# Heart rate



## derrick (6 Jan 2013)

Just got a Garmin heart rate monitor, don't know much about using the heart rate monitor, i got a couple of readings of it max heart rate was 174 and average was 138. how does that compare to others that use them, that was over a 38 mile ride average speed was 15.2 mph.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Jan 2013)

It doesn't. Ever


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Jan 2013)

derrick said:


> Just got a Garmin heart rate monitor, don't know much about using the heart rate monitor, i got a couple of readings of it max heart rate was 174 and average was 138. how does that compare to others that use them, that was over a 38 mile ride average speed was 15.2 mph.


 
1st thing to note re. HRM, you can NOT compare your numbers to anyone else's numbers!


----------



## derrick (6 Jan 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> 1st thing to note re. HRM, you can NOT compare your numbers to anyone else's numbers!


Was just interested in what others were, not a case of comparing what it is is what it is if that makes sense, just curious.
I may have worded the o p wrongly,


----------



## derrick (6 Jan 2013)

My ignore list is growing, so is there any one out there that has a heart rate monitor and what figures are you getting for max and average heart rate, over a forty mile ride.


----------



## Crackle (6 Jan 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> d
> being 'succinct' is a good thing - no?


 
Indeed but clearly Derrick needs a bit more in this case, though knowing what he expects to use it for would be helpful.


----------



## MattHB (6 Jan 2013)

derrick said:


> My ignore list is growing, so is there any one out there that has a heart rate monitor and what figures are you getting for max and average heart rate, over a forty mile ride.


Hi Derrick. Its very age related.

How old are you? It will give a (rough) idea on what your max heart rate is. 

An average of something in the 130's would be a very sedate ride for me, probably at about the speeds you were doing. But it also depends on the elevation profile of the ride etc. do you have the ride on strava?


----------



## derrick (6 Jan 2013)

Wow two in one night.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Jan 2013)

derrick said:


> My ignore list is growing, so is there any one out there that has a heart rate monitor and what figures are you getting for max and average heart rate, over a forty mile ride.


 
Derrick - it sounds like you might be ignoring this, but in any case let me explain to you why it doesn't matter.

You are a unique person (as we all are) - nobody else has your physiology, fitness and musculature. Consequently, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to you what anyone else's HR readings are. I could post my own numbers for a 40 miler and they would mean absolutely nothing to you. You could put the two sets of numbers side by side and they would tell you absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. You could even do the same ride again tomorrow and get completely different numbers yourself.

Honestly, it would be about as useful as me asking "hey everyone, I've just bought a new pair of trousers and I was wondering what size trousers everyone else wears?" (don't answer that, by the way).


----------



## derrick (6 Jan 2013)

MattHB said:


> Hi Derrick. Its very age related.
> 
> How old are you? It will give a (rough) idea on what your max heart rate is.
> 
> An average of something in the 130's would be a very sedate ride for me, probably at about the speeds you were doing. But it also depends on the elevation profile of the ride etc. do you have the ride on strava?


60 years old here is the ride.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/258625891


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Jan 2013)

Another comment, max (unless the aim of the ride was to find your MHR) and average HR of a ride are useless even with regards to yourself, time at each HR (or HR zone) is more useful. E.g. You may wish to do a ride at 85% HR, you could get an average HR of 85% MHR and think you accomplished your goal, but this may result from spending lots of time above and below the target HR and little to no time at the actual target HR, so you failed miserably.

If it really would satisfy some sort of curiosity, my Max HR today was 189 BPM, my average was 160 BPM. Ride was 56 miles, ~3.5k ascent and average speed 16.6 or 16.9 MPH, depending on if you believe Strava or Garmin Connect (I would tend to go with Garmin since this takes the data from the wheel sensor, Strava takes it from GPS - Garmin also gives the highest number so looks more impressive!).


----------



## ayceejay (6 Jan 2013)

Here is the clue what this might be all about
"Just got a Garmin heart rate monitor, don't know much about using the heart rate monitor" Derek.
Now can we help him or point him in the direction of helpful information or is taking the piss simply more fun?
My suggestion would be to find your resting heart rate (easily done) then get some idea of max heart rate with the formula readily available from google and useful training zones from the likes of BrianMAC. As others have said the real figures will be unique to you but with this knowledge you won't be completely in the dark.


----------



## MattHB (6 Jan 2013)

derrick said:


> 60 years old here is the ride.
> http://connect.garmin.com/activity/258625891


Looks pretty good to me although It's impossible though to say how anyone else would do. 

