Over 50 Riding Advice pls......
Comments
-
to Zak3737.
i think many of us here were genuine in trying to help, it's a shame you didn't seem to appreciate that.
my concern for not ever trying to work hard is that your fitness will gradually decrease. think of lifting weights, you can for example lift 15kg easily with one arm, 17kg is hard and lifting 20kg a few times hurts. so you stick to lifting 15kg. but after a while 15kg starts to hurt, because you're not stressing the muscles to allow you to lift it easily.
your view is that you should drop to 14kg to avoid the pain, not exercise harder to make 15kg easy.
if you don't push yourself, your fitness will drop.
Now i understand you have concerns about your heart, and once you get that sorted you should either have limits or be told there is no problem.
if you are told there are limits you have to keep to, that doesn't mean you should never get to those limits. additionally, those limits may well be higher than you push yourself now. but if you don't try you will get weaker and weaker.
anyway, hope all goes well for you.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Ok, I've cited actual medical evidence which has been ignored. Fair enough. How about you guys who think 220-age is nonsense post your preferred method, ideally with some proper science if you can.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.
Go on then, quote one. Evidence? So far there's been none (and the American serial-entrepreneur woman doesn't count)0 -
Ok, I've cited actual medical evidence which has been ignored. Fair enough. How about you guys who think 220-age is nonsense post your preferred method, ideally with some proper science if you can.
You haven't cited any medical evidence, as far as I can see. Although you did refer to the American Heart Association, which is not the same thing. I thought I made it clear already that I was not relying on the 'authority' of the woman mentioned earlier - but that you should simply read the same evidence that she links to.
According to 220-age, my MHR should be 168. My actual max (the highest number I've recorded in a bunch sprint in recent years) is 185. The 168 number is more akin to my threshold HR.
220-age - if only you would read up on it - gives you a pretty arbitary figure which in most cases is unlikely to be anything close to your actual MHR. For some individuals it might be - but in most cases it won't be.
The majority of people will have exactly the same experience of the 220-age figure - and yet you are asking for science to disprove something that was never arrived at scientifically in the first place. Ergo, you will never get it.0 -
Evidence for what?Ok, I've cited actual medical evidence which has been ignored. Fair enough. How about you guys who think 220-age is nonsense post your preferred method, ideally with some proper science if you can.
Preferred method for what?0 -
Ok, I've cited actual medical evidence which has been ignored. Fair enough. How about you guys who think 220-age is nonsense post your preferred method, ideally with some proper science if you can.
from one of my posts above:
"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) "
my actual is 191 bpm , measured by exercising until i started to grey out on a turbo trainer, with intervals getting longer and rest period getting shorter, similar to a fartlek session ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartlek ).
i can't get higher than this even when trying hard enough to make me vomit. this has been my max for about 10 years. according to the 220-age, i shouldn't be able to do this. 10 years ago it should have been 175 bpm, now at 55 years old it should be 165 bpm.
now i don't for one minute think i'm a medical freak, i'm also pretty damn sure that athletes don't keep to this or they'd be getting slower and slower year on year as the 'medical info' tells them what max they should have and they train and compete to it.
if this 'medical evidence' was the ultimate source that athletes and trainers used, we wouldn't have athletes. check for the bio profile of any person who posts it, and you'll find that very few hit the 220-age numbers, and then probably only for one year.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
this one looks useful
http://www.howtobefit.com/determine-maximum-heart-rate.htmthis one looks useful
as does this one:
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/
and this:
http://www.cycling-inform.com/how-to-test-for-your-cycling-max-heart-rate--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
this one give a different formula: 211 minus 64 percent of age.
but, if i've done the sums right, it stills gives me 176bpm when i am 191 bpm.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/ask-well-maximal-heart-rate/?_r=0
this one gives more history on the 220-age:
https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/Robergs2.pdf
conclusion to paper above:
"
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this review of research and application of HRmax prediction, the following recommendations can be made;
1. Currently, there is no acceptable method to estimate HRmax.
2. If HRmax needs to be estimated, then population specific formulae should be used. However, the most accurate general equation is that of Inbar (17) (Table 3); HRmax=205.8-0.685(age). Nevertheless, the error (Sxy=6.4 b/min) is still unacceptably large.
3. An acceptable prediction error for HRmax for application to estimation of VO2max is <±3 b/min. Thus, for a person with a HRmax of 200 b/min, error equals ±1.5%. If this precision is not possible, then there is no justification for using methods of VO2max estimation that rely on HRmax prediction formulae.
