Heart Rate Advice.......

zak3737

Chaps,
Just curious to what others may make of my issue here, particularly perhaps those of you over 50, or who monitor their Heart Rate whilst riding......

Some of you will no doubt recall the other topic I started last year, which seemingly caused all kinds of 'debate' & conjecture,
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=13038025

Anyway, following on from that, I finally gave in and got myself one of the new Wahoo ELEMNT GPS Bike Computers, complete with Speed HR & Cadence sensors, and indeed all the other useful stuff it can monitor.

So, 1st ride yesterday, a lovely 42 miles up onto the lovely rolling Yorkshire Wolds, and what it showed me was quite alarming in some respects, and not sure I should be concerned or not.

The first 10 miles or so are fairly flat, and my HR was raised but not alarming, and on we rode. What did alarm me was that once into the 'Hills', and I arent meaning anything too tasking here guys, no lung busting 10/12% gradients etc, just rolling countryside, my HR was pushed up quite quickly and was well up in the 150/160 range for long periods, and maxed out at 173bpm, which for my near 54yr age, I felt was definitely at the upper end of safe.
(I know, many of you dont agree with the 220-age formulae,........)

This perhaps explains why I have always thought of myself as a 'lazy climber', as I hate hills to be honest, and am always happy to back off and 'spin up', whereas friends push on up much faster than I, leaving me to my own thing.
Of course, before yesterday, I was unaware of perhaps just how hard my HR was working, and perhaps no wonder that I back off.

Additionally, and something again I have noticed frequently, is the fact that my HR doesnt come down quickly, - we stopped for a Coffee after 30miles, and my HR remained at about 90bpm the 15mins we sat there.
Indeed, even after getting home, it remained high all afternoon, and wasnt until about 11pm last night, whilst sat watching the end of the golf, it was finally back down to my normal 'mid 50's'.
(no idea why its this low usually, it always has been, despite not being a 'super fit' athlete ! 53 /210lbs ! )

Mr Blood Pressure is good, my SATS are good, my Cholesterol is low, (3.4), and apart from Alcohol causing issues with my HR too, I'm fit & 'healthy', or appear to be !

Does anyone else have anything similar happen to their HR after riding for 3hrs ?
Does anyone else reach that kind of HR relatively 'easily' ? - I was hardly thrashing myself.........

I remain firmly of the opinion that at 53, I should be 'sensible' about excercising, and my HR, whilst wanting to be fit & active, but if I'm maxing my old ticker as seemingly easily as this........bit confused.

Please, lend me your thoughts if you will.......

ugo.santalucia

The reasons why you shouldn't use a HR monitor are nicely discussed in your post... it just creates un-necessary worries. You are making bags of assumptions and comparing data against a database of yours that does not exist. Bin it!

fenix

If you aren't going to test your max the figures mean very little.

Your worrying about the heart rate is probably doing you more harm than good. Bin the monitor.

Presumably you were happy with your efforts on the bike before you knew what rate it was?

A hrm won't be able to tell you you're healthy or not.

bflk

Well I'm 53 although I don't think your age really comes into it tbh. Everyone has their own MHR, mine is around 164 at the moment. As regards recovery at stops I find that after a while my HR will only drop to the 90s durings stops. After long rides eg 3-4h+ it can take several hours or even until bedtime to go back to the figure I had before I started.

jgsi

Its not that people dont 'agree with 220 - age == its a now a debunked methodology that belongs in kindergarten school of excellence.
You make 53 sound like the good old days when people could early retire on full pensions with feck all consideration for following generations.
Its NOT old.. man up and lose some weight by eating less and cycle more and harder you pussy.

andcp

Hello Zak,

I'm 54 and an ex-smoker (packed up within the last three years) but have ridden all my life.

I live adjacent to the Peak District so my riding can be fairly brutal - there's not much flat apart from the lover Derwent valley. Like you my HR rises fairly quickly - even on my flat commute within a few metres I'm up to over 100 bpm. I recently hit 186, I'm regularly over 175 but I can't sustain that - more like 160-165 (but that's hard work). I've no idea how long it takes to recover, I've never measured it. I monitor my HR because I'm a data freak, no other reason. I certainly do not worry about it!