There are so many variables with HR that can affect results. 

It's a pretty flat ride and it looks like you recovered from the lumps pretty well. 

The best use of HR that I've found is to see how loaded you are with training stress, the higher the levels the higher the ave HR will be and the slower the recovery after sprints/climbs. That's been a good indicator to me on how effective my recovery phases have been (or not). It's also useful to see how you progress with your fitness though, it's quite motivating to see your average HR coming down and your speed going up.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Jan 2013)

ayceejay said:


> Here is the clue what this might be all about
> "Just got a Garmin heart rate monitor, don't know much about using the heart rate monitor" Derek.
> Now can we help him or point him in the direction of helpful information or is taking the **** simply more fun?
> My suggestion would be to find your resting heart rate (easily done) then get some idea of max heart rate with the formula readily available from google and useful training zones from the likes of BrianMAC. As others have said the real figures will be unique to you but with this knowledge you won't be completely in the dark.


If you take the time to read the OP actually says "how does that compare to others that use them,"

It does not compare, cannot compare and won't ever compare to mine or anyone elses. The wording completely changes the question. derrick later changed the question and all was well. The original answers may have been short and sharp, but they were all that needed to be said.


----------



## ayceejay (6 Jan 2013)

Well then I guess that put us both in our place eh? Unless, of course you try to understand where the OP is coming from in his admission of ignorance about using HRM and answer accordingly (see MattHB above) and not from your high horse.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Jan 2013)

ayceejay said:


> Well then I guess that put us both in our place eh? Unless, of course you try to understand where the OP is coming from in his admission of ignorance about using HRM and answer accordingly (see MattHB above) and not from your high horse.


 
Except that nobody can answer the OP's question in any meaningful sense, because it simply isn't valid - which is all any of us have been trying to point out. Which in itself is an answer, incidentally - and just as useful/useless as any other.

An HRM gives you an indication of how fast your heart is beating - that's all it does. If you happen to know your maximum HR, it can also be used to extrapolate an indication of effort level, but it's not even a particularly reliable measure of that either, as effort and HR are not linear.


----------



## mr messy (6 Jan 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> Except that nobody can answer the OP's question in any meaningful sense, because it simply isn't valid - which is all any of us have been trying to point out. Which in itself is an answer, incidentally - and just as useful/useless as any other.
> 
> An HRM gives you an indication of how fast your heart is beating. If you happen to know your maximum HR, it can also be used to provide an indication of effort level, but it's not even a particularly reliable measure of that either, as effort and HR are not linear.


 My impression is the OP has no point of reference as its his first HRM and merely wants to know if its reasonable to have his figures during a ride. Are they typically "normal" or not. Personally i'd be rather alarmed if he said his max was 200bpm and min was 0bpm!!!


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Jan 2013)

mr messy said:


> My impression is the OP has no point of reference as its his first HRM and *merely wants to know if its reasonable to have his figures during a ride.* Are they typically "normal" or not. Personally i'd be rather alarmed if he said his max was 200bpm and min was 0bpm!!!


 
That is the crux of it, what is typical or even reasonable for one person is not for another.

These HR discussions come up again and again and go round in the same old boring circles, with the same old posters. I would advise reading up on HR based training a bit, it will make things a lot clearer as to what the numbers mean. It is a bit much to start explaining the in's and out's here without at least some basis for discussion.


----------



## mr messy (7 Jan 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> That is the crux of it, what is typical or even reasonable for one person is not for another.
> 
> These HR discussions come up again and again and go round in the same old boring circles, with the same old posters. I would advise reading up on HR based training a bit, it will make things a lot clearer as to what the numbers mean. It is a bit much to start explaining the in's and out's here without at least some basis for discussion.


 I agree. But having having results relating to ones health which can't be interpreted will always pose questions until some knowledge is gained, usually through discussion with others


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (7 Jan 2013)

ayceejay said:


> Well then I guess that put us both in our place eh? Unless, of course you try to understand where the OP is coming from in his admission of ignorance about using HRM and answer accordingly (see MattHB above) and not from your high horse.


I understand where the OP is coming from. And unlike you I understood the original question.

It still doesn't make the answers comparable. My avg over 40miles being around 140 means absolutely nothing(as per the original question) to anyone and frankly never will(as per the second question). The avg HR of a guy 35years older is never comparable to mine in any way.