4. Additional research needs to be performed that develops multivariate regression equations that improve the accuracy of HRmax prediction for specific populations, and modes of exercise.
5. The use of HRmax is most prevalent in the fitness industry, and the people who work in these facilities mainly have a terminal undergraduate degree in exercise science or related fields. These students/graduates need to be better educated in statistics to recognize and understand the concept of prediction error, and the practical consequences of relying on an equation with a large standard error of estimate (Sxy).
6. Textbooks in exercise physiology and exercise prescription should contain content that is more critical of the HRmax=220-age or similar formulae. Authors need to stress the mode-specificity of HRmax, provide alternate, research substantiated formula, and express all content of items 1-5, above. Similarly, academic coverage of HRmax needs to explain how this error detracts from using HRmax estimation in many field tests of physical fitness and in exercise prescription."--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
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
Possibly I thought, but then when I thought more about it, I've always hated it, hated hills, I'm renowned for it. I just hate that 'balls out' effort, Period.
I know what you're trying to say, but in all honesty, the march of time affects us all whether we like it or not, and as long as I can ride my 60/70 miles, occassionally pushing when required, thats good enough for me. I dont need to keep up with people wayyyyy younger than me.if you don't push yourself, your fitness will drop.
Like I say, I arent remotely interested in how far or how hard I can push my heart rate, its of no consequence to me, and I arent about to test it & see.
I started this thread to ask how other 50+ yr olds trained, and clearly a lot train very hard, which is great, - for them, but isnt something I'm about to start doing, AF or not.0 -
Zak, that's fine. just don't waste your money on a hrm.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Completely fine to do what you do and like what you like - we're all different. But you're still pushing the age thing..I know what you're trying to say, but in all honesty, the march of time affects us all whether we like it or not, and as long as I can ride my 60/70 miles, occassionally pushing when required, thats good enough for me. I dont need to keep up with people wayyyyy younger than me.
Like I say, I arent remotely interested in how far or how hard I can push my heart rate, its of no consequence to me, and I arent about to test it & see.
I started this thread to ask how other 50+ yr olds trained, and clearly a lot train very hard, which is great, - for them, but isnt something I'm about to start doing, AF or not.
Honestly, it's not the issue...
The march of time does indeed affect us all, but assuming we're healthy there's no reason not to push ourselves as hard as we want to. Ageing will eventually take its toll in making us unable to maintain the efforts we did when we were younger, but in an endurance sport like cycling other than at the higher competitive levels, it shouldn't be much of an issue at 50. Of course the older we get the more likely it is we will develop health issues that could mean it isn't advisable to push our limits, but that's different issue from age itself.0 -
I agree Zak, 60/70 miles at 14/15 mph and pushing hard occasionally is a lot more exercise than a lot of 50 plus people do, and is fairly good going in my book. I'm 57 and pushed hard this morning for me (averaging 142bpm) on a short (20 mile) moderately hilly ride, and averaged just under 15 mph.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
Possibly I thought, but then when I thought more about it, I've always hated it, hated hills, I'm renowned for it. I just hate that 'balls out' effort, Period.
I know what you're trying to say, but in all honesty, the march of time affects us all whether we like it or not, and as long as I can ride my 60/70 miles, occassionally pushing when required, thats good enough for me. I dont need to keep up with people wayyyyy younger than me.if you don't push yourself, your fitness will drop.0 -
[quote="Imposter"
According to 220-age, my MHR should be 168. My actual max (the highest number I've recorded in a bunch sprint in recent years) is 185. [/quote]
Do you not get the difference between Max Safe Heart Rate and Max Achievable Heart Rate? Getting your heart rate up to some massive number and then deciding it must be safe because you didn't die is hardly scientific. Or sane.
220-age is a guide for what you can safely do without putting your heart under excessive strain. Of course you can go above that, but you'd be foolish to do so.
As for the scientific evidence, I posted this on the previous pageA 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,
Now, I'm writing this on my phone to I can't link the source, but I'll happily dig it out for you tomorrow when I'm at work. I'm sure you'll agree it's proper medical science. So, I've shown you mine, now show me yours. Or was 'my heart did 185bpm without exploding' really all you've got?0 -
Mate - there is no such thing as 'max safe HR', as countless people on here have already demonstrated, with evidence. Now let it go, move on.0
-
I recommend switching off the PC/laptop/pad, getting on your bike and going for a cycle at a pace compromising between fast and yet comfortable.
