Heart rate - am I a freak?

finchy

Hello everyone,

I got a lovely new toy for Chirstmas - a HRM. Anyway, I've been doing a bit of training on it - 2*20 minutes at 91-92%. According to every training manual I've read, that should be very heavy going, but I found it fairly easy.

So are the manuals wrong, or am I just unusual? I don't feel like I'm a stunningly good cyclist, so I'm assuming that this rate isn't as bad as people say it is.

grahamcp

You obviously need to be riding at 120% to get a decent workout :shock:

Have you verified your max rather than using a potentially inaccurate formula?

redddraggon

(220 minus age) generally gives a lower MHR than you probably actually have.

doyler78

Did you conduct a maxHR test to find your actual max or are using the formula. If your using the formula there's probably more chance that it's wrong (and wildly wrong) to be of much use so suggest you do the test.

If you have done the test then that hr% is at the upper end of 25mile/40tt pace and as these intervals are generally conducted at the 25miles tt pace then its pretty bang on and you either have a slightly undercalculated maxHR or you are just one of those that hits the upper end of the scale.

Here's a thread I found useful in explaining HR zones before I started using power:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... rate+zones

notanotherhill

Go and speak to a cycling specific sports therapist about this. I had the same problem and I beilieved that it was because i was fitter than i thought.....alas not so.

finchy

Thanks for your help, I was using the 220 - age, which should give me 191, but now I'm going to get a more accurate reading.

doyler78

Just so you can see for yourself how inaccurate these things can be here's a thread I started which has the good people on here's actual maxHR versus the formula. It makes interesting reading I think (but then I would say that )

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... ight=maxhr

Are you going to get it lab tested or are you going to do your own test? Some people find they can't achieve their actual max in a lab whilst others have no problem doing this.

garetjax

I admit to being baffled by HR Zones as well.
My max is 184, which is based on both calculation and by field test. My Polar HR watch also gave me this number.
But I find that that 85% of this HR (156) is almost noodling. Pushing a little it goes to 165bpm ( 90%), and I time trial at 177bpm ( 96%).
I know being very unfit can cause high heart rates for moderate effort; however, although I am not the fastest/greatest road cyclist, I have excellent fitness from mountain biking and circuit training and am a very good hill climber.
I don't really use HR now. I have a powermeter on my turbo, and outside i go on feel.

steve-m

garetjax wrote:

I admit to being baffled by HR Zones as well.
My max is 184, which is based on both calculation and by field test. My Polar HR watch also gave me this number.
But I find that that 85% of this HR (156) is almost noodling. .

Your Polar HRM is doing 222-age.

85% is 85% of your range not 85% of your HR.

So, you also need your resting HR (use HRM, take either after waking or 20 mins of inactivity - several hours after having last eaten, not after training, not ill not after alcohol.

Lets say your RHR is 60, then you need 85% of your range, which is 60 + (184 - 60) *.85 - putting your target rate at 165

See

http://www.runnersweb.com/running/hr_ca ... r_new.html

richara3

Now I may be wrong here but I assumed that the max hr calculation was only a rough guide to what would be considered a safe upper hr limit, that when sustained would not lead to any medical complications. Obviously if your fitter you may struggle to reach this limit and if your a bit of a biff or push yourself really hard you may easily soar above it, But going by the hr calc it would not be recomended.



Andy.

garetjax

Your Polar HRM is doing 222-age.

85% is 85% of your range not 85% of your HR.

Hi steve,

I thought HR Zones were based on a simple percentage calculation of, either (i) % of your Max HR or (ii) % of your threshold HR. And that's it. I didn't know it was % of your range ( max to resting) as described...Can others verify?
Also, If i set my Polar to give a percent display of HR, it seems to give % of my Max HR.
Using the runners web definition of 85% would certainly change things!

doyler78

steve-m wrote:

garetjax wrote:

I admit to being baffled by HR Zones as well.
My max is 184, which is based on both calculation and by field test. My Polar HR watch also gave me this number.
But I find that that 85% of this HR (156) is almost noodling. .

Your Polar HRM is doing 222-age.

85% is 85% of your range not 85% of your HR.

So, you also need your resting HR (use HRM, take either after waking or 20 mins of inactivity - several hours after having last eaten, not after training, not ill not after alcohol.

