Comment Not that useful as it looks like (Score 1) 188
I bought the Polar FT60 about 11 months ago. At the time it was one of the top HRMs on the market. The chicks like it 'Hey this guy has a Knight Rider watch', but it's not as great as I was expecting. A HRM is an expensive gadget I don't really need. I do train often enough but I need to do more longer trainings at a lower intensity.
The current HRMs are made primarily only for long distance running but in fact they are quite crappy even at this activity:
If I compare numbers given by a treadmill HRM and my own HRM (Polar FT60) the Polar FT60 fluctuates
between 4-6 BsPM at a _constant_ treadmill speed 10km/h at the heart rate about 135 BsPM (measured by
the treadmill's HRM, in an empty gym - no interferences with other HRMs). So it's useless to try to stay in a chosen intensity level if running 'open-air'
Another HRM issues:
1. Run 20km on a 30 degrees Celsius summer day at a pace 11km/h and repeat this training at 18
degrees Celsius. You gonna make the 1st training at about 80-92% of your max heart rate the 2nd
would be made at 68-85% of your MHR. Now compare your calorie- and fat-burn values!... wrong like
comparison of apples and bananas
2. Human body needs about 20-25 minutes in order start the fat burn processes. Run 25 minutes in the morning and 25 mins in the evening 3 times a week. It makes 02:30 with fat consumption... eeee near zero although your HRM shows you sound 15%
3. Do the interval training; about 30 seconds sprint, 3-4 minutes slow pace. After 4th or 5th cycle your heart rate stays high but you hardly move from the spot. Compare the results with the numbers measured by your HRM at a constant pace. The HRM shows no difference
4. If you do swimming - you cannot look at your wrist while doing it