----------



## Upstream (7 Jan 2013)

Hi there,
I'm a newbie but I do use a heart rate monitor and I'm happy to share my experiences with you...
My understanding is that if you're trying to improve your fitness that you should be training at around 75% of your maximum rate and that doing this will cause you to burn fat. If you train at a rate above around 85% (don't quote me on that figure though) you then burn carbohydrates. As a rough guide, the max heart rate for an adult male is 220 minus your age so for an example - if you are a 40 year old male, your max heart rate could be 180 beats per minute.

When I'm using my spin bike I tend to try to stay at around 75 - 80% for an hour's session. On the road with hills etc it can vary but during a quick food stop, my HR usually drops back to around 100. At rest, mine sits at around 61 - 65 beats per minute.

I have my monitor set to alert me (beeping) at 100% of max heart rate. Generally it doesn't go off although on a few occasions when going up some tough hills it has and I have tended to back off just a little.

Oh... I'm mid forties.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

I don't mean to offend, but I don't even know where to start with regards to the above, so I will not offer any specific advice, it should be noted what you are doing is not wrong (well, it is debatable and I really can not be arsed with this debate again as it will not help you, I would just say what you are doing is not making the best use of your time, regardless of your goals), but you could really benefit from understanding basic HR training, or indeed training for cycling in a bit more depth, you could do a bit of googling or buy a book, many sources will give you at least something to go on (as I said before, it is a bit much to explain everything in a forum post, if you have any questions after reading up a bit, I am sure people on here can help a bit more if you have some specific questions). As for the 100% HR alert, no idea why you have that.


----------



## Upstream (7 Jan 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I don't mean to offend, but I don't even know where to start with regards to the above, so I will not offer any specific advice, it should be noted what you are doing is not wrong (well, it is debatable and I really can not be arsed with this debate again as it will not help you, I would just say what you are doing is not making the best use of your time, regardless of your goals), but you could really benefit from understanding basic HR training, or indeed training for cycling in a bit more depth, you could do a bit of googling or buy a book, many sources will give you at least something to go on (as I said before, it is a bit much to explain everything in a forum post, if you have any questions after reading up a bit, I am sure people on here can help a bit more if you have some specific questions). As for the 100% HR alert, no idea why you have that.


 
Hi Rob,
I'm just an average guy who likes cycling - I certainly don't claim to be an expert. All I did was came across a thread where someone had asked for about the experiences of others and as he didn't seem to be getting many responses, I thought I'd offer mine. I have read some books but as I cycle just for fun and fitness, the depth to which I follow the training guides isn't particularly great (just an overview). Had the person who started the thread asked for training advice - I'd have left that to those much more knowledgeable than myself. As for the 100% alert - believe me, that's more than enough for me ;-)


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

Upstream said:


> Hi Rob,
> I'm just an average guy who likes cycling - I certainly don't claim to be an expert. All I did was came across a thread where someone had asked for about the experiences of others and as he didn't seem to be getting many responses, I thought I'd offer mine. I have read some books but as I cycle just for fun and fitness, the depth to which I follow the training guides isn't particularly great (just an overview). Had the person who started the thread asked for training advice - I'd have left that to those much more knowledgeable than myself. *As for the 100% alert - believe me, that's more than enough for me ;-)*


 
What I mean is, the alarm is redundant, you can not exceed 100% MHR, it is a maximum value. Further if you hit 100% MHR you will not need to remind yourself to back off, you will back off, it is impossible not too, it can not be maintained. You would be better off using the alarm function to warn you of the upper and lower limits of a target HR range and heeding the beeps to maintain your HR in the desired range.

I am not trying to wade all over your advice., I just think even for a general fitness cyclist, you could do well to understand better the different aspects of fitness and how HR training comes into play, else there is little point in even wearing one, which also has it's benefits.


----------



## Upstream (7 Jan 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> What I mean is, the alarm is redundant, you can not exceed 100% MHR, it is a maximum value. Further if you hit 100% MHR you will not need to remind yourself to back off, you will back off, it is impossible not too, it can not be maintained. You would be better off using the alarm function to warn you of the upper and lower limits of a target HR range and heeding the beeps to maintain your Hr in the desired range.


 
Hi Rob,
I see what your saying about having the beeps indicate the desired training range - that's a great idea and if my monitor supports that functionality I'll definately use it.

