Fitness & Heart Rate

equinefunk

Hi,

I have been a MTB rider for a lot of years, but have started riding with a more serious group of riders recently. During this I've discovered how unfit I really am. i want some advice on how to get fitter but also a some advise on Heart Rates.

I did the Red Route at Dalby forest yesterday, I looked at my HRM after the ride & it showed that I burnt over 3000kcals over the 4 hour ride. I only manage 5 mph as an average speed which is a lot lower than I used to for a similar ride.

Even slight inclines were causing me a problem, I had to spin up everything in low gear, but the thing I noticed was my HRM showed my Heart Rate at 160-170 a lot. I am 40 year old & I'm probably a stone overweight. My "zone" according to my Polar is 152 max.

I presume that the higher Heart Rate is why I'm so tired riding, how can I improve my fitness to get this down? Which is the best method & how often?

Should I be using a HRM?

I've started a diet as of this morning which will hopefully reduce the amount of weight I'm lugging up the hills.

At the end of the ride I felt OK, but during it I felt totally drained.

Thanks in advance.

ollie51

For a heart rate monitor to be effective, you need to know your max heart rate, there are numerous estimates. This:

A much more accurate formula is 210 minus half your age, then subtract 5% of your body weight in pounds. Add four for a male and 0 for a female.

Is considered to be the most accurate.

I think what's happened is your hrm as set zones that are based upon your aerobic training zone, and if you didn't leave that whilst climbing at normal pace, you're not pushing yourself.

It may also be useful to refer to this: http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ics-28838/

Did you stop during the ride?

Also the fact you burnt 3000 kcal could be worrying. Did you eat well a couple of hours prior to the ride? and did you eat during the ride, you may have bonked slightly meaning you will have slowed down.

In terms of training, you'd best go for 3 structured sessions a week, perhaps a long ride in excess of 2.5 hours which should be in zone 1 or 2 then perhaps a moderate intensity ride that should be in zone 3 or 4 for at least an hour.

Finally an intervals session, these will be hard. You might not be fit enough yet to do this properly. Make sure you're rested. You should go for a 2-3 minute hill, sprint up and then free wheel down and do it 4-8 times dependant on how you feel. Take 5-10 mins easy spinning and then use the same hill again except only go half way up or for 60 seconds worth (you can use a different hill obviously) again repeat 4-8 times.

Tank-slapper

A heart rate of 160-170 doesn't sound excessive. I am 43 yrs old and regularly reach 190 which is more than my calculated maximum.

I doubt you burned 3,000 calories in 4 hours, especially riding at 5mph. Your HRM cannot be setup correctly. If it thinks that your max is 152 and then measures your heart doing 160-170, it will overestimate the calories burned. Calculate your max heart rate using the formula in the post above and reset your HRM.

equinefunk

Thanks for the responses.

Thanks for the advice & link ollie51. I'm taking that on board & I'm looking at my training starting for this weekend. I have a Turbo Trainer so will drag that out as well.

I did stop regularly & I did have lunch at about 14miles of the 21mile ride.

My Max MR is not 152.
I have a Polar FT4 & my max HR was calculated at 180.
My Zone which I presume is the Aerobic exercise zone was 152 maximum.

My average speed was based on 4000feet of climbing (and decending) over the ride. My normal average over this sort of ride would be closer 8-9mph.

I just felt exhausted & couldn't even enjoy the downhill sections or even the flats.

njee20

A much more accurate formula is 210 minus half your age, then subtract 5% of your body weight in pounds. Add four for a male and 0 for a female.

Is considered to be the most accurate.

FWIW that gives me exactly the same result as 220 - age (194 bpm). At Mayhem I managed 204, and I regularly used to go higher, so they're still just estimates.

Much better to test yourself on a very big hill, gradually ramp up the intensity.

To be honest, the number itself means very little, some people will be knackered at a lower HR, others will be chatting away at 20bpm higher (me for one).

Don't get hung up on pre-defined HR zones. In essence, if it's hard, you need to ride more! Long steady rides will build a base fitness, intervals will likely have little effect until you have a decent underlying fitness.

