Cycle computer or Polar

"Rowlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi
I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as well as

a

Quoted message said:

bike computer.
There are not cheap and I was wondering if any one had use then and are

they

Quoted message said:

worth it, or would I be better off with a standard bike computer.
Thanks Andrew

As a rule of thumb, if you need a 710i you would know it.

Rowlie said:

Hi
I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as
well as a bike computer.
There are not cheap and I was wondering if any one had use then and
are they worth it, or would I be better off with a standard bike
computer.

My philosophy is, if my heart stops I'll know it soon enough.

Bill "roadie blasphemist" S.

Rowlie said:

Hi
I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as
well as a bike computer.
There are not cheap and I was wondering if any one had use then and
are they worth it, or would I be better off with a standard bike
computer.
Thanks Andrew

The Vetta VH100R computer/HR for US$120 serves
the purpose you need..

--
- Zilla
Cary, NC
(Remove XSPAM)

On 2004-07-17, S o r n i penned:

Quoted message said:

Rowlie said:

Hi I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as
well as a bike computer. There are not cheap and I was wondering if
any one had use then and are they worth it, or would I be better off
with a standard bike computer.

My philosophy is, if my heart stops I'll know it soon enough.

*giggle*

I usually bring a friend with a HRM along, then add some arbitrary
number to whatever she says her rate was.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain

"Rowlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi
I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as well as

a

Quoted message said:

bike computer.
There are not cheap and I was wondering if any one had use then and are

they

Quoted message said:

worth it, or would I be better off with a standard bike computer.
Thanks Andrew

i have the 520. i think its great fun. do i need it -no, do i like it -yes,
am i any good - no. but i really like it and use it on all of my bikes. and
cause im sad i love the uploading of the data to my computer and the pretty
graphs it produces. i also think just as a cycle computer its pretty damn
good, certainly better than the campag one i had on my road bike before.

panda

"Rowlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi
I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as well as

a

Quoted message said:

bike computer.
There are not cheap and I was wondering if any one had use then and are

they

Quoted message said:

worth it, or would I be better off with a standard bike computer.
Thanks Andrew

If your fat, and your using mountain biking as an enjoyable way to burn off
fat, then the heart rate monitor is a great idea.
There is an optimal heart rate range on any given day, for the best fat
burning and fitness development. You don't really need cadence on the
mountain bike--sometimes its cool to know how fast you were spinning up a
short steep hill or something, but the benefit is tiny. But the Polar's HR,
speed, laptime, mileage, and clock functions are useful---and of course, you
can wear it as a normal wristwatch when you are not riding--something you
can't do with the Vetta :-)

I used a Polar 720i to go from 237 pounds down to 206 pounds.
The other cool thing about this is when you train the aerobic system really
hard, in a person with a huge mass, and then that person drops 30 or 40
pounds, the cardiovascular system becomes almost "overpowered" for the much
lower bodyweight---meaning "a huge fat slob" can get pretty fast :-)

Dan V

On 2004-07-18, Dan Volker penned:

Quoted message said:

If your fat, and your using mountain biking as an enjoyable way to
burn off fat, then the heart rate monitor is a great idea. There is
an optimal heart rate range on any given day, for the best fat burning
and fitness development. You don't really need cadence on the mountain
bike--sometimes its cool to know how fast you were spinning up a short
steep hill or something, but the benefit is tiny. But the Polar's HR,
speed, laptime, mileage, and clock functions are useful---and of
course, you can wear it as a normal wristwatch when you are not
riding--something you can't do with the Vetta :-)

Except that every professional-type exercise training person I've spoken
to has told me that mountain biking is awful for getting into aerobic
shape. Mountain biking is rarely aerobic, at least around here -- lots
of climbs tough enough that you're way into anaerobic, and the trails
are usually too up and down to provide consistent exercise, anyway.

Now, my anaerobically gasping self has still managed to lose a fair
amount just by huffing and puffing away. But it wasn't improving my
aerobic ability.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain

"Rowlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hi
I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as well as a
bike computer.
There are not cheap and I was wondering if any one had use then and are they
worth it, or would I be better off with a standard bike computer.
Thanks Andrew

Neither. Ride your bike and enjoy it. Use that money for a road trip
instead, otherwise you'll just be wasting it on useless junk.

JD

Dan Volker said:

If your fat, and your using mountain biking as an enjoyable way to burn off
fat, then the heart rate monitor is a great idea.
There is an optimal heart rate range on any given day, for the best fat
burning and fitness development. You don't really need cadence on the
mountain bike--sometimes its cool to know how fast you were spinning up a
short steep hill or something, but the benefit is tiny. But the Polar's HR,
speed, laptime, mileage, and clock functions are useful---and of course, you
can wear it as a normal wristwatch when you are not riding--something you
can't do with the Vetta :-)

Does a HRM work for mountain biking? I can see how it would work for
aerobic activities with a constant(ish) output such as running or road
biking, but I wouldn't have though HRMs lent themselves well to the
variable output of mountain biking.

