Over 50 Riding Advice pls......
Comments
-
I take your point that it's not 'dreamt up'. but did the doctors/scientists/researchers, actually take a lot of people to the max?
I can't imagine that anyone other than someone interested in getting to max, actually put in the effort.
If it was a person off the street they were testing, i'd be very surprised if they were encouraged or even allowed to push themselves to max.
if it were a bunch of fit young students there would be less worries about killing someone doing the test, but that's not a representative sample.
if it were middle aged couch potatoes i don't think they would push to max, just maybe what the subject said was max.
if it was an elderly and ill subject, nowhere near max.
middle aged and fit? they would probably be able to push quite hard to max.
middle aged and ill? again probably not allowed to push to max.
So they may have mixed in info from some ill people, some fit people and some average people, and somehow come up with a number that suits everyone?
there are several different bell curves trying to fit under one umbrella.
I stand by my assertion that the numbers are basically meaningless. In my own, very small, sample. no-one was near the predicted numbers.
my own data set also shows the age part to be useless. my max number should change every year. however, my max has been the same for over the 10 years i've been using a hrm.
it's only cycling i do. due to a back injury i can't run so i'm not worried that max on a bike is less than it might be doing a more general form of exercise.
You are missing the point entirely about the 220-age Max HR formula !!
220 - Age is a Medically recommended Max, not your 'supposed' actual achievable Max, so of course you 'can get it higher', as we all can, but the formula is there to point out what is perhaps 'safe' for you to Max at.
If you want to go higher, and regularly do, thats up to you, but I'm sure that qualified medical personel would perhaps advise you that you're placing your Heart under duress doing so.
Still, up to you.
Oh, and I'm sure the boffins used a suitable cross section of fit & able persons to arrive at the stats, rather than a bunch of ill pensioners as you suggest may have been included :roll:0 -
You are missing the point entirely about the 220-age Max HR formula !!
220 - Age is a Medically recommended Max, not your 'supposed' actual achievable Max, so of course you 'can get it higher', as we all can, but the formula is there to point out what is perhaps 'safe' for you to Max at.
That is utter nonsense. It is not a 'medically recommended' figure.. Where did you read that?0 -
You are missing the point entirely about the 220-age Max HR formula !!
220 - Age is a Medically recommended Max, not your 'supposed' actual achievable Max, so of course you 'can get it higher', as we all can, but the formula is there to point out what is perhaps 'safe' for you to Max at.
If you want to go higher, and regularly do, thats up to you, but I'm sure that qualified medical personel would perhaps advise you that you're placing your Heart under duress doing so.
Still, up to you.
Oh, and I'm sure the boffins used a suitable cross section of fit & able persons to arrive at the stats, rather than a bunch of ill pensioners as you suggest may have been included :roll:
i know it's recommended, but it has no bearing on what the individual can do.
lets pretend you get a hrm and don't try to find your max. you input the numbers 220-51 = 169. you put that into the hrm as your max. now when out riding, you look at the numbers and it tells you you are in the red but you don't feel that stressed, but the device says your working too hard, so you knock off the pace. then you come to a hill and work harder, so you're 'in the red' again, too knock off the pace would mean slowing down so much you might need to get off and walk.
or you may be blowing out your arse on a climb and it's telling you you're in zone 3 and can potentially go much harder.
or, quite unlikely, it may be spot on.
so if the numbers don't equate to real world efforts, there is no point getting a hrm and putting in numbers that don't fit you.
and you have to change the numbers on your birthday.
as for your last point, if they don't include all, then it's not a representational cross section. As for fit and able people being used for the stats. you are concerned you are not fit and able, so the numbers given would be no good for you anyway.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Heart rate is important particularly to anyone with any cardiac issues. It depends to a degree what the root cause of your AF is, but the only person than can advise you on this is your own gp.
Being in the same age bracket as you I always ride with a heart rate monitor and use that to pace myself. I did an experiment today, rode the same climb twice on a route I hadn't ridden before, firstly without a heart monitor and secondly with one. First time I thought I was pacing myself ok, but I felt like crap at the top of the hill, second time I rode to keep my HR below 150. The second time felt unbelieveably slow, and my top speed was indeed slower, but according to Strava the second run was faster and I was still able to speak at the top 8)
Not sure what this proves, apart from that I need to work on my cardio fitness obviously as that's the limiting factor, but there may be something in this 220-age theory.0 -
You are missing the point entirely about the 220-age Max HR formula !!
220 - Age is a Medically recommended Max, not your 'supposed' actual achievable Max, so of course you 'can get it higher', as we all can, but the formula is there to point out what is perhaps 'safe' for you to Max at.
