lap Time  Total Time
> 80   1:27      1:27
> 86   2:07      3:33  (I was off on my starting/stopping these two laps, the
>                        1:47 average is correct for pacing)
> 77   1:45      5:19
> 65   1:47      7:06  
>148   1:43      8:49  
>134   1:44     10:43  Began forced deep 5/4 breathing
>129   1:50     12:23
>152   1:43     14:06
>146   1:49     15:56  Free Breathing (shallow, unsynchronized)
>152   1:46     17:42  Began forced deep 4/3 breathing
>136   1:47     19:29
>153   1:45     21:15
>-- lost track of breathing experiment here, but while running I was
>keeping an eye on the HRM and from here on, and heart rate was fairly
>independant of breathing pattern from here on.  Pretty solid at 154 +- 2
>(73% HRR, +- 1.3%).

>  But what the heck is going on in those first 8 minutes? (rate
>didn't break 100 until shortly before I clocked it at 8:49 into the
>run)  I do understand that the HRMs are slow to respond, but thought
>the time scale of 'slow' was about 2 minutes.  In this case, not
>only did my pulse not rise from the 'walking around to the starting
>line' value, it actually dropped significantly(?) (it'd be significant
>if we trusted the HRM).  

>  What phenomenology do others see in HRMs as far as time to
>start registering higher than starting line pulses?  Does anyone
>else see lower than starting line values?  If I'm having a real
>drop, does it mean anything beyond 'you're strange'?

>--
>Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
>Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
>evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
>would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences


 
 
 

Weirdness from HRM, or heart

Post by swim » Fri, 06 Jun 2003 02:27:30



Quote:
>  But what the heck is going on in those first 8 minutes?

Was the contact wet enough?

I've gotten very high readings initially (190-210) if I haven't wet the
contact.  You could also get low readings.

Scott

 
 
 

Weirdness from HRM, or heart

Post by Robert Grumbi » Fri, 06 Jun 2003 05:18:04


Quote:



>>  But what the heck is going on in those first 8 minutes?

>Was the contact wet enough?

>I've gotten very high readings initially (190-210) if I haven't wet the
>contact.  You could also get low readings.

  I put the each side of the band under a slowly running faucet and
then smear the water around on each side to cover the whole pebbled
area.  I would think that'd be wet.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

 
 
 

Weirdness from HRM, or heart

Post by Hedgehog & Markarin » Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:22:14

I'd put it down as HRM.....mine often only seems to register 50% of the rate
(so I'm running along at steady pace, HR does 150, 75, 76, 150, 150, 75
etc)....I *know* my HR isn't really that low, so I just double the absurd
numbers.

Looking at your numbers, the first 2 could be OK if you set off steady, but
if you double the 3rd and 4th, to 148 and 130, they look more in line with
the rest (though the 130 looks odd still).

Just my thoughts....maybe I'm way off beam or have an HRM that's even more
unreliable that most!

Cheers, Hedgehog


Quote:
>   I conducted some of the forewarned experiment on breathing vs.
> heart rate.  I didn't see entirely the results I was expecting, but
> may have learned something else much more interesting.

>   I first jogged for about 5 minutes, stretched, and then chatted some
> with club members who were arriving then.  As a result, my heart rate
> was only about 75 (+- 10 -- standing and walking around casually shows
> a very variable rate) as I walked up to the 'line'.

> HR  Lap Time  Total Time
>  80   1:27      1:27
>  86   2:07      3:33  (I was off on my starting/stopping these two laps,
the
>                         1:47 average is correct for pacing)
>  77   1:45      5:19
>  65   1:47      7:06
> 148   1:43      8:49
> 134   1:44     10:43  Began forced deep 5/4 breathing
> 129   1:50     12:23
> 152   1:43     14:06
> 146   1:49     15:56  Free Breathing (shallow, unsynchronized)
> 152   1:46     17:42  Began forced deep 4/3 breathing
> 136   1:47     19:29
> 153   1:45     21:15
> -- lost track of breathing experiment here, but while running I was
> keeping an eye on the HRM and from here on, and heart rate was fairly
> independant of breathing pattern from here on.  Pretty solid at 154 +- 2
> (73% HRR, +- 1.3%).

>   But what the heck is going on in those first 8 minutes? (rate
> didn't break 100 until shortly before I clocked it at 8:49 into the
> run)  I do understand that the HRMs are slow to respond, but thought
> the time scale of 'slow' was about 2 minutes.  In this case, not
> only did my pulse not rise from the 'walking around to the starting
> line' value, it actually dropped significantly(?) (it'd be significant
> if we trusted the HRM).

>   What phenomenology do others see in HRMs as far as time to
> start registering higher than starting line pulses?  Does anyone
> else see lower than starting line values?  If I'm having a real
> drop, does it mean anything beyond 'you're strange'?

> --
> Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur

activities notes and links.
Quote:
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New

Sciences