Or at least, count it. Yes, today I bought a heart monitor.

Or rather, I bought two. The first one looks like a normal wrist watch. 
"No chest strap!" it boasts. Which is true, but unfortunately to 
complete the circuit you have to touch the metal frame with your other 
hand. Only when you do this do you get a reading. Which is of course 
utterly useless - especially for a device that costs £50.

So I returned it to the shop and got a nearly identical device which 
also comes with a chest strap. This transmits wirelessly to the watch, 
which displays a reading and some basic statistics.

So now I'm probably going to spend the rest of the way obsessing about 
my heart rate. ;-)

Assuming this device is anywhere near accurate... should I be worried 
that I'm idling at about 75 BPM, it hit 101 BPM at one point, and I 
haven't actually got out of my chair yet?? o_O

(Seriously. I got the thing working, and I thought "right, this is gonna 
be fun!" And I rubbed my hands with glee. And the counter hit 101 BPM!)

It'll be interesting to see what kind of readings I get tonight. I'm 
going out to a Rock & Roll dance night. Up to 5 hours of Rock & Roll 
dancing, likely to be combined with high temperatures, high humidity and 
social stress.

Maybe you guys could take bets on what my maximal BPM reading for the 
evening will be? :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> also comes with a chest strap. This transmits wirelessly to the watch, 

I got one of these, then discovered that the chest strap is compatible with 
gym exercise equipment as well. If you go somewhere like a gym and check out 
the stairmaster type things or the bikes, see if it works with them.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

>> also comes with a chest strap. This transmits wirelessly to the watch, 
> 
> I got one of these, then discovered that the chest strap is compatible 
> with gym exercise equipment as well. If you go somewhere like a gym and 
> check out the stairmaster type things or the bikes, see if it works with 
> them.

Hmm, OK. Well I doubt I'll ever be inside a gym (far, far too 
expensive), but I'll bear that in mind.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Assuming this device is anywhere near accurate... should I be worried 
> that I'm idling at about 75 BPM, it hit 101 BPM at one point, and I 
> haven't actually got out of my chair yet?? o_O

More puzzling is that sitting doing something gives me a lower reading 
than sitting doing nothing. I can only imagine because I'm not staring 
at the display and going "OMG, that's really high!" Like, just now, as 
I'm typing this, I glanced down and saw a reading of 63 BPM. That's the 
first time I've ever seen it drop below 70 BPM. Playing music, listening 
to music, typing, anything but doing nothing seems to lower my heart rate.

Also puzzling is the way I do something (e.g., walk up stairs), look at 
the reading, and it's, say, 95 BPM. Then I sit down, and the reading 
rises to 115 BPM. Wuh??

And then, just occasionally, the meter gives me seemingly bogus 
readings. Like just a minute ago, it said 88 BPM. I took two paces, and 
it said 237 BPM - which seems *highly* implausible to me. :-P I reset 
it, and it went back to reading 88. Go figure!

I haven't tried doing anything actually energetic yet...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:53:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> also comes with a chest strap. This transmits wirelessly to the watch,
> 
> I got one of these, then discovered that the chest strap is compatible
> with gym exercise equipment as well. If you go somewhere like a gym and
> check out the stairmaster type things or the bikes, see if it works with
> them.

Yes, I've got one like that as well - very nice especially with the 
treadmill and the bikes, because the equipment will adjust to keep your 
heart rate in the 'zone'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I haven't tried doing anything actually energetic yet...

Are you sure you're wearing it right? You're supposed to make sure it's 
conductive, you know. Like, a bit of water or oil on the zig-zag parts of 
the pads, assuming you have the same basic kind I do.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Are you sure you're wearing it right?

No. :-)

> You're supposed to make sure it's 
> conductive, you know. Like, a bit of water or oil on the zig-zag parts 
> of the pads, assuming you have the same basic kind I do.

