Heart rate question

Bar Shaker

Since getting back on my bike after my leg break, I have been wearing a HRM.

My max is typically 183 (I am 51 years old).

Should I be concerned that most of my riding is in zones 4 and 5?

Yesterday's 43 mile ride was at avg 17.6mph and had Strava suffer scoring of 204 with 173 in the red.

Am I going to croak?

dilatory

Put simply, yes. In an act of pure selflessness, I will come and take your bikes from you so you aren't tempted to ride them again.

imposter2.0

Bar Shaker wrote:

Since getting back on my bike after my leg break, I have been wearing a HRM.

My max is typically 183 (I am 51 years old).

Should I be concerned that most of my riding is in zones 4 and 5?

Yesterday's 43 mile ride was at avg 17.6mph and had Strava suffer scoring of 204 with 173 in the red.

Am I going to croak?

Not sure what you mean when you say your max is 'typically' 183? Either it is, or it isn't. In any case, 43 miles at 95% of your max HR would be practically impossible to achieve, so there is clearly something wrong with the numbers somewhere...

jgsi

dilatory wrote:

Put simply, yes. In an act of pure selflessness, I will come and take your bikes from you so you aren't tempted to ride them again.

I'd just cash the Boardmans in on Ebay....

to address your zonal issue..
You cannot just use HR for training purposes.
If a HRM is the only bit of kit you have then you'll have to combine it with RPE, to self regulate the efforts.
RPE is obviously pretty much subjective so you'll have to be honest with yourself.
You max of 183 should (using 1-10 scale) be at 10 obviously and thus not sustainable for any length of time.
If you have an interval of riding at circa 183 for 15 minutes or so , then it aint your MHR for sure.
Just Google RPE and Borg scale.. lots of reading material for you.

KINGGARY

I would think it would be very hard to maintain a ride in those zones without some very controlled efforts.
I would suggest either you must have been flat out (in which case very impressive) or either your max is recorded incorrectly or you have some erroneous reading caused by large spikes in the data (poss shirt flapping when descending)
Zone 5 on Strava is anaerobic so short periods of intense oxygen debt only.

ai_1

Agree with the previous posts. It's possible that this is an indication of some physiological issue but it's much, much more likely that it's evidence that your max HR is much higher than you think or you're getting spurious readings.
I wouldn't start worrying unduely just yet.

Bar Shaker wrote:

...Am I going to croak?

Certainly. I can't help with a time frame though.

JGSI wrote:

.....You cannot just use HR for training purposes.....

Why?

CYCLESPORT1

Bin it !

Bar Shaker

My max HR has been hit a few times recently including again on Sat. I took 20 secs off a long standing PB climbing the biggest hill in Essex. It is 5'40 of climb and I was close to or at 183 for much of it. The work rate felt as much as I can do. My jersey is skin tight and doesn't flap. The graphs from all rides since using a monitor have been similar and this isn't a spiking thing. I have also changed HRMs as now using the one that came with my 1000 for the last 3 rides.

Could my max actually be higher and my zone are set up too low?

I feel I am throwing everything at the rides but don't feel ill.

JackPozzi

Have you actually done a max heart rate test, or are you using the highest you've seen as your max?

imposter2.0

Bar Shaker wrote:

It is 5'40 of climb and I was close to or at 183 for much of it. The work rate felt as much as I can do.

You can not sustain or get close to your MHR for 5+ minutes. MHR is something you hit at maximal anaerobic effort, just before you need to back right off. Sounds as though 183 is more like your HR at Vo2 max or LTHR.

charlie_potatoes

Imposter wrote:

MHR is something you hit at maximal anaerobic effort, just before you need to back right off.

And you will probably need to be well rested and not carrying any residual fatigue into the workout.

ai_1

Bar Shaker wrote:

My max HR has been hit a few times recently including again on Sat. I took 20 secs off a long standing PB climbing the biggest hill in Essex. It is 5'40 of climb and I was close to or at 183 for much of it. The work rate felt as much as I can do. My jersey is skin tight and doesn't flap. The graphs from all rides since using a monitor have been similar and this isn't a spiking thing. I have also changed HRMs as now using the one that came with my 1000 for the last 3 rides.

Could my max actually be higher and my zone are set up too low?

I feel I am throwing everything at the rides but don't feel ill.

If you maintained this value or hit it more than once on a climb plus you didn't have to stop then it's not really your max HR. To check your actual max HR on the road I think the protocol is to start up a moderate climb and gradually increase pace over a few minutes culminating in a flat out effort to exhaustion. It should be extremely difficult and I think you would only hit the max HR figure for a couple of seconds before having no choice but to stop cycling and recover. If you plan to try this look it up as I may not have that spot on!

[duplicates some comments above - they typed faster]

JayKosta

I wouldn't worry about max HR, instead use 'relative perceived exertion'.