My thoughts are like Ugo's. Either bin the HR monitor or stop worrying about it! Why measure it if you're going to wittle about it? Ride your bike and have fun until you can't.

imposter2.0

Zak3737 wrote:

(I know, many of you dont agree with the 220-age formulae,........)

Let's be clear - anyone with even a basic understanding of training by HR will not agree with it.

Zak3737 wrote:

Please, lend me your thoughts if you will.......

Why - so you can ignore them again? All the issues you raise here got comprehensively answered last time. Science hasn't changed much in the meantime.

zak3737

"Let's be clear - anyone with even a basic understanding of training by HR will not agree with it."

Who said I had even a basic understanding of training by HR ?

zak3737

bflk wrote:

Well I'm 53 although I don't think your age really comes into it tbh. Everyone has their own MHR, mine is around 164 at the moment. As regards recovery at stops I find that after a while my HR will only drop to the 90s durings stops. After long rides eg 3-4h+ it can take several hours or even until bedtime to go back to the figure I had before I started.

Thx - useful, same as me it seems. Thats re-assuring to some extent.

stu-bim

I am 40 and can sustain and keep going at around 155-160 when training, be it cycling, running, general cardio etc

Over 160 and I have to back off fairly soon afterwards as it is beyond my limit to catch my breath

But max HR can hit 185-195 when training with no ill effects

i wouldn't worry if I were you

imposter2.0

Zak3737 wrote:

"Let's be clear - anyone with even a basic understanding of training by HR will not agree with it."

Who said I had even a basic understanding of training by HR ?

Well, you clearly don't - as your previous thread on the issue testifies. All you have to do is read up though....

webboo

I can often have an avarage heart rate of over 150 for 4 hours plus with a max in to 180s and I''m 60. Usuall in those same Yorkshire Wolds.

stu-bim

Webboo wrote:

I can often have an avarage heart rate of over 150 for 4 hours plus with a max in to 180s and I''m 60. Usuall in those same Yorkshire Wolds.

Cycling?

StillGoing

I'm in my mid 50's and riding always sees my HR climb quickly to the mid 150s. I've hit 179bpm on rides before now as max during a ride. At my lightest hills were enjoyable, but my HR was still the same. Recently I've had my BP taken in both arms following anaphylaxis to discover a big difference between the two, which can be an indicator of heart disease or narrowing of the arteries despite my not having hypertension and both being within the normal range. That has lead to appointments with a Cardiologist and a Vascular Surgeon to identify what the issue is. The point I'm making is, if you have concerns, talk to someone that can help you such as your Doctor rather than get an opinion from someone on a forum that can't.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... q-20058230

Sutton_Rider

I'm 63 and I average around 135 to 140 on a 2 - 3 hour ride and peak at 175 for 30 seconds or so, but although there are no hills here (The Fens) the wind plays its roll and I can be at 160 ish pushing into wind for long periods at a time. It is also slow to drop if I stop for coffee. I mentioned this to my Dr a few weeks ago as he's a cyclist, he didn't see it was a problem or anything to worry about. His comments were "We're all different" At rest my HR is 60.

zak3737

Ignoring the wider debate about how/whether/why to use a HR monitor, it seems that my own particular findings are perhaps not as unusual as I'd imagined, so thx for the comments from those of you that experience similar readings.

hdow

All your data shows is that you are not that fit. We should all be 'sensible' but that doesn't mean lazy. 53 is nothing

What was your actual distance, riding time and total ascent?

Bobbinogs

Didn't the 8 pages and ~150 posts on the last thread cover every single point this one can make?

zak3737

Hdow wrote:

All your data shows is that you are not that fit. We should all be 'sensible' but that doesn't mean lazy. 53 is nothing

yes - I know I'm not 'that fit', I'm a middle aged MAMIL, who's enjoying his cycling, while being sensible, thats all.