When I first put it on, it wouldn't give me a reading. The manual claims 
that after a couple of minutes, a layer of sweat develops which makes it 
conductive. And, sure enough, just as I was about to package it up and 
take it back, it suddenly started giving me a reading...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Yes, I've got one like that as well - very nice especially with the 
> treadmill and the bikes, because the equipment will adjust to keep your 
> heart rate in the 'zone'.

The hilarious thing is that my monitor tells you when your heart rate is 
"optimal" for burning calaries. Except that it tells me mine is optimal 
when I walk across the room or something. :-D

What it does is estimate what your maximum heart rate is, and what 
percentage of that your current heart rate is, and then it tells you 
that 50% - 70% is "optimal". Except I think it's badly underestimated my 
maximal rate. It's telling me I'm getting a great workout just from 
walking around my bedroom, which just can't be right. ;-)

God damned funny though! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:10:11 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I've got one like that as well - very nice especially with the
>> treadmill and the bikes, because the equipment will adjust to keep your
>> heart rate in the 'zone'.
> 
> The hilarious thing is that my monitor tells you when your heart rate is
> "optimal" for burning calaries. Except that it tells me mine is optimal
> when I walk across the room or something. :-D
> 
> What it does is estimate what your maximum heart rate is, and what
> percentage of that your current heart rate is, and then it tells you
> that 50% - 70% is "optimal". Except I think it's badly underestimated my
> maximal rate. It's telling me I'm getting a great workout just from
> walking around my bedroom, which just can't be right. ;-)
> 
> God damned funny though! :-D

When one is out of shape, your resting rate will be higher than normal.  
Mine tends to rest between 70 and 90 bpm, no idea what it is these days 
as I've not been to the gym in months.

But the rates in mine are adjustable, but the instructions say not to 
adjust them unless you know what you're doing or have the assistance of 
someone who does - there's apparently tests that can be done to 
individualise the settings, but the resulting numbers aren't arbitrary.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:06:30 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Are you sure you're wearing it right?
> 
> No. :-)
> 
>> You're supposed to make sure it's
>> conductive, you know. Like, a bit of water or oil on the zig-zag parts
>> of the pads, assuming you have the same basic kind I do.
> 
> When I first put it on, it wouldn't give me a reading. The manual claims
> that after a couple of minutes, a layer of sweat develops which makes it
> conductive. And, sure enough, just as I was about to package it up and
> take it back, it suddenly started giving me a reading...

You can get an electrolyte cream that will provide better conduction - 
generally much more efficient than waiting for sweat or using saliva 
(another common recommendation).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Assuming this device is anywhere near accurate... should I be worried 
> that I'm idling at about 75 BPM, it hit 101 BPM at one point, and I 
> haven't actually got out of my chair yet?? o_O

  You can always count your heart rate manually, without the aid of any
device. (Ok, that's not completely true. Of course you need a *clock* to
do that. But I mean that you don't need a device which specifically measures
your heart rate.)

  AFAIK a rest pulse of 75 BPM is normal, at least for a person who is not
in good shape. Can I assume that you are not in very good shape?

  Usually the better shape you are in, the lower your rest pulse. Someone
who exercises more or less regularly will usually have a rest pulse of
about 60-70, and someone who exercises very regularly (eg. an hour of
cardio each day) can have a rest pulse as low as 50. Rest pulse (on an
otherwise completely healthy person) is a relatively good indication of
how good of a shape you are in.

  (The reasons why being in good shape lowers your rest pulse are various
and complicated, but AFAIK the major reasons are that the heart is stronger
and hence can displace a larger amount of blood in one beat, thus needing
less beats to transfer the same amount of oxygen, as well as things like
the muscles needing less oxygen to perform the same amount of work, and
the oxygen transporting capacity of the blood, determined by the amount of
hemoglobin, all of which gets better with regular aerobic exercise.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4c41e3f6$1@news.povray.org...

