Discovery Health - Vitality & Team Vitality plus everything else you need to know

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

No, I go to gym (and actually train there) a few times a week and with my weekend rides I get points so I'm more than ok. The problem lies with people who don't like gym and train via HR. we all know that training for extensive periods at 80% max HR is not easy when you're fit. So the people actually putting in the real work aren't benefiting from what I see.

You don't need to train for extensive periods. Just 30 min at 80% will give you 300 points. That's far from extensive and should be easy for pretty much anyone.

[Mike53]

You don't need to train for extensive periods. Just 30 min at 80% will give you 300 points. That's far from extensive and should be easy for pretty much anyone.

[Veebee]

not points related, but does 2 gym visits a day count as 2 towards your total or do the only still  take it as 1 a day ?

[Mike53]

Um,no. Not that easy for some of us on heart meds. The absolute highest I can go is 70% of age related max. This means all HR targets don't work for me. The best I can get on the new scheme is distance/speed targets or events.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

not points related, but does 2 gym visits a day count as 2 towards your total or do the only still take it as 1 a day ?

1

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Um,no. Not that easy for some of us on heart meds. The absolute highest I can go is 70% of age related max. This means all HR targets don't work for me. The best I can get on the new scheme is distance/speed targets or events.

"Pretty much anyone"

 

Not "everyone"

 

There's a difference. And yes, I acknowledge that some people it may be dangerous to go by the 220-age. But again, it's appropriate for the vast majority of their target market

[Mike53]

"Pretty much anyone"

 

Not "everyone"

 

There's a difference. And yes, I acknowledge that some people it may be dangerous to go by the 220-age. But again, it's appropriate for the vast majority of their target market

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

"Pretty much anyone"

 

Not "everyone"

 

There's a difference. And yes, I acknowledge that some people it may be dangerous to go by the 220-age. But again, it's appropriate for the vast majority of their target market

Hmmm?

[avatar]

anyone else that cant log into garmin connect?

[shaper]

anyone else that cant log into garmin connect?

Was an issue on the weekend and did take me 3 attemps this evening to sync my fenix 3 workout... so maybe there is an issue again

[Veebee]

GC has been abit unstable in recent weeks, and some delay to sync between Disco and Strava but it eventually send the data across on its own.

[Mike53]

Hmmm?

Sorry for that, I was using the pohone and battling with the interface.

 

Myles, I did see your comment of "Pretty much anyone", I was just pointing out (maybe badly) who some of us are who can't do 80% for 30 mins.

 

Which brings me to the point of Discovery's use of the 220-age formula for max HR. Firstly, if you go into the history of it, it does not have a very good basis - see http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf for a good summary. Secondly, it is only an estimate - fitness level, gender, weight, health, medication, and lots of other factors all affect your max HR in addition to your age. Thirdly, it is only an estimate and has a margin of error, possibly as high as 10% (either way) according to some authors. A lot of people seem to feel that a better formula is 208 - 0.7*age. 

 

That being said I can see why Discovery would want to use a formula, it's simple and cheap. But it would be great if they allowed exceptions.

[splat]

 

Sorry for that, I was using the pohone and battling with the interface.

 

Myles, I did see your comment of "Pretty much anyone", I was just pointing out (maybe badly) who some of us are who can't do 80% for 30 mins.

 

Which brings me to the point of Discovery's use of the 220-age formula for max HR. Firstly, if you go into the history of it, it does not have a very good basis - see http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf for a good summary. Secondly, it is only an estimate - fitness level, gender, weight, health, medication, and lots of other factors all affect your max HR in addition to your age. Thirdly, it is only an estimate and has a margin of error, possibly as high as 10% (either way) according to some authors. A lot of people seem to feel that a better formula is 208 - 0.7*age. 

 

That being said I can see why Discovery would want to use a formula, it's simple and cheap. But it would be great if they allowed exceptions.

 

Much like their points awarded for being inside the correct BMI range.

A very basic formula that doesn't take all factors into consideration, thus excluding a lot of people.

[Thor Buttox]

I bitched and moaned about having to wear my heart rate monitor, which I still hate, but after 1 ride I got 1500 points. I reckon the only people now who should have a beef are those who have never gone to gym and who now need to purchase a HR monitor, or those who go to gym and who's weekly points have risen to more than 700. Otherwise the solution seems really easy.

 

I hereby retract my objections, m'lady

[jcza]

I bitched and moaned about having to wear my heart rate monitor, which I still hate, but after 1 ride I got 1500 points. I reckon the only people now who should have a beef are those who have never gone to gym and who now need to purchase a HR monitor, or those who go to gym and who's weekly points have risen to more than 700. Otherwise the solution seems really easy.

 

I hereby retract my objections, m'lady

 

Seems like max points at this stage is 400 

[Thor Buttox]

Seems like max points at this stage is 400

Yes, I meant the complaint would only arise when they could not get more than 700 pts in 7 days from gym