.....actually, I'm just glad I CAN cycle, because apart from Golf & walking the dog, my knackered left knee prevents me from anything else like running etc.
My appointment looms tomorrow with a Surgeon to discuss what might be necessary to keep it in shape, and to stave off the Total Replacement, which looms at some point in the future for sure.

g00se

Just about to turn 50 and my threshold heart rate is 171 (that's a max heart rate I can maintain for an hour). I can push along happily for anything under 163, then it's an effort over that. For climbs, I'll hit the high 170s to 180s and I've maxed out at 189.

Everyone's HR is different. A younger friend would be doing similar numbers minus 10-15 - when you would expect then to be able to maintain higher ones. Ditto older mates.

Don't worry. If you do, ask a doc to arrange some heart fitness tests on you. It'll put your mind at rest.

Take a browse over at the training forum to see some comparable numbers.

MikeBrew

What is universal about heart rate is that the fitter you are, the quicker your heart rate returns to normal after exertion. With that and the OP's age and weight in mind (Doesn't mention height, so BMI is ??), a thorough check over at the GP might not be a bad idea, before you go pushing your body too hard.
The length of time it's taking for your heart rate to return to normal doesn't sound right. Normally a resting HR of 55 would indicate a strong heart, but along with that should go a fast recovery rate. Get it checked out.

chris_bass

I'm at the other end of the scale, I have a very low heart rate, both resting and during exercise.

zak3737

MikeBrew wrote:

What is universal about heart rate is that the fitter you are, the quicker your heart rate returns to normal after exertion. With that and the OP's age and weight in mind (Doesn't mention height, so BMI is ??), a thorough check over at the GP might not be a bad idea, before you go pushing your body too hard.
The length of time it's taking for your heart rate to return to normal doesn't sound right. Normally a resting HR of 55 would indicate a strong heart, but along with that should go a fast recovery rate. Get it checked out.

Thx Mike, I have been checked over recently, and all vitals are fine, aside from the issue I have with Alcohol causing my HR to go haywire, - hence why i rarely drink and never really after 7pm.
My Blood pressure is fine, my Cholesterol is low, and HR is 'normal' according to Doc.

My pulse has always been low, something I'd like to put down to my supreme athleticism,.......... but can't !

I do ok I guess.

svetty

Agree that there is a huge variation in heart rate amongst normal adults and the OPs first post sounds normal enough. TBH it sounds as though there is some reluctance to really dig in and suffer - the only way to train the 'top end' is to push beyond comfort into pain and nausea - and a high heart rate.

The only point I would raise is that there is a world of difference between a regular normal heart beat (sinus rhythm) and an irregular abnormal beat (arrhythmia). It may be that the OP is getting exercise induced arrhythmia - possibly atrial flutter/fibrillation......

drlodge

I'm 48 (50 next year) and what your posts says seems completely normal. My HR is typically in the 140s/150s on the flat, I try to keep under 160 on long rides, and it can easily go into the 170s on hills. My max HR is 187, I nearly fainted at that point. Resting HR is in the 40s.

I wouldn't be surprised if your HR takes a while to get to its "normal" resting rate after a ride, mine does too. As I said, all seems perfectly normal.

zak3737

Svetty wrote:

TBH it sounds as though there is some reluctance to really dig in and suffer - the only way to train the 'top end' is to push beyond comfort into pain and nausea - and a high heart rate.

- Possibly right, to some extent, as I've always hated the pain. Although, with my occasional HR irregularities that Alcohol has induced. I'm perhaps a little concious of it and maybe even over-protective of my ol' ticker. We only have one :roll:

The only point I would raise is that there is a world of difference between a regular normal heart beat (sinus rhythm) and an irregular abnormal beat (arrhythmia). It may be that the OP is getting exercise induced arrhythmia - possibly atrial flutter/fibrillation......