JD said:

"Rowlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hi
I am think about getting a Polar 710i it is a hart rate monitor as well as a
bike computer.
There are not cheap and I was wondering if any one had use then and are they
worth it, or would I be better off with a standard bike computer.
Thanks Andrew

Neither. Ride your bike and enjoy it. Use that money for a road trip
instead, otherwise you'll just be wasting it on useless junk.

JD

Agreed. I made the mistake of dropping over two bills on a Suunto that
I've used a total of one time. Thought I would need it because my dad
had his first heartattack at 32 (I'm 40). Your heart will let you know
when to slow down and if you ride with others you won't be looking at
the speed anyway. Most trails already come with the distance
pre-determined unless you're brushwhacking.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

Monique Y. Mudama said:

On 2004-07-18, Dan Volker penned:

Quoted message said:

If your fat, and your using mountain biking as an enjoyable way to
burn off fat, then the heart rate monitor is a great idea. There is
an optimal heart rate range on any given day, for the best fat burning
and fitness development. You don't really need cadence on the mountain
bike--sometimes its cool to know how fast you were spinning up a short
steep hill or something, but the benefit is tiny. But the Polar's HR,
speed, laptime, mileage, and clock functions are useful---and of
course, you can wear it as a normal wristwatch when you are not
riding--something you can't do with the Vetta :-)

Except that every professional-type exercise training person I've spoken
to has told me that mountain biking is awful for getting into aerobic
shape. Mountain biking is rarely aerobic, at least around here -- lots
of climbs tough enough that you're way into anaerobic, and the trails
are usually too up and down to provide consistent exercise, anyway.

Now, my anaerobically gasping self has still managed to lose a fair
amount just by huffing and puffing away. But it wasn't improving my
aerobic ability.

What's the rule? I think it was you have to burn 1700 calories to lose
a pound of fat. That equates to something like 21 MTB miles at 18 MPH.
I can't remember what the PT told me, but it was something like that.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

"bomba" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dan Volker said:

If your fat, and your using mountain biking as an enjoyable way to burn

off

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fat, then the heart rate monitor is a great idea.
There is an optimal heart rate range on any given day, for the best fat
burning and fitness development. You don't really need cadence on the
mountain bike--sometimes its cool to know how fast you were spinning up

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

short steep hill or something, but the benefit is tiny. But the Polar's

HR,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speed, laptime, mileage, and clock functions are useful---and of course,

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can wear it as a normal wristwatch when you are not riding--something

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can't do with the Vetta :-)

Does a HRM work for mountain biking? I can see how it would work for
aerobic activities with a constant(ish) output such as running or road
biking, but I wouldn't have though HRMs lent themselves well to the
variable output of mountain biking.

I have a Timex Triathlon watch with HRM and a GPS. It's a neat toy. I ride
@ 4 times a week.
It has a data recorded that you can transfer every ride to a log on your PC

Bought it in April, so far:

Time Distance AHR MHR Avg Sp Max Sp

Max 1:45:44 17.02 146.00 170.00 10.80 26.70
Min 0:11:38 1.34 68.00 93.00 3.80 12.30
Avg 0:44:56 5.38 128.26 151.79 7.71 18.40

Total 46:25 hours
360.7 miles

DTW .../\.../\.../\...

I've spent most of my money on mountain biking and windsurfing.
The rest I've just wasted.

On 2004-07-18, Ride-A-Lot penned:

Quoted message said:

What's the rule? I think it was you have to burn 1700 calories to
lose a pound of fat. That equates to something like 21 MTB miles at
18 MPH. I can't remember what the PT told me, but it was something
like that.

3500 calories to burn a pound of fat, actually.

Those numbers sound all wrong to me. 21 miles at 18mph, and I assume
you don't mean downhill -- how does one ride technical stuff uphill/flat
at 18mph?

That sounds more like a roadie number to me ... maybe I'm wrong or I
just suck ... but the only time I approach 18mph on the trail is when
I'm going downhill.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain

Monique Y. Mudama said:

On 2004-07-18, Ride-A-Lot penned:

Quoted message said:

What's the rule? I think it was you have to burn 1700 calories to
lose a pound of fat. That equates to something like 21 MTB miles at
18 MPH. I can't remember what the PT told me, but it was something
like that.

3500 calories to burn a pound of fat, actually.

Those numbers sound all wrong to me. 21 miles at 18mph, and I assume
you don't mean downhill -- how does one ride technical stuff uphill/flat
at 18mph?

That sounds more like a roadie number to me ... maybe I'm wrong or I
just suck ... but the only time I approach 18mph on the trail is when
I'm going downhill.

