Heart Rate While swimming

[sclim]

Originally Posted by jenson1a

Danny, Sclim, and Ignorer

Thanks for your input also. Actually a heart rate monitor wasn't my concern. The Aquapulse sounded great, but I have a hearing impairment--so much so that I don't hear the TT. Werner came up with a file which is made up of a series of beeps that can be downloaded to an underwater mp 3 player and that works just great.

The other thing is that after I posted my original post, I realized that my resting heart rate was taken on land. Had I taken it in the water, it probably would have been much lower. The heart rate measurement was done just as a tool, like what is your spl, to try to id where my problems were in my swimming. Not much luck with that!

Like I said in OP, the only thing I really noticed was that on my second length, my hips were not as high as they were in the first length. have to work on that also.

Thanks for all the input

Sherry

OK, I gotcha. Just in case you want to explore the HR thing more, there is an existing product, the Alpha Mio that is worn as a wrist watch (so you can read the HR number on your wrist), which detects the pulse beats (the surges of blood through the capillaries, actually) by infra red monitoring from the underside of the watch on the surface of your wrist. It broadcasts this data in BLE (Bluetooth low energy) signal, so if you're interested in recording this on your waterproof Sony Experia phone (haha, somehow I don't think this is your concern), it can be done.

And just for completeness, I understand 4iiii Innovations is planning a release of a similar product later this year, the Viiiiva Mini that does the same thing, except that it transmits in both ANT+ and BLE wireless signal, as well as recording the workout data internally. It will also act as a "bridge", receiving ANT+ signals from footpod, cycle cadence/speed sensor or power meter, and re-transmit in BLE, (as well as it's own internally generated HR data) for those interested in using it in other activities.

[jenson1a]

sclim

Thank you for the info. Yes I could be interested in either one of those watches. I have read that it is important to keep your heart rate in an aerobic zone. In the past when exercising in the gym, I would typically run my rate up to 160 to 170 bpm. I think it helped me burn calories, but probably not too good for the heart (at least not at my age).

Thank you so much for your reply

Sherry

[sclim]

Originally Posted by jenson1a

sclim

Thank you for the info. Yes I could be interested in either one of those watches. I have read that it is important to keep your heart rate in an aerobic zone. In the past when exercising in the gym, I would typically run my rate up to 160 to 170 bpm. I think it helped me burn calories, but probably not too good for the heart (at least not at my age).

Thank you so much for your reply

Sherry

The watch was/is important for me only because it is a significant difference for me as a serious runner when I'm training for 30 minutes at 140 bpm as opposed to let's say 150 bpm, not to mention accurate feedback of running pace and foot strike cadence. But it's more importantly a tool for developing that sensitivity and judgement to learn to know my body response at different intensities. I'm not tied to it or dependant on it, by any means, or rather I shouldn't become dependant on it. For instance, this morning I had to start really early (by my standards, anyway!) to meet my buddies for a 10-1/2 mile run around the reservoir at 7:30, so I started at 7 am to run the 4 miles to get there. The sun rose today at 7:45, so I started in the dark and couldn't read my watch; but I didn't panic or anything, I'm so used to knowing my own pace and intensity that, as it turns out, I was right on the nose and was running with a 5:00/km pace (~8min/mile), even without the watch display for guidance.

I would say 160 to 170 bpm is a little high for gym work, if only because it signifies an effort intensity too high for you to sustain for very long. You're not burning calories if you have to stop to catch your breath; your training effect, similarly, is higher if you can judge your intensity or pace to be a little lower so you can maintain the activity level for 1/2 hour, 3/4 hour or even more at a stretch, unless you are training specifically for a strength effect, and for the moment don't care about aerobic training.

As I said before, even though the common wisdom is to exercise caution in this day and age of high incidence of sedentary related heart disease, you have for yourself demonstrated by your exercise experience that you can tolerate an exercise intensity corresponding to a heart rate of 160-170 (at least for a short burst), so you can reasonably say that it isn't particularly bad for your heart per se, merely inefficient use of your training time.

You don't really need the great precision that an electronic heart rate monitor gives you, I guess, but it's really convenient, what with not having to stop and count your pulse beats etc.

I just turned 67, and I regularly hit a heart rate in the high 170's at the finishing phase of a race, for instance. If I were to consult a "safe heart rate range" chart or formula for my age, a common formula is 220 minus your age, in which case I would be advised never to exceed 153 beats a minute!

