| |
Main
Date: 28 May 2007 23:21:15
From: Zen Cohen
Subject: Max heart rate
|
I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of a bad
knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. At first, I could
only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six months later, and
much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and average about 150-160
for the entire session. Still nowhere close to where I was before but
definitely have improved.
Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing. Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental. I
prefer to go as intensely as I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my
presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or
good articles that address this? Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My
goal is not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems they're
interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.
|
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2007 17:23:47
From: stig
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
Best answer yet!
> Geezer advice : your body is unique, and you get points, in racing, for
> crossing the line before others. If you have outgrown comparing your
> personal physical beauty to others, it's time to give up on your quest to
> model your cardiac life after other, too. Work withink your physical
> universe, take limits a little seriously, providing you want to ride another
> mile. Watch the Giro for heart rate graphs - different elite riders at
> different rates, including the verified maxima.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2007 15:20:03
From:
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On May 30, 10:02 pm, Tom Kunich wrote:
> [220-age] actually works pretty well if you're physically fit.
The guy who developed the formula would disagree with you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html?searchpv=site07
(If you can't get that, a little summary of the relevant part is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/17859bdb288329c8
)
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2007 03:34:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1180563603.332941.254480@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 10:02 pm, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> [220-age] actually works pretty well if you're physically fit.
>
> The guy who developed the formula would disagree with you:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html?searchpv=site07
>
> (If you can't get that, a little summary of the relevant part is here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/17859bdb288329c8
> )
(Neither one worked for me)
All of that doesn't much make a difference Robert. If you actually run these
tests yourself as I have on quite a few people you'll find that the
variations aren't very wide.
The original study was based on a cross section from a hospital ward I
believe. Later it was suggested that heart patients aren't the best people
from whom to form standards. Be that as it may, my experience doing wind
testing showed me that it is accurate enough.
When I first started cycling I thought that the formula was all screwed up
as well. Even though I'd been racing sailboats and jogging for a decade and
raced motorcycles before that and rode extremely difficult off-road stuff,
my heart rate was pretty much higher than the 220-age number so I assumed it
was just wrong. But as my heart increased in size with exercise my heart
rate came down until it very closely matches that number now.
Not that it really makes a lot of difference since as many people have said,
unless you're a pro racer you should be training to the way that you feel
and not the way a pro would train.
|
| | |
Date: 30 May 2007 19:40:36
From: Zen Cohen
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
> On May 30, 10:02 pm, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> [220-age] actually works pretty well if you're physically fit.
>
> The guy who developed the formula would disagree with you:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html?searchpv=site07
>
Thanks for the informative replies, and especially for the link to this
NYTimes article.
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2007 13:02:06
From:
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On May 30, 5:29 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <stev...@veloworks.com >
wrote:
> On 5/30/07 6:09 AM, in article 5c57q6F2tru6...@mid.individual.net, "Dan
>
> 220 - age sets my MaxHR at 179 ... I know I've gotten it as high as 185, but
> I thought I was going to die when I did; my lungs and heart usually start
> stressing when I go above 172/173.
That formula is for finding the maximum effective heart rate for a
person. It actually works pretty well if you're physically fit. If you
are starting an exercise regime you'd probably show higher heart rates
since your heart capacity is probably low and it tries to make up for
it with more pumps per minute.
> So if 185 is my actual max (based on experience), then the 172/173 puts me
> about 93% of max.
So that suggests you aren't in good enough shape yet OR that you have
a heart condition that should be looked into. Anothe clue is if it
takes more than a minute or two for your heart rate to fall from near
max to almost rest rates of under 100.
> And generally, if I'm feeling good, if I keep my HR around 165/166 (~90%
> max), then I can maintain that level of work quite sometime.
What do you mean by "sometime"? Most people can hold 90% for perhaps
an hour or so The better the shape you're in the higher percentage you
can hold for longer. But once you get over VO2max it doesn't matter
how good a shape you're in - you have a strictly limited time counted
in seconds.
> Problem is that my HR shoots up right away, and I'm not very fast anywhere
> in there, unless gravity is helping me downhill.
You're still young though and you have the ability to improve quite
measureably. But you'll have to ride more and more often.