Also, be sure to understand that 'improvement' comes during the rest and recovery time between exercise session. The stress from exercise is what induces your body to become stronger - but the rest and recovery time is necessary for that to happen.
Long term exercise without adequate recovery will cause fatigue to accumulate, and a reduction in strength. Attempting to do hard exercise when you are already fatigued will just dig you deeper into the fatigue 'hole'.

The 'trick' to a successful exercise program is finding the blend of exercise stress and recovery time that gives good results without injury or illness.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

hypster

Bar Shaker wrote:

My max HR has been hit a few times recently including again on Sat. I took 20 secs off a long standing PB climbing the biggest hill in Essex. It is 5'40 of climb and I was close to or at 183 for much of it. The work rate felt as much as I can do. My jersey is skin tight and doesn't flap.

I live in Essex. Just out of interest what hill is that and where do you start and finish?

jgsi

Ai_1 wrote:

Agree with the previous posts. It's possible that this is an indication of some physiological issue but it's much, much more likely that it's evidence that your max HR is much higher than you think or you're getting spurious readings.
I wouldn't start worrying unduely just yet.

Bar Shaker wrote:

...Am I going to croak?

Certainly. I can't help with a time frame though.

JGSI wrote:

.....You cannot just use HR for training purposes.....

Why?

No worries, I've annotated an exemption for you.. carry on just using HR.

Barbarossa

Your heartrate increases as fitness decreases. If you have been laid-off for a few months with a broken leg, it is likely that you will see a heartrate 10 - 20 bpm for the same PE. It will come down as you get fitter.

Bar Shaker

hypster wrote:

Bar Shaker wrote:

My max HR has been hit a few times recently including again on Sat. I took 20 secs off a long standing PB climbing the biggest hill in Essex. It is 5'40 of climb and I was close to or at 183 for much of it. The work rate felt as much as I can do. My jersey is skin tight and doesn't flap.

I live in Eseex. Just out of interest what hill is that and where do you start and finish?

North Hill in Danbury. Start at Papermill Lock.

Thanks guys you are kind of reassuring me that the numbers will come down in time. Here are the numbers, in case they throw up anything I am missing.

KINGGARY

Your max is incorrect there is no way you could spend nearly 23 minutes at anearobic effort on a ride the length.
The last hilly ride I did resulted in less than a minute anearobic as I simply wouldn't have been able to continue with a 100 mile sportive if I kept going anearobic.
Firstly make sure you have no underlying health issues then carry out a proper max hr test, you will know when you hit your max as you will wish the earth would open up and put you out of your misery !

ai_1

JGSI wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Agree with the previous posts. It's possible that this is an indication of some physiological issue but it's much, much more likely that it's evidence that your max HR is much higher than you think or you're getting spurious readings.
I wouldn't start worrying unduely just yet.

Bar Shaker wrote:

...Am I going to croak?

Certainly. I can't help with a time frame though.

JGSI wrote:

.....You cannot just use HR for training purposes.....

Why?

No worries, I've annotated an exemption for you.. carry on just using HR.

Your responses continue to be cryptic and unhelpful!
I neither disagreed with you nor said I personally use only HR, did I?
I simply asked for the rationale behind your assertion.
I don't take advice blindly. If you expect me to then your advice is worthless. If you don't know the reason then your "knowledge" is worthless. That's all.

Bar Shaker

A bit more checking has revealed that Strava had based my MHR on a spurious figure of 175 (probably based on age), not what I am actually hitting.

This is how it now looks...



Thanks for your help guys, I appreciate it.

t4tomo

Presumably max heart rate is what you hit just before your heart gives up and dies, and hence no one living has actually achieved their max heart rate in a "test"?

ai_1

t4tomo wrote:

Presumably max heart rate is what you hit just before your heart gives up and dies, and hence no one living has actually achieved their max heart rate in a "test"?

Why would you presume that?
Max HR is the max your heart to which your heart rate will rise at maximum exertion. It will not go higher so you must back off. You have no choice. Nothing to do with dying unless heavy exertion were to trigger some existing defect.

charlie_potatoes

t4tomo wrote:

Presumably max heart rate is what you hit just before your heart gives up and dies, and hence no one living has actually achieved their max heart rate in a "test"?

Are you getting it confused with Minimum heart rate?

imposter2.0

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Presumably max heart rate is what you hit just before your heart gives up and dies, and hence no one living has actually achieved their max heart rate in a "test"?

Are you getting it confused with Minimum heart rate?

Precisely. I challenge anyone to hold 0bpm for any length of time...

careful

Sounds like all is well Bar Shaker, but a word of caution for others who may have an unusually high heart rate for their age. My max rate was around 200 since I started using a monitor 6 years ago, and I am over 60 years old. I had no problem symtoms, but I now know that I had atrial fibrillation and the meter was counting the fluttering beats. This was accompanied by an at rest rate of about 45bpm. I thought I must be super fit. In fact it was caused by intermittent pauses (not a good thing). The AF has now been fixed by cardioversion (electric shock on the chest), and I have a pacemaker to sort the pauses. Not wanting to scare anyone, bit unusual heart rhythms need to be checked out!

