# HRM & Revy Heart



## jsstbs (13 Jan 2014)

Just bought a Garmin with a heart rate monitor. All seems to be working well with it but I appear to have some physiological "quirks".

My resting heart rate seems accurate at 55ish and my max heart rate (or the highest that I've got it to) is 193bpm (expected to be 220-30=190). In between, though, my heart seems to be (what my husband has described as) "quite revy".

As soon as I set off on a ride, the heart rate climbs quickly. At the speed I would usually do a reasonable (reasonable for me) ride of 10/20/30 miles I'm at 170bpm. Its quite comfortable for me, and although I'm slightly out of breathe I can easily hold conversation. At the effort I would put in to do a reasonable hill (Honister, Hardknott, etc), I'm doing about 180bpm. Both of these levels of effort I could keep up for an appropriate ride (i.e. the whole ride or the whole hill). And yet according to the conventional "heart rate zones", both of these are 90% of my max heart rate so I should be exercising anaerobically which is unsustainable for long periods - but I know I can keep up both paces!

Just wondered if anyone else has experienced these quirks or might have any ideas about whats going on?

My thoughts are that:
- maybe I have a very high max heart rate but just haven't pushed myself there, so I'm not really working at 90%
- when I peaked at 193bpm what stopped me was not my legs (where I should be feeling the lactic acid building up) but a feeling of lack of air coming into my lungs - so my lungs are stopping me somehow (I know my lung size/performance is my a weak point)
- I've just got a weird body and the usual heart rate zones don't apply, and I should configure the top zones to be much closer together (i.e. put Zone 5 to 185bpm where things start hurting not the 174bpm that the formulas say, 193 x 90% = 174)

This doesn't cause me any particular medical concerns - I must have been like this for 30 years before getting the heart rate monitor and I'm still alive! Its just annoying that having bought a heart rate monitor for training, it doesn't seem to work for me!

Although I've had two weeks off for Xmas, I've been back cycling now for one/two weeks. I cycle 5 days a week to & from work, totaling about 40 miles per week. The monitor and standard zones seem to work well for my husband.


----------



## Dusty Bin (13 Jan 2014)

No such thing as a 'standard zone' unfortunately. Your max HR is probably not 190 and if it isn't, then no standard zone will be any use as a reference point. Your HRM won't tell you anything useful until you can establish a true MHR figure....


----------



## Octave (13 Jan 2014)

Check your base layer, static can do funny things to a HRM, try a loose cotton tee shirt as an experiment. Also make sure you have good skin contact to the strap, sorry but saliva works well. Don't ask me how I know these things but let's say I spent a few months riding slowly expecting to have a heart attack!


----------



## sittingbull (13 Jan 2014)

There are reported issues with the Garmin chest straps. One solution is to replace the Garmin strap with a Polar Wear-link strap (transfer the Garmin transmitter to the Polar strap) as detailed here. Assuming your strap is as detailed in the linked article.

I tried to train with an HRM ( I've used a few) as a runner from time to time for over a decade and gave up. I just couldn't keep within the zones, largely due to changing terrain. In the end I would just use it for additional info and perhaps to keep within a max target.

I established my max HR by sprinting say 100m, possibly up an incline, repeating several times. This was just over 200 bpm and I could get nowhere near this on the bike. It makes sense to me that a true max heart rate is independent of activity (running/cycling......) but I have seen reference to differing max heart rates for each activity.

I'm now wondering if I should establish different zones when cycling based on my max cycling heart rate, rather than the higher figure I could obtain running?


----------



## Dusty Bin (13 Jan 2014)

sittingbull said:


> I'm now wondering if I should establish different zones when cycling based on my max cycling heart rate, rather than the higher figure I could obtain running?



Cycling HR does not transfer well to running, and vice versa..


----------



## sittingbull (13 Jan 2014)

That's pretty much what I've experienced.

I've recently been looking at the Maffetone method which recommends training (running) at 180 - age bpm to stay within the aerobic zone. It also says not to exceed that level for other exercise activities. I haven't tried it yet but expect to have to walk rather than run frequently (this is apparently normal at first). However I'm expecting to be able to cycle at a steady pace. Should be interesting.


