Chest heart monitor.

[vickster]

The simplest is to note the highest one has ever reached but that can be a spike. I did once reach 177 at the top of Fleetmoss, a cat 3, 1.8 mile climb, avg 8% ramping to 18%. It was the third of the day, not a very accurate assessment.

The field test I've used is on a 3 or 4 minute climb with a ramp at the top. Have a 20 minute warm up, ride the hill as hard and fast as possible, descend and repeat twice, each time hitting the ramp as hard as possible. Take your max HR from this.

Mine is 162 but I don't often get beyond 155.

Not a good idea currently as mine has hit 170+ while pretty much doing nothing in the last month or so…just finished two weeks of continuous ecg monitoring, should see cardiologist next week!

I’ve done one 5 mile ride this year, my HR peaked at 173 according to watch (I’d stopped taking beta blocker a few days before)

 

[PaulSB]

Not a good idea currently as mine has hit 170+ while pretty much doing nothing in the last month or so…just finished two weeks of continuous ecg monitoring, should see cardiologist next week!

I’ve done one 5 mile ride this year, my HR peaked at 173 according to watch (I’d stopped taking beta blocker a few days before)

I hope this works out for you.

 

[HLaB]

I think you can get a Garmin watch to be more accurate but it is always way off fir me. On Tuesday the watch recorded a max of 158bpm, my HR strap recorded 184bpm which is typical of the difference.

 

[presta]

I ditched mine when I thought it was faulty, but by the time I had realised it was my heart that was faulty and not the monitor I had made my heart faultier still by exercising without it.

 

[Regular.Cyclist]

I use either a chest HR strap, or my Polar Verity Sense (upper arm) one when cycling but wrist based when running.

I have previously compared my Polar H10 strap, generally regarded as the best, recording to my Polar Grit X Pro on one wrist and the Garmin Epix 2 doing optical HR on my other wrist. Comparison of the files afterwards showed a very good match between heart rate from both devices. I’ve repeated the same test which other Garmin and Suunto devices and all the modern units fared very well. Only those from 5 or so years ago gave notable glitches from time to time.

 

[CXRAndy]

Are they really necessary?

Like others have said depends

If you're just riding for fun then no not at all. However if training/ improving fitness they are extremely useful. You can find your zones for efforts, ride in those zones to train your body more accurately.

I use them all the time, but I ride >95% indoors, racing on Zwift (requirement for racing). I also use them to record my endurance rides to try and stay in Z1/Z2, helping me improve cardio base on Zwift

 

[CXRAndy]

How do you know what your maximum is out of interest? Have you done tests in a lab?

Do a Zwift race and go for maximum effort for a minute or more, then you will find your maximum. OR ride up a mile hill sprint the last 250yds, does the same. That will be your maximum within a beat or two.
My max is 181bpm- I often see 177bpm for sprint finishes
View: https://youtu.be/OpoTEb8cXOU?t=1635

 

[vickster]

Do a Zwift race and go for maximum effort for a minute or more, then you will find your maximum. OR ride up a mile hill sprint the last 250yds, does the same. That will be your maximum within a beat or two.
My max is 181bpm- I often see 177bpm for sprint finishes
View: https://youtu.be/OpoTEb8cXOU?t=1635

I was asking @PaulSB how he had worked it out which he answered upthread

 

[CXRAndy]

I was asking @PaulSB how he had worked it out which he answered upthread

Sorry, didnt realise it was a private thread. I'll place you on ignore for obvious reasons

 

[yello]

I have a Garmin Vivosmart 4 watch that I wear 24/7 (well, except for when it's recharging obviously!) and I'd say it's pretty accurate. When riding, I wear a chest strap too (with a Garmin Edge, an old 305 - still going strong! unlike its wearer ) and the results are comparable/consistent.

One evening though, the watch did have a hiccup and alerted me to my heart rate dropping to below 40. Possible, as I'm bradycardic, but kinda unlikely (my heart rate is in the 40s whilst asleep, but that's not unusual) So I went and got my Edge and chest strap to get a 2nd opinion. In the process of doing that, the watch reported my heart rate had increased to 120.... um, I don't think so I thought. I'd feel that! The Edge and chest strap reported a steady 60s throughout. I reset the watch and all was ok again. So, yes, they can play up.

My theoretical max is 160 and whilst I can get it above that (out of the saddle on climbs) it is there-or-therearounds I'd say. But I've no desire to find out what it is exactly!

The reason I got the watch was to just keep an eye on what was happening to the old ticker (did you catch the pun? ) I had some suspected heart issues last year (year before??) and visited cardiologists, had a couple of EKGs and did a stress test but nothing untoward was found... bradycardia aside, which isn't necessarily a problem.

 

[gavroche]

Using the old method of 220 minus your age, mine comes up at 148 which I often exceed when I go on a steep hill, using my Garmin watch. When that happens , I just ease up. I do recover fairly quickly though so me heart must still be in good condition, hopefully.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Using the old method of 220 minus your age

Useless at an individual level as the standard deviation is quite high.

 

[CXRAndy]

Using the old method of 220 minus your age, mine comes up at 148 which I often exceed when I go on a steep hill, using my Garmin watch. When that happens , I just ease up. I do recover fairly quickly though so me heart must still be in good condition, hopefully.

That metric of measuring is flawed, has no bearing on your max HR number.

Unless you do a controlled lab test, the nearest technique is to go flat out in a sprint or max effort up a long climb. Must warm up first

I have a wide-heart rate range. Overnight it drops to 36bpm to max of 181bpm

 

[Alex321]

Using the old method of 220 minus your age, mine comes up at 148 which I often exceed when I go on a steep hill, using my Garmin watch. When that happens , I just ease up. I do recover fairly quickly though so me heart must still be in good condition, hopefully.

That formula is exceedingly unreliable, particularly for older and/or fitter people.

There are other formulae that tend to be better for those people, such as
207 - (0.7 * age) for people over 40
211 - (0.64 * age) for generally fitter people

but even then, they only give the average for people of any given age. I know mine is somewhere around 180, and have hit 176 out on the road in the last few months, but 220 - age would give 156. The other formulae give 162 or 171.

 

[yello]

Accurate, no, but there or there arounds. By the differing formulas, I get 160, 164 and 172. I'll get 165 and feel I'm getting close but with a bit yet left in the tank - but as to how much? No idea. I tend to go by the 'feels like' rather than the number BUT the number helps just as a reference point.