> It's telling me I'm getting a great workout just from
> walking around my bedroom, which just can't be right. ;-)

Compared to sitting down all day in front of a computer, it probably is.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> It'll be interesting to see what kind of readings I get tonight. I'm 
> going out to a Rock & Roll dance night. Up to 5 hours of Rock & Roll 
> dancing, likely to be combined with high temperatures, high humidity and 
> social stress.
> 
> Maybe you guys could take bets on what my maximal BPM reading for the 
> evening will be? :-P

During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of 
193. Amusingly (or not?), by the time the *next* dance finished (i.e., 
I'd been sitting around for about 3 minutes), my pulse was still 
registering as around 150 BPM.

Then again, it was so hot I didn't go much below 100 BPM all night once 
people actually started dancing.

Nearer the end of the night, I danced with Laura, who is ****ing 
amazing. I achieved 195 BPM during that dance, and that's still the 
maximum count for the entire evening.

I have no idea how many caleries I burned, but I must have lost a stone 
and a half just in *sweat*. In utter seriousness, I am *soaking wet* 
right now! >_<

Bugger me, that was one fantastic night out!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:55:19 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of
> 193. Amusingly (or not?), by the time the *next* dance finished (i.e.,
> I'd been sitting around for about 3 minutes), my pulse was still
> registering as around 150 BPM.

Holy crap, man - and you think you're old?  If I get up to 155, I feel 
like I'm going to *die*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Holy crap, man - and you think you're old?  If I get up to 155, I feel 
> like I'm going to *die*.

There's actually some number you can calculate for a general idea, like 
170-your age or some such.

Oh, GIYF.  http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:25:27 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Holy crap, man - and you think you're old?  If I get up to 155, I feel
>> like I'm going to *die*.
> 
> There's actually some number you can calculate for a general idea, like
> 170-your age or some such.
> 
> Oh, GIYF.  http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736

Yeah, that there is - 155 is actually just outside the top end of my 
'zone'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of 
> 193.

  Are you sure the device is working properly?

  Measure your pulse manually (using a clock) and at the same time see
what the device is claiming your pulse to be. Maybe it's broken.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> There's actually some number you can calculate for a general idea, like 
> 170-your age or some such.

220 - age

Wikipedia claims it has no scientific basis. Then again, according to 
Wikipedia's slightly more accurate formula, my maximum heart rate should 
be even lower still, so...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> During the first dance, the device registered a maximum BPM reading of 
>> 193.
> 
> Maybe it's broken.

Maybe. It only cost me the best part of £75 or so.

Still, no matter what the machine says, I'm pretty sure I got a rather 
thorough workout last night. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Wikipedia claims it has no scientific basis.

I'm guessing the American Heart Association wouldn't make charts on their 
site if they had no scientific basis at all.  It's also what my doctor told 
me. So....

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

>> Wikipedia claims it has no scientific basis.
> 
> I'm guessing the American Heart Association wouldn't make charts on 
> their site if they had no scientific basis at all.  It's also what my 
> doctor told me. So....

Yeah, surely Wikipedia is more authoritative than the American Heart 
Association.

(Then again, I get the distinct impression that maximum heart rate 
varies wildly from person to person, so just about any formula is only 
ever going to be a very rough estimate. Short of actually *measuring* 
your maximum heart rate, that is...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (Then again, I get the distinct impression that maximum heart rate 
> varies wildly from person to person, so just about any formula is only 
> ever going to be a very rough estimate. Short of actually *measuring* 
> your maximum heart rate, that is...)

Yes. And that really isn't that hard to do, assuming your heart rate monitor 
works at all.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

I have been measuring my bloodpressure over the last few weeks twice a 
day. This machine also gives my heartrate. My heart rate (at rest) is 
68.5+-5.5 (62--87), so 75 is within my range, though not often. (and yes 
I don't know why it was twice above 80, I don't remember feeling different).

