heart rate

fluided
fluided Posts: 114
edited November 2009 in Road beginners
Hello People

Can someone tell me how I work out my max heart rate.

And anything else I would need to know, as I really want to start some serious training I have a edge 705 which I'm only really using for routes but it would be nice to use all the other bits on it

cheers for the help

Comments

  • whyamihere
    whyamihere Posts: 7,708
    A ramp test is the best way. It's difficult to do out on the road unless you have access to a long, steep hill. The best way is to use a stationary bike/turbo trainer.

    Google ramp test for full details on it, there are sites that can explain it a lot better than I can.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    fluided wrote:
    Hello People

    Can someone tell me how I work out my max heart rate.

    And anything else I would need to know, as I really want to start some serious training I have a edge 705 which I'm only really using for routes but it would be nice to use all the other bits on it

    cheers for the help

    Put on your monitor. Warm up really well. Start doing 2 or 3 minute sprints as hard as you can. Pedal easy for one minute. Sprint for 2 or 3. Pedal easy. Repeat until you're almost dead. Maybe 10 or 15 sprints, that should do it. Somewhere along the way you'll register a heartrate that you can't get above. That's your max.
  • i heard as a general rule, and most people ive spoken to say it aswell. That you shouldn't try and push yourself over 220bpm minus your age. Obviously pro atheletes that train day in day out, and are 30 something can push themselves in excess of 200bpm, take it with a pinch of salt.
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • cjw
    cjw Posts: 1,889
    i heard as a general rule, and most people ive spoken to say it aswell. That you shouldn't try and push yourself over 220bpm minus your age. Obviously pro atheletes that train day in day out, and are 30 something can push themselves in excess of 200bpm, take it with a pinch of salt.

    Thats rubbish. Simply a rehash of the calculation of maximum heart rate being 220 - age.
    London to Paris Forum
    http://cjwoods.com/london2paris

    Scott Scale 10
    Focus Izalco Team
  • cjw
    cjw Posts: 1,889
    London to Paris Forum
    http://cjwoods.com/london2paris

    Scott Scale 10
    Focus Izalco Team
  • teticio
    teticio Posts: 107
    cjw wrote:

    a good article up until the suggestion at the end which seems to me even less scientific and even less accurate. i don't think there is an easy way of determining your max heart rate other than going as hard as you can until it stops going up any further. i'd say you probably need to have someone to motivate you because it is easy to wimp out before you get there. either that or a competition... i tend to hit my max in a 10k running race by the end....

    now the question is, what do you need to know it for? because if you are going to try to estimate your anaerobic threshold or your lactate threshold or your maximal steady state lactate threshold (etc) from it, then it will probably be just as inaccurate. for exactly this reason i have tended to take the polar* watches with a pinch of salt because all their distinguising functions are based on this kind of gimickery. if you want to get serious about training with a heart rate monitor, get down to your local specialised gym so that they do a VO2 max test and / or lactate test. where i live this costs about 100 euros and is well worth it. the whole point is that these thresholds are very variable - if they were not then there'd be little point trying to train them (move them). its worth doing or you could find you have done a whole season's training too hard or too easy...

    * but i like garmin for the same reason
  • John.T
    John.T Posts: 3,698
    i have tended to take the polar* watches with a pinch of salt because all their distinguising functions are based on this kind of gimickery.
    I have found the Polar tests to be fairly acurate. The resting 'Fitness test' on my CS400 gives my max at 170. I do a 10 mile TT at around 150 to 155 which would make 170 about right. I regularly get 150+ on hills.
    I am 67 years old so 220 - 67 = 153 which is a joke really.
  • teticio
    teticio Posts: 107
    mine would be 220-37 = 183... my max is 191

    220-age give or take the number you first though of
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Just a quick check of 220 - my age(60) reveals a max. of 160. I think last year I had a reading of 170 ONCE. Thought I was gonna die. So maybe, maybe there is a bit of truth
    to that formula(at least for me). I doubt anything is really set in stone though.
  • ris
    ris Posts: 392
    your max heart rate is your max heart rate - you can't get if from a forumla or off a packet of cereal. if you want to get it then do some sprint or hill repeats until you feel like throwing up or passing out. just as dennisn says, at some point in there you will find a hr that is your max.

    the other thing to bear in mind is that your max hr will be different for cycling than running/other sport. i think the cycling max hr would be a bit lower than a running one, although i've not checked my own (and i probably should!)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    ris wrote:

    the other thing to bear in mind is that your max hr will be different for cycling than running/other sport. i think the cycling max hr would be a bit lower than a running one, although i've not checked my own (and i probably should!)

