Can't get my HR high enough
Comments
-
I find the 220-age is quite far out for me.
Using a chest HRM I can get up to 207bpm and I'm 26.0 -
Max heart rate, VO2max, LTHR, OBLA etc are all sport-specific so it isn't surprising that you have different values in different sports. The idea is to work out what your HR (or power)training zones should be for the specific sport you are training and then base your training workouts around this.
Incidentally I'm 52 and my cycling MHR is 157.....FFS! Harden up and grow a pair
0 -
As others have detailed above it is because you've only recently started biking.
Like you I used to run a lot and it took many months before I could maintain my HR at levels on the bike that I used to be able to whilst running.
I used to get the same thing - quads etc burning like crazy but still plenty in the cardio tank.
Now I blow up because HR is hitting 191 and I can't get enough oxygen in the lungs!0 -
I think you just need to adjust to different RPE 'cues' for cycling vs running. Because of the different muscle use you are not going to use as much oxygen and be breathing as hard cycling as you would running. For the same reason your max HR will be lower - you will be at vo2 max before that point anyway. If your legs are screming at you and you can't turn them any more, that's it!0
-
I went for my first run since April on Wednesday.
Felt like I was blowing out my @rse all the way round and my legs are still slightly sore today, but my HR didn't go above 160 the whole time (my max is 194 and I hit 160 easily when cycling - it's sub-threshold).
So I have some more sympathy with the not-bike-fit argument.0 -
The main issue is (as others have implied) there is a fundamental difference between cycling and running. In short events in particular running requires more metabolic effort mainly because you are fighting gravity and cannot freewheel. This means the on a like for like perceived effort running max HR (and suffer score in Strava) will be higher than when cycling. Thats not to say you cannot hit a max HR in cycling but it might be 5% lower than max HR running. Also to hit a max HR in cycling you need to push to the envelope generally more than 10mins building intensity the whole time as HR max has a distinct lag behind perceived effort. Bottom line you need more events before you can gauge your HR max (220 -minus is horribly inaccurate for training) but you already sound to be doing well.
Regarding accuracy of HRmon vs strap see here (fitbit) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_YARkqyvw and here (polar) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2oiT0XJUds0 -
Rather than go up to a higher gear and slowly stop, why don't you stay in the same gear and increase your cadence until you are spinning really fast and keep on spinning faster and faster, rather than keeping spinning steadily as you describe? I would think that would get you out of breath and max your heart rate sooner, rather than have your legs give up first as you are saying they would do in a higher gear.tenohfive wrote:I'm not grinding to a halt currently I was saying that for illustration - I'm keeping it in a gear that I can keep spinning steadily; if I go higher I slowly stop. I'm saying that I can't sensibly go higher and keep moving.0 -
Anyone can get very close to their heart rate on a bike, 1st ride or 1000th ride, runner or not.
Find a 300-500m 10% hill, put it in a relatively moderate gear and spin the hell out of it.
I would say your inability to get close to your running max HR on the bike is due to inexperience and lack of mental application to truly binning yourself, versus some physiological issue.0 -
I struggle to buy the mental application argument for the simple reason that I've pushed myself to as close as I can establish are my limits - in fact I do so regularly, both in training (the old, 'do the hard miles in training,' cliche rings true for me) and in events. And I've used competitive opportunities to try and rule it out (chasing a KOM, and going after another cyclist.)
Some of the other arguments and points are interesting however. I completely accept that running and cycling fitness don't directly translate. I think it's fair to say the cycling relies on aerobic effort, whereas running (or at least the sort I do) is more of a mix of aerobic and anaerobic. I didn't have any illusions that jumping on a bike my running fitness would make me a fit cyclist (but I do think it's a sound base, and better than someone with no fitness base.) Sounds from others experiences like I just need to be patient and let the muscle groups catch up.
I'd love to do the Carmichael test but as best I can see a power meter is needed. On the wish list but not happening any time soon unfortunately.
I'm going to give spinning a more moderate gear at a higher cadence than I would spin at normally a go, there's certainly no harm in that and if it helps me find the sweetest spot of getting my output as high as possible (in terms of effort, not speed) then brilliant.
Thanks everyone...patience and sensible training until I've got a bit of cycling form would appear to be the order of the day. I'll keep using running for LT training for now. It would be a bonus if at some point I can incorporate cycling into LT work from an impact perspective - bike intervals appears less likely to result in an injury than running intervals. But no rush.
