Ran a 10k in June (1 Viewer)

[AcerFC]

What would you google to find a lab that was near you.

Heart rate test lab?

 

[prosopis]

He posted on Facebook on November 10. I'll shoot him a message...

All good. He's on sabbatical this semester, so he's been traveling a lot. Said that he'll try to stop by sometime to catch up and give an update.

Thanks Good to know he is ok.

 

[prosopis]

I did 5 miles @ 9:40 today.

 

[BassNBrew]

What would you google to find a lab that was near you. Heart rate test lab?

Metobolic testinghttp://www.coolbreezecoaching.com/metabolic-testing

 

[AcerFC]

Toned it way down today Ned. Let my body do the work not going over my GA zone

9 miles, Avg 9:59 HR Avg: 158 (only because I had so many hills that spiked to about 162/163)

Recovery on Saturday and 12 on Sunday

 

[Juxtatarot]

Acer, which marathon are you training for?

 

[AcerFC]

Acer, which marathon are you training for?

Ocean Drive MarathonJust hoping it still goes on. Sandy took out some roads. The director said a decision should be coming down soon

 

[DanFouts]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[beer 302]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Read that yesterday. There is a 58 year old guy here that was willing to run to the doctor who supplied most of the info for this article and kick his ###.Most of the guys in this thread are well shy of 50 so run till your legs fall off, just have to give it all up when you hit the big five oh.

 

[BassNBrew]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm not sure I get this. When I don't exercise, my resting hr is 70s. When I excercise it's in the 40s. In just five hours I've saved enough heartbeats to run for an hour at 150 hr.Regarding the last statement about speed and mortality, I think that's pretty obvious. Fatties are slower than skinny people. Fatties will benefit more from exercise than skinny people.

 

[Hang 10]

Gonna hit my weekly mileage record this Saturday. Currently at 33 miles, with a 13 mile run planned for the weekend.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm not sure I get this. When I don't exercise, my resting hr is 70s. When I excercise it's in the 40s. In just five hours I've saved enough heartbeats to run for an hour at 150 hr.Regarding the last statement about speed and mortality, I think that's pretty obvious. Fatties are slower than skinny people. Fatties will benefit more from exercise than skinny people.

Regardless, it's always a bit scary to read about this stuff. Personally, I think I'm going to stop witht he marathons within the next few years and try to find a new hobby. I hope to always run but just keep the mileage down.

 

[Ned]

Ned, are you a Friel-follower? I'm reading his book "Total Heart Rate Training" right now. I've just been using Maffetone's method the past few months and focusing almost entirely on building aerobic base, but I want to start mixing in a little higher intensity stuff as well.I'm only about 4 chapters in to the book, but it talked about finding your LT (not mHR) and basing everything on that, basically suggesting a 30 minute time trial with the avg HR the last 20 minutes as the approximate LT. Sounds like you are talking about finding mHR and basing everything on that. If so, what test would you use?Has anyone actually gone into a lab to get tested on this stuff? There is one nearby, and I'm strongly considering it.

That method will work and I'm a proponent of using the LT over max hr. I've seen the LT test at 20 min with the last 10 measured as long as the effort is consistant.I've done the lab testing and found it very helpful. Not only do you get a LT, you'll get all of your heart rate zones.

I've read some of Maffetone's work and I shy away from guys that are touting formulas. I've been tempted to go get lab testing. Maybe I'll do some searching now that it's the offseason.

 

[Ned]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm not sure I get this. When I don't exercise, my resting hr is 70s. When I excercise it's in the 40s. In just five hours I've saved enough heartbeats to run for an hour at 150 hr.Regarding the last statement about speed and mortality, I think that's pretty obvious. Fatties are slower than skinny people. Fatties will benefit more from exercise than skinny people.

Yup.I stopped here. This is an asinine way to look at it. Sounds like a classic case of making the stats tell the story you want to tell.