That is utter nonsense. It is not a 'medically recommended' figure.. Where did you read that?
Well what the hell do you think it is ? & who do you think 'made it up' ??0 -
You are missing the point entirely about the 220-age Max HR formula !!
220 - Age is a Medically recommended Max, not your 'supposed' actual achievable Max, so of course you 'can get it higher', as we all can, but the formula is there to point out what is perhaps 'safe' for you to Max at.
That is utter nonsense. It is not a 'medically recommended' figure.. Where did you read that?
Well what the hell do you think it is ? & who do you think 'made it up' ??
http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong/0 -
You are missing the point entirely about the 220-age Max HR formula !!
220 - Age is a Medically recommended Max, not your 'supposed' actual achievable Max, so of course you 'can get it higher', as we all can, but the formula is there to point out what is perhaps 'safe' for you to Max at.
If you want to go higher, and regularly do, thats up to you, but I'm sure that qualified medical personel would perhaps advise you that you're placing your Heart under duress doing so.
Still, up to you.
Oh, and I'm sure the boffins used a suitable cross section of fit & able persons to arrive at the stats, rather than a bunch of ill pensioners as you suggest may have been included :roll:
i know it's recommended, but it has no bearing on what the individual can do.
lets pretend you get a hrm and don't try to find your max. you input the numbers 220-51 = 169. you put that into the hrm as your max. now when out riding, you look at the numbers and it tells you you are in the red but you don't feel that stressed, but the device says your working too hard, so you knock off the pace. then you come to a hill and work harder, so you're 'in the red' again, too knock off the pace would mean slowing down so much you might need to get off and walk.
or you may be blowing out your ars* on a climb and it's telling you you're in zone 3 and can potentially go much harder.
or, quite unlikely, it may be spot on.
so if the numbers don't equate to real world efforts, there is no point getting a hrm and putting in numbers that don't fit you.
and you have to change the numbers on your birthday.
as for your last point, if they don't include all, then it's not a representational cross section. As for fit and able people being used for the stats. you are concerned you are not fit and able, so the numbers given would be no good for you anyway.
I really dont think you have any grasp on the fact at all, that 220-age is what's supposed to be the Max SAFE heart rate for any given individual.
So - if 220 - 53 = 167 is my own 'safe' limit, and I pootle about at 65% of it, which is 108/110 ish, then I'm clearly gonna be comfortable, with perhaps increases to 130/140/150 in bursts, or when climbing. Thats all gonna be safe, allegedly, for ME.
Yes, perhaps I could pound my ticker to a stupid Max of 190/200 or whatever you say is your max, but thats clearly, at 53, going to potentially risky, thats why the formula is well known for us all to use. (or not in many peoples cases.)
Anyway, I arent gonna debate this more, I didnt start off an argument, or try to, I was simply curious as to how hard some work in their 50's, and clearly some work very hard, very often, without concern. Perhaps they'l always be fit like that, perhaps one day they'l die, I dunno, its up to each one individually.
I've had a check up, and will discuss things with a Doc, with regard in particular to this damned AF which is really only triggered by booze, but being there to some extent, I want to know more, and how safe to be when out riding.
Ultimately, I know that I arent a fan of thrashing myself when out riding, so arent too concerned, but information is good to have.
I just want to stay fit, enjoy the ride, enjoy the chat, and enjoy the views, particularly in the summer, as its way too brief. My ride this evening, in the darkness, wasnt anywhere near as much fun, roll on spring.0 -
Are you just trolling - or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the science of this? 220-age is NOT a 'max safe HR' - did you not look at the link I posted?0
-
Are you just trolling - or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the science of this? 220-age is NOT a 'max safe HR' - did you not look at the link I posted?
LOL - yeh, you post 1 link that supposedly tears the theory to shreds, and in turn there must be 1000's, or hundreds of thousands, thats support it.
With little effort, here you go:
https://www.bhf.org.uk/~/media/files/publications/medical-information-sheets/your-heart-rate-is23.pdf0 -
Are you just trolling - or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the science of this? 220-age is NOT a 'max safe HR' - did you not look at the link I posted?
I don't know if the OP did, but I read it. There's no science in that article whatsoever, which is not really surprising as the author, whilst she may have done lots of triathlons is not a Cardiologist, nor indeed has she any medical training. She is however a 'serial entrepreneur' running a business selling stuff, so I'm not convinced she has any more credibility than the study she is decrying.
