# Average Heart Rate



## Roscoe (4 Feb 2014)

Hi guys

Apologies if this has been covered before. 

I am 46, 5'7" and 75 kgs. I currently ride 3 times a week, one 20 mile ride and two at around 12 miles. The area I live in is fairly hilly. I've been riding for quite a few years now. 

I recently bought a Polar FT1, very basic HRM. 

I appear to be averaging a heart rate of 138-141 with a max of 165-171, this was over 3 rides on 3 different routes. 

I've looked at a lot of the information online re zones and am a bit confused! I understand the percentages for the different zones, however, here is my main question!

Should I avoid exceeding the percentage for each zone throughout my ride? For example, if I'm looking to stay in zone 2, should this be for the average over my ride or not exceed the percentage at all during my ride? Eg, if looking at 65% of max, should the average for the whole ride be 118 BPM or should I not excced 118 BPM at all during the ride?

Sorry for the long winded question.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2014)

Average HR is generally a pretty useless metric. If the aim of your ride is to be within zone 2, then you should aim to have the highest amount of the ride lay within this zone (it has lower and upper boundaries, i.e. it is a range, not an absolute value), as such a better metric to look at is "time in zone". You will at points drop below your target zone, at others you will exceed it, but you should aim to maximise the time spent in the zone. As such, if you do a 60 minute Zone 2 ride you want the "time in zone" to be as close to 60 mins as possible whilst accepting you will unlikely get it 100%.


----------



## MikeW-71 (4 Feb 2014)

You would need to find out your real Max HR first, because that's not it.


----------



## VamP (4 Feb 2014)

It's a good question actually.

The answer, as so often, is that it depends. But before we get to staying in zones, one thing that is really important is that you work out your HR max accurately. I would hazard a guess that it's a bit higher than 171 given that you have based on only three rides, and I am guessing they have been recent ones, i.e. winter rides. Your HRmax should be just that, the absolute maximum that you can reach - if you google HR ramp test it will give you one way to get there. There are others. If you ever exceed your HRmax, you need to reset your zones to fit the new HRmax.

As to staying in Zone 2, the answer depends on what your reason is for wanting to stay in that zone. But in general, I would not limit myself to a particular zone in a ride. The low zones are really of relatively limited use in HR based training, it's the higher zones, and particularly the threshold zone that is helpful in enabling you to pace your effort. You will see people advocating lots of zone 2 miles over the winter, I think this is outdated thinking that relies on people doing ludicrous mileages to build a 'base'. The truth is, not many of us have the time to do huge mileages, and substituting fewer miles at threshold and sub-threshold can be just as effective.


----------



## screenman (4 Feb 2014)

What are your aims? I do agree with finding your max as the others have said.


----------



## Roscoe (4 Feb 2014)

Thanks guys, interesting answers. 

I'm looking to steadily increase my endurance/fitness so that I can comfortably do longer rides of up to 50/60 miles. Current longest ride is 30 miles, which felt tough. Looking at the British Cycling site, it suggested that Zone 2 training would help increase endurance, hence my question. 

My main concern was really how detrimental it may be to exceed certain levels of heart rate for long periods. It seems that every time I hit a hill, my heart rate rises from to between 151 to 165 until I get over and hit the flat again. Once back on the flat it comes down 20 or 30 beats within a minute.

One of the websites that I was reading suggested that if you are training to Zones, no part of your ride should exceed the upper limit for that zone. On any route in my area that would be pretty much impossible unless I got off and walked. 

I may be getting overly concerned re heart rate, however, I am on medication for High Blood Pressure and don't want to overdo things. 

As to calculating maximum heart rate, unfortunately, I don't have access to a turbo trainer for a ramp test, so have to rely on the various formulae mentioned on Google.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2014)

Roscoe said:


> Thanks guys, interesting answers.
> 
> I'm looking to steadily increase my endurance/fitness so that I can comfortably do longer rides of up to 50/60 miles. Current longest ride is 30 miles, which felt tough. Looking at the British Cycling site, it suggested that Zone 2 training would help increase endurance, hence my question.
> 
> ...