The problem is that most people have more life than riding.
|
| | |
Date: 30 May 2007 14:16:04
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
>> So if 185 is my actual max (based on experience), then the 172/173 puts me
>> about 93% of max.
>
% of max actually isn't the best metric. Better is:
(HR - HRmin) / (HRmax - HRmin)
where HRmin is resting HR.
Dan
|
| | |
Date: 30 May 2007 20:58:33
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
In article <1180555326.478561.34320@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote:
>On May 30, 5:29 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <stev...@veloworks.com>
>wrote:
>> On 5/30/07 6:09 AM, in article 5c57q6F2tru6...@mid.individual.net, "Dan
>>
>> 220 - age sets my MaxHR at 179 ... I know I've gotten it as high as 185, but
>> I thought I was going to die when I did; my lungs and heart usually start
>> stressing when I go above 172/173.
>
>That formula is for finding the maximum effective heart rate for a
>person. It actually works pretty well if you're physically fit. If you
>are starting an exercise regime you'd probably show higher heart rates
>since your heart capacity is probably low and it tries to make up for
>it with more pumps per minute.
It's just a guess, has no real scientific or statistical basis
and for many people is useless. I can hold a conversation at my
maximum HR according to that formula. The only way to know your
maximum heart is to test it and the test is very stressful. But
maximum HR is not very useful, lactate threshold is a lot more
useful for training and a lot less stressful to find out. Plus
your lacate threshold can be effected by training, whereas your
MHR generally can't.
_ Booker C. Bense
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2007 08:52:41
From: mal
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
"Booker C. Bense"
<bbense+rec.bicycles.racing.May.30.07@telemark.slac.stanford.edu > wrote in
message news:f3kohp$ehf$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <1180555326.478561.34320@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 30, 5:29 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <stev...@veloworks.com>
>>wrote:
> . I can hold a conversation at my
> maximum HR according to that formula.
>
> _ Booker C. Bense
>
>
What conversation?
More! more! more!, harder! harder! harder!?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2007 18:31:39
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
In article <Fs2dnUMQ89RE8MLbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@comcast.com >,
mal <malcolm1009@comcast.net > wrote:
>"Booker C. Bense"
><bbense+rec.bicycles.racing.May.30.07@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote in
>message news:f3kohp$ehf$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
>>
>> . I can hold a conversation at my
>> maximum HR according to that formula.
>
>>
>>
>What conversation?
>
>More! more! more!, harder! harder! harder!?
>
According to 220-age, my MHR should be 174. My tested maximum is
actually 195+, I can still converse about whatever you like
at 174. When I first got a heart rate monitor, I was kind of
concerned by the "high" numbers, but I went to the doctor and
had the stress test. I'm just far out on the end of some bell
curve.
_ Booekr C. Bense
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Jun 2007 21:24:21
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
"Booker C. Bense"
<bbense+rec.bicycles.racing.Jun.01.07@telemark.slac.stanford.edu > wrote in
message news:f3pomb$gdv$3@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <Fs2dnUMQ89RE8MLbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> mal <malcolm1009@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Booker C. Bense"
>><bbense+rec.bicycles.racing.May.30.07@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote in
>>message news:f3kohp$ehf$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
>>>
>>> . I can hold a conversation at my
>>> maximum HR according to that formula.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>What conversation?
>>
>>More! more! more!, harder! harder! harder!?
>>
>
> According to 220-age, my MHR should be 174. My tested maximum is
> actually 195+, I can still converse about whatever you like
> at 174. When I first got a heart rate monitor, I was kind of
> concerned by the "high" numbers, but I went to the doctor and
> had the stress test. I'm just far out on the end of some bell
> curve.
What I was trying to tell you is that you aren't "far out on the end of some
bell curve." You are pretty normal and you aren't racing fit. As you
approach your proper fitness your heart volume will increase and the BPM
will reduce.There is variability and you might still have a higher than
"normal" heart rate but it will nevertheless come down a great deal as you
approach racing fitness.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 May 2007 16:47:29
From: Geraard Spergen
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
Booker C. Bense wrote:
> The only way to know your
> maximum heart is to test it and the test is very stressful. But
> maximum HR is not very useful, lactate threshold is a lot more
> useful for training and a lot less stressful to find out. Plus
> your lacate threshold can be effected by training, whereas your
> MHR generally can't.
