|
Aug 2020
7:20am, 19 Aug 2020
17,278 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I just checked and 24 seconds per mile between my 5k and HM PBs - both run within about 6 weeks of each other. My Marathon PB was about 4 weeks after the HM and is just under 60 seconds per mile slower than my 5k.
I think that just shows how bad a 5k runner I am 
|
|
Aug 2020
7:56am, 19 Aug 2020
1,711 posts
|
Brunski
Baz I think it shows you were both well trained aerobically and that you have predominantly slow twitch muscle composition.
|
|
Aug 2020
8:03am, 19 Aug 2020
30,913 posts
|
SPR
Gus - Even a 45 min 5k doesn't quite get down to a predicted pace that's 90 secs slower for HM. It's just an odd rule TBH.
|
|
Aug 2020
8:07am, 19 Aug 2020
30,914 posts
|
SPR
It shows Baz needs to work on speed. Slow twitch or fast twitch we can all improve what we have and if you improve speed and the gap holds, you have a faster marathon so it's a win win.
|
|
Aug 2020
9:07am, 19 Aug 2020
36,999 posts
|
Nellers
I know the optical HR wrist monitor thingies have been discussed on here a lot. I've just got the 735XT and this is my first experience with one.
For running I've found it to be pretty accurate, possibly more so than the old chest strap as it doesn't have the problems I've sometimes had with too little moisture on the connections in the first 5-10 minutes of a run.
For cycling I've paired it with the chest strap and mounted it on my bars so I can see the display. All works well.
For anything else, though, it seems pretty poor. Circuits, rowing, bodyweight exercises, weights. Anything involving moving my arm around, or putting any sort of "strain" through my arms seems to completely flatten the readings.
On Monday and this morning I did basically identical workouts (same sets of exercises with about 15 seconds difference in the time take). Monday, with the wrist sensor, averaged 84 BPM. Today I averaged 139 using the chest strap.
Both times it felt more like a 139 than an 84!
Does this tally with other people's experiences?
(And to balance this out as a watch, as a tracker, as a sports watch when paired with the chest strap, it's a great unit and I'm really pleased I got it. I'm just a bit surprised with the effect of "arm activity" on the readings I get)
|
|
Aug 2020
9:24am, 19 Aug 2020
30,918 posts
|
SPR
Mine has failed in the two 800m races I've done and I have the 245 which is supposed to have an improved sensor over the 735. 800m possibly could be an arm activity issue. I also tried it once for a hill sprint session and it failed woefully. I did a couple of runs with it early on and it was ok with the odd moment where it was defo out
TBH I will use a chest strap outside races as I CBA with dealing with optical issues when a the strap is fine (in races I don't want the potential distraction of a moving strap and the data is a nice to have rather than necessary).
I've not timed any non running activities yet but it seems to work fine for my Olympic lifting stuff when I check the HR (and stress!).
|
|
Aug 2020
10:03am, 19 Aug 2020
152 posts
|
Big_G
Nellers, I recently bought the 735XT too and as a test I took it out using the sensor, and on previous day I'd taken out my HR strap on the same route.
My experience wasn't as bad as yours, but yes, the wrist sensor had my heart rate way lower than it actually was at broadly the same pace whilst running. All the splits were lower HR with the wrist sensor, and the the worst mile split had me at 136 with the strap at 124 with the sensor.
It's a bit worrying really if people use these sensors as part of their HR training because it will mean that even if they work out their zones really well, they'll be running way too hard. Having said that, I've seen it mentioned the other way around, where others would be running too easy.
It's not just the fact that it's wildly inaccurate, but it also didn't seem to respond as quickly to changes in effort. I had the watch on as tight as I could whilst still making it comfortable to wear, so I don't think it was a fitting issue.
For me, the wrist sensor is basically worthless for any form of exercise, although it does seem fairly accurate for RHR. Like you though, I'm pleased with the watch and was fully aware of all this when I bought it, but I just wanted to do a test to see for myself.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:13am, 19 Aug 2020
52,016 posts
|
GlennR
Interesting. I don’t get a problem with low reading on my Garmin 935. It’s the occasional spiking that bothers me, because it gives me HR alerts that put me off.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:15am, 19 Aug 2020
52,017 posts
|
GlennR
Incidentally my pedantic friends, my only point re 5k pace etc was that if you’re not sure about HR zones at first then 5k pace plus three minutes per mile is a good place to start.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:23am, 19 Aug 2020
20,518 posts
|
Dvorak
Looking back to my last decent HM, and possibly 5K four weeks before, paces were 8:04 and 8:48 per mile. I would have considered 11s a very easy-paced run at that point.
Going considerably further back, though, I ran a pretty decent HM (4th fastest at the time) and within four weeks set 10K and 5K pbs, which still stand. Paces this time were 7:48 and 8:51. Very easy pace, maybe 10:40?
(Courses were the same in both instances: Strathclyde parkrun (near flat) and GSR (Glasgow) HM (fairly flat, one real hill)).
|
