Tommy

I didnt mean review but a 2nd opinion on the thinking behind the product, based on the research background...

Anyway, thanks for your input.

... was that the best review I can get or is someone else going to have a say too?

The software wants the user to write in age, gender, how much exercise has done previously, height, weight, smoker/non-smoker etc.

Based on that, would you say it's a useful tool for an athlete?

What I've heard so far from other users is that it's especially handy in telling when you train too hard because that's just as bad or even worse than vice versa.

It's not easy to train right, you know.

Some of the perameters this thing measures are direct (e.g. heart rate)' date=' whilst others are based on assumptions (e.g. energy consumption).

 

As a direct measure, heart rate and respiration can provide useful data, but even then, these measures are influenced by other factors. There are certain measures, e.g. oxygen consumption, which would be better taken using a pulse-oxymeter. Respiration is a rough guide, but it measures breaths per minute, not oxygen consumption. Thus, people with respiratory problems can have a high resp. rate at rest. Efficiency of the heart and lungs determine how much oxygen is taken in, and a pulse-oxymeter takes a direct measure of blood oxygen saturation (using a non-invasive probe which clips to a finger).

 

As a guide for athletes in training I think the estimates it provides would be useful. Athletes tend to be fairly fit to begin with, so the instrument is less likely to be way out on the assumptions it makes. For others, say, obese people wanting to exercise to lose weight, or people with cardiac problems exercising for health reasons, I think it would be less useful.

 

As I said, some of the measures it takes are based on assumptions, e.g. energy use. This parameter is subject to large between-individual variance. Very unfit or overweight people use significantly more energy than an athlete to perform the same task. So, without programming in the actual energy use of an individual to start with, the measure provided by this instrument would be a 'guestemate' at best. Perhaps useful for measuring relative change, but no use if you needed accurate measures.

 

In short, I think the validity of this instrument would depend upon the degree to which you could program in individual-specific baseline data. If you can't do this, then many of the measures it provides are simply estimates based upon normative values for population parameters, and thus do not account for individual differences.[/quote']

not being a physician' date=' the heartbeat interval although important, may be significant in diagnosis for certain physiological elements, but I can`t see how it would be a "catch all" type of instrument, even if this wrist watch was as accurate as a Lab test or propper ECG monitor.

 

it`s a neat gadget though

 

and certainly a must for the Family Hypochondriac or the man who has everything

 

 

seriously though, the sites you gave don`t really provide any "Scientific" data, making it impossible to give a REAL answer. the Jury`s open here [/quote']

 

It's actually for professional/olympic level or very serious athletes. Already used by athletes in the English Premier League, NHL, WTA etc.

 

Does someone usually answer these questions? Am I in the right place...

Dear scientists,

I've come across a wonderful product called Suunto t6. Suunto claims the product calculates EPOC, VO2 and many other things from heart rate.

See more at http://www.suuntot6.com

The research behind the product can be found at http://www.firstbeattechnologies.com --> research background

Can you explain is the research and the product valid because many wanna-be-scientists swear it's not.

Thank you.