Re: Anyone using Nike+ Kit?

shinypenny wrote:

On Jul 10, 5:42 pm, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:


Good point. I think my question is even more basic - "why the
fascination with distance (on every run?)"? vs heart rate or amount of
climb or any number of other metrics - like the exact temperature,
dewpoint, and wind where you were running (not the weather station).
It's not unheard of for good runners to go running without even a watch
for at least some runs. And it's not because they know their pace over
that terrain. It does help to know that for that course, you can run it
without exceeding your volume for the day/week and hence don't need to
keep close track.


I want to know the fascination with HRM's.

They provide a measure of intensity which in turn can provide indications of cardio benefits, something that pace and distance alone don't tell you.

Some cardio / metabolic benefits are achieved at low levels of hr, say <80% max hr. Others in the 80-90% range and some above that. Although they are described in zones, it's really more of a gradient, but we have a tendency to name things - like colors are zones of light spectrum. And, like colors, their detailed descriptions and boundaries change by whose describing them, but the benefits of a diversity of zones and their benefits is generally acknowledged. While I've given numbers relative to max hr, a more meaningful intensity number is relative to LT (which changes) or VO2max. Much of this can be approximated by breathing or running by feel, but I find it more awkward to log things that way. That's why I say I run by feel, but log by my hrm.

For instance, if someone says he did something for 1 hr at 80% max hr. That means something in terms of intensity and benefits to most any one familiar with some basic aspects of running physiology. Running at 10 min/mi for 1 hr doesn't convey any of that information to anyone except the person doing it. For someone like me, that's well above LT (90% max hr) even on flat, firm surface; some others can't jog that slowly so might be below 65% max hr. The pace does provide some biomechanical information like you covered 6 mi, and that is of use if you're assuming calories spent are proportional to distance and nothing else.

Getting a reasonable estimate of max heart rate is sometimes a challenge, since many of the forumulas may not work for you. One probably does, but you don't know which one. The most reliable method is through a stress test, and maybe you can get those numbers when you have yours. Make sure they don't automatically stop at your age-based max, if you want a meaningful number. They may turn out to be the same, but you don't know at outset. There's simple field tests you can also do. You should mention why you're interested in the numbers - namely for running training.

I've found books still tend to be better than web pages when it comes to understanding heart rate training. I used Burke's Precision Heart Rate Training and Roy Benson's software (might be in his book now) (not sure I'd recommend that software now), but others have used Parker's Heart RAte Training for the Compleat Idiot. (I thought I had found a better web site but seems to have disappeared or I can't find it.)

Monitoring rest hr (don't really need a hrm) can be a clue as to overreaching which could lead to overtraining, illness, etc.

If you look at many refereed articles or reputable books, you'll find the training is described by intensity - frequently by heart rate or by breathing. If they do it by pace (like Daniels), they've probably gone through a bunch of mathematics to get there and assume you are running flat pavement and made a bunch of assumptions about LT, etc. That's one of the reasons I prefer going by my own effort, like breathing.

In my case, I really like the stacked bar charts that Polar uses to monitor volume and intensity over time. The height of the bar is total time, and the colors for the bars represent the various intensity zones. I can set the graph up for individual runs, weekly summaries for the last 6 months, or monthly (or whatever) summaries over the last couple years. I can see short term volume as well as long term trends in volume and intensity. (I should post some of these sometime.)

These are the kinds of things I can do with Polar's software, but could never find any software that would do that for the 305 and was too lazy to do the translation myself. So when my beloved 625 came back with battery, my 305 hasn't gotten used much (occasionally if I want to double check the footpod or want a particular distance).


I tell myself there must be
something to it, if so many people use them, so I'm tempted... I'm
particularly tempted after this past week's drama with my chest pains:
it would've been nice to have the data to rule out or in heart
problems. But I'm not so sure this wouldn't simply be information
overload and more trouble than its worth.


Some people want to know how many miles long their run should be before
they need to worry about drinking or taking a GU (no, it's never generic
fueling, it's always eating a GU, or at least it seems that way). Or how
many miles before using a camelbak?


That I never understood (timing drinking), but then I just sip
constantly.

Some of us don't bother with water under 1 hr under normal weather conditions. But whether I take a bottle, a small bladder, or 2 bladders will depend on the duration of the run, not the distance. Hills and technical terrain can make for slower speeds, so distance isn't a good measure of when to take a bottle. Some 1:25 half marathon guys will say no need for fluid on something less than a marathon. Geez, I'd like to get one of those guys up here on one of our mountain races (over 3hrs for 14 mi).;)



Jen did explain why in her case, and I accept that in her case. But I
have trouble buying that for everyone that owns a Garmin or whatever
their gadget of choice is.


Actually I thought of a few other reasons I bought this gadget. I had
just got my ipod for my bday, and I was all excited with my new toy.

ah, ok.

The nike+ thing wasn't all that expensive, and I thought it would
eliminate my need to keep a spread*** log. I imagined I'd just
upload the info and then be able to play around with it, add log
notes, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You can't
manipulate the data once it's in there. You get their standard reports
and that's it.

eeww (sp?). As I mentioned with my 305, if I can't get the data out that I want or process it readily, I go back to what works.


Another reason I was interested was that my brother, who's also a
runner, has an ipod, so I imagined we could do challenges from afar.
I.e., use the community features. But turns out my brother has an
older ipod that doesn't work with the nike thing. And also it keeps
getting uncalibrated and I never get around to recalibrating it.

One thing that is cool is that when you log on to upload, it shows you
the readouts of all the people around the globe who also are
uploading. I get a kick out of that for some reason.

That's my equivalent of wanting to see a map and elevation profile of my long runs.;)

And you can also
check to see how you compare with other users in your same age group.
One of my first weeks I was the #1 person in my age group and gender
as far as distance - but that's 1) before I calibrated it properly 2)
when I was only walking - just walking A LOT! and 3) in the early days
before there were all that many users. :-)

Are you all on similar terrain so these things make any sense?

Dot

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

.

Loading