Great in theory, unlikely to work in the real world 

You can test your MHR on the road. Although with your blood pressure issues etc, you may want to talk to your doctor about this stuff anyway, or do it in a lab environment.


----------



## VamP (4 Feb 2014)

Limiting your rides to Zone 2 is unlikely to be of any practical benefit to you. Feel free to work harder on the uphill sections. As Rob says, if you are concerned about your heart, get an all clear from a doctor first before you get stuck in.


----------



## uclown2002 (4 Feb 2014)

If you want to build up your endurance I'm not convinced you need to focus on HR zones. You will naturally build it up if you (over time) increase the frequency and lengths of your rides.


----------



## Roscoe (4 Feb 2014)

Thanks for all the advice guys, very helpful indeed.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> If you want to build up your endurance I'm not convinced you need to focus on HR zones. You will naturally build it up if you (over time) increase the frequency and lengths of your rides.



Ultimately I agree, riding your bike more will suffice, regardless of what you are doing if basic endurance is your concern.

Not sure I agree with @VamP re. the zone 2 work though


----------



## VamP (4 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Ultimately I agree, riding your bike more will suffice, regardless of what you are doing if basic endurance is your concern.
> 
> Not sure I agree with @VamP re. the zone 2 work though



Which bit Rob?


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2014)

Well that depends exactly on that you mean by "Limiting your rides to Zone 2 is unlikely to be of any practical benefit to you", which I why I said I was not sure if I agree


----------



## VamP (4 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Well that depends exactly on that you mean by "Limiting your rides to Zone 2 is unlikely to be of any practical benefit to you", which I why I said I was not sure if I agree



I meant that staying strictly within zone 2 for the duration of the ride was not necessary. I further questioned the value of the zone 2 ride, unless it was a part of a relatively high volume training program.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2014)

Okay, given the above, I agree with the former, not so sure on the latter. I'd say 8-10 hours a week is a moderate training volume, would you agree? In that context, it would seem that a lot of people in the know and getting results (Matt Bottrill being one example) aren't shunning the L2 work even with a moderate training volume 

I have in the past been an advocate of "tempo or nothing" but am beginning to question it.


----------



## screenman (4 Feb 2014)

I think a lot of zone 2 talk goes back to Peter Keen was doing with CB 20+ year's ago. From memory it was around 80% of mhr.


----------



## VamP (4 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Okay, given the above, I agree with the former, not so sure on the latter. I'd say 8-10 hours a week is a moderate training volume, would you agree? In that context, it would seem that a lot of people in the know and getting results (Matt Bottrill being one example) aren't shunning the L2 work even with a moderate training volume
> 
> I have in the past been an advocate of "tempo or nothing" but am beginning to question it.



8-10 hours I would say is medium volume in the context of amateur racing. I agree that there are people who advocate including z2 work, but there's plenty who question it's value as well. Plenty getting results using both approaches, which suggests to me that z2 is not the important piece of the story. A lot (like nearly all) of my training is done on the commute, and I ride my morning rides quite gently, straddling z2 and z3. If I am fatigued I will stick to z2 only. But I am not sure it's doing me any good. The purpose is mainly to get me in position for the evening ride 

But certainly from the OPs question it wasn't clear if he was doing anything other than z2, and that was what I was getting at mainly. Z2 without some actual training rides as well, will do very little, probably nothing.


----------



## Stonechat (4 Feb 2014)

If you are a British Cycling Member you can download their training plan - I am doing London-Brighton in June
Their approach is to measure FTHR instead of MHR. Zones are derived from that.


----------



## Licramite (4 Feb 2014)

yes my doctors told me to lay off the strenuous exercise as my heart (because of its stenoisis) has to work harder to achieve the same result (he said this in much vaguer terms)
But what does that mean/?
at present I'm trying to stay under 140bmp when training which according to my heart rate stage is stage 4 and in the green zone (my max heart rate is 168-172 based on an adjusted age system )
and I do struggle to keep it under 140 - but is this right - I have no idea.