>
> _ Booker C. Bense
>
>
Submaximum heart rate tests are available that aren't too stressful.
Their accuracy is not as good as a MHR test but much better than the
220-age estimate. They're commonly offered by health clubs and the like.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 May 2007 22:30:35
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:47:29 -0700, Geraard Spergen <GSpergen@spammagnet.net >
wrote:
>Booker C. Bense wrote:
>> The only way to know your
>> maximum heart is to test it and the test is very stressful. But
>> maximum HR is not very useful, lactate threshold is a lot more
>> useful for training and a lot less stressful to find out. Plus
>> your lacate threshold can be effected by training, whereas your
>> MHR generally can't.
>>
>> _ Booker C. Bense
>>
>>
>
>
>Submaximum heart rate tests are available that aren't too stressful.
>Their accuracy is not as good as a MHR test but much better than the
>220-age estimate. They're commonly offered by health clubs and the like.
Isn't there a really accurate test available requiring only a bicycle, HRM and
some empty road.
Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 May 2007 03:46:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:rlcs539c7ssgjq1a38n89aci7lp8pc75dk@4ax.com...
>
> Isn't there a really accurate test available requiring only a bicycle, HRM
> and
> some empty road.
No.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 May 2007 10:19:33
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 03:46:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:rlcs539c7ssgjq1a38n89aci7lp8pc75dk@4ax.com...
>>
>> Isn't there a really accurate test available requiring only a bicycle, HRM
>> and
>> some empty road.
>
>No.
Got a more accurate one?
Ron
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 May 2007 22:55:49
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:ramt53hbf64e634ufcuen31t5rm605c2o3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 03:46:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:rlcs539c7ssgjq1a38n89aci7lp8pc75dk@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Isn't there a really accurate test available requiring only a bicycle,
>>> HRM
>>> and
>>> some empty road.
>>
>>No.
>
> Got a more accurate one?
The problem is that you have to be in the mood to ride at your very hardest
and without doing that you can never achieve a "highest" heart rate that's
accurate.
But in case you're feeling good - do about a half hour of warming up and
then climb a 5% or so grade as fast as you can without maxing out for one
mile and then sprint for at least 100 meters and then use the heart rate
reading as max. You can be off perhaps as much as 2 beats but it isn't
really significant.
All of your zone calculations come from your max rate so those are simple.
http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm
Most people simply cannot push themselves hard enough in individual training
and so in racing you find that your heart rate is maybe as much as 10 beats
higher than you thought your calculated 90% limit. What's more, if you
continue racing especially in Crits where you are always fighting for
position, your heart rate will start to drop as your heart volume increases
over time. These sorts of growth require years and not weeks or months so
they don't happen overnight.
BTW - After such a power test carefully watch your heart rate. It should
take about two minutes or less to fall under 100 bpm if you are riding
absolutely dead slow. If your heart rate takes more than a couple of minutes
to drop, continue to watch it. If it requires more than 5 minutes, go to a
heart specialist and MAKE him give you a stress test and possibly a heart
valve test.
Remember that you can still feel very good despite having blocked arteries
about to give you a heart attack.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 May 2007 21:09:19
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:47:29 -0700, Geraard Spergen
<GSpergen@spammagnet.net > wrote:
>Submaximum heart rate tests are available that aren't too stressful.
>Their accuracy is not as good as a MHR test but much better than the
>220-age estimate.
Accuracy for what isn't as good? For estimating MHR? So what?
IF someone wants to use HR for training, they should go out whe
they're feeling really good and see what their HR is when they are
riding at their goal pace for whatever event they are preparing for.
And then they can pace training around that, trying to go faster and
faster at that same HR.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 May 2007 03:27:43
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote in message
news:lu7s53lbib20j2r5mb5guaegsogqmno5ef@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:47:29 -0700, Geraard Spergen
> <GSpergen@spammagnet.net> wrote:
>
>>Submaximum heart rate tests are available that aren't too stressful.
>>Their accuracy is not as good as a MHR test but much better than the
>>220-age estimate.
>
> Accuracy for what isn't as good? For estimating MHR? So what?