And 3000 calories over 4 hours is vaguely possible, but likely a significant over estimation.

equinefunk

Thanks again....
Dragged actual data from Polar - first part of the ride before lunch

23kms
2hrs
1888kcals
149bpm avg
172 bpm max
49mins in Zone 117 - 156bpm

11kms
1.21hrs
1293kcal
153bpm avg
168bpm max
25mins in Zone

Distance are rough as they're taken from my Garmin so I can't remember exactly

ollie51

Also using the max heart rate that you get from your monitor will generally be higher than it is, this is due to the way the monitor records, for example if I went by my monitor, my max is 235 which it's not, the heart may have been working this fast for a fraction of a second however this does not constitute an accurate 'max'. Sports science testing reveals my max to be 203. NB my hrm regurlarly says I exceed this.

So it's worthwhile seeing if the local uni does sports science testing and giving them 100 quid for their work.

Tank-slapper

Your heart rate seems OK for a 40 yr old. How is your diet?

The calories burned still seem high. How heavy are you? Just had a thought - is your HRM a chest or wrist strap?

equinefunk

I'm 6'0 tall & weigh 96kg. I'm not a skinny guy either. I'm overweight to the tune of 8kg I would say.

The HRM is chest strap. I wore it for 5 a side the other night & for an hours play I burnt 890 kcals.

I am interested in finding out how to get fitter & to lower my HR, I sure that it's the reason I run out of steam on the big climbs. Got some rides planned for this evening & weekend to get started on.

njee20

my max is 235 which it's not, the heart may have been working this fast for a fraction of a second

MHR is the max you can achieve, there's no stipulation about how long you can hold it. However... if you can only get 203 under lab conditions and have once seen a spike to 235 on your HRM then there's obviously interference. However, if you regularly exceed 203 then your max is higher than 203!

turnerjohn

I would seriously forget about the "calculated" number of calogies burnt....its simply not accurate ! My Garmin told me I'd burnt 5k calories on the last 100miler I did ...guessing was closer to 4k as could have gone harder !

ollie51

njee20 wrote:

my max is 235 which it's not, the heart may have been working this fast for a fraction of a second

MHR is the max you can achieve, there's no stipulation about how long you can hold it. However... if you can only get 203 under lab conditions and have once seen a spike to 235 on your HRM then there's obviously interference. However, if you regularly exceed 203 then your max is higher than 203!

It's only ever for a very, very short time though, It's never above 203 for more than a second. Although the vast majority of these spikes happen when riding along at a normal pace which is almkst definitley some form of interference.

njee20

Sounds like it then, but if you hit 204 on a climb for 1/10th of a second your MHR is 204...

Tank-slapper

At 96kg, 3,000 calories may be accurate. However, if you are on a diet AND burning 3,000 calories every ride, you will be running a serious energy deficit. No wonder you feel drained.

Try to burn about 500 calories per day more than you eat. So, if you bum around and watch tv all day, eat about 2000 cals. If you go on a bike ride, eat about 5000 (or whatever you figure you need). Doing this should drop your weight by about 1kg of flab a week and you won't be burning muscle tissue like you are at the moment.

ollie51

njee20 wrote:

Sounds like it then, but if you hit 204 on a climb for 1/10th of a second your MHR is 204...

I work out my zones using my threshold anyway, so it doesn't matter too much.. but I can't recall it recording any more than 203 with out it appearing to be anomalous.

Right back to the topic, I think in your situation perhaps using the RPE is a good idea, is your hrm compatible with your pc so you can do some form of analysis?

equinefunk

Thanks for the advice, 1kg a week is a lot to lose, I'm sticking at it then.

lvquestpaddler

I had my fitness assessed properly when I was 32, heart rate deflection point was at 194bpm where on paper it should have been 188bpm.
That's the only true way of getting your Max HR.
I used to train with a heart monitor but got fed up it was taking the fun out of everything and it was constantly reading higher than it should in comparison to how I felt, so I'm sure individuals are totally different.
I just go by perceived exertion now and listen to my body and breathing.... 8)

middleagedmaninlycra

equinefunk wrote:

I'm 6'0 tall & weigh 96kg. I'm not a skinny guy either. I'm overweight to the tune of 8kg I would say.

I'm pretty much the same size as you, but started the year at 105kg. I'm also pushing 47.

Next month (Aug 21-27) I'm mountain biking over the Alps to raise money for a UK charity. It involves 460km and 10,650m of climbing in six days.

I'm doing two days a week on the turbo trainer (check out www.turbotraining.co.uk ), two days core/strength training and two days with long rides and lots of climbing (last ride, 70km, ascent 2,000m).

At the beginning of the year I could hardly climb out of bed. So stick with it, whatever training you. The rewards will come.