220-age is obviously not accurate for everyone, but it's a pretty reasonable starting point. If you know of a way to get a more accurate figure which doesn't involve a battery of medical tests I'd be interested. Most importantly though, the OP has a heart condition, so listening to someone who is trying to sell him training bumf rather than to his own doctor would be crazy.0 -
I don't know if the OP did, but I read it. There's no science in that article whatsoever, which is not really surprising as the author, whilst she may have done lots of triathlons is not a Cardiologist, nor indeed has she any medical training. She is however a 'serial entrepreneur' running a business selling stuff, so I'm not convinced she has any more credibility than the study she is decrying.
Whoever she is is not relevant - although she does quote the work of a clinician who has authored a significant amount of published research on the topic, so it's not all bad. Anyway, the point being made is that there is no science behind the 220-age formula.0 -
Are you just trolling - or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the science of this? 220-age is NOT a 'max safe HR' - did you not look at the link I posted?
LOL - yeh, you post 1 link that supposedly tears the theory to shreds, and in turn there must be 1000's, or hundreds of thousands, thats support it.
With little effort, here you go:
https://www.bhf.org.uk/~/media/files/publications/medical-information-sheets/your-heart-rate-is23.pdf
It doesn't sound like you've read the link I posted. So you think that every individual of the same age, anywhere in the world, will have the same max HR? Do you think that sounds reasonable??0 -
Are you just trolling - or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the science of this? 220-age is NOT a 'max safe HR' - did you not look at the link I posted?
I don't know if the OP did, but I read it. There's no science in that article whatsoever, which is not really surprising as the author, whilst she may have done lots of triathlons is not a Cardiologist, nor indeed has she any medical training. She is however a 'serial entrepreneur' running a business selling stuff, so I'm not convinced she has any more credibility than the study she is decrying.
220-age is obviously not accurate for everyone, but it's a pretty reasonable starting point. If you know of a way to get a more accurate figure which doesn't involve a battery of medical tests I'd be interested. Most importantly though, the OP has a heart condition, so listening to someone who is trying to sell him training bumf rather than to his own doctor would be crazy.
*applauds.....* well said........much better than I could.
8)0 -
It doesn't sound like you've read the link I posted. So you think that every individual of the same age, anywhere in the world, will have the same max HR? Do you think that sounds reasonable??
Not sue why you're unable to comprehend this ?
Yes - going by the formula, & if its recommended by the BHF, its safe to assume that its fairly credible, then yes, everyone of the same age, has the same recommended Max Heart Rate.
Whether you choose to adhere to it or not is clearly up to you, or your regard for your body, or not.0 -
It doesn't sound like you've read the link I posted. So you think that every individual of the same age, anywhere in the world, will have the same max HR? Do you think that sounds reasonable??
Are you thick ?
Yes - going by the formula, & if its recommended by the BHF, its safe to assume that its fairly credible, then yes, everyone of the same age, has the same recommended Max Heart Rate.
Whether you choose to adhere to it or not is clearly up to you, or your regard for your body, or not.
Wind your neck in fella.
I think I may have mentioned earlier, that my own 'actual' MHR is 15bpm over my age-adjusted '220' figure. In fact, every competitive cyclist I know has routinely ignored the '220' formula. Professional athletes across all sports routinely do the same. Are we all thick then?0 -
Yes - going by the formula, & if its recommended by the BHF, its safe to assume that its fairly credible,
Except it isn't - as even the most basic amount of research will tell you. I've no idea why the BHF chooses to adopt that formula, but if you can get past your own confirmation bias issues and look a bit further into it, you'll see it's not the case.0 -
Yes - going by the formula, & if its recommended by the BHF, its safe to assume that its fairly credible,
Except it isn't - as even the most basic amount of research will tell you. I've no idea why the BHF chooses to adopt that formula, but if you can get past your own confirmation bias issues and look a bit further into it, you'll see it's not the case.