Bar Shaker

careful wrote:

Sounds like all is well Bar Shaker, but a word of caution for others who may have an unusually high heart rate for their age. My max rate was around 200 since I started using a monitor 6 years ago, and I am over 60 years old. I had no problem symtoms, but I now know that I had atrial fibrillation and the meter was counting the fluttering beats. This was accompanied by an at rest rate of about 45bpm. I thought I must be super fit. In fact it was caused by intermittent pauses (not a good thing). The AF has now been fixed by cardioversion (electric shock on the chest), and I have a pacemaker to sort the pauses. Not wanting to scare anyone, bit unusual heart rhythms need to be checked out!

Thanks and I may yet get checked out. The formulas give me a max of much less than I have, although I get nothing like what you were getting. I have since seen that on Saturday I was up to 193 and was over 190 for about 5 seconds, in a smooth line, rather than a spike. That seems way too high for my age. BP tested at 158/85 and a resting pulse of 76 on Monday.

ai_1

Bar Shaker wrote:

careful wrote:

Sounds like all is well Bar Shaker, but a word of caution for others who may have an unusually high heart rate for their age. My max rate was around 200 since I started using a monitor 6 years ago, and I am over 60 years old. I had no problem symtoms, but I now know that I had atrial fibrillation and the meter was counting the fluttering beats. This was accompanied by an at rest rate of about 45bpm. I thought I must be super fit. In fact it was caused by intermittent pauses (not a good thing). The AF has now been fixed by cardioversion (electric shock on the chest), and I have a pacemaker to sort the pauses. Not wanting to scare anyone, bit unusual heart rhythms need to be checked out!

Thanks and I may yet get checked out. The formulas give me a max of much less than I have, although I get nothing like what you were getting. I have since seen that on Saturday I was up to 193 and was over 190 for about 5 seconds, in a smooth line, rather than a spike. That seems way too high for my age. BP tested at 158/85 and a resting pulse of 76 on Monday.

Bear in mind that HR monitors aren't infallible. They do make mistakes occasionally and some people seem to get erroneous readings more often than others. I don't know if that's down to the hardware, the user or the conditions.
I have occassionally gotten excessively high HR readings which trend in line with my exertion but at too high a level. In my case this rarely happens on the bike but has happened several times at the start of a run. I assume it's an error in the pattern recognition used to convert electrical signals to a HR figure, possibly due to poor contact when cold. For example I would be running or riding at an exertion that I'd expect to correspond with a HR of about 140 but instead the reading would be 185. An increase in effort would see that figure rise and vice versa. Then after a minute or two the value would plummet and settle at the expected level. I may be wrong but the erroneous readings usually seem to be in a 4:3 ratio to the rate I would expect.

Anyway, I'm not saying everything is fine but it most likely is. Check it out but don't panic! It's quite possible that the readings are at fault, not your heart.

I had some chest pain a couple of years ago and because no-one could find a cause I was referred to a cardiac specialist who ended up thoroughly checking out my heart (24hr BP monitor, multiple static and one stress ECG, Heart echo, Cardiac Cat-scan). I was basically told my heart was in great shape and to come back in 20 years (I was 36 at the time). Nothing was found wrong and yet my HRmax is about 20bpm above what the formulas would predict and I have gotten several funny HR monitor results. Variation from the formulas for HRmax is common. If the difference is massive, maybe get checked out to be sure.

Chinley Churner

Forget Max HR, test for Functional Threshold Heart Rate and calculate zones from that, far more reliable.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/ ... D_TEST.pdf

Stalin

Chinley Churner wrote:

Forget Max HR, test for Functional Threshold Heart Rate and calculate zones from that, far more reliable.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/ ... D_TEST.pdf

Sportiv training plans? Is this a joke?

ai_1

Stalin wrote:

Sportiv training plans? Is this a joke?

Do you intend to share why you consider this funny?

charlie_potatoes

Stalin wrote:

Chinley Churner wrote:

Forget Max HR, test for Functional Threshold Heart Rate and calculate zones from that, far more reliable.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/ ... D_TEST.pdf

FTP is a term invented by Dr Andrew Coggan. Dr Coggan considers heart rate, if you know power to be redundant at best and at worst misleading. These people are wasting your time.

Functional Threshold Heart Rate is meaningless.

You can't mind meld power terms with heart rate. Power is power, heart rate is heart rate.

It is unfair to Dr Coggan to transcribe and adulterate his power terms into heart rate terms.

The heart rate at which a given power occurs is variable.

Sportiv training plans? Is this a joke?

Welcome back