As all of us know too well, pace is all relative. What a stupid measuring stick to determine mortality rates.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm not sure I get this. When I don't exercise, my resting hr is 70s. When I excercise it's in the 40s. In just five hours I've saved enough heartbeats to run for an hour at 150 hr.Regarding the last statement about speed and mortality, I think that's pretty obvious. Fatties are slower than skinny people. Fatties will benefit more from exercise than skinny people.

Yup.I stopped here. This is an asinine way to look at it. Sounds like a classic case of making the stats tell the story you want to tell.

As all of us know too well, pace is all relative. What a stupid measuring stick to determine mortality rates.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

As you might imagine, there's a thread on this at Runner's World. I haven't read the study, but apparently the authors controlled for weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure when crunching the numbers, all of which tend to benefit from running volume. In other words, what they showed is that if you ignore all the good stuff that comes from running, running really isn't all that good for you.

 

[Ned]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm not sure I get this. When I don't exercise, my resting hr is 70s. When I excercise it's in the 40s. In just five hours I've saved enough heartbeats to run for an hour at 150 hr.Regarding the last statement about speed and mortality, I think that's pretty obvious. Fatties are slower than skinny people. Fatties will benefit more from exercise than skinny people.

Yup.I stopped here. This is an asinine way to look at it. Sounds like a classic case of making the stats tell the story you want to tell.

As all of us know too well, pace is all relative. What a stupid measuring stick to determine mortality rates.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

As you might imagine, there's a thread on this at Runner's World. I haven't read the study, but apparently the authors controlled for weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure when crunching the numbers, all of which tend to benefit from running volume. In other words, what they showed is that if you ignore all the good stuff that comes from running, running really isn't all that good for you.

Color me shocked.

 

[Ned]

Gonna hit my weekly mileage record this Saturday. Currently at 33 miles, with a 13 mile run planned for the weekend.

Geez dude...What's your race plan? Doing some sort of run/walk pacing?

 

[Juxtatarot]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm not sure I get this. When I don't exercise, my resting hr is 70s. When I excercise it's in the 40s. In just five hours I've saved enough heartbeats to run for an hour at 150 hr.Regarding the last statement about speed and mortality, I think that's pretty obvious. Fatties are slower than skinny people. Fatties will benefit more from exercise than skinny people.

Yup.I stopped here. This is an asinine way to look at it. Sounds like a classic case of making the stats tell the story you want to tell.

As all of us know too well, pace is all relative. What a stupid measuring stick to determine mortality rates.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

As you might imagine, there's a thread on this at Runner's World. I haven't read the study, but apparently the authors controlled for weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure when crunching the numbers, all of which tend to benefit from running volume. In other words, what they showed is that if you ignore all the good stuff that comes from running, running really isn't all that good for you.

That makes me feel better!

 

[DanFouts]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm not sure I get this. When I don't exercise, my resting hr is 70s. When I excercise it's in the 40s. In just five hours I've saved enough heartbeats to run for an hour at 150 hr.Regarding the last statement about speed and mortality, I think that's pretty obvious. Fatties are slower than skinny people. Fatties will benefit more from exercise than skinny people.

Yup.I stopped here. This is an asinine way to look at it. Sounds like a classic case of making the stats tell the story you want to tell.

As all of us know too well, pace is all relative. What a stupid measuring stick to determine mortality rates.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

As you might imagine, there's a thread on this at Runner's World. I haven't read the study, but apparently the authors controlled for weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure when crunching the numbers, all of which tend to benefit from running volume. In other words, what they showed is that if you ignore all the good stuff that comes from running, running really isn't all that good for you.

 

[Sand]

As you might imagine, there's a thread on this at Runner's World. I haven't read the study, but apparently the authors controlled for weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure when crunching the numbers, all of which tend to benefit from running volume. In other words, what they showed is that if you ignore all the good stuff that comes from running, running really isn't all that good for you.