Speaking more generally, two questions:
1. Cadence sensors. How useful for training? (I keep considering it but don't know how much I'd use one.)
2. Strava suffer score. Is it voodoo or do people find it actually effectively translates the effort made across different activities/sports?0 -
You can do the Carmichael test with just HR (in fact, it's all I have ever used) http://trainright.com/wp-content/upload ... ptions.pdf
"Average power for each effort (if you use a power meter)"0 -
I am miles from being a fit athlete, but I made an interesting observation. Until today I have relied on HR from my Fitbit and I hit 170odd when running, but rarely above 120 cycling (even though I feel like I'm hurting). Today I used a chest strap (wahoo tickr) on a ride and averaged 164 with a peak of 183, which was more how I was feeling!0
-
I have cadence sensors on two bikes - not absolutely necessary, but it makes me now try and cycle at a higher cadence, and drop gears where necessary rather than grind on and tire myself in too high gears like I used to do. I also like to see stats like what my average cadence is on some hill segments.tenohfive wrote:I struggle to buy the mental application argument for the simple reason that I've pushed myself to as close as I can establish are my limits - in fact I do so regularly, both in training (the old, 'do the hard miles in training,' cliche rings true for me) and in events. And I've used competitive opportunities to try and rule it out (chasing a KOM, and going after another cyclist.)
Some of the other arguments and points are interesting however. I completely accept that running and cycling fitness don't directly translate. I think it's fair to say the cycling relies on aerobic effort, whereas running (or at least the sort I do) is more of a mix of aerobic and anaerobic. I didn't have any illusions that jumping on a bike my running fitness would make me a fit cyclist (but I do think it's a sound base, and better than someone with no fitness base.) Sounds from others experiences like I just need to be patient and let the muscle groups catch up.
I'd love to do the Carmichael test but as best I can see a power meter is needed. On the wish list but not happening any time soon unfortunately.
I'm going to give spinning a more moderate gear at a higher cadence than I would spin at normally a go, there's certainly no harm in that and if it helps me find the sweetest spot of getting my output as high as possible (in terms of effort, not speed) then brilliant.
Thanks everyone...patience and sensible training until I've got a bit of cycling form would appear to be the order of the day. I'll keep using running for LT training for now. It would be a bonus if at some point I can incorporate cycling into LT work from an impact perspective - bike intervals appears less likely to result in an injury than running intervals. But no rush.
Speaking more generally, two questions:
1. Cadence sensors. How useful for training? (I keep considering it but don't know how much I'd use one.)
2. Strava suffer score. Is it voodoo or do people find it actually effectively translates the effort made across different activities/sports?
tenohfive - for you I think a cadence sensor would be good if you find a hill that you would normally spin up at a steady cadence - say 80 rpm. Stay in the same gear but spin as hard as you can for a few intervals and see how high your cadence goes. If you really push yourself I would think you would reach near enough the max heart rate you are trying to achieve.0 -
Thick Mike wrote:I am miles from being a fit athlete, but I made an interesting observation. Until today I have relied on HR from my Fitbit and I hit 170odd when running, but rarely above 120 cycling (even though I feel like I'm hurting). Today I used a chest strap (wahoo tickr) on a ride and averaged 164 with a peak of 183, which was more how I was feeling!
Well known issues with optical meters and cycling HR. Doesn't deal well with the vibrations etc.0 -
tenohfive wrote:2. Strava suffer score. Is it voodoo or do people find it actually effectively translates the effort made across different activities/sports?
It's just their implementation of HR TSS (Training Stress Score) http://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/ ... -Explained
So if your HR zones are set up right it should be broadly comparable (a lot of triathletes use this to compare the 2, for example. Plus estimates for swims.). Personally I find it very comparable, been using it for 2-odd years now.
On regular Strava without access to the Fitness and Freshness chart it's probably not that useful, athough you can build your own chart in a few seconds in Excel, it just uses 2 very simple formulas.
But really, I only really find it useful when planning a taper.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Thick Mike wrote:I am miles from being a fit athlete, but I made an interesting observation. Until today I have relied on HR from my Fitbit and I hit 170odd when running, but rarely above 120 cycling (even though I feel like I'm hurting). Today I used a chest strap (wahoo tickr) on a ride and averaged 164 with a peak of 183, which was more how I was feeling!
Well known issues with optical meters and cycling HR. Doesn't deal well with the vibrations etc.
Exactly, that's what the OP is complaining of. Can't get heart rate up high enough and he's using a wrist watch optical HRM.
I think tenohfive needs to try a chest band.0 -
tenohfive wrote:I struggle to buy the mental application argument for the simple reason that I've pushed myself to as close as I can establish are my limits - in fact I do so regularly, both in training (the old, 'do the hard miles in training,' cliche rings true for me) and in events. And I've used competitive opportunities to try and rule it out (chasing a KOM, and going after another cyclist.)
Some of the other arguments and points are interesting however. I completely accept that running and cycling fitness don't directly translate. I think it's fair to say the cycling relies on aerobic effort, whereas running (or at least the sort I do) is more of a mix of aerobic and anaerobic. I didn't have any illusions that jumping on a bike my running fitness would make me a fit cyclist (but I do think it's a sound base, and better than someone with no fitness base.) Sounds from others experiences like I just need to be patient and let the muscle groups catch up.
