Heart Rate question

niblue

I've had an HRM for some time but recently invested in one of the Garmins that does GPS speed/altitude etc. as well as HR, and that you can then analyse later.

I used it for a half-hour turbo session and the results were what I'd expected (and was seeing on my old HRM) with an average of 141 and a peak of 156bpm. Last night I took it out on a short, half-hour, road ride and was quite surprised to see an average of 154 and a peak of 178rpm. When road riding (or mountain biking) with the old HRM I'd seen 170+ numbers before so that wasn't a surprise, but the average was quite a bit more than I'm expected - especially as I wasn't particularily tired after the ride or felt like I'd been pushing hard.

This is the details from the ride:
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/63259298

I've only recently returned to road riding, and I'm overweight and not very fit (and 42)- so it might just be a reflection of that. My resting heart rate is about 60bpm - not sure of my max HR yet as I reckon any of the methods I've seen for trying that would kill me!

So anything to worry about in there or are those just reasonable numbers reflecting my current lack of fitness?

danowat

Nothing there would concern me, especially considering the fact you don't know your MHR, so any HR readings are pretty much worthless anyway.

SBezza

Numbers are very much individual, and there is not alot anyone could tell from them, especially without knowing what your Max HR might well be.

Considering the nature of the ride, I don't think it is unusual to be honest.

niblue

I'd been working on 175 as a max HR but clearly that would appear to be wrong. I might need to bite the bullet and try for a maximum HR. Might do it on the turbo though, with my wife available to phone an ambulance if I keel over!

danowat

My last MHR test was a couple of years ago, and like you, the idea of doing it again is pretty unappealing, so I've decided to try and work to threshold HR, basically 30mins of riding as hard as you can.

Maybe thats an option?

SBezza

niblue wrote:

I'd been working on 175 as a max HR but clearly that would appear to be wrong. I might need to bite the bullet and try for a maximum HR. Might do it on the turbo though, with my wife available to phone an ambulance if I keel over!

Well 178 needs to be the minimum starting point, as that is the maximum you have seen whilst riding. Given you have a nice hill, do a couple of repeats up it, and on the last one, near the top go hell for leather and see what happens, this should give you a pretty good idea.

I can't get near my MaxHR on a turbo, in fact I realised mine was wrong the other day, when I managed to get annoyed at a moped rider and decided to do some impromptu motorpacing to catch him up, as it was downhill as well I was a little surprised how high it got.

amaferanga

If you reached 178 bpm and you didn't really feel like you were pushing hard then I'd suggest that your maximum HR is quite a bit higher.

FWIW I also find my HR on the turbo is generally lower for a given perceived effort compared to the road.

cyco2

Is it possible that a fit rider(age42) and a fat rider will have a different MHR because the fat rider cannot drive the heart to max. So, that as the fat riders gets fitter they will need to check the MHR again.?

I have used this when getting a rough idea. Also, the bit about the 50 year old is spot on. Mine was 175.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
.
.
.

danowat

cyco2 wrote:

Is it possible that a fit rider(age42) and a fat rider will have a different MHR because the fat rider cannot drive the heart to max. So, that as the fat riders gets fitter they will need to check the MHR again.?

I have used this when getting a rough idea. Also, the bit about the 50 year old is spot on. Mine was 175.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
.
.
.

No, MHR is genetic, its unique to the individual, regardless of weight and fitness.

MHR never changes, well, thats a lie, it does, your MHR reduces about 1bpm every year as the heart muscle fibres harden with age.

There is no "rough idea" in MHR, it is what it is for you.

SBezza

cyco2 wrote:

Is it possible that a fit rider(age42) and a fat rider will have a different MHR because the fat rider cannot drive the heart to max. So, that as the fat riders gets fitter they will need to check the MHR again.?

I have used this when getting a rough idea. Also, the bit about the 50 year old is spot on. Mine was 175.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
.
.
.

I doubt it, but then again I am not in the medical profession. Now staying near the MaxHR might be very difficult to the unfit rider, but the fitter rider will be able to sustain near his max for longer.

MaxHR is so individual that no calculation can get it right, unless it happens to be a coincidence.

SteveR_100Milers

An unfit rider might even be more likely to reach their MHR simply because it has to work much harder much sooner after an all out anearobic effort than it would for a trained athlete.

plankton_brain

cyco2 wrote:

Is it possible that a fit rider(age42) and a fat rider will have a different MHR because the fat rider cannot drive the heart to max. So, that as the fat riders gets fitter they will need to check the MHR again.?

I have used this when getting a rough idea. Also, the bit about the 50 year old is spot on. Mine was 175.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
.
.
.

I think that your MHR is the same, but the more you ride the and fitter you get the more you are able to ride at higher HR for longer, and get get higher readings, so the MHR that you have recorded gets higher. You also get better at pushing yourself as you learn that you are not in fact, about to die.