With the 100% MHR though - I'm unsure of what you mean about it not being able to be exceeded. My understanding is that the formula I referred to in my earlier post is a guide and that different people dependent upon a number of factors can have higher or lower levels so just because my MHR based on that formula may be 180 doesn't mean that it isn't possible for me to push my heart rate above that threshold.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

Upstream said:


> Hi Rob,
> I see what your saying about having the beeps indicate the desired training range - that's a great idea and if my monitor supports that functionality I'll definately use it.
> 
> With the 100% MHR though - I'm unsure of what you mean about it not being able to be exceeded. My understanding is that the formula I referred to in my earlier post is a guide and that different people dependent upon a number of factors can have higher or lower levels so just because my MHR based on that formula may be 180 doesn't mean that it isn't possible for me to push my heart rate above that threshold.


 
That is why the MHR formulas are useless, if you really want to train by HR you need to ascertain your real MHR, by one of several methods. By definition MRH is the maximum figure you will see, therefore if you see a higher figure, then you know your previously thought MHR is not your max. If you go over your calculated MHR, you may as well take that value as your MHR and keep doing so, at least each iterative MHR figure will be more accurate than the last.

Eg if your calculated MHR = 180 bpm, and you one day see 186 bpm, you may as well alter your MHR in your device to 186 BPM (because you now KNOW that the value from the formula was wrong and the new value is closer to the real value), it still might be wrong but it is better than the previous value. If you then see, 189 BPM, do the same thing. You will keep getting closer and closer.

It would be best to perform a MHR test, but this way would be less painful and you wouldn't have to go out of your way to do it.


----------



## Crackle (7 Jan 2013)

Maybe it's time for a Heart Rate Monitor FAQ, as it's always the same stuff that comes up.

I'm not volunteering by the way, you don't want the blind leading the blind.


----------



## Upstream (7 Jan 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> That is why the MHR formulas are useless, if you really want to train by HR you need to ascertain your real MHR, by one of several methods. By definition MRH is the maximum figure you will see, therefore if you see a higher figure, then you know your previously thought MHR is not your max. If you go over your calculated MHR, you may as well take that value as your MHR and keep doing so, at least each iterative MHR figure will be more accurate than the last.
> 
> Eg if your calculated MHR = 180 bpm, and you one day see 186 bpm, you may as well alter your MHR in your device to 186 BPM (because you now KNOW that the value from the formula was wrong and the new value is closer to the real value), it still might be wrong but it is better than the previous value. If you then see, 189 BPM, do the same thing. You will keep getting closer and closer.
> 
> It would be best to perform a MHR test, but this way would be less painful and you wouldn't have to go out of your way to do it.


 
Aha - thanks for the clarification on this!

Now I know where I was going wrong with this MHR thing... My interpretation of MHR (the books I had read didn't make it clear) was that this was a figure given as to the maximum rate that the person's heart could efficiently pump blood at and that it could go above this level but that it would be highly inefficient doing so. If I understand what you're saying - a person's MHR is the maximum BPM at which their heart can pump blood (efficiency etc doesn't come into it as it is a hard limit regardless of how much you throw at it). Is this what you're saying?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

Maximum Heart Rate = The maximum rate at which your heart can beat, nothing more.

What you appear to be refering too, in a roundabout way is what is known as Lactate Threshold or Threshold HR, this is the HR value where your body can no longer clear lactate from the muscles faster or as fast as it accrues, i.e. the lactate builds up and your legs burn. An often used example is that of a water tank with an inflow and an outflow, if the outflow lets water escape at a faster rate than the inflow provides fresh water the tank will empty, if the outflow and inflow are matched the volume in the tank will remain constant, if the outflow is less than the inflow, the volume of water in the tank will increase.


----------



## Upstream (7 Jan 2013)

I think that Crackle's comment about a HR FAQ is a good one ;-)
Rob - Thanks for providing some clarification. I do have another question which has come out of one of your answers though...

With a person's MHR is this genetically predetermined or does fitness play a part (and if so then the MHR could shift). Let me explain what I'm getting at. Let's say you have an individual who for the past ten years or so has lead a sedentary lifestyle. They then jump on a bike and push themselves to their maximum (to the point of exhaustion) and record the MHR. If that person then went on a training regime for 12 months and then jumped onto a bike and pushed themselves again, although the distance covered and speed is likely to be significantly higher than on their earlier attempt - would their MHR be the same on both occasions?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

According to reading I have seen, MHR does change as you gain or lose fitness, but not by much. As you get fitter, MHR reduces are the pumping capacity of the heart increases, or something like that.

As far as I know, changes in MHR are a lot less notable than changes in resting heart rate.

Considering your example, they would go faster and further because their heart can pump more blood per beat making it more efficient, at MHR the body would be getting more oxygen to the muscles than in the initial state. But the MHR would not change by a lot (as far as I know).

