| |
Main
Date: 01 Jul 2007 11:23:47
From: Just A User
Subject: Some notes about first ride with HRM
|
And also a set of aerobars. First some thoughts on the info supplied by
the inexpensive basic HRM. While riding at my normal pace hrm gives a
reading that seems to fluctuate between 165 and 170. Which according to
the documentation that came with the device puts that into the aerobic /
fitness range for a 34 year old male. And the highest I saw it reach was
182 at the near the top of a climb. But while using the aerobars I
noticed that the normal range is higher than while riding the hoods, but
not as high as climbing. In the aero position the range seems to be 170
to 175. This seems to indicate that I need to work more on interval /
cardiac training.
Now about the aerobars. Not really too much of a suprise here. Over 30
miles today it looks like I averaged about 1 mph faster using the
aerobars where it was safe to use them.
Ken
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 12:50:25
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Some notes about first ride with HRM
|
On Jul 1, 6:41 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > Just A User wrote:
> > :: And also a set of aerobars. First some thoughts on the info supplied
> > :: by the inexpensive basic HRM. While riding at my normal pace hrm
> > :: gives a reading that seems to fluctuate between 165 and 170. Which
> > :: according to the documentation that came with the device puts that
> > :: into the aerobic / fitness range for a 34 year old male. And the
> > :: highest I saw it reach was 182 at the near the top of a climb. But
> > :: while using the aerobars I noticed that the normal range is higher
> > :: than while riding the hoods, but not as high as climbing. In the
> > :: aero position the range seems to be 170 to 175. This seems to
> > :: indicate that I need to work more on interval / cardiac training.
>
> > Seems like until you have an idea of your max heart rate those numbers don't
> > really mean much.
>
> Well after doing a`simple google search, I found a couple of formulas
> for finding max heart rate. And both seem to indicate that 182 is just
> about the max for someone my age.
>
> Ken
You could also probably use some formula to determine your shoe size
based on measurments of your hand. Those formulae are just guidlelines
to get you started and give you a good idea of where your max HR
probably is. I know personally people your age with cycling max hr's
from 165 to 197. The formula is just a place to start. The 220 minus
age work for lots of people (myslef included), but not all. Based on
the numbers you report, I think the standard formulae are not very
accurate for you.
I would suggest using the HRM for a while just observing your HR at
various exertion levels to get an idea of what is normal for you. Once
you are comfortable you can try to find your max. There are methods on
the Internet, but basically try climbing up a long hill increasing
your speed gradually until you reach a speed you feel you can not hold
for much longer, and hold it! Then when you feel you can't do anymore,
do a standing sprint as hard as you can as long as you can. This will
find your de facto max hr. Needless to say this is not wise if you are
in poor shape, etc.
A more upright position will encourage a higher HR at a given effort
level due to issues of blood flow against gravity. This can be part of
the difference you have noticed in the various positions, it says
nothing about what sort of training you might have use for.
Have fun!
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 12:20:35
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Some notes about first ride with HRM
|
Just A User wrote:
:: And also a set of aerobars. First some thoughts on the info supplied
:: by the inexpensive basic HRM. While riding at my normal pace hrm
:: gives a reading that seems to fluctuate between 165 and 170. Which
:: according to the documentation that came with the device puts that
:: into the aerobic / fitness range for a 34 year old male. And the
:: highest I saw it reach was 182 at the near the top of a climb. But
:: while using the aerobars I noticed that the normal range is higher
:: than while riding the hoods, but not as high as climbing. In the
:: aero position the range seems to be 170 to 175. This seems to
:: indicate that I need to work more on interval / cardiac training.
Seems like until you have an idea of your max heart rate those numbers don't
really mean much.
::
:: Now about the aerobars. Not really too much of a suprise here. Over
:: 30 miles today it looks like I averaged about 1 mph faster using the
:: aerobars where it was safe to use them.
::
:: Ken
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 12:41:31
From: Just A User
Subject: Re: Some notes about first ride with HRM
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> Just A User wrote:
> :: And also a set of aerobars. First some thoughts on the info supplied
> :: by the inexpensive basic HRM. While riding at my normal pace hrm
> :: gives a reading that seems to fluctuate between 165 and 170. Which
> :: according to the documentation that came with the device puts that
> :: into the aerobic / fitness range for a 34 year old male. And the
> :: highest I saw it reach was 182 at the near the top of a climb. But
> :: while using the aerobars I noticed that the normal range is higher
> :: than while riding the hoods, but not as high as climbing. In the
> :: aero position the range seems to be 170 to 175. This seems to
> :: indicate that I need to work more on interval / cardiac training.
>
>
> Seems like until you have an idea of your max heart rate those numbers don't
> really mean much.
Well after doing a`simple google search, I found a couple of formulas
for finding max heart rate. And both seem to indicate that 182 is just
about the max for someone my age.
Ken
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 13:50:27
From: BobT
Subject: Re: Some notes about first ride with HRM
|
"Just A User" <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote in message
news:Qs6dnbG7z4jVRBrbnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@giganews.com...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> Just A User wrote:
>> :: And also a set of aerobars. First some thoughts on the info supplied
>> :: by the inexpensive basic HRM. While riding at my normal pace hrm
>> :: gives a reading that seems to fluctuate between 165 and 170. Which
>> :: according to the documentation that came with the device puts that
>> :: into the aerobic / fitness range for a 34 year old male. And the
>> :: highest I saw it reach was 182 at the near the top of a climb. But
>> :: while using the aerobars I noticed that the normal range is higher
>> :: than while riding the hoods, but not as high as climbing. In the
>> :: aero position the range seems to be 170 to 175. This seems to
>> :: indicate that I need to work more on interval / cardiac training.