>
> IF someone wants to use HR for training, they should go out whe
> they're feeling really good and see what their HR is when they are
> riding at their goal pace for whatever event they are preparing for.
> And then they can pace training around that, trying to go faster and
> faster at that same HR.
That absolutely does NOT work John. Remember our old conversation with Adam
Myerson (I think) when he said that when he was feeling bad he often had the
best heart rate response? Not to cover it all over again, but when you're
training a lot you certainly don't have a good handle on what your recovery
state is until AFTER the racing is finished.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 May 2007 14:14:33
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
>>> 220 - age
>
That formula has about as much validity as 98.6F. That is, it's bogus. Do a literature search for age-dependence of max HR. The best fit cofficient is actually substantially less than 1/min/year. But there's so much scatter in the data, and there's so many confounding factors, better just to measure it, and forget about formulas.
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2007 12:54:56
From:
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On May 29, 6:10 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:465bc672$0$30633$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
> Zen Cohen <atu...@hotmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
>
>
>
>
> > I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
> > somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of
> > a bad knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. At
> > first, I could only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six
> > months later, and much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and
> > average about 150-160 for the entire session. Still nowhere close to
> > where I was before but definitely have improved.
>
> > Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts
> > say max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to
> > higher max HR if I keep pushing. Also I've heard that I should
> > exercise at about 80% of max HR and that going above that for
> > sustained periods can be detrimental. I prefer to go as intensely as
> > I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for
> > sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or good articles
> > that address this? Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My goal is
> > not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems they're
> > interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.
>
> Geezer advice : your body is unique, and you get points, in racing, for
> crossing the line before others. If you have outgrown comparing your
> personal physical beauty to others, it's time to give up on your quest to
> model your cardiac life after other, too. Work withink your physical
> universe, take limits a little seriously, providing you want to ride anot=
her
> mile. Watch the Giro for heart rate graphs - different elite riders at
> different rates, including the verified maxima.
You have to admit that it seems unusual for a lawyer to be offering
free and good advice.....
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 18:12:19
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.
Either way, all else being equal, your max heart rate will decrease with
age.
"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:465bc672$0$30633$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
>somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of a bad
>knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. At first, I could
>only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six months later, and
>much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and average about 150-160
>for the entire session. Still nowhere close to where I was before but
>definitely have improved.
>
> Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say
> max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max
> HR if I keep pushing. Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80%
> of max HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be
> detrimental. I prefer to go as intensely as I can stand it (usually
> 90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of
> any research or good articles that address this? Am I focusing too much on
> heart rate? My goal is not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems
> they're interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers,
> appreciated.
>
|
| | |
Date: 30 May 2007 14:27:27
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:12:19 -0700, Mike wrote:
> There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
> For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.
You mean 220 - age. But yes, useless for accurate individual
predictions.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | |
Date: 29 May 2007 21:26:59
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:12:19 -0700, "Mike" <a@b.com > wrote:
>There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
>For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.
Most people should ignore this formula.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | |
Date: 30 May 2007 13:09:24
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:12:19 -0700, "Mike" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
>> For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.
>
> Most people should ignore this formula.
>
Yes it would make mine 133!
Although Charly Wegelius was climbing at 12% 25bpm yesterday - or
perhaps the computer was wrong :-))
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 May 2007 06:29:20
From: Steven L. Sheffield
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On 5/30/07 6:09 AM, in article 5c57q6F2tru60U2@mid.individual.net, "Dan
Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:12:19 -0700, "Mike" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
>>> For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.
>>
>> Most people should ignore this formula.
>>
> Yes it would make mine 133!
> Although Charly Wegelius was climbing at 12% 25bpm yesterday - or
> perhaps the computer was wrong :-))
The formula that should be ignored is (220 - age); not (200 - age) ... Well,
that one should be ignored, too, but I've never seen it put forward as a
remotely valid formula.
220 - age sets my MaxHR at 179 ... I know I've gotten it as high as 185, but
I thought I was going to die when I did; my lungs and heart usually start
stressing when I go above 172/173.
So if 185 is my actual max (based on experience), then the 172/173 puts me
about 93% of max.