----------



## uclown2002 (14 Jan 2014)

Why you bothering with HR zones when you are only doing 40 miles a week?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (14 Jan 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> Why you bothering with HR zones when you are only doing 40 miles a week?


This! A lot of bolleaux in that OP for a ride to work


----------



## medavidcook (14 Jan 2014)

jsstbs said:


> Just bought a Garmin with a heart rate monitor. All seems to be working well with it but I appear to have some physiological "quirks".
> 
> My resting heart rate seems accurate at 55ish and my max heart rate (or the highest that I've got it to) is 193bpm (expected to be 220-30=190). In between, though, my heart seems to be (what my husband has described as) "quite revy".
> 
> ...


 

Ok by the looks of it you are using the FHR method (Fetal Heart Rate) for women it is 226 not 220, so max heart rate would technically be 196. The reason for having such a high heart rate can also come from weight, if you are heavier than normal your HR goes up. There is many factors behind this


----------



## VamP (14 Jan 2014)




----------



## Dusty Bin (14 Jan 2014)

medavidcook said:


> Ok by the looks of it you are using the FHR method (Fetal Heart Rate) for women it is 226 not 220, so max heart rate would technically be 196. The reason for having such a high heart rate can also come from weight, if you are heavier than normal your HR goes up. There is many factors behind this



seriously - what?


----------



## jsstbs (14 Jan 2014)

Octave said:


> Check your base layer, static can do funny things to a HRM, try a loose cotton tee shirt as an experiment. Also make sure you have good skin contact to the strap, sorry but saliva works well. Don't ask me how I know these things but let's say I spent a few months riding slowly expecting to have a heart attack!


Thanks for the advice. Gave it a go with a looser T shirt this morning but had to wear a few more layers on top! Didn't seem to make much difference though  Maybe it'll work better in summer when I can wear less layers.


----------



## jsstbs (14 Jan 2014)

sittingbull said:


> There are reported issues with the Garmin chest straps. One solution is to replace the Garmin strap with a Polar Wear-link strap (transfer the Garmin transmitter to the Polar strap) as detailed here. Assuming your strap is as detailed in the linked article.
> 
> I tried to train with an HRM ( I've used a few) as a runner from time to time for over a decade and gave up. I just couldn't keep within the zones, largely due to changing terrain. In the end I would just use it for additional info and perhaps to keep within a max target.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the tips. You might be right about the running - will go out and give it a try.


----------



## jsstbs (14 Jan 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> Why you bothering with HR zones when you are only doing 40 miles a week?


(1) I ride a fixed route to & from work five times per week, week in and week out - if I'm doing this anyway, why would I not want to take the opportunity to improve my performance/fitness? (2) As a woman you might anticipate that there are specific reasons why I might want an objective measure of my level of exercise (3) If I want to want to wear a HRM for a 0.4/4/40/400 mile ride, then that's what I'll do, thanks very much!


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

jsstbs said:


> (1) I ride a fixed route to & from work five times per week, week in and week out - if I'm doing this anyway, why would I not want to take the opportunity to improve my performance/fitness? (2) As a woman you might anticipate that there are specific reasons why I might want an objective measure of my level of exercise (3) If I want to want to wear a HRM for a 0.4/4/40/400 mile ride, then that's what I'll do, thanks very much!


1. Alternative answer ... why would you?
2. I've no idea 'why as a woman' you might need objective measure of your level of exercise, but I'm happy to be enlightened.
3. You asked for peoples thoughts, we don't really give that much of a stuff what you wear .....

You could just ditch all the tech mumbo-jumbo and just enjoy riding your bike, listen to the birds, enjoy the view and feel generally self-satisfied and smug about it.


----------



## Dusty Bin (14 Jan 2014)

Forget the clothing, forget the heart strap and forget the running comparisons. If you want your HR numbers to make sense, then go out and establish an accurate MHR figure and work back from there.