>>
>>
>> Seems like until you have an idea of your max heart rate those numbers
>> don't really mean much.
>
> Well after doing a`simple google search, I found a couple of formulas for
> finding max heart rate. And both seem to indicate that 182 is just about
> the max for someone my age.
>
> Ken
There is a lot of individual variation in maximum heart rate among
individuals who are the same age. You might want to actually measure your
maximum heart rate rather than estimating it by age.
This page might help:
http://roberttayloronline.com/HealthFitness/Endurance/MaxHR.aspx
Despite what is mentioned in this thread, you probably won't change you
maximum heart rate by training. Your resting heart rate will decrease.
Your ability to maintain a sustained effort will occur at a higher heart
rate and the amount of work you can do at a particular heart rate might also
increase. Here's a made up example:
Before Training:
measured maximum heart rate: 184
measured resting heart rate: 64
maximum heart rate you can maintain during a 30 minute time trial: 155
speed on bike, riding for 15 minutes, trying to keep heart rate at 145: 19
mph
After Training:
Before Training:
measured maximum heart rate: 184
measured resting heart rate: 50
maximum heart rate you can maintain during a 30 minute time trial: 163
speed on bike, riding for 15 minutes, trying to keep heart rate at 145:
20.5 mph
BobT
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 09:49:20
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Some notes about first ride with HRM
|
>> Seems like until you have an idea of your max heart rate those numbers
>> don't really mean much.
>
> Well after doing a`simple google search, I found a couple of formulas for
> finding max heart rate. And both seem to indicate that 182 is just about
> the max for someone my age.
My guess is that, as you get into better shape, you'll be able to push that
number up a bit higher. At 51 I can still reliably get to 175 on a hard
climb. When my level of fitness declines a bit, the max tends to drift down
towards 170 or so.
For me, the big advantage to using a heart rate monitor came when riding on
flat & rolling terrain. I'd always assumed I just sucked at that sort of
thing, and climbing was what I did well. The heart rate monitor told a
different story. I was able to ride a half-hour climb at 165 average heart
rate, but was doing no better than 145-150 on the flats. Basically, I was
self-limiting, believing that I wasn't able to go any faster without blowing
up. Not the case. I'm not significantly faster on the flats, because I know
where I am and I have the confidence of knowing what my actual limits are.
Your mileage may vary, of course. I know of many for whom the reverse
situation is true; they do great on the flats, but suck at climbing because
they think they're at their limit (when in fact they're not).
Either way, it's a reason to use a heart rate monitor that I rarely see
discussed.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Just A User" <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote in message
news:Qs6dnbG7z4jVRBrbnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@giganews.com...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> Just A User wrote:
>> :: And also a set of aerobars. First some thoughts on the info supplied
>> :: by the inexpensive basic HRM. While riding at my normal pace hrm
>> :: gives a reading that seems to fluctuate between 165 and 170. Which
>> :: according to the documentation that came with the device puts that
>> :: into the aerobic / fitness range for a 34 year old male. And the
>> :: highest I saw it reach was 182 at the near the top of a climb. But
>> :: while using the aerobars I noticed that the normal range is higher
>> :: than while riding the hoods, but not as high as climbing. In the
>> :: aero position the range seems to be 170 to 175. This seems to
>> :: indicate that I need to work more on interval / cardiac training.
>>
>>
>> Seems like until you have an idea of your max heart rate those numbers
>> don't really mean much.
>
> Well after doing a`simple google search, I found a couple of formulas for
> finding max heart rate. And both seem to indicate that 182 is just about
> the max for someone my age.
>
> Ken
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 14:56:53
From: Just A User
Subject: Re: Some notes about first ride with HRM
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Seems like until you have an idea of your max heart rate those numbers
>>> don't really mean much.
>> Well after doing a`simple google search, I found a couple of formulas for
>> finding max heart rate. And both seem to indicate that 182 is just about
>> the max for someone my age.
>
> My guess is that, as you get into better shape, you'll be able to push that
> number up a bit higher. At 51 I can still reliably get to 175 on a hard
> climb. When my level of fitness declines a bit, the max tends to drift down
> towards 170 or so.
>
> For me, the big advantage to using a heart rate monitor came when riding on
> flat & rolling terrain. I'd always assumed I just sucked at that sort of
> thing, and climbing was what I did well. The heart rate monitor told a
> different story. I was able to ride a half-hour climb at 165 average heart
> rate, but was doing no better than 145-150 on the flats. Basically, I was
> self-limiting, believing that I wasn't able to go any faster without blowing
> up. Not the case. I'm not significantly faster on the flats, because I know
> where I am and I have the confidence of knowing what my actual limits are.
>
> Your mileage may vary, of course. I know of many for whom the reverse
> situation is true; they do great on the flats, but suck at climbing because
> they think they're at their limit (when in fact they're not).
>
> Either way, it's a reason to use a heart rate monitor that I rarely see
> discussed.
Well I bought one just because at some points during some of my rides, I
have felt like my heart was going to explode, like after a short but
steep climb, going over one of the local drawbridges. I knew that I am
not that stong in climbs, not very many around here. But I suspected
that I wasn't spinning fast enough in the flats to get much cardiac
benefits, but that seems not to be the case. But I still need to work on
the climbing, perhaps I need to intervals or sprints. Anyway the HRM
will not be used on all my rides. It could become like the cycle computer.
Ken
|
|