The American Heart Association supports 220-age, as do various other sources. A proper study using actual science published in the journal,of tha American College of Cardiology (ie the guys who know what they're talking about) found that a better formula was 208-(age x 0.7), ie placing less weighting on the age factor. This equation shows that the traditional 220-age overestimates the maximum by 6 bpm at age 20 (194 as opposed to 200) and under estimates at age 70 (159 vs 150). If you're 40 incidentally, both equations agree. Even at the extreme ends of the age range the differences between the two are not significant, and given that 220-age is an easy formula to remember it remains, in my eyes anyway, perfectly valid.0 -
and given that 220-age is an easy formula to remember it remains, in my eyes anyway, perfectly valid.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, eh. You're welcome to it. It's an easy thing for over-weight couch potatos to remember, which - to be fair - is probably the target audience for the BHF and AHA websites. Just don't tell me it's valid. Almost any sports scientist or cardiologist will tell you it isn't.0 -
For crying out loud, the 220-age formula, and all more recent tweaks to it, are NOT (were not designed to be) estimates of safe heart rates, they are estimates of /maximum/ heart rates, i.e. the maximum rate that can be achieved. They have been shown to be wildly inaccurate for many people because of individual variation in heart rates (maximum and otherwise). How can an age-correlated estimate of /maximum heart/ rate with error bars larger than a decade of age possibly be used as an indicator of /safe/ heart rate? Think about it, FFS. If the estimate was actually accurate, then it would be impossible to exceed your maximum HR by definition. So the advice would basically equate to "it's dangerous to do the impossible". Of course it isn't accurate, nor is there even a specific HR for any healthy individual that it is dangerous to exceed.
Organisations such as the BHF and the AHF are using the formula as a way of providing a very approximate guideline of what a /target HR zone/ might be for moderate intensity exercise that should have little risk of being harmful to most people, bearing in mind that some people have underlying health issues but would also benefit from doing some exercise. This doesn't mean that anything greater than moderate intensity exercise is harmful to most people (even if the formula was capable of accurately estimating anything), or that moderate intensity exercise is the best exercise for healthy people to do.0 -
Put away the mental barriers. Whilst its important to remain cognisant of one's personal health condition, age shouldn't be a barrier to doing anything in life.
If you have a health condition be sensible about it; if you haven't why stop doing something you've enjoyed because of 'what if'? As you get older, increasing age is more about tailoring the activity to suit an individuals circumstances and managing the expectations.0 -
For crying out loud, the 220-age formula, and all more recent tweaks to it, are NOT (were not designed to be) estimates of safe heart rates, they are estimates of /maximum/ heart rates, i.e. the maximum rate that can be achieve
Wrong. Completely wrong.
220 - Age will give you your Max Recommended SAFE HR, not the Max physically possible, which of course isn't defineable by ANY formula.
Of course, clearly as this thread shows, many choose to ignore it, or are even aware of it, and that's fine, it's their Heart/Body/Life.0 -
Put away the mental barriers. Whilst its important to remain cognisant of one's personal health condition, age shouldn't be a barrier to doing anything in life.
If you have a health condition be sensible about it; if you haven't why stop doing something you've enjoyed because of 'what if'? As you get older, increasing age is more about tailoring the activity to suit an individuals circumstances and managing the expectations.
A great, succinct, summary.
The 220 minus age formula is okay as a very rough guide if you want a super-safe estimated max HR as it will almost invariably understate the number of beats your heart can actually do. Any zones (% of max HR) based on it, therefore, will suggest that you're in higher zones than you actually are.
This supports the theory that it's based on the lowest common denominator, fitness wise ("couch potatoes") and gives organisations such as BHF the peace of mind that they are not pushing higher-risk groups into health-threatening situations.
Meanwhile, in the real world.....
As a guide to actual max (safe?) HR, it is close to useless, because it's based on the premise that individuals don't exist. That humans are the same everywhere.
I'm nearly 52. 220-52 = 168.
The actual max HR that I've achieved, on the bike, a handful of finger-tingling-lung-bursting-dizzy-headed times, is 185. That is a massive margin of error but fairly normal for a fit cyclist*.
If I based my training on 168 I would be significantly deluded as to what my heart was doing in respect of the % of its maximum.
*Without any exceptions, all of my (fit club cyclist) friends aged 40+ have actual maximum HR far higher than a 220-age number would suggest.
So, it's true to say that 220-age is a "recommended max HR", supported by many health organisations but that doesn't mean that it has any meaningful use to someone wanting an accurate figure for their own, individual, heart. However, in the absence of any other option (eg if your health precludes doing a max HR test of any sort) then it's probably better than nothing and will serve as a rough guide which very much errs on the side of caution.0 -
Presumably the 220-age is just a guide. As said, fit cyclists will be able to go well above the recommended safe maximum for their age, but I assume if you are a beginner or an unfit cyclist it could be dangerous to go much above the recommended safe maximum for your age.