Lets say your RHR is 60, then you need 85% of your range, which is 60 + (184 - 60) *.85 - putting your target rate at 165

See

http://www.runnersweb.com/running/hr_ca ... r_new.html

maxHR is sport specific and the Karvonen method (which takes into account resting heart rate) generally uses higher hr zone %'s than maxHR zones and thus they usually end up not being a million miles from each other. As hr is affected by things such as your level hydration (or dehydration more specifically), how well recovered you are, etc then any hr zones are going to be general anyway so it may be just adding a complication to the formula that probably doesn't really add anything to its "accuracy".

Resting heart rate unlike maxHR (which really doesn't change that much - supposed to lose 1bpm per minute) is more responsive and if used everyday (or most) can be used firstly to find out what your normal resting heart is (and this will fall as your fitness increases) and any upward change of 10% or higher is a very strong indication that somethings up and one of those things can be the onset of illness or an indication that you are not fully recovered and may be starting to overtrain. Both very useful things to know.

hr is useful at lower training levels however as effort goes up the more irrelevant hr becomes as its a lagging indicator of effort and especially on short sharp efforts hr will never hit the highs as quickly as your effort does and therefore it doesn't tell you the story of that effort and as effort goes up you are better to use perceived effort if you don't have a power meter.

steve-m

richara3 wrote:

Now I may be wrong here but I assumed that the max hr calculation was only a rough guide to what would be considered a safe upper hr limit, that when sustained would not lead to any medical complications. Obviously if your fitter you may struggle to reach this limit and if your a bit of a biff or push yourself really hard you may easily soar above it, But going by the hr calc it would not be recomended.
.

Andy.

There is nothing unsafe about working at your max HR - cardio wise - however is being tough you would loose focus on staying out of the way of cars etc. The fitter you are the longer you can sustain it. You cannot go above your max HR either - if you do then your previous max HR was incorrect. You cannot train you increase your max HR.

The 220-age is nothing but a statistical average. You could come up with a similar formula for your height too, it would be as helpful.

doyler78

garetjax wrote:

Your Polar HRM is doing 222-age.

85% is 85% of your range not 85% of your HR.

Hi steve,

I thought HR Zones were based on a simple percentage calculation of, either (i) % of your Max HR or (ii) % of your threshold HR. And that's it. I didn't know it was % of your range ( max to resting) as described...Can others verify?
Also, If i set my Polar to give a percent display of HR, it seems to give % of my Max HR.
Using the runners web definition of 85% would certainly change things!

There are many ways of calaculating a starting point for basing any percentages on and there are many different views on what those percentages should be. Use whichever works best for you.

I can set my Polar HR to calculate percentages based on either maxHR or on what they call hr reserve (which is basically maxHR - resting heart rate). I can also manually specify how many heart zones I want and what the absolute or percentages I want to use for each zone.

finchy

doyler78 wrote:

Just so you can see for yourself how inaccurate these things can be here's a thread I started which has the good people on here's actual maxHR versus the formula. It makes interesting reading I think (but then I would say that )

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... ight=maxhr

Are you going to get it lab tested or are you going to do your own test? Some people find they can't achieve their actual max in a lab whilst others have no problem doing this.

I'm going to do my own test, I can't afford to go to a lab. Just gonna hit a hill as hard as I can for as long as I can, and then really sprint over the top. According to quite a few training manuals this will tell me my max HR.

doyler78

johnfinch wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

Just so you can see for yourself how inaccurate these things can be here's a thread I started which has the good people on here's actual maxHR versus the formula. It makes interesting reading I think (but then I would say that )

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... ight=maxhr

Are you going to get it lab tested or are you going to do your own test? Some people find they can't achieve their actual max in a lab whilst others have no problem doing this.

I'm going to do my own test, I can't afford to go to a lab. Just gonna hit a hill as hard as I can for as long as I can, and then really sprint over the top. According to quite a few training manuals this will tell me my max HR.

You need to ramp your efforts in order to hit your max so you could try something like this: warmup for 15 minutes bringing your heart rate up slowly to where you are starting to breath heavy and aim to hit a steady hill that allows you to do a couple of mins or until you feel your legs starting to go then turn and roll down again. Repeat this process (will take anything from 4 to 8 efforts if its conducted properly) until you hit one where you just feel you haven't anything left and what you now have to do is absolutely hammer down on the pedals until you blow. Be careful you could fall off the bike at this point or throw up. Somewhere in that final sprint you should find you have hit your max.