----------



## screenman (4 Feb 2014)

The adjusted age system sets my max at 162, I can ride at that rate for, well not quite sure but a long while. I would say mine is not around 180.

try looking at some of the studies by Maffetone, I did when I came back to cycling after a break and found it quite interesting.


----------



## VamP (4 Feb 2014)

Your maximum HR is unique to you, and cannot be calculated. So unless you have tested for it, then you won't know what it is. If going to the maximum is undesirable, you could test lactate threshold HR (usually around 90% of HR max) and set your zones based on that.

As you have a medical condition, I would suggest testing in a lab setting, which is something you will need to do in any case, to measure lactate levels.


----------



## Stonechat (4 Feb 2014)

Licramite said:


> yes my doctors told me to lay off the strenuous exercise as my heart (because of its stenoisis) has to work harder to achieve the same result (he said this in much vaguer terms)
> But what does that mean/?
> at present I'm trying to stay under 140bmp when training which according to my heart rate stage is stage 4 and in the green zone (my max heart rate is 168-172 based on an adjusted age system )
> and I do struggle to keep it under 140 - but is this right - I have no idea.


You may need to set your targets in conjunction with the Dr
I did a 20 minute effort to assess my fthr (which actually takes 30 mins)
This is supposed to be the effort you can keep up for an hour

In your case you need to be cautious though


----------



## screenman (4 Feb 2014)

You want to be able to do long steady rides, can I suggest you train for them by doing long steady rides I stuck by the Maffetone method for 5 months and got my real world average above 17mph, with a heart rate at the time of 130 bpm not bad I feel for what was a fat old duffer at the time.

Mind you getting overtaken going up hills by old ladies with the shopping in took a bit of self control.


----------



## Licramite (4 Feb 2014)

Yes I know I should get it checked but my local gp is , useless, hopefully after the op I may get some proper advice.
I was going to have a stress test in hospital and they set my max hr at 168-170. 140 does feel easy.

Before I got slowed down I was happily doing 30-60 hilly mile,s rides, and on my turbo I normally ran at 150-160bpm
I shall have to badger (oh hang on they shot them all) Harris my gp for some proper assessment.


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Feb 2014)

I whole heartedly support low heart rate based training - it worked wonders for me, but I had to try it to realise it.

I still use interval training and am looking at pace backed training for run, but if the OP can be patient with low intensity training the science backs surprising results.

Most that are new to training try far too hard - I was one of those guys and wasted about nine months. It turns out, like most things, time & patience wins out over brute force.


----------



## VamP (4 Feb 2014)

Hmm. In my opinion most that are new to training don't try hard enough.


----------



## Roscoe (5 Feb 2014)

Lots of useful information there, thanks everyone. 

As my aim is to get to a decent level of fitness and be able to comfortably able to ride 50/60 miles, I'm going to log onto the British Cycling site and use the training plans there. 

Cheers


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Feb 2014)

VamP said:


> Hmm. In my opinion most that are new to training don't try hard enough.



Or they do try hard enough at 1st, but then think a bit of tiredness is overtraining and start slacking


----------



## screenman (5 Feb 2014)

What is the point of training hard if all you want to achieve is a medium steady ride, I am definitely not new to training been at it 43 years.


----------



## VamP (5 Feb 2014)

If all you want is a medium steady ride, then I suggest there is not much point in training. Just ride your bike.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Feb 2014)

No no no, everyone should follow the Black Book, to a T! No deviation!


----------



## Peter Armstrong (5 Feb 2014)

screenman said:


> What is the point of training hard if all you want to achieve is a medium steady ride, I am definitely not new to training been at it 43 years.


 
Training hard alows you to achive a steady ride......


----------



## VamP (5 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> No no no, everyone should follow the Black Book, to a T! No deviation!



And absolutely no riding outside the Zones!


----------



## screenman (5 Feb 2014)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Training hard alows you to achive a steady ride......