I am 57 and not fast or fit compared to some others my age. Using the formula my max should be 163 and when I get to around 160 I can only sustain it for a short while, so it's probably fairly accurate for me.0 -
FFS - there is no such thing as a 'recommended safe maximum'. Just google it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Maximum_heart_rateNotwithstanding the research of Tanaka, Monahan, & Seals, the most widely cited formula for HRmax (which contains no reference to any standard deviation) is still:
HRmax = 220 − age
Although attributed to various sources, it is widely thought to have been devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell and Dr. Samuel Fox.[16] Inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations.[17] It gained widespread use through being used by Polar Electro in its heart rate monitors,[16] which Dr. Haskell has "laughed about",[16] as the formula "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule people's training."[16]
While it is the most common (and easy to remember and calculate), this particular formula is not considered by reputable health and fitness professionals to be a good predictor of HRmax. Despite the widespread publication of this formula, research spanning two decades reveals its large inherent error, Sxy = 7–11 bpm. Consequently, the estimation calculated by HRmax = 220 − age has neither the accuracy nor the scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields.Maximum heart rates vary significantly between individuals.[16] Even within a single elite sports team, such as Olympic rowers in their 20s, maximum heart rates have been reported as varying from 160 to 220.[16] Such a variation would equate to a 60 or 90 year age gap in the linear equations above, and would seem to indicate the extreme variation about these average figures.
Figures are generally considered averages, and depend greatly on individual physiology and fitness. For example, an endurance runner's rates will typically be lower due to the increased size of the heart required to support the exercise, while a sprinter's rates will be higher due to the improved response time and short duration. While each may have predicted heart rates of 180 (= 220 − age), these two people could have actual HRmax 20 beats apart (e.g., 170-190).
Further, note that individuals of the same age, the same training, in the same sport, on the same team, can have actual HRmax 60 bpm apart (160–220):[16] the range is extremely broad, and some say "The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing athletes.
If any medical organisation adopts 220-age in the context of a 'safe limit', then there is absolutely no scientific basis for doing so.0 -
:roll: This would be funny if it wasn't such a waste of time.. It is you who are completely wrong - have you looked at any of the scientific papers that deal with the topic? If it's really necessary to convince you I will cite them. These formulas were intended (by the people who invented them) to be estimates of HRmax. The fact that they tend to underestimate HRmax in older, fitter people doesn't micaculously turn them into estimates of safe HR, and the BHF at least is not claiming anything of the sort."For crying out loud, the 220-age formula, and all more recent tweaks to it, are NOT (were not designed to be) estimates of safe heart rates, they are estimates of /maximum/ heart rates, i.e. the maximum rate that can be achieved"
Wrong. Completely wrong.
220 - Age will give you your Max Recommended SAFE HR, not the Max physically possible, which of course isn't defineable by ANY formula.
Of course, clearly as this thread shows, many choose to ignore it, or are even aware of it, and that's fine, it's their Heart/Body/Life.0 -
as a starting point i'd agree that the 220-age was fine, or any other number/formulae. but not as something to base your fitness and exercise regime on.
over a short period of time you'll learn what a more accurate figure will be and use that.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
just put in numbers for the two formulae. to get to my actual max, i'm either 24 years old (208-age*0.7) or 29 years old (220-age) !
--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Quite frankly I'm bored of all this now, & whether the Formula is valid/real/useful of otherwise, I dont care. Use it or not, its your Heart, so ride as you wish.
I hate 'lung-busting exercise', prefer the 'long & winding road' kinda riding, so I wont be maxing out anyway, so its irrelevent to me.
I'll ask my Doc for his opinion, based on my occasional AF, and age, and work with that. Hell, I may even pay for a Cardiologist consultation too, if I want a more accurate opinion.
Train as you want, I think this thread is done.0 -
You're bored of it now, because you've realised you have been talking bollox all along.... 0
-
Genuinely trying to be helpful here - it's quite possible that the AF and/or other personal health issues could mean that /for you/ it isn't advisable to max out your HR, on the other hand it's also possible that it isn't a problem at all. That, indeed, is a question for the medical professionals based on personal consultation. But there is nothing about your age per se that would make it unsafe to reach your HRmax (whatever that is).Quite frankly I'm bored of all this now, & whether the Formula is valid/real/useful of otherwise, I dont care. Use it or not, its your Heart, so ride as you wish.
I hate 'lung-busting exercise', prefer the 'long & winding road' kinda riding, so I wont be maxing out anyway, so its irrelevent to me.
I'll ask my Doc for his opinion, based on my occasional AF, and age, and work with that. Hell, I may even pay for a Cardiologist consultation too, if I want a more accurate opinion.
Train as you want, I think this thread is done.
Have you considered that your hatred of "lung-busting exercise" may be partially down to anxiety based on a belief that it could be dangerous? If a cardiologist told you it was safe (based on a personal examination/tests etc), could that change your attitude to the type of exercise you enjoy? Just an idea.0