And generally, if I'm feeling good, if I keep my HR around 165/166 (~90%
max), then I can maintain that level of work quite sometime.
Problem is that my HR shoots up right away, and I'm not very fast anywhere
in there, unless gravity is helping me downhill.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 15:10:05
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
Dans le message de news:465bc672$0$30633$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
Zen Cohen <aturny@hotmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
> somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of
> a bad knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. At
> first, I could only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six
> months later, and much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and
> average about 150-160 for the entire session. Still nowhere close to
> where I was before but definitely have improved.
>
> Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts
> say max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to
> higher max HR if I keep pushing. Also I've heard that I should
> exercise at about 80% of max HR and that going above that for
> sustained periods can be detrimental. I prefer to go as intensely as
> I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for
> sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or good articles
> that address this? Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My goal is
> not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems they're
> interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.
Geezer advice : your body is unique, and you get points, in racing, for
crossing the line before others. If you have outgrown comparing your
personal physical beauty to others, it's time to give up on your quest to
model your cardiac life after other, too. Work withink your physical
universe, take limits a little seriously, providing you want to ride another
mile. Watch the Giro for heart rate graphs - different elite riders at
different rates, including the verified maxima.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 05:24:40
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:21:15 -0700, "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
>HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental. I
>prefer to go as intensely as I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my
>presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or
>good articles that address this?
Yes. See Ultrafit.com among many, many others.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 01:39:15
From: ULTRASK8
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
My max hr used to be higher when I was racing , now I just turned 50
and i saw 201 when I climbed (inline skates) up Trinity Grade to
Oakville outside Santa Rosa Calif (the Tour of California climbed this
on the stage from Santa Rosa to Sacremento) a few months ago)
My old coach used to call me "Birdy" (he meant I had a little heart),
my max in the old days when on the racing circuit was 224, and I ran
usually about 15 - 20 bpm higher than others. (I only saw this in the
lab tho)
Even now I can still carry on a half decent conversation at 175bpm.
So I do LSD workouts at 148 - 153, and when I do intervals at 90%
effort it drops to 120 125 fairly quickly... for the first 5
intervals that is...
I have 84% slow twitch (based on the core sample from 1983).
Don't know if muscle fiber changes with age.. everything else seems
to!
I notice that my speed gets faster at the same hr's , depending on
point in the training program.
rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 29, 8:21 am, "Zen Cohen" <atu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
> > HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
> > I keep pushing.
>
> Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
> total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
> and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
> more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
> more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
> watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
> bit.
>
> > Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
> > HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental.
>
> Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
> ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
> exercising under a physician's care: that would be embarrassing.
>
> > Am I focusing too much on heart rate?
>
> Probably.
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 01:36:39
From: ULTRASK8
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
My max hr used to be higher when I was racing , now I just turned 50
and its at 201 when I climbed (inline skates) up Trinity Grade to
Oakville outside Santa Rosa Calif (the Tour of California climbed this
on the stage from Santa Rosa to Sacremento a few months ago)
My old coach used to call me "Birdy" (he meant I had a little heart),
my max when on the circuit was 224, and I ran usually about 15 - 20
bpm higher than others.
Even now I can still carry on a half decent conversation at 175bpm.
So I do LSD workouts at 148 - 153, and when I do intervals at 90%
effort it drops to 120 125 fairly quickly... for the first 5
intervals that is...
I have 84% slow twitch (based on the core sample from 1983).
Don't know if muscle fiber changes with age.. everything else seems
to!
rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 29, 8:21 am, "Zen Cohen" <atu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
> > HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
> > I keep pushing.
>
> Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
> total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
> and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
> more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
> more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
> watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
> bit.
>
> > Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
> > HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental.
>
> Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
> ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
> exercising under a physician's care: that would be embarrassing.
>
> > Am I focusing too much on heart rate?
>
> Probably.
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2007 00:22:05
From:
Subject: Re: Max heart rate
|
On May 29, 8:21 am, "Zen Cohen" <atu...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
> HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
> I keep pushing.
Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
bit.
> Also I've heard that I should exercise at about 80% of max
> HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be detrimental.
Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
exercising under a physician's care: that would be embarrassing.
> Am I focusing too much on heart rate?
Probably.
|
|
