Are hrm and cadence worth measuring?

[Soltydog]

So what cadence of you typically ride at?

My average over last 165 miles is 86. The previous 89 miles average was 67

 

[screenman]

NOOOOOOOOO!

It may be the average over a population but is useless in relation to an individual:

i am 58, 220 - 58 = 162 max.

I see high 160's on every hilly ride and have seen 178 without maxing out.

I think we might share the same numbers, age included. 15 years ago my max was 192 tested, if I repeated the test now I feel it would be about 180, going by how I feel at 176 a number I have hit few times this year.

 

[Crankarm]

My average over last 165 miles is 86. The previous 89 miles average was 67

86 isn't too shabby although 67 is a bit low. Riding at a regular cadence greatly improves stamina and power. Cadence is a bit like your rev counter. For me it is around 95 although I can ride comfortably at 100-105 if I need to get a wriggle on. I sometimes ride at 90 if I am a bit tired after a long week but mostly at around 94-95.

 

[Kies]

My cadence average on the turbo is 90 and the highest i could reach on hrm was 160 ... I am asthmatic so breathing was more important that hrm indoors. Will try this again when the asthma is better and windows open on a nice day.
Will be interesting to see my cadence in the real world

This heart rate and zones is interesting stuff!

 

[Matthames]

I use HRM and cadence on the majority of my rides. I find looking at the heart rate quite useful, especially if you want to attack a particular section of your ride. A quick glance at the HR will give you an indication if you would be able to tank it or not. Also looking at how quickly your HR recovers is a good indication of fitness, as well as that I set my pace using my heart rate, if it goes too high I know I am using too much energy, too sustain the ride for a long period of time.

The cadence on the other hand, I mainly use when analysing the ride.

 

[nxn2020]

I used hrm when running and knew on longer runs I could sustain 154bpm, lower and I wasn't trying, higher and I wouldn't make it! Took a while to get to know my limits etc but found it really useful. Unfortunately since I stopped running and started cycling the bloody thing has packed up but looking to get it going again as I found it really useful before. As for cadence I want one. .....I love stats!

 

[Suffolk Cycling]

Finding all this fascinating as I got my Garmin 510 this week and am slowly finding my way around the new stats like cadence and heart rate. My average cadence this week was 75, which I though was quite good, but I see I should probably aim higher than that.

The heart rate is really useful. I'm a little confused about the max heart rate, from which you can set your heart rate zones - I'm 47 so on the 220-47 rule it should be 173, but I hit 177 on a hill yesterday... maybe I died and I'm now in heaven :-)

Should I, based on knowing my most recent max of 177, raise my max heart rate setting to, say, 183 and allow the heart rate zones to change accordingly?

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Base it off your highest until a new highest comes along.

But FWIW, if you aren't planning workouts and using the zones/garmin training feature it's all completely pointless.

 

[PK99]

Finding all this fascinating as I got my Garmin 510 this week and am slowly finding my way around the new stats like cadence and heart rate. My average cadence this week was 75, which I though was quite good, but I see I should probably aim higher than that.

The heart rate is really useful. I'm a little confused about the max heart rate, from which you can set your heart rate zones - I'm 47 so on the 220-47 rule it should be 173, but I hit 177 on a hill yesterday... maybe I died and I'm now in heaven :-)

Should I, based on knowing my most recent max of 177, raise my max heart rate setting to, say, 183 and allow the heart rate zones to change accordingly?

Yes!- assuming that when you hit 177 you felt you had something in reserve.

ignore the 220-age bolleaux

 

[Rob3rt]

Only ever set something based on evidence, you have no evidence that your MHR is 183, so don't set that as your max!

 

[Steve Malkin]

I agree that the age related calculations for Max HR are a waste of time.
I'm 48, so 220-age says I should have Max HR of 172, but my stats from the club 10 mile TT on Wednesday tell a different story...

I averaged 179 and maxed out at 186 going up the bridge over the motorway just before the finish line, the HR trace looks similar to this most weeks, and I'm always convinced I'm about to die as I cross the line, so I think I can safely say my Max HR is 186.

Everybody is different, and the only way you can know yours for sure is to do some sort of test similar to this, but I can tell you now, it's going to hurt.....

 

[JoeyB]

@Steve Malkin - assuming the screenshot above is taken from Strava, do you get that information supplied with a free account or do you have to go premium? I'm talking specifically about the Cadence and Heart Rate info...

 

[Steve Malkin]

It is from Strava, I do have a premium account at the moment (won't be renewing it, not worth the price IMO).
I'm sure that the HR and Cadence plots are available on the free account though.

 

[Mark White]

As an amateur musician, I measure my cadence by humming something at the correct bpm and turning my pedals in time.

I was just debating whether to post similar advice :-)

I find ACDC's Back In Black gives a nice thumping 90ish BPM, whereas Peter Gabriel's Solsbury Hill is an uplifting 100ish BPM

 

[PaddyMcc]

HRM zone training here http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/
I have yet to try it myself, does it really work?