Enjoy.
Advice over.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
:roll:Do you not get the difference between Max Safe Heart Rate and Max Achievable Heart Rate? Getting your heart rate up to some massive number and then deciding it must be safe because you didn't die is hardly scientific. Or sane.
220-age is a guide for what you can safely do without putting your heart under excessive strain. Of course you can go above that, but you'd be foolish to do so.
As for the scientific evidence, I posted this on the previous page
<sigh...>
Here is the abstract for the paper I assume you are referring to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153730
Quote "We sought to determine a generalized equation for predicting maximal heart rate (HRmax) in healthy adults."
Maximal heart rate (HRmax) is just that - maximum HR that can be achieved. See here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/maximum%20heart%20rate
It is not "maximum safe heart rate".
Both the 220-age formula and 208-(age x 0.7) are ways of estimating HRmax. Not "maximum safe heart rate".
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this thread can be explained by poor blood supply to the brain caused by fear of cardiac over-exertion in one camp...0 -
Mate - there is no such thing as 'max safe HR', as countless people on here have already demonstrated, with evidence. Now let it go, move on.
Still waiting for the evidence .....0 -
Mate - there is no such thing as 'max safe HR', as countless people on here have already demonstrated, with evidence. Now let it go, move on.
Still waiting for the evidence .....
Have a read of what neeb posted - just above. And then let it go. But if you genuinely believe there is such a thing as 'max safe HR' - then you're going to have to prove it exists..0 -
You want evidence for the non-existence of something you've invented..?Mate - there is no such thing as 'max safe HR', as countless people on here have already demonstrated, with evidence. Now let it go, move on.
Still waiting for the evidence .....
OK, here's mine. I think there is such a thing as maximal safe number of times to say the word "wibble" every day. If you say the word "wibble" more often than (583 - the number of socks you own) you will spontaneously die by your left kidney metamorphosing into a giant piranha and eating its way out of your chest.
Don't believe me? Show me the evidence!0 -
I don't know why I'm bothering, but anyway ...
220-whatever isn't a Maximum Heart Rate. How do I know that? Because I've seen more than a few people with heart rates significantly above 220. Not healthy people, that's why they were in hospital, but they were still alive.
Here's some medical stuff .... above a certain rate (160 is considered average) cardiac output starts to reduce due to shortened fill time, ie there just isn't enough time for blood to flow into the heart and fill it before it beats again, so although its beating, it's only part-filled. Keep going like this and your blood pressure will fall, your organs won't get enough oxygen, and you'll start to pass out. Try it. Please. And video yourself doing it so we can all have a laugh. As we get older our cardiac system (not just the heart muscle but the arteries and veins as well) starts to lose contractility, the ability to expand and contract as they harden. This is one of the reasons your ideal heart rate reduces with age, and one of the reasons we have equations like 220-age to use as a guide.
Right, that's it, I'm done with this thread. Hopefully see some of you out on the roads.0 -
Good grief. All that shows is that you have massively misunderstood the topic. Nobody has ever said that 220 is the highest any heart can beat. It's just part of a formula, that's all. And that 'cardiac output' stuff has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. It sounds like you're trying to sound knowledgable - and failing badly. Good job that was your last post on the topic - I'm embarrassed for you.0
-
Incredible....
I assume either because you can't admit that you're wrong or are incapable of seeing that you're wrong.I don't know why I'm bothering, but anyway ...
As as been pointed out ad infinitum, it's an /estimator/ of HRmax, and not an accurate one. So your point is?220-whatever isn't a Maximum Heart Rate. How do I know that? Because I've seen more than a few people with heart rates significantly above 220. Not healthy people, that's why they were in hospital, but they were still alive.
Some completely irrelevant medical "stuff" of dubious veracity, finished off with a stubborn reiteration of the misunderstanding that was the source of this farce in the first place.Here's some medical stuff .... above a certain rate (160 is considered average) cardiac output starts to reduce due to shortened fill time, ie there just isn't enough time for blood to flow into the heart and fill it before it beats again, so although its beating, it's only part-filled. Keep going like this and your blood pressure will fall, your organs won't get enough oxygen, and you'll start to pass out. Try it. Please. And video yourself doing it so we can all have a laugh. As we get older our cardiac system (not just the heart muscle but the arteries and veins as well) starts to lose contractility, the ability to expand and contract as they harden. This is one of the reasons your ideal heart rate reduces with age, and one of the reasons we have equations like 220-age to use as a guide.