----------



## screenman (14 Jan 2014)

I agree with some of the others, without a specific MHR the numbers are a bit meaningless. Unlike some I ride with my HRM all the time, I also know what my maximum is and is checked yearly and drops about 1 to 2 beats per year. Certainly not a pleasant task doing a max test, normally done with the help of somebody very experienced. At 58 my max was 182 last year, I will retest in March.

If wearing a HRM brings you joy then carry on doing so, regardless of what others may say.


----------



## amasidlover (14 Jan 2014)

I had issues in winter with my HRM over-reading at the beginning of runs/rides, but it settled down once I was perspiring a little. This Tensive Gel seems to have cured the issue though. Of course if you're doing 40 miles I'd expect to see the HRM showing a more sensible value by the end if it is a 'contact' issue.


----------



## Stonechat (28 Jan 2014)

you don't need to buy gel/cream, just mix a little salt with some skin cream, stir it up, wipe of when finished


----------



## fossyant (28 Jan 2014)

Stonechat said:


> you don't need to buy gel/cream, just mix a little salt with some skin cream, stir it up, wipe of when finished


 
Licking the strap works !


----------



## Rob3rt (28 Jan 2014)

jsstbs said:


> (1) I ride a fixed route to & from work five times per week, week in and week out - if I'm doing this anyway, why would I not want to take the opportunity to improve my performance/fitness? (2) As a woman you might anticipate that there are specific reasons why I might want an objective measure of my level of exercise (3) If I want to want to wear a HRM for a 0.4/4/40/400 mile ride, then that's what I'll do, thanks very much!



1) How will the HR monitor help with this? By the time you have cycled far enough to be called a suitable warm-up, you will be at work/home.
2) Gender matters why?
3) Do as you wish!

BTW, 90% MHR is not anaerobic.


----------



## jsstbs (29 Jan 2014)

Thanks for the comment and just to say you're spot on! I've bitten the bullet and come back on here for the first time again in about two week, but some of the earlier comments have put me off. I came onto the fourm to ask for peoples advice and experience. I didn't expect (least of all want) to be told that my ride (and my health) is not "worthy"of being monitored. This is one of my first experiences on a forum, and it's certainly not the friendly attitude I had expected from fellow cyclists. I will be thinking again before I post on here!

To end on a more positive note, thanks to all the guys who've given me some hints & tips. Some I've already tried (without success so far  ) and some I'll be trying soon (or at least when the weathers warmer!).

Signing off now.


----------



## Dusty Bin (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Sorry to hear it jsstbs - I hope you keep lurking here and realise that we're not all highly critical male racing obsessives, there are enough other forums on the web catering for them. Spend some time in the café and see what other silly trivia we end up discussing; oh, and enjoy your cycling.



None of that changes the fact that if you don't know how to use a HRM, you might as well not bother wearing one.


----------



## rich p (30 Jan 2014)

Hmmm, my suspicions were raised at this comment
_Its quite comfortable for me, and although I'm slightly out of breathe I can easily hold conversation. At the effort I would put _in to do a reasonable hill (Honister, Hardknott, etc
Honister is 25%(?) and Hardknott is up to 33%


----------



## Dusty Bin (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> You might think that, but there are times when it's not appropriate to say it. Maybe they don't teach social skills at the Ted Rogers School of Performance Cycling?



No, they teach honesty. I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ar5e....especially if they are doing something wrong - and pointing it out could actually help them in the longer term.


----------



## Rob3rt (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Sorry to hear it jsstbs - I hope you keep lurking here and realise that we're not all *highly critical male racing obsessives*, there are enough other forums on the web catering for them. Spend some time in the café and see what other silly trivia we end up discussing; oh, and enjoy your cycling.



Here we go again...


----------



## Rob3rt (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Yes indeed - *yet again you have your racing blinkers on.*



I do? I mentioned racing or performance inappropriately where?


----------



## Dusty Bin (30 Jan 2014)

Love this thread...