Heart rate is also a function of size*. The longer you are the lower 
your heart rate. That is why women have on average higher heart rates 
than men. I don't know why the AHA does not include that in their 
tables. If you are 1.5 -- 1.6 m tall, 75 if quite normal. If, on the 
other hand, you are 2m it is faster than you would expect.



*) one site gives BPM for mammals in general as 241 / fourth root of 
Body weight (kg) I assume this is for healthy animals (yet I should have 
a heart rate of more than 80 in this model). Assuming that the BMI model 
is correct it sort of implies that heart rate goes with the sqrt of your 
length. I think I have a paper somewhere that directly gives these 
scaling exponents for various measures, though I have no clue where to 
look, it is from before the internet :(

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Measure your pulse manually (using a clock) and at the same time see
> what the device is claiming your pulse to be.

I just looked up how to measure your heart rate manually.

Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<

Anyway, I managed to grin and bear it for 60 seconds, and I counted 
about 85 pulses. The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
These numbers are approximately similar.

On the other hand, while driving home, the monitor did briefly flash up 
206 BPM, which is obviously nonesense. After tonights dancing, it gave 
me a maximum BPM value of 183, which is really quite high considering 
how sidate the dancing was. (Sidate by rock & roll standards, anyway...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 19/07/2010 9:03 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On the other hand, while driving home, the monitor did briefly flash up
> 206 BPM, which is obviously nonesense.

Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats came 
close together. That is normal.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
> Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats came 
> close together. That is normal.

  One would think that it averages more than two pulses.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I just looked up how to measure your heart rate manually.

  Wait. You didn't actually know how to measure your own pulse? Like
seriously?

  Do you mean that you didn't know where to feel your own pulse (most
common places are the wrist and the neck), or that you didn't know how
to get the beats/minute count? (Both seem like unthinkable to me. How
can a person never during his entire life discover that hey, when I touch
here I can feel my own pulse? And how to measure beats/minute after that
ought to be a rather simple logical deduction.)

  Haven't you seen any movie or TV series where a doctor or someone feels
the pulse of a patient?

> Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<

  Why?

> Anyway, I managed to grin and bear it for 60 seconds, and I counted 
> about 85 pulses.

  Not really necessary to wait for a full minute. Just count for 15 seconds
and multiply by 4.

> The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
> These numbers are approximately similar.

  Was this in full rest?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:39:57 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
>> Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats
>> came close together. That is normal.
> 
>   One would think that it averages more than two pulses.

Generally not, since it's measuring an 'instant read' rate, an average 
over a period of time is not useful for this purpose.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 19/07/2010 9:39 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> Why are you looking at your heart rate monitor when you are driving?
>> Depending on how it works it could show a high reading if two beats came
>> close together. That is normal.
>
>    One would think that it averages more than two pulses.
>
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Your guess is as good as mine.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> I just looked up how to measure your heart rate manually.
> 
>   Wait. You didn't actually know how to measure your own pulse? Like
> seriously?
> 
>   Do you mean that you didn't know where to feel your own pulse (most
> common places are the wrist and the neck), or that you didn't know how
> to get the beats/minute count?

I wasn't sure where the best place to measure from is. I know you can 
feel your pulse from *somewhere* in your wrist, but I wasn't sure 
exactly where.

(I've never heard of it being measured from your neck. I especially like 
the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What 
happens if you press too hard??)

>> Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<
> 
>   Why?

Same reason some people are freaked out by the sound of chalk squeeking 
on a blackboard I guess...

>> Anyway, I managed to grin and bear it for 60 seconds, and I counted 
>> about 85 pulses.
> 
>   Not really necessary to wait for a full minute. Just count for 15 seconds
> and multiply by 4.

Sure. But I imagine the longer you measure for, the more accurate the 
reading.

>> The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
>> These numbers are approximately similar.
> 
>   Was this in full rest?

Well, I was sitting still not doing anything.