Link? I can't find the thread.----ON my end: Ran a couple miles at lunch today. Pain in my heel is still there - not sure if it is mild platar fascitis or achilles or what. The calf pain is gone, so I am going to ease back up there and just keep the running at an easy pace.Swam last night - just about drowned I felt so sluggish. Put in a 6:50 500 as part of the sets - awful. I need to hit the pool more than once every couple of weeks.

 

[Hang 10]

Gonna hit my weekly mileage record this Saturday. Currently at 33 miles, with a 13 mile run planned for the weekend.

Geez dude...What's your race plan? Doing some sort of run/walk pacing?

Not really sure. I got a couple buddies running it with me so i guess I just plan to hang with them. I prolly just shoot for a nine minute pace and take a break at the food stops. Slow and steady.

 

[sho nuff]

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

Take that grue...you may beat me in the race...but the rest of us are slower for a reason

 

[tri-man 47]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Read that yesterday. There is a 58 year old guy here that was willing to run to the doctor who supplied most of the info for this article and kick his ###.Most of the guys in this thread are well shy of 50 so run till your legs fall off, just have to give it all up when you hit the big five oh.

Wait, what? I saw that article, too. Interesting stuff. Picking up on what BnB said, my resting HR is 54, by blood pressure is solid, and I certainly don't worry about my weight. If loving to run is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

 

[Juxtatarot]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

 

[beer 302]

Interesting editorial in Heart journal referenced by WSJ regarding cardiovascular effects of over running...I started running recently solely for the protective effects since I have family history of heart disease. It's an interesting, but highly controversial editorial!

What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.

Meanwhile, according to the Heart editorial, another large study found no mortality benefit for those who ran faster than 8 miles per hour, while those who ran slower reaped significant mortality benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323330604578145462264024472.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Read that yesterday. There is a 58 year old guy here that was willing to run to the doctor who supplied most of the info for this article and kick his ###.Most of the guys in this thread are well shy of 50 so run till your legs fall off, just have to give it all up when you hit the big five oh.

Wait, what? I saw that article, too. Interesting stuff. Picking up on what BnB said, my resting HR is 54, by blood pressure is solid, and I certainly don't worry about my weight. If loving to run is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

LOL, was thinking of you when I wrote that (well, me too since I'm closer to 50 than I care to acknowledge).Like it was mentioned above, if you gloss over all the good running does for your body, it really is tough on you and probably would kill you eventually. . .if it wasn't so good for you

 

[BassNBrew]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

 

[Juxtatarot]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

 

[tri-man 47]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

This seems to be the whole monitor, but with a different design - smaller sensor component (and a softer strap, per the reviews). The reviews are mixed - some complaints of it failing after a few months; some complaints that the primary sensor unit cuts into the chest a bit. But many users love it.

 

[Juxtatarot]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

This seems to be the whole monitor, but with a different design - smaller sensor component (and a softer strap, per the reviews). The reviews are mixed - some complaints of it failing after a few months; some complaints that the primary sensor unit cuts into the chest a bit. But many users love it.

Tri-man, you have a Garmin 305, right? Do you use the regular strap one? How often do you have obviously inaccurate readings? How often do you change the battery?Mine's become so erratic. I thought about changing the battery again but I never really liked the comfort of the regular one. I'm thinking about upgrading.

 

[Sand]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

This seems to be the whole monitor, but with a different design - smaller sensor component (and a softer strap, per the reviews). The reviews are mixed - some complaints of it failing after a few months; some complaints that the primary sensor unit cuts into the chest a bit. But many users love it.

It works well and is comfortable. Just treat them as disposable. Garmin HR straps last about 6 months, in my experience. Just bought a new one, in fact.

 

[prosopis]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

This seems to be the whole monitor, but with a different design - smaller sensor component (and a softer strap, per the reviews). The reviews are mixed - some complaints of it failing after a few months; some complaints that the primary sensor unit cuts into the chest a bit. But many users love it.

It works well and is comfortable. Just treat them as disposable. Garmin HR straps last about 6 months, in my experience. Just bought a new one, in fact.