Im 41 and started riding 12 months ago. My recorded MHR was 185 when I first started. Since then it has crept up very gradually to 191. Still hav'nt been physically sick, so probably goit a little way to go :-)


And always see higher averages on the road than on the turbo. I think its just Turbos not as motivating as fellow riders/hills/town name signs etc.

cyco2

plankton_brain wrote:

Im 41 and started riding 12 months ago. My recorded MHR was 185 when I first started. Since then it has crept up very gradually to 191. Still hav'nt been physically sick, so probably goit a little way to go :-)
And always see higher averages on the road than on the turbo. I think its just Turbos not as motivating as fellow riders/hills/town name signs etc.

Many thanks for your replies. My assessment of the answers is that it is harder for a fat athlete to gain a MHR because they would not be able to overcome the effort of moving the extra fat around. Your muscles would get filled with waste and slow you down before you achieved MHR.

plankton...I find your HR readings are quite remarkable and buck the trend. I would be inclined to do the checks with another monitor. If they are confirmed then you have many beats in hand over other athletes and this could be very advantageous in your age group. Does bare some research..

There is a programme for getting MHR on a Turbo. Although its more fun doing it on the road.
.
.
.

P_Tucker

cyco2 wrote:

Many thanks for your replies. My assessment of the answers is that it is harder for a fat athlete to gain a MHR because they would not be able to overcome the effort of moving the extra fat around. Your muscles would get filled with waste and slow you down before you achieved MHR.

This is brilliant on at least two levels.

danowat

cyco2 wrote:

plankton_brain wrote:

Im 41 and started riding 12 months ago. My recorded MHR was 185 when I first started. Since then it has crept up very gradually to 191. Still hav'nt been physically sick, so probably goit a little way to go :-)
And always see higher averages on the road than on the turbo. I think its just Turbos not as motivating as fellow riders/hills/town name signs etc.

Many thanks for your replies. My assessment of the answers is that it is harder for a fat athlete to gain a MHR because they would not be able to overcome the effort of moving the extra fat around. Your muscles would get filled with waste and slow you down before you achieved MHR.

plankton...I find your HR readings are quite remarkable and buck the trend. I would be inclined to do the checks with another monitor. If they are confirmed then you have many beats in hand over other athletes and this could be very advantageous in your age group. Does bare some research..

There is a programme for getting MHR on a Turbo. Although its more fun doing it on the road.
.
.
.

Gain a MHR?, not even sure what this remotely means.

There is nothing advantageous in a high MHR, like there is nothing advatageous in a low MHR, it is what it is, there is nothing even remotely remarkable in having either a high, or low MHR, there is no "trend" in MHR, you can't predict someones MHR accurately from their fitness level, weight, height, age or any other attribute, its a basic, physiological level that an individual has.

I's argue a "fat" person can hit a higher HR, quicker (maybe even MHR) than a fitter one, I know what I was 10 stone heavier, my HR was much, much higher for a given effort level than it is now, MHR is still the same though......

niblue

Thanks for the input.

I went out on the mountain bike last night (in pretty nasty & windy conditions) and for that ride my average HR was 145 with a max of 167bpm (and that also starts with climbing the same on-road hill) - which was more in line with what I'm used to and also what I see on the turbo. On the road bike and on the road it just looks like I'm tending to push a little bit harder, hence the higher heart rate.

I suspect I'll probably need to moderate that for longer rides.

niblue

It definitely seems to be the case that I'm seeing much higher HR's on the road than on the turbo. I've just done the Sufferfest Downward Spiral and for that my average was 138 and max 163bpm - despite feeling like I was pushing much harder in the intervals than I was when I saw 178bpm on the road.

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/63457699

SBezza

cyco2 wrote:

plankton_brain wrote:

Im 41 and started riding 12 months ago. My recorded MHR was 185 when I first started. Since then it has crept up very gradually to 191. Still hav'nt been physically sick, so probably goit a little way to go :-)
And always see higher averages on the road than on the turbo. I think its just Turbos not as motivating as fellow riders/hills/town name signs etc.

plankton...I find your HR readings are quite remarkable and buck the trend. I would be inclined to do the checks with another monitor. If they are confirmed then you have many beats in hand over other athletes and this could be very advantageous in your age group. Does bare some research..

There is no trend in MaxHR, it is what it is for each individual, no-one can offer any indication of what a persons MaxHR will be apart from that individual working out as hard as he/she can manage and see what it ends up as.

Having a high MaxHR means nothing if you can't maintain near that level, and this takes training to achieve. Someone ability is limited to how much power they produce, not their HR.

Mine is 189 bpm, and possibly higher if I done an all out ramp test, and I am 41.