The 'normal' way to respond to someone who is doing something incorrectly = _"hang on, I don't think you're doing that right"_

The 'cyclechat' way to respond to someone who is doing something incorrectly = _"you're doing great - keep it up!"_

__


----------



## rich p (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Oh well, looks like we've successfully policed out someone who wasn't telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth then - we are all perfect in here aren't we.


Not policed out, but calling Hardknott only a reasonable hill is somewhat more than misleading. It's one of the hardest climbs in England and one I failed at.


----------



## VamP (30 Jan 2014)

Is this another one of those 'let's not make stuff too complicated in case it scares people off' Cyclechat initiatives? I am not sure why the fact the OP is a woman should come into it TBH. And learning to shrug off the odd unsupportive comment is surely just a part of learning how to use the internet?


----------



## VamP (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> It wasn't the complicatedness VamP, it was the slightly scornful tone, which might be justified sometimes but surely not so soon for a new forum member?
> 
> Women are in the minority on CC and I for one would like to see more of us here, and in cycling in general, so I think it's a double shame when a woman newbie gets put off (and as far as I know none of the ones who might have deterred her were women in this case). The 'learning to use the internet' bit is a bit patronising.



I think looking at people here as 'members' is misleading. It's just an internet chatroom. We're all disconnected individuals, with an interest in common. Maybe I am jaded, but surely anyone who has used the internet for any length of time will have developed a filter for the useful/useless/obnoxious? And if they haven't they should.

Women are in a minority in cycling in general. I am all for supporting their involvement in the sport, and in fact I am involved in grassroots women's and juniors racing and training at club level. I do think that expecting an internet forum to re-dress the balance is a bit ambitious TBH.

I have noticed a tendency for people on the 'training' section of this forum to try to put down anyone who goes beyond the superficial in discussions. I may have gone in the wrong direction in having a pop at you, as that does not seem to be your agenda. You have my apologies.


----------



## VamP (30 Jan 2014)

2900983 said:


> "Cycle Chat, a fun and friendly online cycling community"



You must be a marketing man's dream.


----------



## VamP (30 Jan 2014)

I could. But it would be a wasted effort. Maybe you can make a case for it being 'online' and 'cycling', but all the other words in that tagline are just words without substance.


----------



## VamP (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> It's a matter of personal perception, obviously. To you it's just an anonymous chatroom. To me, and the very many other people on here who have become friends of mine in real life, it's a community. One that uses the internet as a fantastic and effective means of communication. So when someone new tries to join in and people are needlessly rude to them it feels different to me than it does to you.
> 
> I prefer *my version* .



I have met and become friends with people from a all sorts of on-line forum's. I think that's a factor of sharing a passion, not in some way an indication of the suitability of internet as a medium to replace real-life communities or clubs.

You don't see BikeRadar, TimeTrialling Forum, Weight Weenies, UKCyclocross, or the many many club or league forums putting themselves forward as being 'a friendly community', yet they are often as, if not a lot more inclusive as Cyclechat is, and importantly a lot more likely to have a real-life interface (well maybe not BR). It might feel like a community to you and Adrian, but I suspect that you are very much in a minority in this. Albeit a vocal one.

I personally consider rudeness deplorable in any setting, but there's just as much of it here as in any other internet setting, and a lot more than there is in most real-life settings.


----------



## Rob3rt (30 Jan 2014)

Thing with a forum like TTF and I imagine your CX forum, we bump into the members week in week out when racing each weekend and due to the specific nature of the forum, the common interest is narrow.


----------



## VamP (30 Jan 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Thing with a forum like TTF and I imagine your CX forum, we bump into the members week in week out when racing each weekend and due to the specific nature of the forum, the common interest is narrow.



Well here's a straw poll. Do you feel like a part of the CC 'community'?


----------



## Rob3rt (30 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> Well here's a straw poll. Do you feel like a part of the CC 'community'?



Yes and no  I am fully aware I am a bit of an odd one out with regards to my current cycling interests and approach, but I've been a member on here since I bought a bike so have a fondness for the forum


----------



## VamP (30 Jan 2014)

Hm, same here.


