heart rates - where should it be
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:34 pm
- Location: Wandering Europe - Stationed in Nice
heart rates - where should it be
Postby riles » Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:31 pm
heres a link to the ride i went on yesterday - http://app.strava.com/activities/34620421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
- ozzymac
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:14 pm
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby ozzymac » Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:10 pm
Heart rates are different for everyone.
A lot of variables affect heart rates eg: age, fitness levels, weight etc.
I am 52 95kg and my heart rate does around the same numbers as yours.
Some days it's lower some days higher.
Cheers
Sent from my thingimy chig using that other thing:-)
-
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:58 pm
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby richbee » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:37 pm
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, generally involving max effort sprints on an incline, but I'll let you google/wicki that for yourself to make up your own mind.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:55 pm
Perhaps a better measure of your fitness is your heart rate recovery, i.e. how quickly your heart rate drops when you stop.210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:11 pm
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.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.
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.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.
- ft_critical
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:06 pm
- Location: watching the 11
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby ft_critical » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:59 pm
Home this formula is pretty much bang on for me.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.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:18 pm
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.sogood wrote: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.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.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.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...
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.
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 5:35 pm
- Location: Hoxton Park
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby Cossie Phil » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:22 pm
Pretty much perfect for me too:)ft_critical wrote:Home this formula is pretty much bang on for me.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.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:36 pm
Yes, Sally knows her stuff and for anyone interested in heart rate training her books are well worth a read.ft_critical wrote:Home this formula is pretty much bang on for me.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.
- clackers
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby clackers » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:14 pm
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:23 pm
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.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.
-
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:21 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby am50em » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:27 pm
Interesting - that formula is spot on with my highest heart rate I have seen and I doubt I could go any harder.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.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby RonK » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:35 pm
Tsk, tsk, tsk. My GP advised me wrongly again. :roll;sogood wrote: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.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.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:54 pm
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.RonK wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk. My GP advised me wrongly again. :roll;
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:46 am
When I first acquired a HRM bike computer, I wanted to ask the very same question as did the OP. I choose to ask my GP rather rely on formulas.sogood wrote: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.RonK wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk. My GP advised me wrongly again. :roll;
He recommended the exercise stress test, and made it clear on the referral the reason for the test. The two guys who attended me during the test were right into it, and told me they regularly took it themselves as a fitness measure. They also mentioned that it was unlikely I'd actually be able complete the entire test. It was conducted on a treadmill, with the pace and incline increasing at intervals. They pushed me until I could go no further, and I had call a halt about 30 seconds short (you can't just stop running on a treadmill at high speed). They were both surprised that I'd got that far, but agreed that I'd obviously benefitted from my cycling.
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.
I think the GP got it pretty right...
- ft_critical
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:06 pm
- Location: watching the 11
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby ft_critical » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:09 am
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.RonK wrote: HRMax = 193. Could it have gone higher? Possibly, but a few BPM are inconsequential for training purposes.
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.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:27 am
I don't think you can assume Alex' comments about accuracy of power output measures also apply to heart rate, but it would be interesting to have his view. For HRM training, you need to know your HRMax in order to establish appropriate training zones. These zones are approximations. A few BPM one way or the other is not important.ft_critical wrote: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.RonK wrote: HRMax = 193. Could it have gone higher? Possibly, but a few BPM are inconsequential for training purposes.
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.
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.
- ft_critical
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:06 pm
- Location: watching the 11
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby ft_critical » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:59 am
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.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.
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.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:14 am
Yes, your explanation makes sense. You are obviously taking your training a degree or so higher that I ever did.ft_critical wrote: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.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.
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.
For recreational riders I think the value of heart rate training is in establishing a training regime that provides appropriate levels of intensity, and in particular, recovery. Before I started using a HRM I was not aware that I rarely did a proper recovery ride. I think a lot of inexperienced riders do this, thinking they need to smash themselves every ride.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby sogood » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:51 am
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.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.
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:42 pm
That and HR response is also exercise modality dependent.sogood wrote: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.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.
Use of HR for guiding general training intensity is fine, but no need to over think the means of establishing a number upon which to base training levels. Provided one is fit and healthy enough to push hard enough, you can establish your own HRmax from a hard enough effort, or record average HR from a time trial effort of ~30-min and use either as a basis to establish training intensity levels. The use of a formal supervised stress test is to stop you if something anomalous shows up along the way, and is a good idea if in any doubt, especially if you are or have been ill, are or have been a smoker, have a family history of cardiac or related health issues, are overweight, not exercised for some time or vigorously before, are over 35 amongst other possible factors.
There's already enough slop in HR response that the levels really should be fairly broad in any case, and if a level feels easier/harder than it should, simply adjust the levels to suit. Having said that, HR training levels don't really change much, not in the way that power training levels might.
HR is only ever going to be a guide to intensity, not tell you about your fitness. For that you need a power measurement or a good power proxy such as indoor trainer speed on a suitable set up (e.g. a Lemond Revolution trainer which has a reliable speed-power relationship), or time up a steep hillclimb.
- alan_k
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:13 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby alan_k » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:25 pm
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: heart rates - where should it be
Postby sogood » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:14 pm
The heart will never get "tired" and one's ability to sustain (i.e. Endurance) is more about the level of effort, muscles and the rest of the system. Don't focus on HR for your next sports bet or you'll likely to lose!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.
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.