I'd love to do the Carmichael test but as best I can see a power meter is needed. On the wish list but not happening any time soon unfortunately.
I'm sorry but you're a bit off base with the energy systems used in cycling. A 1 minute max effort is the definition of anaerobic in cycling as well.
By mental application I don't mean your motivation, I mean you finding a 1 minute hill climb and focussing on climbing it full gas with a cadence of 90+.
This question and argument is somewhat moot because it appears your HRM may be inaccurate and you don't have a PM, so it will remain conjecture from all posters.0 -
All a bit odd MHR
At 50y old mine max's at 206bpm and I cant get it to that level on any steep hill cycling or brisk running (that's with chest, wrist, pulse oximeter and manual testing
Cant be good for you!0 -
That is very high for your age. When does it get to that level then?Gregger wrote:All a bit odd MHR
At 50y old mine max's at 206bpm and I cant get it to that level on any steep hill cycling or brisk running (that's with chest, wrist, pulse oximeter and manual testing
Cant be good for you!0 -
how did you arrive at that figure if you can't get to it?Gregger wrote:All a bit odd MHR
At 50y old mine max's at 206bpm and I cant get it to that level on any steep hill cycling or brisk running (that's with chest, wrist, pulse oximeter and manual testing
Cant be good for you!
0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:
That is very high for your age. When does it get to that level then?Gregger wrote:All a bit odd MHR
At 50y old mine max's at 206bpm and I cant get it to that level on any steep hill cycling or brisk running (that's with chest, wrist, pulse oximeter and manual testing
Cant be good for you!
When his credit card bill arrives?0 -
Funny stuff..
Sorry, typo "I CAN get to it...."
In Oxfordshire 10% hill x 2, 206BPM
Staffordshire , sharp 14% 196BPM
I got rid of one strap HRM as the alarm was 195bpm. Got easily to that when running and cycling eg: Isle of Man Mountain mile was 195+ all the time cylcing up it
Surely it means I'm superfit? Isnt Froomes max 170? Just think what he could do with an extra 30bpm!0 -
High MHR is genetic - can't really be trained.Gregger wrote:
Surely it means I'm superfit? Isnt Froomes max 170? Just think what he could do with an extra 30bpm!
Generally the fitter you are the lower your RHR but MHR more or less is what it is.0 -
Well that puts the 220 minus age theory totally out the window, although it is only a guide. Still 206 for a 50 year old seems extraordinarily high.Gregger wrote:Funny stuff..
Sorry, typo "I CAN get to it...."
In Oxfordshire 10% hill x 2, 206BPM
Staffordshire , sharp 14% 196BPM
I got rid of one strap HRM as the alarm was 195bpm. Got easily to that when running and cycling eg: Isle of Man Mountain mile was 195+ all the time cylcing up it
Surely it means I'm superfit? Isnt Froomes max 170? Just think what he could do with an extra 30bpm!
Does that mean that your HR Zone 2 would go up to 154 bpm (75% of your max.)? In other words, when you are at around 150 rpm is that a relatively easy base endurance pace for you?0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:Gregger wrote:Does that mean that your HR Zone 2 would go up to 154 bpm (75% of your max.)? In other words, when you are at around 150 rpm is that a relatively easy base endurance pace for you?
Probably yes. I've done some HR training runs and cycles and find 150 bpm a jog really and I find at the start of any race I get 110bpm on the start line. The HR training suggest endurance base training at <75% I believe and I find that difficult to achieve without walking all of which suggests I'm terribly unfit, but I know I'm not that unfit, yet not an athlete by any means
On the back of this I know I have a slightly leaky mitral valve so sometimes wonder about this. I had a repeat scan in June and still havnt heard the result. Got to love NHS speed at times. So, scientifically, I'm interested to see if that has worsened.0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:
Well that puts the 220 minus age theory totally out the window, although it is only a guide. Still 206 for a 50 year old seems extraordinarily high.Gregger wrote:Funny stuff..
Sorry, typo "I CAN get to it...."
In Oxfordshire 10% hill x 2, 206BPM
Staffordshire , sharp 14% 196BPM
I got rid of one strap HRM as the alarm was 195bpm. Got easily to that when running and cycling eg: Isle of Man Mountain mile was 195+ all the time cylcing up it
Surely it means I'm superfit? Isnt Froomes max 170? Just think what he could do with an extra 30bpm!
Does that mean that your HR Zone 2 would go up to 154 bpm (75% of your max.)? In other words, when you are at around 150 rpm is that a relatively easy base endurance pace for you?
Think the 220-age is supposed to be a good approximation across the population, but there's quite a spread on the bell curve so for an individual it's not that useful.
Funnily enough mine is only a couple of beats out from 220-age.0