----------



## screenman (30 Jan 2014)

One of the problems I have as an ex racing cyclist and what I would call a sporting cyclist, my replies will be different for some subjects that that of somebody who uses their bike purely for commuting or suchlike.

I think of the other forums mentioned the people are far more like minded.

As for this forum being friendly, well I am not sure there seems a bit of gang culture operating behind the scenes, and one or two members have disappeared or have they been mysteriously erased by the CC mafia. Only kidding apart from the many members listed below it is a fair place.


----------



## jefmcg (31 Jan 2014)

@jsstbs - on the off chance you ever come back, I may be some help. I'm no expert, but a dabbler - like you.

I've been there: you are exercising, and you buy a gadget to help you focus, train harder, make it more interesting. I did the same thing (still do, obsessively tracking all my rides with 3 different phone apps!)

Anyway, the simplest way to test if your hrm is working correctly is to place you fingers on your neck to find your pulse, and count the beats for 6 seconds. If the HRM is saying 180 and you count roughly 18, then it's working. If you get a different number, then it's time to investigate further.

I wore a HRM during an inline skating event (a looooong time ago) and had a similar experience. My heart stayed above 190 the entire time. That HRM was subject to interference from power lines, but when I did the 6-second thing, I found it was right, so like you, my maximum HR was much higher than shown. I used a simple test to see if I was in the aerobic zone (do they still call it that? anyway, the HR where you are working but can go all day): you should be able to carry on a normal-ish conversation, but not have enough breath to sing.

But if you are serious, start wearing the HRM in bed to find your resting HR first thing in the morning, and do a some hills to get your actual MHR and then you can start working out your real zones from there

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/


----------



## david k (1 Feb 2014)

jsstbs said:


> Thanks for the comment and just to say you're spot on! I've bitten the bullet and come back on here for the first time again in about two week, but some of the earlier comments have put me off. I came onto the fourm to ask for peoples advice and experience. I didn't expect (least of all want) to be told that my ride (and my health) is not "worthy"of being monitored. This is one of my first experiences on a forum, and it's certainly not the friendly attitude I had expected from fellow cyclists. I will be thinking again before I post on here!
> To end on a more positive note, thanks to all the guys who've given me some hints & tips. Some I've already tried (without success so far  ) and some I'll be trying soon (or at least when the weathers warmer!).
> Signing off now.



Dont be put off, just ignore the replies your not comfortable with and engage with the ones you are (if possible)


----------



## david k (1 Feb 2014)

VamP said:


> I personally consider rudeness deplorable in any setting, but there's just as much of it here as in any other internet setting, and a lot more than there is in most real-life settings.



+1


----------



## jefmcg (1 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> 2) Gender matters why?


Seriously? You can't think of a single reason why a 30 year old woman** might have a particular concern with not over exerting herself that could never directly concern a man? 

** "married woman", if you still need another hint.


----------



## Dusty Bin (1 Feb 2014)

david k said:


> Dont be put off, just ignore the replies your not comfortable with and engage with the ones you are (if possible)



I may have misinterpreted this, but isn't that a bit like saying 'just ignore the stuff you don't agree with' - without due regard to whether they are accurate or not?


----------



## uclown2002 (1 Feb 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Seriously? You can't think of a single reason why a 30 year old woman** might have a particular concern with not over exerting herself that could never directly concern a man?
> 
> ** "married woman", if you still need another hint.


I need another hint please.


----------



## david k (1 Feb 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> I may have misinterpreted this, but isn't that a bit like saying 'just ignore the stuff you don't agree with' - without due regard to whether they are accurate or not?



I think it was more to do with the tone of the comments/replies than the meaning


----------



## david k (1 Feb 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> I may have misinterpreted this, but isn't that a bit like saying 'just ignore the stuff you don't agree with' - without due regard to whether they are accurate or not?


If you dont agree presumingly you feel it is not accurate ?


----------



## Dusty Bin (1 Feb 2014)

david k said:


> If you dont agree presumingly you feel it is not accurate ?



Not necessarily. Some people just don't like being told.


----------