[CoachDavidShen]

to calculate HRmax by age through the simple formula doesn't work too well. check this page out:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

there are more recent and more accurate formulas than the simple subtraction formula. try some of them out in the online calculator on the page. the best is to test it, from which there are typical tests you could perform. They are strenuous, so depending on your physical situation it may not be a good idea.

note that Polar advertises that some of their watches are suitable for swimming and that their HR strap transmission can be picked up by the watch.

http://www.polar.com/us-en/products#pf7=1

this one:

http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/...ultisport/RCX5

requires the T31 coded transmission strap but they claim it works in water.

[sclim]

Originally Posted by CoachDavidShen

this one:

http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/...ultisport/RCX5

requires the T31 coded transmission strap but they claim it works in water.

It may very well transmit through water, but my experience has been you have to really tighten the straps hard, and in spite of that they often tend to dislodge due to the movements of the pectoral muscles and the water slipstream. Maybe it's the shape of my chest. The tapering towards the bottom tends to encourage the slipping down of the strap. I can push it really far up over the thicker part, but then the heart signal is not optimum.

[jenson1a]

sclim

I would say 160 to 170 bpm is a little high for gym work, if only because it signifies an effort intensity too high for you to sustain for very long. You're not burning calories if you have to stop to catch your breath; your training effect, similarly, is higher if you can judge your intensity or pace to be a little lower so you can maintain the activity level for 1/2 hour, 3/4 hour or even more at a stretch, unless you are training specifically for a strength effect, and for the moment don't care about aerobic training.


The 160 to 170 bpm was measured on an elliptical machine (not sure how accurate it was), but no matter what my heart rate was, I never felt out of breath. Since I started TI swimming, it seems that I am always out of breath! Altho it is getting better, slowly at least. In another thread, someone suggested that it just might be a psychological problem. I'm beginning to think they are right. I get uptight very easily and find it hard to relax. I do like an occasional beer, but since I always swim early in the a.m. don't think that is a good idea (even tho it would cause me to relax!)

Back to the original intent of this thread. I do think it is important to exercise in an aerobic range. The problem is defining that range and I thank Coach Dave for the post he made and the link within that post.

Sherry

[jenson1a]

Coach David Shen

Question regarding the different heart rate calculations per your link:

to calculate HRmax by age through the simple formula doesn't work too well. check this page out:

[b]

If the maximum heart rate is calculated (for example 140) wouldn't that be lower in the water? I've read that heart rate in water can be anywhere from 10 to 30 beats lower than if performing an exercise on land?

Sherry

[CoachDavidShen]

Originally Posted by jenson1a

Coach David Shen

Question regarding the different heart rate calculations per your link:

to calculate HRmax by age through the simple formula doesn't work too well. check this page out:

[b]

If the maximum heart rate is calculated (for example 140) wouldn't that be lower in the water? I've read that heart rate in water can be anywhere from 10 to 30 beats lower than if performing an exercise on land?

Sherry

I think max HR is a bit of a misnomer. if we talk more about the HR at lactate threshold (HR at LT), then things get more accurate. and even today, the research on energy systems shows that things are not as clear cut as a single transition from aerobic to anaerobic energy processing during efforts.

true max HR can be much higher than any tested or computed value. for example, when i ran my first NYC marathon, my HR monitor showed me hitting 190s towards the finish line. with high and long effort as a relatively inexperienced athlete at a first marathon, HR drift can really take over.

however should i use that HR as my max HR? probably not.

my tested HR at LT for running is around 180. since then with much training, i have never gone above 180 even in a race. so i've adapted and my body doesn't experience HR drift so much any more.

your HR at LT is activity dependent. cycling tends to be 8-10 beats lower than running HR at LT according to my coach - the webpage says subtract 5 but i have found my coach is more correct. so yes swimming HR at LT will be different than the computed value (if we say max HR = HR at LT) which typically is about HR at LT for running.

i go into this explanation because i wonder about your higher HR value on an elliptical. certainly the formula doesn't work in all cases, and i think it's more accurate for trained individuals. many factors go into this value and what you may see during workouts. it's also why my coach says not to look so much at HR and learn more about your own RPE (rating of perceived exertion), and use RPE for training/racing.

going back to my first NYC Marathon, i attempted to keep myself in the aerobic HR range but didn't take into account HR drift. so yes my effort was conserved but the HR ranges also shifted upwards which meant i could have put more effort into the race than my HR monitor revealed. if i had raced with RPE instead of looking at my HR and worrying about staying in range, i would have gone faster.

sorry a bit long winded. but it may help you diagnose your HR questions.

it may also be that the HR monitor on the elliptical may be off. try to use the same HR monitor when testing HR on the elliptical and in the water.