You should also know, MHR varies between different sports, your MHR for cycling will not be your MHR for running for example.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Jan 2013)

Some of this has been dealt with already, but just for the record, here goes....



Upstream said:


> My understanding is that if you're trying to improve your fitness that you should be training at around 75% of your maximum rate and that doing this will cause you to burn fat. If you train at a rate above around 85% (don't quote me on that figure though) you then burn carbohydrates.


 
You are right that for low level, general fitness, 75% would not be a bad number to aim for. You are wrong in regard to carb and fat burning. The body burns both fairly equally, all the time. You are burning fat _and_ carbs while you are reading this. It's true that at lower intensities you will burn marginally more fat than carbs, but the percentage is so small as to be insignificant. It also follows that at higher intensities you will burn more of both. So if you are after 'fat burning' - then it might make more sense to engage in high intensity efforts, rather than low intensity.



Upstream said:


> As a rough guide, the max heart rate for an adult male is 220 minus your age so for an example - if you are a 40 year old male, your max heart rate could be 180 beats per minute.


 
Forget about 220 - the theory simply does not work for most people. The only way to establish your MHR is to test it.




Upstream said:


> I have my monitor set to alert me (beeping) at 100% of max heart rate. Generally it doesn't go off although on a few occasions when going up some tough hills it has and I have tended to back off just a little.


 
All I can say to this is - what you think is your 'max' almost certainly isn't. You don't need to be told by a machine when to back off from MHR. The effort you will be making at MHR will be anaerobic and only sustainable for a few seconds anyway.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> Some of this has been dealt with already, but just for the record, here goes....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Both during AND after exercise.


----------



## Upstream (7 Jan 2013)

Hi black n yellow,
I have no argument with most of what you say however I think that this statement..

"*...It's true that at lower intensities you will burn marginally more fat than carbs, but the percentage is so small as to be insignificant. It also follows that at higher intensities you will burn more of both. So if you are after 'fat burning' - then it might make more sense to engage in high intensity efforts, rather than low intensity*".

...isn't quite correct. Global Health and Fitness, quoted within a website briefly states the following;

50 to 60% of your maximum heart rate: In this zone, the body derives it energy by burning 10% carbohydrates, 5% protein and 85% fat
60 to 70% of your maximum heart rate: In this zone, your body fuels itself with 85% fat, 5% protein, and 10% carbohydrate
70 to 80% of your maximum heart rate: You burn 50% of your calories from fat, 50% from carbohydrate, and less than 1% from protein
80 to 90% of your maximum heart rate: The body burns 85% carbohydrates, 15% fat and less than 1% protein in this zone
90 to 100% of your maximum heart rate: While you burn lots of calories per minute in this zone, 90% of them are carbohydrates, 10% fats, and less than 1% protein

I should clarify that I wasn't suggesting that at different exercise intensities that you exclusively burnt one or the other (fat or carbohydrate) but was instead highlighting the one which would be being burnt at a significantly higher rate than the other. Notice that my earlier statement I suggested that carbohydrates would be burnt above around 85%. According to the information contained within the website, I haven't stated anything untrue (85% carbohydrates, 15% fat and less than 1% protein).


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Jan 2013)

Upstream said:


> Hi black n yellow,
> I have no argument with most of what you say however I think that this statement..
> 
> "*...It's true that at lower intensities you will burn marginally more fat than carbs, but the percentage is so small as to be insignificant. It also follows that at higher intensities you will burn more of both. So if you are after 'fat burning' - then it might make more sense to engage in high intensity efforts, rather than low intensity*".
> ...


 
Sorry - I've no idea how they came up with such bizarre percentages, but I'm not interested in getting into a _'link to a convenient website as proof'_ competition. As far as I'm aware, fat is not 'burned' at a significantly higher rate than carbs at any point in the exercise range and 60/40 is about as good as it gets. In any case, the only thing that really matters is calories consumed, regardless of the fat/carb content. The higher the intensity, the more calories you will use.

The only other thing to add is that if you are planning on exercising at 50% MHR, you might as well not bother IMO, as you won't see any fitness benefit. You could stay at home and watch a scary movie which would get your heart going quicker than that...


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Jan 2013)

MattHB said:


> sorry B'n'Y, but that just shows how little you actually know about it. I really dont understand why you seem so intent on destroying as many threads as possible in the way you do....