Yes. 3500 calories. I just can't remember things today. The rain is
still falling heavily (almost two inches in the past hour) on top of the
13 inches (yes, I live in the federal disaster area you may have heard
about on the news) we got four days ago. No major flooding yet, but
I've had to backwash the pool twice already.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

On 2004-07-18, Ride-A-Lot penned:

Quoted message said:

Yes. 3500 calories. I just can't remember things today. The rain is
still falling heavily (almost two inches in the past hour) on top of
the 13 inches (yes, I live in the federal disaster area you may have
heard about on the news) we got four days ago. No major flooding yet,
but I've had to backwash the pool twice already.

Ew! Backwashing a soft drink is bad enough, let alone a whole pool!

.... Er, I take it your definition is different than mine.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain

Monique Y. Mudama said:

Except that every professional-type exercise training person I've spoken
to has told me that mountain biking is awful for getting into aerobic
shape. Mountain biking is rarely aerobic, at least around here -- lots
of climbs tough enough that you're way into anaerobic, and the trails
are usually too up and down to provide consistent exercise, anyway.

That's why I also own a road bike.

Two different but complimentary skill and exercise sets. The road
bike builds better aerobic fitness, bursty mountain biking helps build
strong muscles and does a hell of a lot more for the REST of my body.

FWIW, when a group hits a slippery, loose, or sandy stretch of road
during a road ride, it becomes very apparent which riders also own a
mountain bike. <G>

Barry

Monique sez:

Quoted message said:

Ew! Backwashing a soft drink is bad enough, let alone a whole pool!

It's not so bad to swim in it as long as it's your own backwash.

T o m Dillon
Lakewood, CO
Z to S to email

Sunastar said:

Monique sez:

Quoted message said:

Ew! Backwashing a soft drink is bad enough, let alone a whole pool!

It's not so bad to swim in it as long as it's your own backwash.

T o m Dillon
Lakewood, CO
Z to S to email

Yes, except when the pool overflows (in-ground) and the nasty bacteria
laiden ground water gets mixed in. Such was the case with the township
drinking water well last week. Three feet of sewer run-off landed in
one of 8 wells dangerously elevating e-coli and fecal coliform levels.
Fill your camelback with that stuff and you'll "run" real fast.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

"Monique Y. Mudama" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2004-07-18, Dan Volker penned:

Quoted message said:

If your fat, and your using mountain biking as an enjoyable way to
burn off fat, then the heart rate monitor is a great idea. There is
an optimal heart rate range on any given day, for the best fat burning
and fitness development. You don't really need cadence on the mountain
bike--sometimes its cool to know how fast you were spinning up a short
steep hill or something, but the benefit is tiny. But the Polar's HR,
speed, laptime, mileage, and clock functions are useful---and of
course, you can wear it as a normal wristwatch when you are not
riding--something you can't do with the Vetta :-)

Except that every professional-type exercise training person I've spoken
to has told me that mountain biking is awful for getting into aerobic
shape. Mountain biking is rarely aerobic, at least around here -- lots
of climbs tough enough that you're way into anaerobic, and the trails
are usually too up and down to provide consistent exercise, anyway.

This is old school. Most recent experimenting has shown that more fat will
be burned during interval based training, than with just low intensity (
what is typically referred to as the fat burning zone). Mountain bikeing
is often very much like interval training, and this stimulates the
metabolism far more than the slow rides, as well as burning far more
calories in a given perido of time--i.e., if you have 2 hours to ride, then
two hours in zone 4, or 2 hours fluctuating in low zone 3 and high zone 4
and 5 will burn far more fat colories than the two hours spent riding in
Zone 1 or in zone 2 ( fat burning zones).
With that said, you can't ride in zone 4 every day, or do interval training
every day--you'd trash your aerobic enzyme system and end up overtrained and
virtually unable to train. So if you can handle 2 of these high intensity
days most weeks, and sometimes 3 times per week, then on the other days, you
use the HR monitor to make sure you stay within the zone 2 area--so you
don't OVERTRAIN. In the mountains, this may be impossible--in Florida
trails, it just means riding slower and keeping an eye on HR. On some
mountain areas I have ridden in NC, and many of the Western NY trails
with 1000 or so feet of vertical, you can take it easy with small gears and
you can always take a 20 second break now and then to make sure you don't
stay in zone 3 or 4 more than a few seconds.

There is a jerk on this list ( spelled JD) that thinks that it is a
terrible crime to use mountain biking to get into better shape--he thinks it
can only be used for the purity of "mountain biking". I believe mountain
biking is an incredibly fun sport, and a great one to help an overweight
person change their unhealthy lifestyle---for this change to occur fast
enough for them to have a real shot at gaining fitness, they need the right
diet along with fairly optimal riding intensities for 3 to 5 days per week.
Like I said, I lost over 30 pounds since January of this year, and mountain
biking is the only aerobic excercise I am consistently doing.

Regards,
Dan V

Quoted message said:

Now, my anaerobically gasping self has still managed to lose a fair
amount just by huffing and puffing away. But it wasn't improving my
aerobic ability.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain