# New to heart rate training



## Gary Stanley (7 Sep 2013)

I've just recently invested in a Garmin 810 and now have my resting and maximum heart rates. I've been trying to get my head round the different zones. I initially want fat burning zone and then stamina....any one got a "dummies guide" to HR zones ???


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Sep 2013)

There are absolutely bucket loads of guides, all it takes is to type "HR training" or similar into Google, or you could buy one of the thousands of books on the subject.


----------



## derrick (7 Sep 2013)

check out you tube, should find something helpful.


----------



## Biker Joe (8 Sep 2013)

Hi Gary
Try Googling " Sally Edward's Heart Zone Training" I found it very good and informative.
There are many more but that's a good place to start.


----------



## Dusty Bin (8 Sep 2013)

Gary Stanley said:


> I've just recently invested in a Garmin 810 and now have my resting and maximum heart rates. I've been trying to get my head round the different zones. I initially want fat burning zone and then stamina....any one got a "dummies guide" to HR zones ???



A couple of questions, just for clarity...

First - how have you established your max heart rate? Second - what do you mean by 'fat burning zone'? Such a thing does not really exist in any meaningful sense.


----------



## The Jogger (8 Sep 2013)

Maffetone

http://www.philmaffetone.com/whatisthemaffetonemethod.cfm


----------



## cervelo chic (10 Sep 2013)

Training Peaks is a good website - once you have uploaded some rides it can tell you your own heart rate zones (threshold, vo2 max etc), then once its worked out the HR zones you put it on the garmin and when out riding you can ride in whatever zone you are aiming for (your garmin will tell you what zone your heart rate is at when out riding) - for me I aim to be in zone 4.
Hope this makes sense


----------



## Dusty Bin (10 Sep 2013)

cervelo chic said:


> for me I aim to be in zone 4.
> Hope this makes sense



not really - you won't see much improvement doing all your rides in the same zone.


----------



## GmanUK65 (12 Sep 2013)

Gary Stanley said:


> I've just recently invested in a Garmin 810 and now have my resting and maximum heart rates. I've been trying to get my head round the different zones. I initially want fat burning zone and then stamina....any one got a "dummies guide" to HR zones ???


The zones you are talking about are zone 1 (the fat burning zone) which is below 65% of your max HR, the next is zone 2 (the stamina zone) which is 65% - 84% of your max HR. This is the zone where carbohydrates are burned (as long as you replenish your body with carbohydrates during a ride). Zone 3 is the next zone at 85% - 94% of max HR. When you are in zone 2 you are exercising aerobically but in zone 3 you are exercising anaerobically where you stop burning carbohydrates and start burning glycogen which you have a limited supply of (about 2 hours). Zone 4 is the last zone which is at a heart rate of > 94%. This is where a lot of glycogen is being used and is used for intense training intervals. Zone 4 should be rarely used.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (12 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> The zones you are talking about are zone 1 (the fat burning zone) which is below 65% of your max HR, the next is zone 2 (the stamina zone) which is 65% - 84% of your max HR. This is the zone where carbohydrates are burned (as long as you replenish your body with carbohydrates during a ride). Zone 3 is the next zone at 85% - 95% of max HR. W


You do realise there is no such thing as a fat burning zone?


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Sep 2013)

There is no such thing as discrete "zones" full stop! It is an arbitrary construct imposed on a continuous system.

But what the hell, fat burning zone, sounds cool! I need to get me some of that! Is it best done on the flat or in the hills? Maybe on the turbo or even on the couch with your legs in the air?


----------



## GmanUK65 (12 Sep 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You do realise there is no such thing as a fat burning zone?


You are right, zone 1 is technically not called a fat burning zone but apparently this is the zone that uses the fat stored in the body as fuel for cycling according to Chris Carmichael (p10. The Complete Book of Long Distance Cycling, by Edmund R. Burke, PhD and Ed Pavelka).


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (12 Sep 2013)

I'm burning fat typing this. I'm pretty sure I'm not in a "zone"


----------



## GmanUK65 (12 Sep 2013)

The majority of people on this site are OK and they give good advice, but there is the occasional dick that gives no advice and puts in downgrading comments


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (12 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> The majority of people on this site are OK and they give good advice, but there is the occasional dick that gives no advice and puts in downgrading comments


And many more who give incorrect advice.


----------



## michaelcycle (12 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> You are right, zone 1 is technically not called a fat burning zone but apparently this is the zone that uses the fat stored in the body as fuel for cycling according to Chris Carmichael (p10. The Complete Book of Long Distance Cycling, by Edmund R. Burke, PhD and Ed Pavelka).



It's true that lower intensity work favours fat metabolism (as opposed to using solely fat) which in turn correlates with the use of aerobic rather than anaerobic pathways - so good for establishing a solid base.

However, the zones are not discrete boundaries no more than rep ranges in weight training are discrete. You get a mix of adaptations usually although one on is generally more favoured.

Personally I think HR training does have use but I have been referred to training using power output as being a more reliable method of guaging work and from what I have read so far that does seem to be correct (I am fairly new to cycling but not exercise phsyiology.)

I think if you use HR training as a recreational cyclist you will see many positive results but if you want to ramp up results then you would drill down on measuring power output.


----------



## GmanUK65 (12 Sep 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> It's true that lower intensity work favours fat metabolism (as opposed to using solely fat) which in turn correlates with the use of aerobic rather than anaerobic pathways - so good for establishing a solid base.
> 
> However, the zones are not discrete boundaries no more than rep ranges in weight training are discrete. You get a mix of adaptations usually although one on is generally more favoured.
> 
> ...


I suppose you are right because everyone is an individual and heart rates would differ for aerobic/anaerobic exercising but for general purposes for a cyclist who has only him/herself to do their training the zones that I have given could be used. If they had a personal coach/trainer then a true representation of the zones could be worked out.


----------



## Garz (13 Sep 2013)

Get out there and enjoy the riding first and foremost. When you start to plateau then look into alternative 'training' techniques experimenting with ideas that hopefully you respond to.

As for power meters, you are now encroaching onto the very committed cyclist who let's be honest is not going to get much from the average cycle chat member and should definitely not be scorning others as to feel superior. Power meters cost more than most peoples bikes, so you either have money to burn or fall into the category mentioned in the previous sentence.

Good evening.


----------



## Biker Joe (14 Sep 2013)

I use a heart rate monitor on a regular basis whilst riding.
I wouldn't say I use it for training to get fitter. I use it so that I don't 'overcook' it on rides and keep within my comfort zone, so to speak.
Regular monitoring of my resting heart rate also gives me an indication of my overall physical fitness.
During a ride I like to keep my average HR around the upper levels of Zone 2 and lower levels of Zone 3.
It works for me and stops me getting over fatigued, especially on longer rides.


----------



## Garz (14 Sep 2013)

Biker Joe said:


> I use a heart rate monitor on a regular basis whilst riding.
> I wouldn't say I use it for training to get fitter. I use it so that I don't 'overcook' it on rides and keep within my comfort zone, so to speak.
> Regular monitoring of my resting heart rate also gives me an indication of my overall physical fitness.
> During a ride I like to keep my average HR around the upper levels of Zone 2 and lower levels of Zone 3.
> It works for me and stops me getting over fatigued, especially on longer rides.



First sensible and concise post! Good job Joe.


----------



## Dusty Bin (14 Sep 2013)

Garz said:


> First sensible and concise post! Good job Joe.



Hang on - the thread title is 'heart rate training' - and the 'first sensible post' is from someone who says he doesn't use his HRM to get fitter?


----------



## gavroche (14 Sep 2013)

Exactly how do you use a heart rate monitor? Do you strap it round your chest and analyse readings when you get home? Do you get readings as you go along?


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2013)

gavroche said:


> Exactly how do you use a heart rate monitor? *Do you strap it round your chest and analyse readings when you get home? Do you get readings as you go along?*



Yes, yes and yes.


----------



## Dusty Bin (15 Sep 2013)

gavroche said:


> Exactly how do you use a heart rate monitor? Do you strap it round your chest and analyse readings when you get home? Do you get readings as you go along?


You get a near 'real time' reading as you go along. Assuming you know the type of ride you are aiming for (eg low level, threshold intervals, etc) then the HRM will help you to target the appropriate effort level.


----------



## gavroche (15 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Yes, yes and yes.


 Can you explain how you can see your readings as you go along if the monitor is round your chest? Also, a "yes" is not specific enough for my old brain.


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Sep 2013)

The strap is around your chest, it transmits the reading to a display (such as a Garmin) on your handlebars.


----------



## The Jogger (15 Sep 2013)

The best indication of your fitness is the recovery rate not the resting heart rate. Check how many beats after your first minute of recovery. So if it drops 30 beats in that minute, it's so so, if it drops 45 then it's very good. The more it drops is an indication of the fitter you are getting. So monitor that to get a better indication of your fitness. Resting hr is not always a sign of how fit you are.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> The majority of people on this site are OK and they give good advice, but there is the occasional dick that gives no advice and puts in downgrading comments


 I'll think you 'll find the 2 dicks you refer to have given more sound advice on these pages than anyone else ! They have more patience than me that's for sure, I admire their longevity in dealing with the same subjects over and over again.


----------



## Biker Joe (15 Sep 2013)

The Jogger said:


> The best indication of your fitness is the recovery rate not the resting heart rate. Check how many beats after your first minute of recovery. So if it drops 30 beats in that minute, it's so so, if it drops 45 then it's very good. The more it drops is an indication of the fitter you are getting. So monitor that to get a better indication of your fitness. Resting hr is not always a sign of how fit you are.


Yes I agree with you there. Recovery rate is the best indication of physical fitness.
I probably should not have said," overall physical fitness". but rather," overall general health". I find that an increase in resting heart rate usually indicates that I am coming down with something and I can take the appropriate action and, hopefully, nip it in the bud before it takes hold.( Not always successfully I might add ). It gives me a forewarning however.
As I said. I don't use the HRM to get fitter but to keep myself in reasonable parameters so that I don't overdo it.
Good point you made though.


----------



## VamP (15 Sep 2013)

The Jogger said:


> The best indication of your fitness is the recovery rate not the resting heart rate. Check how many beats after your first minute of recovery. So if it drops 30 beats in that minute, it's so so, if it drops 45 then it's very good. The more it drops is an indication of the fitter you are getting. So monitor that to get a better indication of your fitness. Resting hr is not always a sign of how fit you are.




Erm.... the best indicator of fitness is performance. HR isn't very good at telling us much about fitness, it's a proxy and there are many factors.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Sep 2013)

I think you need to quantify 'performance', a HRM could pre/post ride give you an indication to poor performance. HRMs are tools and there best use is to indicate health and well being.


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Sep 2013)

I tend to agree with VamP here, the best indicator of fitness is performance and a HRM is not very useful in quantifying performance for various reasons.

However, if you are into doing such things as timing your recovery etc then the HRM can be useful for giving an indication of general fitness changes. That said, the post by someone about about waiting for your HR to drop by 45 and it being "very good" or something, well that is, but its very nature bunkum. HR is very individual and also very variable, day to day and hour to hour so an arbitrary number has no use. You should probably just observe trends in your own data and forget about numbers such as "45" and phrases such as "_insert number_ is very good".


----------



## gavroche (15 Sep 2013)

Argos have a HRM for £20. Is it worth buying it?


----------



## Dusty Bin (15 Sep 2013)

gavroche said:


> Argos have a HRM for £20. Is it worth buying it?



Depends if you want one as a toy, or as a useful HR measurement/tracking device...


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I'll think you 'll find the 2 dicks you refer to have given more sound advice on these pages than anyone else ! They have more patience than me that's for sure, I admire their longevity in dealing with the same subjects over and over again.


Yes I agree in what you as I found out in another thread I started on lactate training (something I know nothing about except the name) but, if I am wrong in things I say then they should explain why I am wrong instead of putting me down and taking the mick. I mean they must have been beginners some time in the past


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

gavroche said:


> Argos have a HRM for £20. Is it worth buying it?


Ive got a Polar CS200cad it cost me £99 which was on offer, but when I bought my road bike I left it on my hybrid and bought a normal cycling computer for the road bike. I now have the Polar on my road bike but just use it as a HRM. I could also use it for cadence but the muckle big sensor makes the bike look a mess so I am not going to bother. Talking about cadence, how important is it?


----------



## Biker Joe (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> Talking about cadence, how important is it?


When you look at the peloton during a pro race, not that important as I see it. They are all travelling at the same speed but their cadence varies enormously.
You ride with what is comfortable for you I think.
I have cadence on my cycle computer and I like to keep it around the lower 80s mark. That suits me fine.
I'm no expert on the matter. There's probably other opinions.


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

I know this looks like a list of posts I am doing but I tried this one in another website forum yesterday but havnt any replies yet.

One of the threads I have started is about lactate training, asking on how it is done. I have now realized that I dont think I am ready for this yet. The reason for this is because I have read/been told that before doing this I have to get my body used to working aerobically; another way of putting this is what Ive read - making my body an aerobic engine. How would I train my body to be this?

I dont know if this is correct but I went for a 70 mile ride yesterday and most of that ride I kept my HR in an area where I believe is aerobic by constantly changing down gears when going uphill and changing up gears when going downhill (obviously my HR went right down when I came to road junctions and traffic lights). Could this be a correct method for building a so called aerobic engine, or should I purposely occasionally go anaerobic?


----------



## Dusty Bin (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> I know this looks like a list of posts I am doing but I tried this one in another website forum yesterday but havnt any replies yet.
> 
> One of the threads I have started is about lactate training, asking on how it is done. I have now realized that I dont think I am ready for this yet. The reason for this is because I have read/been told that before doing this I have to get my body used to working aerobically; another way of putting this is what Ive read - making my body an aerobic engine. How would I train my body to be this?
> 
> I dont know if this is correct but I went for a 70 mile ride yesterday and most of that ride I kept my HR in an area where I believe is aerobic by constantly changing down gears when going uphill and changing up gears when going downhill (obviously my HR went right down when I came to road junctions and traffic lights). Could this be a correct method for building a so called aerobic engine, or should I purposely occasionally go anaerobic?



It's a good idea to have a decent aerobic base before you start launching into HIIT work. What are you actually trying to achieve with any of this?


----------



## lukesdad (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> Ive got a Polar CS200cad it cost me £99 which was on offer, but when I bought my road bike I left it on my hybrid and bought a normal cycling computer for the road bike. I now have the Polar on my road bike but just use it as a HRM. I could also use it for cadence but the muckle big sensor makes the bike look a mess so I am not going to bother. Talking about cadence, how important is it?





GmanUK65 said:


> Yes I agree in what you as I found out in another thread I started on lactate training (something I know nothing about except the name) but, if I am wrong in things I say then they should explain why I am wrong instead of putting me down and taking the mick. I mean they must have been beginners some time in the past


 
Post 2 gave some advice, perhaps if you had acted on it before your first,post 15 would not apply. Interesting you refer to beginners as I believe beginners is where this thread belongs.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> I know this looks like a list of posts I am doing but I tried this one in another website forum yesterday but havnt any replies yet.
> 
> One of the threads I have started is about lactate training, asking on how it is done. I have now realized that I dont think I am ready for this yet. The reason for this is because I have read/been told that before doing this I have to get my body used to working aerobically; another way of putting this is what Ive read - making my body an aerobic engine. How would I train my body to be this?
> 
> I dont know if this is correct but I went for a 70 mile ride yesterday and most of that ride I kept my HR in an area where I believe is aerobic by constantly changing down gears when going uphill and changing up gears when going downhill (obviously my HR went right down when I came to road junctions and traffic lights). Could this be a correct method for building a so called aerobic engine, or should I purposely occasionally go anaerobic?


 Base miles.


----------



## Garz (15 Sep 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Hang on - the thread title is 'heart rate training' - and the 'first sensible post' is from someone who says he doesn't use his HRM to get fitter?



Correction- the title is actually "*New* to heart rate training" if you want to be pedantic. When I said sensible, it was exactly that, no digs and no wise comments - the guy is obviously fresh to this. How you use your HRM is entirely up to you - as with HR subjects especially on forums though there is always people that argue over it's uses or how accurate it is.

The key to begin using one I'm afraid is setting it up to be a reflection of your health. We all know the arbitrary x minus age is terrible and you should firstly set this after a solid effort where the theoretical max is attempted. After this at least your 'zones' are realistic and you can 'train' to your hearts content (pun intended).


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Base miles.


Base miles? This is something else I have read about in this subject. What is base miles? How can you tell if you have ridden these base miles? Are these base miles counted from how many miles you have ridden where a HRM does not matter, or miles ridden with a HRM. In the last 3 weeks I have ridden 304 miles on my road bike but only 84 miles of this a HRM was used


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I'm burning fat typing this. I'm pretty sure I'm not in a "zone"


defo in the zone mate, top post


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2013)

i use a HRM sometimes, it can help you ensure your not pushing to hard or taking it to easy but mostly i use it just to add a little more interest to reviewing my rides. i dont have any specific goals, you dont need to be a pro or serious amateur to want to use some additional 'tools' to help keep the interest


----------



## Dusty Bin (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> Base miles? This is something else I have read about in this subject. What is base miles? How can you tell if you have ridden these base miles? Are these base miles counted from how many miles you have ridden where a HRM does not matter, or miles ridden with a HRM. In the last 3 weeks I have ridden 304 miles on my road bike but only 84 miles of this a HRM was used



Base miles = aerobic conditioning = rides of 2-4 hours (or more) at an effort which is comfortable and sustainable for the duration of the ride. Base miles only really matter if you are building your aeroic capacity in order to undertake higher intensity/interval training at a later date, as part of some kind of training plan. Otherwise, if none of the above applies to you, don't over-think it and just pedal.


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> don't over-think it and just pedal.


good advice, chances are these will be base miles anyway


----------



## The Jogger (15 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I tend to agree with VamP here, the best indicator of fitness is performance and a HRM is not very useful in quantifying performance for various reasons.
> 
> However, if you are into doing such things as timing your recovery etc then the HRM can be useful for giving an indication of general fitness changes. *That said, the post by someone about about waiting for your HR to drop by 45 and it being "very good" or something, well that is, but its very nature bunkum. *HR is very individual and also very variable, day to day and hour to hour so an arbitrary number has no use. You should probably just observe trends in your own data and forget about numbers such as "45" and phrases such as "_insert number_ is very good".


 
Recovery Heart Rate
'Your heart will recover quicker as you become fitter. A recovery heart rate of 25 to 30 beats in one minute is a good score, and 50 to 60 beats in one minute is considered excellent. You should monitor your one-minute and two-minute recovery heart rate at least twice weekly to gauge whether your fitness level is improving. If it’s not, then you may need to alter your workouts so they are more demanding.'

Sally Edwards, MA, MBA, is considered one of the world’s leading experts on heart rate. She is the author of 20 books on fitness and sports, a professional triathlete and founder of Heart Zones (www.heartzones.com).


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Base miles = aerobic conditioning = rides of 2-4 hours (or more) at an effort which is comfortable and sustainable for the duration of the ride. Base miles only really matter if you are building your aeroic capacity in order to undertake higher intensity/interval training at a later date, as part of some kind of training plan. Otherwise, if none of the above applies to you, don't over-think it and just pedal.


I need to find out my base miles because over the next two years I would like to train to be able to cycle 200 miles a day so I am capable to do rides such as the LEL. Intensity/interval training would help me do endurance rides of 200+ miles a day. In the post above where I mentioned the 70 miles I rode yesterday, this took me 5 hours and 30 minutes, with 4 hours and 30 minutes at an effort which was comfortable and sustainable. My average speed was 13.1 mph. If I was doing this at this rate for 200 miles it would take me 15 hours. Obviously I am going to have to bring my pace up to maybe an average of about 20mph (guessing here) to do 200 miles in a reasonable time.


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Sep 2013)

The Jogger said:


> Recovery Heart Rate
> 'Your heart will recover quicker as you become fitter. A recovery heart rate of 25 to 30 beats in one minute is a good score, and 50 to 60 beats in one minute is considered excellent. You should monitor your one-minute and two-minute recovery heart rate at least twice weekly to gauge whether your fitness level is improving. If it’s not, then you may need to alter your workouts so they are more demanding.'
> 
> Sally Edwards, MA, MBA, is considered one of the world’s leading experts on heart rate. She is the author of 20 books on fitness and sports, a professional triathlete and founder of Heart Zones (www.heartzones.com).



OMG Sally Edwards said it, it must be right........ ffs!



GmanUK65 said:


> *I need to find out my base miles* because over the next two years I would like to train to be able to cycle 200 miles a day so I am capable to do rides such as the LEL. Intensity/interval training would help me do endurance rides of 200+ miles a day. In the post above where I mentioned the 70 miles I rode yesterday, this took me 5 hours and 30 minutes, with 4 hours and 30 minutes at an effort which was comfortable and sustainable. My average speed was 13.1 mph. If I was doing this at this rate for 200 miles it would take me 15 hours. Obviously I am going to have to bring my pace up to maybe an average of about 20mph (guessing here) to do 200 miles in a reasonable time.



You don't need to figure out your base miles, there is nothing to figure out, you need to do base miles, also known as "riding your bike".


----------



## Dusty Bin (15 Sep 2013)

The Jogger said:


> Recovery Heart Rate
> 'Your heart will recover quicker as you become fitter. A recovery heart rate of 25 to 30 beats in one minute is a good score, and 50 to 60 beats in one minute is considered excellent. You should monitor your one-minute and two-minute recovery heart rate at least twice weekly to gauge whether your fitness level is improving. If it’s not, then you may need to alter your workouts so they are more demanding.'
> 
> Sally Edwards, MA, MBA, is considered one of the world’s leading experts on heart rate. She is the author of 20 books on fitness and sports, a professional triathlete and founder of Heart Zones (www.heartzones.com).



I don't think anyone is disputing that recovery HR is not an indicator of improving fitness. It's just that using performance as an indicator makes a lot more sense.


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Sep 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> *I don't think anyone is disputing that recovery HR is not an indicator of improving fitness.* It's just that using performance as an indicator makes a lot more sense.



Agree, but I am disputing the arbitrary numbers being used to gauge fitness.


----------



## uclown2002 (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> ....................Obviously I am going to have to bring my pace up to maybe an average of about 20mph (guessing here) to do 200 miles in a reasonable time.



200 miles @ 20mph is a bit of a leap from 13.1 mph for 70 miles!

You might want to set a more realistic target.


----------



## The Jogger (15 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> OMG Sally Edwards said it, it must be right........ *ffs*!


 
And others, btw don't get so stressed out about it.
http://www.johnstonefitness.com/201...ess-hrrest-hrmax-hrr-recovery-hr-and-vo2-max/

http://www.cyclemoles.com/2013/05/1-minute-heart-rate-recovery/

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=what is the best way to measure your fitness level heart rate recovery&spell=1

http://www.polar.com/e_manuals/CS600/Polar_CS600_user_manual_English/ch09.html

Need I go on........maybe you should research the topic.......perhaps not.!


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Sep 2013)

The Jogger said:


> And others, btw don't get so stressed out about it.
> http://www.johnstonefitness.com/201...ess-hrrest-hrmax-hrr-recovery-hr-and-vo2-max/
> 
> http://www.cyclemoles.com/2013/05/1-minute-heart-rate-recovery/
> ...



You are not convincing me. The numbers are arbitrary numbers that someone has equated to arbitrary fitness levels. None of these test procedures even specify what %age of your MHR you should be at before starting the test, therefore different people will start the test from different points, and the recovery rate will vary with how fast your heart was beating when you started the timer.

If you are going to monitor HR recovery as an indication of personal fitness, you would only compare with yourself, over a period of time and all you would get would be an indication of whether fitness has increased or decreased, not a measure of absolute fitness.

Next you will be telling us 220-age is an accurate way to determine a man's maximum heart rate!


----------



## The Jogger (15 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> You are not convincing me. The numbers are arbitrary numbers that someone has equated to arbitrary fitness levels. None of these test procedures even specify what %age of your MHR you should be at before starting the test, therefore different people will start the test from different points, and the recovery rate will vary with how fast your heart was beating when you started the timer.
> 
> If you are going to monitor HR recovery as an indication of personal fitness, you would only compare with yourself, over a period of time and all you would get would be an indication of whether fitness has increased or decreased, not a measure of absolute fitness.
> 
> Next you will be telling us 220-age is an accurate way to determine a man's maximum heart rate!


 
My point is if you measure your recovering HR as you take up training and monitor as you go along it is a good indication of your (hopefully) improving fitness. Which having done this in my running days, I found very useful. I also noticed the changes after a long period of not training were my recovery rate was lower.

As far as max, I had mine measured properly on a stress test and it was nothing like that 220 formula, so no I wouldn't quote that.


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> 200 miles @ 20mph is a bit of a leap from 13.1 mph for 70 miles!
> 
> You might want to set a more realistic target.


I said 20 mph as a guess but I think to ride 200 miles a day (which may take me up to a year to do) I will need to ride at a much higher average to ride 200 miles in about 5 to 7 hours


----------



## uclown2002 (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> I said 20 mph as a guess but I think to ride 200 miles a day (which may take me up to a year to do) I will need to ride at a much higher average to ride 200 miles in about 5 to 7 hours



200 miles in 5-7 hrs?
That's just not happening; not by a long shot!


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Sep 2013)

The Jogger said:


> *My point is if you measure your recovering HR as you take up training and monitor as you go along it is a good indication of your (hopefully) improving fitness*. Which having done this in my running days, I found very useful. I also noticed the changes after a long period of not training were my recovery rate was lower.
> 
> As far as max, I had mine measured properly on a stress test and it was nothing like that 220 formula, so no I wouldn't quote that.



Can't recall disputing that, all I disputed was the arbitrary number aspect of your post! I agree that recording the recovery rate over a period of time can indicate gains or losses in fitness (however you would need to introduce a consistent test protocol to get anything close to repeatable measurements, given that Hr is very variable), what you won't get is an indication of absolute fitness.


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> You are not convincing me. The numbers are arbitrary numbers that someone has equated to arbitrary fitness levels. None of these test procedures even specify what %age of your MHR you should be at before starting the test, therefore different people will start the test from different points, and the recovery rate will vary with how fast your heart was beating when you started the timer.
> 
> If you are going to monitor HR recovery as an indication of personal fitness, you would only compare with yourself, over a period of time and all you would get would be an indication of whether fitness has increased or decreased, not a measure of absolute fitness.
> 
> Next you will be telling us 220-age is an accurate way to determine a man's maximum heart rate!


Ive tried to get my max HR by finding a big hill and riding it in a high gear but even this method I am not totally convinced it is my true max HR because when I run out of hill this still does not guarantee my max HR. I think the only true way of finding out is if it is done by someone else like a coach (something I havent got or even afford). Do you know of any other way of getting someone to help? Do bike shops do this service?


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> 200 miles in 5-7 hrs?
> That's just not happening; not by a long shot!


How long does it take you to do 200 miles and what is your average in doing 200 miles?


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> 200 miles in 5-7 hrs?
> That's just not happening; not by a long shot!


well!


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> How long does it take you to do 200 miles and what is your average in doing 200 miles?



The 1st 200 mile of the 12 hour time trial record took ~7.5 hours. The national (possibly world?) record for a 100 mile time trial is 3:22:45, you are talking about riding at near this speed for twice the distance with a 7 hour 200 mile! It is unlikely you are going to do it, at least not in a year (never say never and all that...).


----------



## michaelcycle (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> Do you know of any other way of getting someone to help? Do bike shops do this service?



Some offer services like V02 Max testing and HR testing but they tend to be (relatively) expensive.

If you or a friend have a coded Suunto or Garmin HRM chest strap or uncoded Polar with a receiver then you could get a day pass for a gym which has Wattbikes or something similar. Then sync the strap to the Wattbike and do one of the fitness tests depending on your level of fitness (for example 3 minute aerobic if you are a beginner or a ramp test if you are fitter.)

http://wattbike.com/uk/guide/cycling_tests

It will also calculate your power zones.


----------



## GmanUK65 (15 Sep 2013)

I may be


Rob3rt said:


> The 1st 200 mile of the 12 hour time trial record took ~7.5 hours. The national (possibly world?) record for a 100 mile time trial is 3:22:45, you are talking about riding at near this speed for twice the distance with a 7 hour 200 mile! It is unlikely you are going to do it, at least not in a year (never say never and all that...).


Fair enough. My expected calculation was way off the mark. Eventually (could take a while) I would like to try out the LEL which I've worked out would be to ride about 180 miles a day for 5 days. You wouldn't happen to know the average time on the saddle an LEL rider would be in a day?


----------



## Garz (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> I will need to ride at a much higher average to ride 200 miles in about 5 to 7 hours



I think half that mileage over that duration would be a realistic goal to be fair...


----------



## Dusty Bin (15 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> Ive tried to get my max HR by finding a big hill and riding it in a high gear but even this method I am not totally convinced it is my true max HR because when I run out of hill this still does not guarantee my max HR.



Nothing 'guarantees' your max HR. The best you can ever hope for is a close approximation. Having said that, it doesn't sound as though you are going hard enough on your hill test - don't deliberately ride in a 'high gear', just use a gear that enables you to be giving it 100% - and I mean 100% - by the time you get to the top.

An exact number is not important - because you will never know what the exact number is. Just use the highest number you record as a means of setting your training levels and they won't be too far out.


----------



## The Jogger (15 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Can't recall disputing that, all I disputed was the arbitrary number aspect of your post! I agree that recording the recovery rate over a period of time can indicate gains or losses in fitness (however you would need to introduce a consistent test protocol to get anything close to repeatable measurements, given that Hr is very variable), what you won't get is an indication of absolute fitness.


 
I used the number as an example more of a ballpark figure.


----------



## Crackle (16 Sep 2013)

On a related note, there are a couple of medical studies, I'm not bothering looking for the link now, which used HR recovery (though I think this was amongst the untrained) as a predictor of future heart disease but the HR drop over a three minute period was quite low, again I can't recall the number but I'm sure if you Google it, it will be easy to find.


----------



## uclown2002 (16 Sep 2013)

GmanUK65 said:


> How long does it take you to do 200 miles and what is your average in doing 200 miles?



It's not something I've done or planning on doing. I did my first 100 miler last week and I'm in no hurry to do it again 

But hats off to you for wanting to do 200 miles in a day.


----------



## Garz (17 Sep 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> It's not something I've done or planning on doing. I did my first 100 miler last week and I'm in no hurry to do it again
> 
> But hats off to you for wanting to do 200 miles in a day.



..and aiming for 5-7 hours!!


----------



## Sittingduck (17 Sep 2013)

200 miles @ 40mph...
Not bad for a morning pootle


----------



## ianrauk (17 Sep 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> 200 miles @ 40mph...
> Not bad for a morning pootle




Back in time.... for brekkie


----------



## lukesdad (17 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Can't recall disputing that, all I disputed was the arbitrary number aspect of your post! I agree that recording the recovery rate over a period of time can indicate gains or losses in fitness (however you would need to introduce a consistent test protocol to get anything close to repeatable measurements, given that Hr is very variable), what you won't get is an indication of absolute fitness.