 
Matt - sorry I can't help your ignorance - your comment actually shows how little YOU know about it. All I can suggest is you do your own research. The info is all out there, just look for it. Sounds like all I am actually destroying is your own misconceptions - which is your problem, not mine.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

When aiming to loose weight, whether you burn mostly fat or mostly carbohydrates during exercise is near irrelevant because it is what happens after training that really matters, ultimately though, if you train with a higher intensity you will continue to metabolise fat for a prolonged period following the workout AND you are more likely to burn more total calories, thus more likely to create the calorific deficit required to lose weight. If anyone actually really cares about this stuff please go and read Racing Weight by Matt Fitzgerald and trawl some of his references.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

B'n'Y has a valid point in where the did all those percentages come from though. Even if we accept the fat burning zone as correct, the following is just a step to far to swallow as read:



> 50 to 60% of your maximum heart rate: In this zone, the body derives it energy by burning 10% carbohydrates, 5% protein and 85% fat
> 60 to 70% of your maximum heart rate: In this zone, your body fuels itself with 85% fat, 5% protein, and 10% carbohydrate
> 70 to 80% of your maximum heart rate: You burn 50% of your calories from fat, 50% from carbohydrate, and less than 1% from protein
> 80 to 90% of your maximum heart rate: The body burns 85% carbohydrates, 15% fat and less than 1% protein in this zone
> 90 to 100% of your maximum heart rate: While you burn lots of calories per minute in this zone, 90% of them are carbohydrates, 10% fats, and less than 1% protein


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Jan 2013)

MattHB said:


> Im not going to get into a tit'for'tat about it all with you and I understand you have your point/s of view, but why be so aggressive about it?? this is a friendly place.


 
er, what aggression..? This is a 'friendly place' and yet you see fit to accuse me of 'destroying' this thread by simply trying to help understanding. Ironic.

Your post displayed your own ignorance of this topic, while (more irony) claiming that what I was saying was incorrect. Perhaps you could put us all straight then Matt..? Looking forward to hearing your wisdom on the topic.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

Whether the thread has been destroyed or not at present is debatable, but it will become fact if this turns into another back and forth exchange of "you are wrong", "no, you are wrong". Put forth an argument or walk away.


----------



## mr messy (7 Jan 2013)

What was the question again?


----------



## Enw.nigel (7 Jan 2013)

Interesting thread. I am certainly not going to mention Maximum Heart Rates!!


----------



## derrick (7 Jan 2013)

I don't think i will ask any more questions, 










Well not till tommorrow.


----------



## sddg7tfl (7 Jan 2013)

3200 miles last year averaging 75% of my maximum heart rate with average ride length of 18 miles.
That's how you get fit/loose weight.

You don't get fit by worrying about heart rates as though you're assembled like a car with a revmeter.

Switch the screen off, get the bike out!


----------



## derrick (7 Jan 2013)

sddg7tfl said:


> 3200 miles last year averaging 75% of my maximum heart rate with average ride length of 18 miles.
> That's how you get fit/loose weight.
> 
> You don't get fit by worrying about heart rates as though you're assembled like a car with a revmeter.
> ...


OP was nothing to do with getting fit or loosing weight. my milage last year was a little bit more than yours.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

derrick said:


> OP was nothing to do with getting fit or loosing weight. my milage last year was a little bit more than yours.


 
The appropriate response is


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Jan 2013)

sddg7tfl said:


> 3200 miles last year averaging 75% of my maximum heart rate with average ride length of 18 miles.
> That's how you get fit/loose weight.


 
sorry - not awesome enough...


----------



## sddg7tfl (7 Jan 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> sorry - not awesome enough...


 
3200 miles is just about adequate, i'd like to do 10000 miles per year but i have bills to pay.


----------



## derrick (7 Jan 2013)

I want everbody to play nice.


----------



## sddg7tfl (7 Jan 2013)

Anyway, 2000 miles of that was on a bike with steel forks and mudguards.


----------



## ayceejay (7 Jan 2013)

When I were a lad ...etc.


----------



## mr messy (7 Jan 2013)

ayceejay said:


> When I were a lad ...etc.


 
Erm are you saying you've had a sex change? Would that affect HRM readings?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jan 2013)

mr messy said:


> Erm are you saying you've had a sex change? Would that affect HRM readings?


 
Girls tick faster!


----------



## Enw.nigel (7 Jan 2013)

mr messy said:


> Erm are you saying you've had a sex change? Would that affect HRM readings?


Yes. You would have bigger breaths!


----------



## ayceejay (7 Jan 2013)

Too subtle, obviously and suddenly the avatar makes sense.


----------

