Heart Rate

chromehoof

I remember reading somewhere that Phillip Deignan, while riding the Plan de Corones Mountain Time Trial in the Giro d'Italia this year, said his HR went as high as 160.

160? P de Corones is over 25% in parts and doesn't even have a proper surface.

I'd hit 160 on a gentle slope. Don't think pro-cycling was ever a runner for me!

Eat My Dust

I've got a resting heart rate of 50 and I'm 33. I'm not too sure what my HR is cycling but I'd imagine it's pretty high as I'm always pushing it. When I'm running I try to keep my heart rate around about 170 bpm which I can maintain for about an hour.

thedaffodilfish

I'm 32 with a resting heart rate of 50 but my max seems to plateau out at 177 regardless of how much effort I put in.

I generally sit around 160 on a ride and 170-177 on sprints and intervals and on hill tt. I generally feel ok after these - knackered but ok. I've also tried to test my max on a couple of occassions where I've ended up dizzy and sick, but still never gone above 177.

I thought my max would be higher for some reason.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

I would do your treadmill test, but I've been advised against running on them due to knee injuries... However I'm apparently fine to jog. Sense made? I think not.

What's up with your knees? And who gave the advice?

This is going to sound like an odd thing to say, but have you ever had anyone take a close look at your running style? Running is harder than it looks (not as hard as swimming, but like swimming there's more to it than meets the eye).

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I would do your treadmill test, but I've been advised against running on them due to knee injuries... However I'm apparently fine to jog. Sense made? I think not.

What's up with your knees? And who gave the advice?

This is going to sound like an odd thing to say, but have you ever had anyone take a close look at your running style? Running is harder than it looks (not as hard as swimming, but like swimming there's more to it than meets the eye).

It took me years to learn to run. I think the problem was that I tried it before perfecting walking (or holding in wee).

Eat My Dust

I agree that running is actually a very hard thing to do properly I used to suffer from shin and knee pain and could never really run for more than a mile without being in agony. Now with the correct shoes and running style I can pretty much run for hours.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

It took me years to learn to run. I think the problem was that I tried it before perfecting walking (or holding in wee).

You should have tried running backwards

always_tyred

Eat My Dust wrote:

I agree that running is actually a very hard thing to do properly I used to suffer from shin and knee pain and could never really run for more than a mile without being in agony. Now with the correct shoes and running style I can pretty much run for hours.

How are you at holding in wee?

Eat My Dust

Always Tyred wrote:

How are you at holding in wee?

I've never tried professionally, but 'm not bad for a hobbyist/amateur!

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

What's up with your knees? And who gave the advice?

This is going to sound like an odd thing to say, but have you ever had anyone take a close look at your running style? Running is harder than it looks (not as hard as swimming, but like swimming there's more to it than meets the eye).

The advice came from a sports injury specialist, I had problems with my knees in my teens as they used for some reason to shed cartilage which irritated the meniscus and caused severe swelling and locking of the joint, as well as being quite painful. They thought it was osteoarthiritis, but inconclusive.

I also pronate a great deal, which puts additional pressure on the knees, not helped by the fact that they bend backwards, not far, but far enough to be a contributing factor... And I once dislocated my right knee.

I was basically told to avoid 'heavy impact', which included running on a treadmill, but not slow jogging. Subsequent attempts to run on treadmills as my knees have improved have almost always resulted in sore and stiff knees, which doesn't help with cycling!

Nobody has ever looked at my running style, no. I don't think I run enough to justify it...

always_tyred

greg66_tri_v2.0

I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that you're a heel striker - when you run, it's your heel that hits the ground first (and is probably hitting the ground forward of your pelvis).

Google Gordon Pirie. It's all about shifting to a mid/fore foot plant, planting under your hips, falling forward and running "shorter" than you are (ie keep your knees bent.

Plays havoc with your calves but it works. I had both cartlidges trimmed in my 20s and running used to hurt my knees and shins a lot. Re-taught myself how to run (took about 6m to iron out all the old habits), got some proper orthotics, and bingo.

lost_in_thought

Yes, my 'running technique' (I don't have one) is to run with long strides, so I reckon I probably do impact the ground with my heel.

I already have serious orthotics in my ultra-supportive gym shoes (not running shoes because I don't run in them) which I use after being threatened with a 'rebalancing operation'.

This Pirie thing looks interesting - if I want to do a triathlon next year I may well have to look into it.

And Always Tyred, I'm amazed you managed to find such an accurate representation - you've never even met me!

STEFANOS4784

Always Tyred wrote:

:shock:

linsen

I've bought a pair of MBTs to try and get my foot strike straighter.

Only problem now is I get backache after I've worn them - hoping that is going to change :?

lost_in_thought

You've bought two mountain bikes to get your.............................................................

........................................................................................................................................

...........Oh no wait, you're talking about those weird shoes.

'Momma says they're my magic shoes...'

I am extremely sceptical of anything that maintains it can improve your fitness or muscle tone thruogh you wearing a special shoe/standing on a vibrating plate and sticking your @rse out.

Aren't they just meant to simulate walking barefoot on uneven ground? Surely walking barefoot on uneven ground would be a cheaper option?

Am willing to be educated, as ever.

linsen

Lack of opportunity to walk barefoot on uneven ground on a regular basis, but plenty to walk dog every day on even surface made me give them a go...

Not sure if my bum looks big in them, haven't looked!

