
heres a link to the ride i went on yesterday - http://app.strava.com/activities/34620421
what should the heart rate be, and is it something to really keep an eye on - or is curiosity getting the better of me?
cheers
Latest Reviews and Articles
Postby riles » Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:31 pm
Postby ozzymac » Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:10 pm
Postby richbee » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:37 pm
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:55 pm
210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate.
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:11 pm
richbee wrote:As a basic rule of thumb you can use the 220 less age theory to get your theoretical max heartrate, then using the bumph you got with your new HRM you can work out training zones based on percentage of max. Bear in mind that formula has no scientific backing and is fairly conservative in it's results.
The only sure fire way of working out your actual max HR is to do a VO2 Max test which involves coughing up lots of money to a bike training centre with the appropriate equipment, and probably coughing up a lot of blood too.
There are cheaper but no less painfull ways of working it out yourself...
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby ft_critical » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:59 pm
RonK wrote:According to Sally Edwards:210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate.
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:18 pm
sogood wrote:richbee wrote:As a basic rule of thumb you can use the 220 less age theory to get your theoretical max heartrate, then using the bumph you got with your new HRM you can work out training zones based on percentage of max. Bear in mind that formula has no scientific backing and is fairly conservative in it's results.
Actually, the formula has scientific backing. It's a formula that was derived from a lot of population data and there's nothing unscientific about it. The only problem is in its use on an individual.The only sure fire way of working out your actual max HR is to do a VO2 Max test which involves coughing up lots of money to a bike training centre with the appropriate equipment, and probably coughing up a lot of blood too.
There are cheaper but no less painfull ways of working it out yourself...
Yes, there are expensive and inexpensive ways to extract HRmax. There's no need to do a VO2max in a lab. A true "sure fire" and easy way to obtain HRmax is not listed. It involves a small injection of adrenaline or similar.
Postby Cossie Phil » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:22 pm
ft_critical wrote:RonK wrote:According to Sally Edwards:210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate.
Home this formula is pretty much bang on for me.
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:36 pm
ft_critical wrote:RonK wrote:According to Sally Edwards:210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate.
Home this formula is pretty much bang on for me.
Postby clackers » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:14 pm
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:23 pm
RonK wrote:The easy way is to ask your GP to send you for an exercise stress test. It would be a very sensible approach if you are beginning a fitness regime.
This test will determine your maximum heart rate and at the same time monitor your heart function for any abnormal signs. And in the presence of medical assistance if needed.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby am50em » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:27 pm
RonK wrote:According to Sally Edwards:210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate.
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:35 pm
sogood wrote:RonK wrote:The easy way is to ask your GP to send you for an exercise stress test. It would be a very sensible approach if you are beginning a fitness regime.
This test will determine your maximum heart rate and at the same time monitor your heart function for any abnormal signs. And in the presence of medical assistance if needed.
Medical cardiac stress tests don't usually aim to determine HRmax. It's a graded protocol test to detect evidence of ischaemia, starting from low intensity. It would stop once evidence is shown. As for healthy fit people, the top stress stage may or may not hit HRmax for the individual.
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:54 pm
RonK wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk. My GP advised me wrongly again. :roll;
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:46 am
sogood wrote:RonK wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk. My GP advised me wrongly again. :roll;
Well, yes and no I suspect. The stress test report certainly will indicate the maximum HR reached in the test but that may or may not be HRmax. For some it may be but for others it'll still be less than HRmax. But if your ECG shows anything odd, the test may be terminated early and you'll be off to see a cardiologist.
Postby ft_critical » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:09 am
RonK wrote: HRMax = 193. Could it have gone higher? Possibly, but a few BPM are inconsequential for training purposes.
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:27 am
ft_critical wrote:RonK wrote: HRMax = 193. Could it have gone higher? Possibly, but a few BPM are inconsequential for training purposes.
Interesting. I am reminded of what I consider the most informative comment I have read on this forum, from Alex. With regard to precision, of Powermeters in this case, he said often we are only training for an extra 10% gain in performance. That is the most we can ring out of our bodies - assuming you are a well trained athlete not just starting out in cycling. That means that accuracy is far more important. As is a consistent recording system. For me, without a power meter, I use my trainer, set tests with the same conditions (tyre pressure for example) and use HR, Cadence and Speed. I try to remove as many of the possible sources of variation as possible.
For training, I use a TT test to get my 5min speed, cadence and HR. I set and reset all training after each test - I will test at least quarterly, more frequently during the build phase. I read somewhere that leaving all the variables the same for long periods, e.g., what 90% or V02 Max is or what 85% or MHRR could see you over or under training.
Postby ft_critical » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:59 am
RonK wrote:After several months of heart rate training using Sally Edwards as a guide, my HRMax (i.e. what I acheived out on the road) actually dropped a little. Did I need to adjust my HR training zones? No.
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:14 am
ft_critical wrote:RonK wrote:After several months of heart rate training using Sally Edwards as a guide, my HRMax (i.e. what I acheived out on the road) actually dropped a little. Did I need to adjust my HR training zones? No.
I am more meaning threshold tests. What your maximums are over 5min or 20min. I.e., LT and AT. As these change I would think you would need to.
For me what happens is if I am racing I can sustain a higher HR for say 5min. But if I have had a rest and move into base, I just can't sustain the higher HR. So I move all my HR bands down a level - i.e., recalibrate. My interval training sets are then based on either maintain a % of that 5min HR, speed or both. I can't say that it is right, just what I do.
Postby sogood » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:51 am
RonK wrote:Result: Heart function normal, blood pressure a little elevated at the end of the test, HRMax = 193. Could it have gone higher? Possibly, but a few BPM are inconsequential for training purposes.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:42 pm
sogood wrote:RonK wrote:Result: Heart function normal, blood pressure a little elevated at the end of the test, HRMax = 193. Could it have gone higher? Possibly, but a few BPM are inconsequential for training purposes.
Pretty good result. And +1 on the fact the "inconsequential" comment for us amateurs, unless one gets serious. At the same time, these indoor tests also suffers the same heat dissipation restrictions as an indoor bike and would typically result in a lower HRmax than an outdoor test with wind in the face.
Postby alan_k » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:25 pm
Postby sogood » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:14 pm
alan_k wrote:I have no idea. Sometimes I see people who has max HR 170-180 but can maintain it for long period of time. While those with lower max HR say 150-160 can't maintain long. And it's not uncommon to see people with high HR winning races.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.