Support for HR AVG and HR MAX values

Dashboard, track statistics screen, track recording side panel ... all three places use exactly same system. So generally it should be about adding support for hr max/hr avg. When such support will be added, it will be available in all three "screens".

EDIT: I've improved this idea description a little bit, thanks.

I have another idea, after yesterday ride :)

HR AVG in movement and HR AVG total. Just like TIME/AVG SPEED in movement and TIME/AVG SPEED total.

When i record a track with HR Statistic and the recording was stopped. That was very Useful to see the HR-AVG and HR-MAX in the Summary Screen. And later in the Trackinfo or Statistic Data.

Regards

hardliner

And don't forget the API, thanks. :-)

What about periodic updates for addons?

Already implemented. There were anyway some changes, so it will need update of an API library - it's anyway not yet published.

When will the API changes be published? Would love to see my HR on the RFLKT.

Because whole feature is still in testing stage, I'll publish changes in API probably in same day as new final version. So probably in the end of next week.

Hello,

thank you for a tests, really appreciate it.

Average values in HRM monitor are somewhere directly visible to You? I compare average values also with Endomondo and found similar difference, but I was almost sure, that I compute average value correctly.

My method now, is compute number of beats during whole record and time when beats were measured and divide of them is number of beats per minute. May you suggest any better method? I'll rather check if there isn't any numerical problem.

Calories - change units in settings > units ;).

And zones ... http://help.locusmap.eu/search/tag%3Aheart+rate+zones , maybe next time

You have a mistake in the first calculation. You have to count every single 15s split with the same weight:

15 s > 100 bpm

30s > 100 bpm

45s > 150 bpm

60s > 150 bpm

75s > 150 bpm

90s > 150 bpm

105s > 150 bpm

120s > 150 bpm

and then you get (100 + 100 + 150 + 150 + 150 + 150 + 150 + 150) / 8 = 137,5

The mistake is that you pretend that 30s split with 100bpm has the double weight (counted twice) than 90s split with 150bpm (counted once). If you use correctly counted average, then you get the same result, both methods are equal. You didn't study physics much, right? ;-)

Wait wait ... first calculation was based on what @robot hack wrote

1. totalsum recorded HRM value divided (The number of entries in the database minus the blanks)

and what probably other web pages do. What I suggest is close to what you wrote. It's just simply not possible to separate measured values to exactly same 15s long intervals as in this example. But it's possible to separate it to 1sec intervals as I wrote in second part of my answer above.

So I don't get you last sentence, because you get same result as I ;).

you don't get me. Every trackpoint has absolute and relative time and hr value:

t1a = 0s, t2a = 1s, t3a = 3s, t4a = 5s.

t1r = NULL, t2r = (t3a-t1a)/2 = 1.5s, t3r = (t4a-t2a)/2 = 2s

then you count AVG HR:

( t2hr*t2r + t3hr*t3r )/( t2r + 3r )

I pretend you use cleared values (only trackpoint with some reasonable hr and interval value).

**********************

Robot hack supposed that you use fixed TIME interval for recording (which is most common), so in the example he gets some value every 5s (or so). Then using common average (sum of values)/(count of values) does make quite a good a sense.

This helps to avoid problems with distance interval - when riding slower, you give more weight to the HR value. If you stop, you don't use that HR value (the interval is not symetric at all).

Hmm in case of your example, "my method" won't be a problem.

Because in :

- first kilometer, you will have 4.33 beats per 2 seconds

- second kilometer, you will have 5.66 beats per 2 seconds

so final value: (90 * 4.33 + 90 * 5.66) / 6 = 900 / 6 = 150 ;)

explanation: 90 2-seconds intervals with 130 bpm + 90 2-seconds intervals with 170 bpm

So, it looks that it covers both options.

In case you stop, then it just depends on your recording parameters. If you will use condition based on distance, then yes, you loose data. But it has nothing to do with average heart rate value. In case of condition based on time, then average will be correctly computed because it's just based on number of beats per time.

Hey, dudes, have you ever heart about fractions (zlomky in Czech)? Did you knew that ((90 * 130 + 90 * 170) / 180) = (90 * (130/30) + 90 * (170/30)) / (180/30) = (90 * 4.33 + 90 * 5.66) / 6 ? Elementary mathematics. What are you arguing about? :-D

Well, thanks for introduction to elementary mathematics Hrabosh. And the point?

Well, you present here your skills with mathematics, which are probably better then mine, anyway you just confirm results I compute. So if you don't mind, I close this mathematics lectures for now, because you just confirm that I compute it correctly, thanks.

The point is that your argue is poitnless, you're writing the same, just in other words.

I'm just saying that you and Robot Hack are writing the same, I'm not confirming that you're computing it correctly.

Your "interval" approach would work well in the case when you detect all beats (in the interval). But in reality, you don't get all beats (interference with others hrmeters, dry skin, weak battery, slipped belt). Then you have systematic mistake (you underestimate the real HR). Less likely, but also possible, you get beats from other hrmeters (but you can ommit that for statistics).

I'll send example and explanation in the evening.

The point is that your argue is poitnless, you're writing the same, just in other words.

But I know this. I was just confirming that method I describe, gives same results.

Your "interval" approach would work well in the case when you detect all

beats (in the interval). But in reality, you don't get all beats. Then you have systematic mistake (you underestimate the real HR).

Of course agree. And suggestion how to compute average HR value more "precisely" when you have missing data? Your weight average gives exactly same results as my "weird intervals". So it is not a "better solution".

What do you think about this kind of calculation?

It is based on time (distance has no matter), with missing data example.

HR AVG = total sum / total seconds = 5600 / 38 = 147,36

(edited)

Hello bartel6, this is almost identical to what I do now. Method is little bit different, result should be exactly same. Thanks for opinion.

HR values are exported to Strava and other service for a few years already.

HR values are also for quite long time visible in track charts.

So sorry, I do not understand question.

I've rememember that because I was slightly confused. If you have HR values, why don't you simply use common statistic methods to get AVG HR and you count heartbeats in weird intervals instead? Well, you should weight them according to time interval that one trackpoint covers, but that's all. The only question is that if you should display median, average or both.

Moreover you don't have to keep separate data for HR, you can grab it from gpx:

interval = 60/current_BPM (you save that value with each trackpoint) and then you're completely independent on gaps between trackpoints.

Hello Hrabosh, interesting thought. I'm anyway not sure, if such fields will have expected effect.

I use Locus for sport activities for a very long time and I use HRM device only for training. Then there are usually very short, or no, pauses and so these values are not useful for me. If you use HRM even during lunch, then I think it's quite unusual :).

More I think about it, less I like adding such values to dashboard. Sorry.

I wanna see you doing Praha - Praděd (approximately 270km) on bike in one shot without lunch and pee stops. Ok, it was just leisure trip ;-) So what about Krušnoton 250km/4.900mup without stops at buffets :-) Cycling (both road/mtb) lasts for hours and it is very common to have breaks, especially when not in race pace. That's why you display avg and avg-mvmt speed.

Well sure, agree. I just can't imagine that I'll wear for two days trip on my chest heart rate monitor, that's all. I just expect that mainly HRM devices are for some planned sport trainings, not for common wearing.