Where?I was given the impression I could not buy a new strap.

 

[2Young2BBald]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

This seems to be the whole monitor, but with a different design - smaller sensor component (and a softer strap, per the reviews). The reviews are mixed - some complaints of it failing after a few months; some complaints that the primary sensor unit cuts into the chest a bit. But many users love it.

I'm in the love it camp. this is the HRM I bought to replace my original one that came with the 310XT. I like this one way more. I think I've had it more than a year. Very comfortable. I've had to tighten the strap as its worn, but it still hold firm. I have never had misreading issues that I can recall.

 

[Ned]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

This seems to be the whole monitor, but with a different design - smaller sensor component (and a softer strap, per the reviews). The reviews are mixed - some complaints of it failing after a few months; some complaints that the primary sensor unit cuts into the chest a bit. But many users love it.

It works well and is comfortable. Just treat them as disposable. Garmin HR straps last about 6 months, in my experience. Just bought a new one, in fact.

Where?I was given the impression I could not buy a new strap.

Amazon. Why wouldn't you be able to? Your Garmin should pair with any Ant+ HR strap.

 

[sho nuff]

Waiting for the Comcast guy to fix our internet and phone.

Direct was out yesterday and we are full up and running on TV.

Then picking up my son at 11 and heading to Memphis to hit the expo pretty quickly...head back to my Sister-in-Laws house for a nice dinner. Then to bed early for me while the rest of the crew hits up the Collierville Christmas parade and leaves me in peace.

For anyone interested in finding out how I finished...#1593.

I think those that are friends with me on facebook will get the tracking info through the one app on there. I set it up to post my tracking information for my family.

Pumped up, excited, and nervous all that the same time.

My code phrase for this race is T I T

"Trust in (my) Training"

 

[prosopis]

So I'm going to buy a new heart rate monitor. Any reason not to go with this one?

Looks like that is just the strap.

I hope not. This would be used with my Garmin. I might be using the wrong terminology.Edit: Garmin calls the strap part the monitor although, of course, it displays on the watch. There might not even be other options to be used with Garmins besides the soft and hard strap versions. I don't know.

This seems to be the whole monitor, but with a different design - smaller sensor component (and a softer strap, per the reviews). The reviews are mixed - some complaints of it failing after a few months; some complaints that the primary sensor unit cuts into the chest a bit. But many users love it.

It works well and is comfortable. Just treat them as disposable. Garmin HR straps last about 6 months, in my experience. Just bought a new one, in fact.

Where?I was given the impression I could not buy a new strap.

Amazon. Why wouldn't you be able to? Your Garmin should pair with any Ant+ HR strap.

I am not very smart. I thought each monitor only worked with the watch it came with. I did not understand how your watch was reading someone else monitor in your last marathon.

 

[prosopis]

My last pace run was this am. I did 5 miles @ 8:40 pace. I am feeling good about this next half.

Tomorrow I do my last long run and I am shooting for 15 miles. I just did some math and I have a shot at breaking 1000 miles for the year. That would be a new PR for me by quite a bit.

 

[sho nuff]

My last pace run was this am. I did 5 miles @ 8:40 pace. I am feeling good about this next half. Tomorrow I do my last long run and I am shooting for 15 miles. I just did some math and I have a shot at breaking 1000 miles for the year. That would be a new PR for me by quite a bit.

When is your half?And congrats on that mileage...

 

[beer 302]

Waiting for the Comcast guy to fix our internet and phone.Direct was out yesterday and we are full up and running on TV.Then picking up my son at 11 and heading to Memphis to hit the expo pretty quickly...head back to my Sister-in-Laws house for a nice dinner. Then to bed early for me while the rest of the crew hits up the Collierville Christmas parade and leaves me in peace.For anyone interested in finding out how I finished...#1593.I think those that are friends with me on facebook will get the tracking info through the one app on there. I set it up to post my tracking information for my family. Pumped up, excited, and nervous all that the same time. My code phrase for this race is T I T "Trust in (my) Training"

Crush it man! GL this weekend!!!