The reason you need to ramp your effort over repeated cycles of effort and recovery is that your hr is lagging indicator of effort and it will just not get to your max in one effort. You need to repeatedly hit yourself physical in order to get to the point of exhaustion. This is a very hard test. Good luck. They are absolute hell at the time but you do get to smile afterwards

GavH

doyler78 wrote:

Just gonna hit a hill as hard as I can for as long as I can, and then really sprint over the top. According to quite a few training manuals this will tell me my max HR.

I used a similar technique. Hit a linear slope at around 80% and then continue to accelerate. I used same gear but increased cadence and my HRM can show this on a graph afterwards. At the point your HR hits its Max, it well drop back down despite you still increasing the effort. In my case, aged 31, it should have been (according to the 220-age) 189. I knew this wasn't massively accurate so I googled HR Max and came across the wikipedia entry which gave a number of different formulae at least 2 if which gave me 184, funnily enough the same figure my HRM topped out at going up the hill.

Since then, I've managed 185 on the turbo trying to keep up with Sir Chris Hoy on Sufferfest II and a week later hit 187 on a hill climb where some kid on a MTB pulled out of a side road and thought it'd be funny to try and catch me (he didn't, hence the 187!!).

Suffice to say that I now have my HRM set to 187 in terms of HR Max.

doyler78

GavH wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Just gonna hit a hill as hard as I can for as long as I can, and then really sprint over the top. According to quite a few training manuals this will tell me my max HR.

I used a similar technique. Hit a linear slope at around 80% and then continue to accelerate. I used same gear but increased cadence and my HRM can show this on a graph afterwards. At the point your HR hits its Max, it well drop back down despite you still increasing the effort. In my case, aged 31, it should have been (according to the 220-age) 189. I knew this wasn't massively accurate so I googled HR Max and came across the wikipedia entry which gave a number of different formulae at least 2 if which gave me 184, funnily enough the same figure my HRM topped out at going up the hill.

Since then, I've managed 185 on the turbo trying to keep up with Sir Chris Hoy on Sufferfest II and a week later hit 187 on a hill climb where some kid on a MTB pulled out of a side road and thought it'd be funny to try and catch me (he didn't, hence the 187!!).

Suffice to say that I now have my HRM set to 187 in terms of HR Max.

You've quoted the wrong person

I've found that I cannot hit my max on a single effort, no matter how hard. The nearest I will get with such an approach is 195bpm whereas my max is 198bpm. Not far off. Given that you have hit higher "maxes" it seems clear that you have probably never hit your max, even now. Its probably closer to 190bpm if you were under severe pressure under that mountain bike contest

finchy

doyler78 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

Just so you can see for yourself how inaccurate these things can be here's a thread I started which has the good people on here's actual maxHR versus the formula. It makes interesting reading I think (but then I would say that )

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... ight=maxhr

Are you going to get it lab tested or are you going to do your own test? Some people find they can't achieve their actual max in a lab whilst others have no problem doing this.

I'm going to do my own test, I can't afford to go to a lab. Just gonna hit a hill as hard as I can for as long as I can, and then really sprint over the top. According to quite a few training manuals this will tell me my max HR.

You need to ramp your efforts in order to hit your max so you could try something like this: warmup for 15 minutes bringing your heart rate up slowly to where you are starting to breath heavy and aim to hit a steady hill that allows you to do a couple of mins or until you feel your legs starting to go then turn and roll down again. Repeat this process (will take anything from 4 to 8 efforts if its conducted properly) until you hit one where you just feel you haven't anything left and what you now have to do is absolutely hammer down on the pedals until you blow. Be careful you could fall off the bike at this point or throw up. Somewhere in that final sprint you should find you have hit your max.

The reason you need to ramp your effort over repeated cycles of effort and recovery is that your hr is lagging indicator of effort and it will just not get to your max in one effort. You need to repeatedly hit yourself physical in order to get to the point of exhaustion. This is a very hard test. Good luck. They are absolute hell at the time but you do get to smile afterwards

Great, thanks I'll give it a go when the weather improves. Only problem is that I live on top of a hill, so I need to get to the top at the end. Don't want to get halfway up and then not be able to turn my pedals...