On the other hand, I was also trying to count while simultaneously 
watching the second hand on my watch, trying to count my pulse and not 
the ticks of the watch, and trying not to think "ewww! my pulse is so 
pulsey!!" So, a small amount of psychological stress...

(It's also quite plausible that I was holding my breath.)

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2010 9:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> I wasn't sure where the best place to measure from is. I know you can
> feel your pulse from *somewhere* in your wrist, but I wasn't sure
> exactly where.
>

Using the first two fingers on your right hand place them about one and 
a half to two inches below your left hand in the soft part between the 
line of your thumb and the tendons. When you press firmly but not hard 
you should be able to feel your pulse. If not lift your fingers and move 
them a bit. You use the pads not the tips. Don’t use your thumb when 
feeling someone else’s pulse as you might feel your own.

> (I've never heard of it being measured from your neck. I especially like
> the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What
> happens if you press too hard??)

You might restrict the flow of blood to one side of the brain. Duh! :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> I wasn't sure where the best place to measure from is. I know you can
>> feel your pulse from *somewhere* in your wrist, but I wasn't sure
>> exactly where.
> 
> Using the first two fingers on your right hand place them about one and 
> a half to two inches below your left hand in the soft part between the 
> line of your thumb and the tendons. When you press firmly but not hard 
> you should be able to feel your pulse. If not lift your fingers and move 
> them a bit. You use the pads not the tips.

Yeah, I found it in the end. (A picture is worth 1e6 words...)

> Don’t use your thumb when 
> feeling someone else’s pulse as you might feel your own.

Not something I'm expecting to ever have a problem with. ;-)

>> (I've never heard of it being measured from your neck. I especially like
>> the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What
>> happens if you press too hard??)
> 
> You might restrict the flow of blood to one side of the brain. Duh! :-P

I meant more "what happens if you restrict the flow of blood to your 
brain? Do you die??!?" o_O

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2010 10:40 AM, Invisible wrote:

> Yeah, I found it in the end. (A picture is worth 1e6 words...)
>
>> Don’t use your thumb when feeling someone else’s pulse as you might
>> feel your own.
>
> Not something I'm expecting to ever have a problem with. ;-)
>

What would happen if you found your mother unconscious and could not 
detect signs of breathing? How could you tell if she was alive?

>>> (I've never heard of it being measured from your neck. I especially like
>>> the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What
>>> happens if you press too hard??)
>>
>> You might restrict the flow of blood to one side of the brain. Duh! :-P
>
> I meant more "what happens if you restrict the flow of blood to your
> brain? Do you die??!?" o_O

Not if you do it to yourself. If you lost consciousness (unlikely if you 
only do it to one side) you would let go then recover consciousness. It 
is called throttling, a choke cuts off the air supply and strangling is 
a combination of both (British definition).

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> Don’t use your thumb when feeling someone else’s pulse as you might
>>> feel your own.
>>
>> Not something I'm expecting to ever have a problem with. ;-)
> 
> What would happen if you found your mother unconscious and could not 
> detect signs of breathing? How could you tell if she was alive?

Isn't that called an "insurance job"? ;-)

>> I meant more "what happens if you restrict the flow of blood to your
>> brain? Do you die??!?" o_O
> 
> Not if you do it to yourself. If you lost consciousness (unlikely if you 
> only do it to one side) you would let go then recover consciousness. It 
> is called throttling, a choke cuts off the air supply and strangling is 
> a combination of both (British definition).

Still, the risk of permanent brain damage just from trying to measure 
your pulse is... uh, worrying.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Still, the risk of permanent brain damage just from trying to measure 
> your pulse is... uh, worrying.

  You can't get brain damage from measuring your pulse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I wasn't sure where the best place to measure from is. I know you can 
> feel your pulse from *somewhere* in your wrist, but I wasn't sure 
> exactly where.

  How about just trying?