Why not just admit that you were misinformed?0 -
... Getting your heart rate up to some massive number and then deciding it must be safe because you didn't die is hardly scientific. Or sane.
that's exactly how many people, including top athletes train. watch some videos of chris hoy training for sprints and tell me he's not hitting his max.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
I recommend switching off the PC/laptop/pad, getting on your bike and going for a cycle at a pace compromising between fast and yet comfortable.
Enjoy.
Advice over.
+1. Most sensible and relevant comment in this thread.0 -
No it's not, it just sidesteps the issue and encourages people not to challenge themselves or consider new possibilities. "Fast" and "comfortable" can mean anything you want them to and a "compromise" could be anywhere between. It might be the most common sensible answer, but common sense is vastly overrated.I recommend switching off the PC/laptop/pad, getting on your bike and going for a cycle at a pace compromising between fast and yet comfortable.
Enjoy.
Advice over.
+1. Most sensible and relevant comment in this thread.0 -
No it's not, it just sidesteps the issue and encourages people not to challenge themselves or consider new possibilities. "Fast" and "comfortable" can mean anything you want them to and a "compromise" could be anywhere between. It might be the most common sensible answer, but common sense is vastly overrated.I recommend switching off the PC/laptop/pad, getting on your bike and going for a cycle at a pace compromising between fast and yet comfortable.
Enjoy.
Advice over.
+1. Most sensible and relevant comment in this thread. The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
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.
This argument could have been raised without resorting to personal insult. Please debate the issue in question and refrain from making personal attacks.
AndyBikeRadar Community0 -
further reading:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/10/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/the-heart-and-masters-cycling_388002--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Not going to read the whole thread before responding (cardinal forum sin, I know) but I am about the same age and have a similar heart condition--underwent surgery, still not really working as I’d like it to. (I even got into great shape then took a break like you did--but mine was longer, and I stayed totally inactive and gained half again my body weight.)
You know exactly how hard to push, I think. You can generally do a little more than you want to, except when you know your heart is protesting loudly. Legs and lungs and attitude can usually be stretched a little further (not that one has to) but when your heart is saying “No more, please” I listen.
What i want is exercises which will improve my heart function but so far I haven’t done that research.
Re: heart-rate monitor—I have one but once I got a feel for the correlation between the numbers and my feelings I stopped—230 bpm felt like one might expect, and when I start feeling that I know to stop no matter if I have the monitor or not.
I figure I just need to develop the rest of me and my heart might take longer but it will gain capacity. I certainly have nothing to fear—I get plenty of warning when I go too far.0 -
Having read several pages more (but still not the whole thing) I have a few comments ...
First, ride to please yourself. The people suggesting you push ‘til you puke are people who Like to push until they puke. One even said he couldn’t train endurance even though he thought he should.
We are all doing what we want. Trying to tell the rest to do the same is not a good use of energy.
Life is uncertain except in one way—we know it will end. The guy who kills himself every day might licve to be 110 or die tomorrow. His body might be super healthy until he is 110 or all his joints might wear out when he hits 75 and he might spend the rest of his life bedridden.
Any one of us could get hit by an asteroid, or a car, or a sudden stroke. We can’t fight our genes, and we can’t control accidents or disease.
Best way to live life, particularly after half a century, is how it works for you.
No reason someone can’t go hard forever—if it suits him and if his body cooperates. There is a guy in spin class who is 82 and rocking right along.
On the other hand my parents are both 88 and decaying physically, and super sharp mentally. They can barely walk without supporting each other.
You never can tell, so do what works for you.
As a person with a similar heart condition, I would recommend taking it easy but not doing nothing, which is what the OP seems to be doing (53 years old and four-hour bike rides? Come one, how much do people want? Most people his age find it a strain to wobble to the fridge from the couch during commercials.)
I push myself a little, because the harder I push wisely the faster I grow (of course if I push just a Little too hard recovery time wipes out all my gains) and I let my heart limit my effort.
I’d suggest going once for a sprint and stopping when you really don’t feel good (not graying out—I’ve tried it and don’t recommend it) and then measuring your heart rate, and using that as say, a 95 percent figure. You won’t be going as hard as the fit folks, but they aren’t courting a heart attack, blood clot, or stroke just sitting around eating dinner. You might be.
Regardless, you will enjoy life more in the present (because you are riding) and probably in the future, because you will be healthier longer. Great for you.0