Training steady for a steady ride also does the same, without too much stress.

Ahh! the black book, and the red one, the blue one and the white one, if I remember correctly. Must say the guy did help a few people move out of a training rut and improve their times, often for guys who had been riding years.


----------



## Stonechat (5 Feb 2014)

screenman said:


> Training steady for a steady ride also does the same, without too much stress.
> 
> Ahh! the black book, and the red one, the blue one and the white one, if I remember correctly. Must say the guy did help a few people move out of a training rut and improve their times, often for guys who had been riding years.


I am not an expert but it does not seem likely that traininf hard and training steady do the same thing!


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Feb 2014)

screenman said:


> Training steady for a steady ride also does the same, without too much stress.
> 
> Ahh! the black book, and the red one, the blue one and the white one, if I remember correctly. Must say the guy did help a few people move out of a training rut and improve their times, often for guys who had been riding years.



Yes, I have a pdf of the Black book. There is some sense in it and I can identify with his overall philosophy, but I can not get past the writing style, it is almost satirical!


----------



## screenman (5 Feb 2014)

Stonechat said:


> I am not an expert but it does not seem likely that traininf hard and training steady do the same thing!



No not if you want to race, but read the OP.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Feb 2014)

Stonechat said:


> I am not an expert but it does not seem likely that traininf hard and training steady do the same thing!



The point is, a steady ride is not particularly taxing, thus you can train more often (and without much thought or consideration) or for longer durations, you will be able to train more often and the training will be more specific to the aims.

Wrecking yourself in a VO2 max interval session of 60 mins duration then not training for the next 2 days might give rise to some endurance gain, but vs 3x60 minute endurance based rides which do you think will provide the biggest gain specific to the target?


----------



## screenman (5 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Yes, I have a pdf of the Black book. There is some sense in it and I can identify with his overall philosophy, but I can not get past the writing style, it is almost satirical!


Have you met him, he is a very nice Yorkshire guy. Extremely knowledgeable about most things cycling. I remember him telling me about the first HRM he got went looking for advice and some that came back said thing like ride at 300bpm for 2 minutes that was from so called cycling experts, long time ago now though, I think I first visited him in about 1993 for my first max test.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Feb 2014)

Never met him no, just skimmed the book and know he is the man behind Team Swift.


----------



## screenman (5 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Never met him no, just skimmed the book and know he is the man behind Team Swift.


Who are pretty quick.


----------



## VamP (5 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> The point is, a steady ride is not particularly taxing, thus you can train more often (and without much thought or consideration) or for longer durations, you will be able to train more often and the training will be more specific...



I think the problem is that a lot of people don't amplify the volume side of the equation. A steady ride every Sunday will not in itself provide any kind of adaptation.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (5 Feb 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> The point is, a steady ride is not particularly taxing, thus you can train more often (and without much thought or consideration) or for longer durations, you will be able to train more often and the training will be more specific to the aims.
> 
> *Wrecking yourself in a VO2 max interval session of 60 mins duration* then not training for the next 2 days might give rise to some endurance gain, but vs 3x60 minute endurance based rides which do you think will provide the biggest gain specific to the target?


 
I like that bit, Can you then not sit in your easy Zone 1 & 2's for the next couple of days and increasing your endurance based rides.


----------



## midliferider (5 Feb 2014)

My view is different. You are in your mid 40's, is hypertensive on treatment and your primary goal is to increase your fitness. You are not cycling to compete in a tour etc. Therefore the most important aspect of your cycling is to enjoy your ride while gradually increasing your fitness.
Therefore my advice is to throw away the heart monitor and just enjoy your ride. Start slowly, because you need to warm up, then cycle within your ability, as much as your heart, lungs and legs will let you do it. As the time goes, you will find that your exercise tolerance increases and you will be able to do that 50/60 mile ride.

But I doubt that you will ever agree to what I say.


----------



## Roscoe (6 Feb 2014)

Hi Midliferider, I hear what you say.


----------



## Piemanpaul (6 Feb 2014)

I'm no expert, but I agree with midliferider, a lot of people get too hung up on heart rates, you should test how quickly your heart rate returns to normal after you have completed your ride, this normal rate will be different for different people and different fitness levels, due to your blood pressure a trip to the quacks seems like a must before you go any further. But get out and enjoy it, if I was to look at my maximum heart rate when I go out I would never ride anywhere as I live in Sheffield and you can't go anywhere without going up a steep hill, I know that my rate has been up as high as 188 for a short space of time, but it dropped back to a reasonable rate once I had got over the hill.
Hope I don't sound like a complete knob, just chucking my hat in the ring


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Feb 2014)

Piemanpaul said:


> I'm no expert, but I agree with midliferider, a lot of people get too hung up on heart rates, you should test how quickly your heart rate returns to normal after you have completed your ride, this normal rate will be different for different people and different fitness levels, due to your blood pressure a trip to the quacks seems like a must before you go any further. But get out and enjoy it, if I was to look at my maximum heart rate when I go out I would never ride anywhere as I live in Sheffield and you can't go anywhere without going up a steep hill, I know that my rate has been up as high as 188 for a short space of time, but it dropped back to a reasonable rate once I had got over the hill.
> Hope I don't sound like a complete knob, just chucking my hat in the ring


You agree that people get too hung up on HR but recommend looking at recovery HR?

Knob status achieved


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Feb 2014)

The only people hung up on HRMs are people who don't want to use them.

They are about as complicated and mentally taxing as a speedo on a car.

HR is as much about ensuring your easy rides are easy, as anything else. And that's important.


----------



## VamP (6 Feb 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> The only people hung up on HRMs are people who don't want to use them.
> 
> They are about as complicated and mentally taxing as a speedo on a car.
> 
> HR is as much about ensuring your easy rides are easy, as anything else. And that's important.



Riding easy is.... Well, easy. No need to use HR to ride easy. And easy rides are not as important as the hard ones.


----------



## midliferider (6 Feb 2014)

There are other complications in using HRM in your case.
I assume you are taking drugs for hypertension. All anti hypertensive drugs have an effect on heart rate. So your calculations may not be accurate.
In my view what will be important is regular, once a week or two, measure of your blood pressure. You will see that your pressure comes down if you keep up with cycling.


----------



## Piemanpaul (6 Feb 2014)

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


> You agree that people get too hung up on HR but recommend looking at recovery HR?
> 
> Knob status achieved


Thanks


----------



## Roscoe (7 Feb 2014)

Once again chaps, more useful posts added. Many thanks


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Feb 2014)

VamP said:


> Riding easy is.... Well, easy. No need to use HR to ride easy. And easy rides are not as important as the hard ones.



Well that's not true.

People often over exert when they should be riding easy, and stop pushing themselves during hard sessions.

Easy sessions are arguably more important than hard, and should certainly take up more of your total training.

Basically, I'm saying that everything you've said is wrong.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (7 Feb 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Well that's not true.
> 
> People often over exert when they should be riding easy, and stop pushing themselves during hard sessions.
> 
> ...


Explain


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Feb 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Well that's not true.
> 
> People often over exert when they should be riding easy, and stop pushing themselves during hard sessions.
> 
> ...




LOL!


----------



## Herzog (7 Feb 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Easy sessions are arguably more important than hard, and should certainly take up more of your total training.



Only if you want to get very good at riding easy! Which some people do of course...


----------



## geekinaseat (8 Feb 2014)

One thing that I saw, (I think it was in the Olympics but I can't be sure) was a runner who before a mid distance (5 or 10k) race was interviewed and eagerly explained his strength and speed HIT training in preparation to the event, he said he was on top form and faster than ever.However in the race he got off to a fast start but his endurance failed him 3/4 through the race and he came in one of the last places.

I've never heard anyone so bitter about HIT and intervals before! I think he may have sacked his coach after that....

It made me think at the time that the key was "mixing it up" and doing a bit of everything, no matter what your disciple or goals a mix of speed/hill training with steady rides and long endurance rides will help everyone.


----------



## midliferider (8 Feb 2014)

geekinaseat said:


> One thing that I saw, (I think it was in the Olympics but I can't be sure) was a runner who before a mid distance (5 or 10k) race was interviewed and eagerly explained his strength and speed HIT training in preparation to the event, he said he was on top form and faster than ever.However in the race he got off to a fast start but his endurance failed him 3/4 through the race and he came in one of the last places.
> 
> I've never heard anyone so bitter about HIT and intervals before! I think he may have sacked his coach after that....
> 
> It made me think at the time that the key was "mixing it up" and doing a bit of everything, no matter what your disciple or goals a mix of speed/hill training with steady rides and long endurance rides will help everyone.



My point is that those things, zone of your heart rate, lactate levels etc etc, are important for those athletes whose entire success depends on margins of fraction of a second.
For a middle age man like me who cycle for leisure, those things does not matter. When I am too tired, I stop. I am not in a race. I will keep cycling till my heart stop beating. I do not need a machine a to tell me that it has stopped.


----------



## colly (10 Feb 2014)

Stonechat said:


> If you are a British Cycling Member you can download their training plan - I am doing London-Brighton in June
> Their approach is to measure FTHR instead of MHR. Zones are derived from that.



What be FTHR ?


----------



## Stonechat (10 Feb 2014)

Functional Threshold heart rate


----------



## Jon George (10 Feb 2014)

midliferider said:


> You will see that your pressure comes down if you keep up with cycling.



It did for me. Two years ago I was borderline hypertensive, now it's normal. I recently achieved a MHR of 187 after trashing up one of the few hills here in Suffolk (Playford) the other day - if I'd have attempted the same two years ago, I'd have been carted off to the nearest ICU - and within a minute my breathing & heart rate were back at a reasonable level. This cycling stuff sure does work!


----------



## J4MIE_P (12 Feb 2014)

From what you guys are saying it sounds like I should be dead by now.

From a recent ride where the pace was well non-existant really, just a Sunday morning pootle around with millions of stops to chat, etc.

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/424969135

But yet my HR is averaging 140, Zone 3.6
Surely that's mega high for a slow easy ride?


----------



## Jon George (12 Feb 2014)

J4MIE_P said:


> HR is averaging 140, Zone 3.6
> Surely that's mega high for a slow easy ride?



Excluding the factor of your hypertension, it could just be a large element of unfitness. It may take some time, but I guarantee that even if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll see those stats fall. Maybe switch the machine off for three weeks and then try again. As long as you're not being left totally breathless or feeling pains in your chest, however slight, you should be alright. Just go out and enjoy yourself!


----------



## J4MIE_P (12 Feb 2014)

Jon George said:


> Excluding the factor of your hypertension, it could just be a large element of unfitness. It may take some time, but I guarantee that even if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll see those stats fall. Maybe switch the machine off for three weeks and then try again. As long as you're not being left totally breathless or feeling pains in your chest, however slight, you should be alright. Just go out and enjoy yourself!



Sorry,

Im not the original poster just reading this thread and just thought Id share and add some comments.

No heart problems etc here, just concerned given the previous feedback that it seemed high?


----------



## Jon George (12 Feb 2014)

J4MIE_P said:


> Sorry, Im not the original poster. No heart problems etc here, just concerned given the previous feedback that it seemed high?



Oops! So much for the idea that exercise improves brain function.  

I'm 55 and my average is about 140 and I do push it a little. Make of that what you will. Wouldn't class your result as mega - maybe you had an off day and it was a tad high?


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Feb 2014)

J4MIE_P said:


> From what you guys are saying it sounds like I should be dead by now.
> 
> From a recent ride where the pace was well non-existant really, just a Sunday morning pootle around with millions of stops to chat, etc.
> 
> ...



Zones are based on resting and max heart rate, thus they rely on accurate measurement of such metrics.

Also, refer back to comments re. average HR being a rather useless stat!


----------