> (I've never heard of it being measured from your neck.

  Just put your fingers on the sides of your throat, near the lower side of
your jaw, like you were going to grab it. The pulse is quite strong just
where the sides of your throat meet your neck.

> I especially like 
> the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What 
> happens if you press too hard??)

  If it's your wrist, nothing probably (unless you plan to crunch your wrist,
that is). Don't be strangling yourself, though.

> >> Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<
> > 
> >   Why?

> Same reason some people are freaked out by the sound of chalk squeeking 
> on a blackboard I guess...

  Your heartbeats makes such a loud noise?

> >> Anyway, I managed to grin and bear it for 60 seconds, and I counted 
> >> about 85 pulses.
> > 
> >   Not really necessary to wait for a full minute. Just count for 15 seconds
> > and multiply by 4.

> Sure. But I imagine the longer you measure for, the more accurate the 
> reading.

  But your pulse may vary more during one minute than during 15 seconds,
skewing the result.

> >> The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
> >> These numbers are approximately similar.
> > 
> >   Was this in full rest?

> Well, I was sitting still not doing anything.

  Can I assume you are not in very good shape?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I wasn't sure where the best place to measure from is. I know you can 
>> feel your pulse from *somewhere* in your wrist, but I wasn't sure 
>> exactly where.
> 
>   How about just trying?

Well, sure, but it's easier with a picture to tell you roughly where to 
look. Once I had that, it didn't take long to find. More to the point, I 
wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether 
there's something better.

>> I especially like 
>> the way the instructions said "but don't press too hard". Um, why? What 
>> happens if you press too hard??)
> 
>   If it's your wrist, nothing probably (unless you plan to crunch your wrist,
> that is). Don't be strangling yourself, though.

Yeah, the warning was about the one in your neck. It made it sound like 
"if you use the one in your neck, don't press too hard or Bad Things 
might happen..."

>>>> Just FYI, feeling my own pulse seriously grosses me out! >_<
>>>   Why?
> 
>> Same reason some people are freaked out by the sound of chalk squeeking 
>> on a blackboard I guess...
> 
>   Your heartbeats makes such a loud noise?

I meant that it's a similarly illogical reaction.

>> Sure. But I imagine the longer you measure for, the more accurate the 
>> reading.
> 
>   But your pulse may vary more during one minute than during 15 seconds,
> skewing the result.

Well, maybe. I compared it to the reported average rate rather than 
instantaneous though.

>>>> The monitor is claiming an average rate of 88 BPM. 
>>>> These numbers are approximately similar.
>>>   Was this in full rest?
> 
>> Well, I was sitting still not doing anything.
> 
>   Can I assume you are not in very good shape?

Do both my job and my hobby involve sitting motionless for hours on end 
while wiggling my fingertips? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   Can I assume you are not in very good shape?

> Do both my job and my hobby involve sitting motionless for hours on end 
> while wiggling my fingertips? ;-)

  Try regular daily exercise. Start with just walking. 1 hour of walking
every day (or 6 days a week or whatever) at a pace that you get sweaty. As
the weeks and months pass, increase your walking speed. Maybe somewhere in
the 3 or 4 month checkpoint you can probably try jogging a bit.

  If you do this for at least 6 months, you'll notice how your rest pulse
will start lowering as you get into better shape.

  (For most optimal results, you would have to start also watching a bit
what you eat. More proteins and fibers, less carbs, more plant fats and
less animal fats.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2010 11:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Still, the risk of permanent brain damage just from trying to measure
>> your pulse is... uh, worrying.
>
>    You can't get brain damage from measuring your pulse.
>

Not unless you cut an artery and time the spurts. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2010 11:30 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Still, the risk of permanent brain damage just from trying to measure
> your pulse is... uh, worrying.

BOO! :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2010 11:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
> there's something better.

Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>    You can't get brain damage from measuring your pulse.
> 
> Not unless you cut an artery and time the spurts. ;-)

One...