Apart from the time its taken to revert to 'normal' rate, I've never noticed any Arrhythmia or flutter during or after a ride, and similarly, never felt ill, or overly sweaty once I stop riding.
Perhaps a little jaded, but then again, as has been said, thats perhaps cos' I aint 'that' fit.

We are just coming out of winter, when for me, riding hasnt been that extensive unfortunately, but feel sure that I'll be up to the 70ml rides that we were doing last summer, before too long.

Seems like my HR obvs were'nt out of the ordinary, so perhaps i'll just man up and get stuck in...... 8)

webboo

stu-bim wrote:

Webboo wrote:

I can often have an avarage heart rate of over 150 for 4 hours plus with a max in to 180s and I''m 60. Usuall in those same Yorkshire Wolds.

Cycling?

No Morris dancing

ForumNewbie

Chris Bass wrote:

I'm at the other end of the scale, I have a very low heart rate, both resting and during exercise.

I sometimes have a low average HR, but that's only when I'm not pushing myself hard enough, or having a relaxing Zone 1 or 2 ride.

voodooman

I'm not 50 (46), and if you use it scientifically, HR is a good way to work out your numbers for any given distance; if you also know what a 20 min max effort feels like as a "10" on the imaginary dial.

From that I know that 193 is my max (resting 52) and then 80% of that (~155 av bpm) is an effort that can be sustained for long periods of time. 163 av is possible for up to about 3 hours, and every hill if i dance on the pedals and go for it is another match burnt that day (I've got about 5 altogether!).

However... I spent years training for semi-pro cricket and football, using HR monitors / bleep tests etc. As a result you get to know exactly what the limits are and can figure that alongside HR. Perceived exertion is also really useful (vomit inducing(10) - shaky hands for 1/2 hour(9 to 8) - 5 to 2 minute recovery time (8 to 7) - 1 minute or less recovery time (6 to 5) - slightly sweaty(4 to 1)) for me, but it's based on upwards of 20 years of training, though only cycling specific in the last couple of years. These numbers though are individual to me, would be hopeless for virtually everyone else, and largely meaningless. I also do every other run / ride with monitors hidden so that I can enjoy the time outside for what it is without constantly looking. I only record just to catch the distance to add to the totals (justification for trainers, wheels, clothes+1) done.

StillGoing

Zak3737 wrote:

Thx Mike, I have been checked over recently, and all vitals are fine, aside from the issue I have with Alcohol causing my HR to go haywire, - hence why i rarely drink and never really after 7pm.
My Blood pressure is fine, my Cholesterol is low, and HR is 'normal' according to Doc.

My pulse has always been low, something I'd like to put down to my supreme athleticism,.......... but can't !

I do ok I guess.

Did you have your BP checked in both arms? My resting HR is low, my recovery is good, my cholesterol is within the healthy range, my ECG normal, pulses in both arms and legs the same, my BPs are both within the normal range and no pre-hypertension, but there is a big difference between the two. Any bigger than 10 difference of the systolic readings should make your GP send you for further tests with a Cardiologist or Vascular Consultant. We all know GPs etc never take the BP from both arms, but they should.

zak3737

philthy3 wrote:

Zak3737 wrote:

Thx Mike, I have been checked over recently, and all vitals are fine, aside from the issue I have with Alcohol causing my HR to go haywire, - hence why i rarely drink and never really after 7pm.
My Blood pressure is fine, my Cholesterol is low, and HR is 'normal' according to Doc.

My pulse has always been low, something I'd like to put down to my supreme athleticism,.......... but can't !

I do ok I guess.

Did you have your BP checked in both arms? My resting HR is low, my recovery is good, my cholesterol is within the healthy range, my ECG normal, pulses in both arms and legs the same, my BPs are both within the normal range and no pre-hypertension, but there is a big difference between the two. Any bigger than 10 difference of the systolic readings should make your GP send you for further tests with a Cardiologist or Vascular Consultant. We all know GPs etc never take the BP from both arms, but they should.

Point taken, I will, just to be sure. Thx.