 I used to do a fitness test years ago based on HR every couple of months. The criteria had to be exact to get a reliable result. From what Id ate and drunk and done the days before amount of sleep HR during sleep, waking heart rate, temp. ..... the list goes on.


----------



## Dusty Bin (17 Sep 2013)

HR doesn't really tell you very much in terms of fitness, except how fast your heart is beating. In simple terms, an aerobic limit test is probably the best way of gauging improving cycle fitness, ie your ability to hold a certain speed (or power) on a static trainer, for a certain time. If you can hold the speed for longer the next time you do the test, you can assume that your fitness has improved. Just need to be sure the turbo (or whatever you use) is set up in exactly the same way each time, with same tyre pressure, roller pressure, etc.


----------



## lukesdad (17 Sep 2013)

..... or do the test you describe hold it at the same intensity and your AV. HR drops.


----------



## Dusty Bin (17 Sep 2013)

lukesdad said:


> ..... or do the test you describe hold it at the same intensity and your AV. HR drops.



In a limit test, which is effectively a test to failure, it's more likely that HR will climb as it becomes more difficult to hold the designated speed, as the test is only going to be 2-3 minutes max - as soon as you lose your designated speed, you stop. The point is though, that it doesn't actually matter what your HR does in that sense. On a 20 minute threshold interval, your HR may well drift down, after rising initially.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Sep 2013)

I know what a limit test is, thank you. I was describing a simple fitness test involving an HRM. Which would seem to be what some of the posters on here are after.Its allready been pointed out an HRM is not the best method for testing fitness. If I were still racing would I use an HRM for fitness testing....no. ( when I was racing the test I used was a little more involved than the one described  but it wasn't the only test I used ) Would I use a power meter.... probably , however they were not available then. As Ive allready stated HRMs are usefull tools, and I would still be using one not to gauge my fitness but to have a daily reference point during training periods.


----------



## Dusty Bin (18 Sep 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I know what a limit test is, thank you. I was describing a simple fitness test involving an HRM. Which would seem to be what some of the posters on here are after.Its allready been pointed out an HRM is not the best method for testing fitness. If I were still racing would I use an HRM for fitness testing....no. ( when I was racing the test I used was a little more involved than the one described  but it wasn't the only test I used ) Would I use a power meter.... probably , however they were not available then. As Ive allready stated HRMs are usefull tools, and I would still be using one not to gauge my fitness but to have a daily reference point during training periods.



Sorry - earlier I thought you said you did a 'fitness test based on HR'. Must have misunderstood. 



lukesdad said:


> I used to do a fitness test years ago based on HR every couple of months.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Sep 2013)

No you didn't misunderstand, I did many years ago use an HRM for a test, but not the simple one I described earlier. By the way how are things on the leftside ?


----------



## GmanUK65 (20 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> Why don't you look at the LEL thread, and ask people who have done it? Just a thought.


I never knew there was a thread


----------



## GmanUK65 (20 Sep 2013)

Garz said:


> ..and aiming for 5-7 hours!!


I posted in the LEL thread yesterday and received some answers which showed I was way way off the mark. I worked out that one of the riders cycled an average of 11mph and was on the saddle for 16 hours a day; quite some feat.


----------



## anthony ball (14 Oct 2013)

Hi
I use a heart monitor to make sure it is still working. Very old


----------



## keith brown (16 Oct 2013)

Two articles I have found both informative and fairly clear, firstly an old article on the web - BikeRadar by Harry Blackwood, cycling plus(http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/) and a recent article in Cycling Fitness (Sept - Nov 2013) by Andrew Hamilton called "going for the burn". I have to say that as a newcomer I found these very helpful and am still working my way into the practical application. The problem I find is that whichever max HR option you choose, and I have seen three different calculations which make my 64 year old ticker range from 156 to 173, it seems the only way is to go out and do the hard work of extending yourself, all seem to agree on this point as the most accurate.


----------



## VamP (16 Oct 2013)

I got as far as the four hour base building session and my eyes glazed over... honestly there are much better ways of training than this old tosh.

Fat burning ... drone ... drone ... zzz


----------



## Stonechat (28 Jan 2014)

I too just got a Garmin heart rate monitor/strap

The Calculated or estimated figures are clearly rubbish, you need to do a test. I tried doing one - may need better weather but at least I have a first estimate of max HR


----------