T-t-too...

Thre..e...eeee....

*thud*

Post a reply to this message

>> I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
>> there's something better.
> 
> Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)

Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner! :-D

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Try regular daily exercise.

Yeah, that would be a start...

Then again, I've reached the point now where I take up to 4 hours of 
dance classes per week. (And 3 hours of that is Rock & Roll.) Obviously 
[or perhaps not?] a one hour class isn't a continuous one hour workout. 
You stand around waiting for whoever to sort out the next CD. You 
practice a move through, stop, try it again, stop and try again. You 
dance a combination of moves and then have a rest. Still, it's certainly 
better than nothing.

The best part about dancing, of course, is that it's *fun*. It makes you 
*want* to do it. And let's face it, if you enjoy doing something, you're 
way more likely to keep doing it more and more often.

Still, unless I get to the point where I dance every single day [which 
would probably be quite expensive], I think I probably am going to have 
to do something else as well.

>   If you do this for at least 6 months, you'll notice how your rest pulse
> will start lowering as you get into better shape.

Part of the reason I bought this heart monitor was to see if I make any 
improvement over time. (Although now I'm just not sure whether it 
actually *works* or not...)

>   (For most optimal results, you would have to start also watching a bit
> what you eat. More proteins and fibers, less carbs, more plant fats and
> less animal fats.)

...so, *not* cheese on toast then?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   Try regular daily exercise.

> Yeah, that would be a start...

> Then again, I've reached the point now where I take up to 4 hours of 
> dance classes per week. (And 3 hours of that is Rock & Roll.) Obviously 
> [or perhaps not?] a one hour class isn't a continuous one hour workout. 
> You stand around waiting for whoever to sort out the next CD. You 
> practice a move through, stop, try it again, stop and try again. You 
> dance a combination of moves and then have a rest. Still, it's certainly 
> better than nothing.

  Sounds like much better than nothing, but if you really want to get into
better shape in a rational amount of time, you need that (about) 1 hour of
cardio 5 or 6 times a week (preferably 6).

  Walking is good exercise because it's easy to do even for someone who is
in bad shape, and doesn't require a lot of fitness to begin with. As long
as you walking pace is fast enough (you get a bit exhausted and break a
sweat) it's as good as going to the gym.

> >   (For most optimal results, you would have to start also watching a bit
> > what you eat. More proteins and fibers, less carbs, more plant fats and
> > less animal fats.)

> ...so, *not* cheese on toast then?

  Cheese is ok (lots of protein, no carbs), but of course in moderation,
as everything else. Toast is usually made of white bread, which has
staggering amounts of carbohydrates. If it's basically the *only* source
of carbs you have (ie. you don't eat candy and such), then it's ok, but
don't exaggerate.

  From your photos I don't think you are overweight, so you don't have to
watch so much your carb intake, as long as your diet is *balanced* and
healthy. Just don't go overboard. Eating candy and pastries all day long
is a bad idea no matter what your weight or fitness. (If nothing else, too
much sugar increases the risk of diabetes and caries, and via that indirectly
heart problems.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 20/07/2010 11:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> > I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
> > there's something better.

> Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)

  I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."

Hell man, if *that* worked, scientists would get laid all the time! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2010 1:50 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 20/07/2010 11:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I wanted to see whether that's actually the best one to use, or whether
>>> there's something better.
>
>> Try the femoral artery. It is good for getting to know girls better. ;-)
>
>    I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
>

You missed out "It won't hurt much".

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >    I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
> > femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."

> You missed out "It won't hurt much".

  Why would it hurt at all?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2010 2:33 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>>>     I envision the pick-up line: "Hey, can I palpate your pulse from your
>>> femoral artery? For scientific purposes only."
>
>> You missed out "It won't hurt much".
>
>    Why would it hurt at all?
>

I was thinking of it as a pressure point, not comfortable.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message