    I tend to agree with you on that. When I ran more it did seem that my max would be higher. At the very least I was able to sustain higher heart rates running than cycling.
  • I tend to always doubt the equipments accuracy. Around 12 years ago i maxed at 190 (aged 35) so ? maybe. This year have seen 183 and felt knackered at end of TT averaging 175 for the duration of the 10 (@47) so i suppose not far out.
  • cjw
    cjw Posts: 1,889
    I tend to always doubt the equipments accuracy.

    Easy enough to check though. Just wear the chest strap and take your own pulse and compare to the readout. OK difficult to do whilst exercising, but if it's OK at rest will probably be OK when pulse goes up. The Garmin 305 was spot on when I checked mine.
    London to Paris Forum
    http://cjwoods.com/london2paris

    Scott Scale 10
    Focus Izalco Team
  • What i meant say was sometimes when it jumps up quickly and falls again how accurate was the "spike". My computer seems to jump between 2 and 9 MPH on some climbs? Must be cheap battery i know i was going faster! :oops:
  • I have a Hrmax of 205 which is way off my 220- 45.
    Simple way to do find it. Head for the Hills but dont cycle up RUN up until your head is pounding and your heart is in your mouth and you can go no further,You will push yourself harder on foot because its easier to lie down than fall off the bike :lol:
    Go neiri on bothar leat.
  • Velonutter
    Velonutter Posts: 2,437
    At 50 when I came back into cycling after the first 20 miles of riding I hit a hill and thought I was going to die when my heart rate went up to 151, 4 months down the line and it reached 171 on the rollers last night and although tired was certainly not my max.
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    I have a Hrmax of 205 which is way off my 220- 45.
    Simple way to do find it. Head for the Hills but dont cycle up RUN up until your head is pounding and your heart is in your mouth and you can go no further,You will push yourself harder on foot because its easier to lie down than fall off the bike :lol:

    I think the general advice is to use the maxHR measured on the bike for bike training zones.

    As a general point - it seems that everyone has a max HR that is higher than the (220 - age) formula. Now I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a max HR (measured on the bike) that is less than the formula (by 10 bpm), but from reading this thread (and others along the same lines) you might get the impression that if you don't have a max HR that is higher than the (220 - age) formula then you're either unfit or not trying hard enough (I'm not and I was). I have perhaps a low max HR, but a very good VO2max so it certainly dosn't hold me back.

    Max HR seems to bring out the same willy-waving as seen in average speed posts, but AFAIK max HR in itself is not a predictor of cycling potential. Or is it?
    More problems but still living....
  • porker33
    porker33 Posts: 636
    What is it with max heart rate......although I am not over weight and exercise several times a week, my max HR is pretty much spot on for the 220- benchmark.

    Having worn a HRM for 9 years, you get to know your body....I rarely go near potential max HR.maybe on a climb.
    I spend most of my time in a 130-155 range.

    With max HR you are at extremes, the body is burning sugars not fat etc,,,,it depends on what type of training you are doing and also what prizes you are likely to win.

    For me, the goal, is actually to reduce my heart rate through fitness for any given ride or exercise routine.
  • John.T
    John.T Posts: 3,698
    You only need to know max HR to set training zones. The max HR itself is of no importance to performance. Far more important as a guage of fitness is how quickly you HR drops back to normal after a hard effort. If mine drops below 100 within 2 min of being at 150 then I know I am in fairly good condition. This while still riding easy, not resting.
  • The 220-age formula comes from the medical profession, particularly stress/exercise testing patients with actual or suspected heart conditions.

    It is used as a maximum for these patients as a safety measure, and specifically because most people will have a maximum higher than this.

    This comes from Mrs Bled who is a cardiac technician.