I have a couple of friends who swear by them, they actually look okay (just plain black), and I got them half price so worth a punt....

I don't think wearing them improves anything per se, you have to actually exercise in them ... they are not toning tables for the feet

always_tyred

You should have got some of those shoes with wheels in the sole, Linsen.

Aparrently, they make you look 20 years younger.

lost_in_thought

linsen wrote:

Lack of opportunity to walk barefoot on uneven ground on a regular basis, but plenty to walk dog every day on even surface made me give them a go...

Not sure if my bum looks big in them, haven't looked!

I have a couple of friends who swear by them, they actually look okay (just plain black), and I got them half price so worth a punt....

I don't think wearing them improves anything per se, you have to actually exercise in them ... they are not toning tables for the feet

Ahhhhh ha ha ha toning tables! I'd forgotten about those things. I think some people feel that simply by having MBTs on their feet they will slim down. No MBT no biscuit? I think not...

And half price is good - they're really expensive!

The sticking your @rse out was mroe a reference to the women I see in the gym on those power plate things. Are women more susceptible to these fitness fads I wonder?

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Are women more susceptible to these fitness fads I wonder?

linsen

Always Tyred wrote:

You should have got some of those shoes with wheels in the sole, Linsen.

Aparrently, they make you look 20 years younger.

I don't want to look like a two-year-old

BUICK

Doesn't monitoring your heartrate contradict one of the basic rules of SCR? What's going on here?!

greg66_tri_v2.0

BUICK wrote:

Doesn't monitoring your heartrate contradict one of the basic rules of SCR? What's going on here?!

You're allowed to check your RHR without breaking any rules.

And you can check you HR on the road to confirm that mid-scalp, it's no more than 5bpm > your RHR. That's definitely allowed. I read that somewhere.

Jen J

How did I miss a thread about running! :shock:

OK, just read back, and thought of a few points, but can't be bothered to go and quote everyone.

LiT - you mentioned you're not sure of your running style. I am a big believer in running however feels natural to you, but a lot of people on my running site are very into 'efficient' running styles such as POSE and Chi, and there's a huge thread (about 10,000 posts) that they chat on each day. If you're interested I can send you a link - may be enough to get you training a bit for a tri next year.

Linsen - Did I read correctly that you were running in MBTs? I'm sorry but I personally dislike MBTs for any use and I have *never* seen anyone on the running site advocate running in them, and there's usually at least a few people arguing for and against everything. If you find it comfortable to run in them, and are happy to do so, then fine, but otherwise I would suggest stopping immediately. Go to a proper running shop and get your gait analysed.

As for resting heartrates, as a supposedly fit ultra runner, mine should be around 50 ish. It's actually around 75, but I don't think that's a problem at all. A big part of testing your fitness levels is how quickly your heart rate returns to resting heart rate - whatever is normal for you.

As long as you're not still collapsed half an hour after exercise, I wouldn't worry too much about your RHR.

There was more, but I've forgotten it... :?

linsen

No no no I don't run in the things I walk the dog in them
I'm not *totally* stupid

itboffin

And then.....!?!

Jen J

linsen wrote:

No no no I don't run in the things I walk the dog in them
I'm not *totally* stupid

Some people do run in them :shock:

My main issue with them is that they cost a fortune, so if you've already bought them, then just enjoy...

JGS

Always Tyred wrote:

Agree with Damad36 about the "fat burning zone". When I was rowing I learned that this doesn't even kick in until you've been going for about an hour and its a "what's twice nothing?" kind of effect. You burn fat by having a high metabolism generally, particularly after excersise. So getting your HR up twice a day is about perfect.

Just to re-affirm this one. The fat burning zone is the level of intensity where your body uses fat stores as it's main fuel (95% or more), this does usually mean that most calories burnt during this level of excersise will be from fat.

However when you are in your cardio zone you are still burning fat, but topping up that energy with your glycogen stores as you won't be able to burn fat quickly enough. This glycogen will be replaced by fat post excersise. This makes cardio trianing WAY more efficient for losing weight as there is a small amount of energy needed to metabolise fat, so not only have you already burnt off 1.5+ times more energy, you'll use some more energy to replace that glycogen.

Also in regards to glycogen your body will usually have around 3000 calories stored in a resting state, this is enough to cycle at a constant 30mph for over an hour. Combined with fat stores and ingested food this is usually more than enough to last you for a lot of cardio work.

Hope this helps a bit.

As for heart rate a basic way to work out your max is to use: 225 - age. However this is not applicable to everyone. I would reccomend for a good cardio run you hit around 70-85% of your esitmated max.

linsen

My main issue with them is that they cost a fortune, so if you've already bought them, then just enjoy...

I got them for less than half-price......

I'll wear them with my ballgown for the SCR Christmas "do". It is black tie, I assume?

doyler78

Well I think the only thing this thread confirms is that there is not such thing as a normal resting or maximum heart rate and that formula is a load of rubbish for most people and useless for training by as a result. If you want to do heart rate training then there is no choice but to a Lactic Threshold or Max Heart Rate test.

As for myself I have a resting heart rate of 37bpm (as measured first thing in the morning before getting out of bed and definitely before eating) and a max of 198bpm. My normal commute average heart rate is early to mid 150's though if I really want to give it a good dig I will average in the mid 160's with a max of 190+. 180's I only ever see on hard intervals and pushing up a hill otherwise don't even get close.