My last pace run was this am. I did 5 miles @ 8:40 pace. I am feeling good about this next half. Tomorrow I do my last long run and I am shooting for 15 miles. I just did some math and I have a shot at breaking 1000 miles for the year. That would be a new PR for me by quite a bit.

Dude, seriously. . .I'm at 972 for the year

 

[tri-man 47]

Tri-man, you have a Garmin 305, right? Do you use the regular strap one? How often do you have obviously inaccurate readings? How often do you change the battery?

Mine's become so erratic. I thought about changing the battery again but I never really liked the comfort of the regular one. I'm thinking about upgrading.

Yeah, I have the regular strap (and I think it's the 305 Garmin). I've not changed the battery yet! But then again, I don't use it for every run - not the shorter recovery runs, hill, or track workouts. Don't know how much that would affect the battery, though, since the monitor doesn't get turned on.2Young likes the new monitor? That'd be good enough for me.

-

sho nuff - do well! You're ready!!!

 

[Juxtatarot]

OK, I made my purchase. Thanks for the input guys.

Good luck Sho Nuff!!

 

[DanFouts]

My first half marathon in the morning...Annapolis Half. Getting nervous! Aiming for 2:00:00 time......

http://www.annapolishalf.com/race-info.htm

 

[beer 302]

My first half marathon in the morning...Annapolis Half. Getting nervous! Aiming for 2:00:00 time...... http://www.annapolishalf.com/race-info.htm

NICE! Kill it man! Looks like a great course, that bump in the middle as high as it looks on the elevation chart or is the course relatively flat? Looks flat-ish to me, should be good for a fast time.

 

[2Young2BBald]

2Young likes the new monitor? That'd be good enough for me.

It also lifts and separates for fantastic looking moobs. (see my FB photo with Wraith post Tawas 1/2 for details). I saw Jux bought his, one more plus to the newer model is the way it clasps on. No more snaps, rather a simple slotted metal clap in the elastic. More than once with the old one, the monitor came loose and was somewhere in my tri-suit post swim.

 

[tri-man 47]

My first half marathon in the morning...Annapolis Half. Getting nervous! Aiming for 2:00:00 time...... http://www.annapolishalf.com/race-info.htm

Pace yourself well. The first several miles should be uncomfortably comfortable ...some perceived effort, but something you know you can maintain. Then see where you're at as you come back over the bridge at mile 10 and push as much as you can. Look forward to hearing of a 1xx!!!

 

[Juxtatarot]

Good luck Dan!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Good luck to Sho Nuff, Dan, and anybody else racing this weekend. Do us proud.

 

[prosopis]

My last pace run was this am. I did 5 miles @ 8:40 pace. I am feeling good about this next half. Tomorrow I do my last long run and I am shooting for 15 miles. I just did some math and I have a shot at breaking 1000 miles for the year. That would be a new PR for me by quite a bit.

When is your half?And congrats on that mileage...

12/9/12 is my next half.

 

[prosopis]

My first half marathon in the morning...Annapolis Half. Getting nervous! Aiming for 2:00:00 time...... http://www.annapolishalf.com/race-info.htm

Yeah buddy.....go get it.

 

[prosopis]

Waiting for the Comcast guy to fix our internet and phone.Direct was out yesterday and we are full up and running on TV.Then picking up my son at 11 and heading to Memphis to hit the expo pretty quickly...head back to my Sister-in-Laws house for a nice dinner. Then to bed early for me while the rest of the crew hits up the Collierville Christmas parade and leaves me in peace.For anyone interested in finding out how I finished...#1593.I think those that are friends with me on facebook will get the tracking info through the one app on there. I set it up to post my tracking information for my family. Pumped up, excited, and nervous all that the same time. My code phrase for this race is T I T "Trust in (my) Training"

I would love to run/visit Memphis. Good luck and have fun. Any specific goal?

 

[SteelCurtain]

good luck racers!