Heart Rate Monitor figures.

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

220 minus age has been a good rule of thumb for a "theoretical" max HR for years.

HOWEVER

its just a mathematical starting point. if you are older/ younger and can go above or cant get to the "correct" number dont push it.

a 50 year old guy who has done triathlons all his life will be a=way off the average figures. and a body builder is technically obese, so its all guidelines not rules.

just fro reference average resting HR is 74, but to measure ture resting rate you should do it at the point you wake up inthe morning, as this is when your system is most "relaxed" so to speak.

No it hasn't.

 

[Si_]

That's really interesting stuff, thanks.

To be honest i would say at the minute the vast majority of my rides are in zone 4 or even 5 which after reading the above obviously is'nt the best for me as i'm wanting to lose some weight but i obviously also want to get better/faster aswell.

When i'm working my butt off i can average about 16.5mph over say 35 miles on a good day & when i've been doing my 'easy' recovery rides in zone 2/3 i was doing about 11.5mph but i did have some peaks into zone 4 but very minimal.

Am i best off doing more zone 2/3 work than zone 4/5 to reach my goals would you say then ?

I'm currently getting in between about 80-140miles a week at the moment.

Cheers

yep, no point at this stage doing all your training in the max zones. Youre doing the miles, so you are going to have the endurance base, simply by riding. But to nick a mantra from team sky's david brailsford. "incremental gains" small gains. I would concentrate on the endurance and fat burn level. just under the "out of breath point" A good rule of thumb is to work onthe basis that ifyou can carry on a conversation with a riding partner whilst on the bike you're in the endurance zone. if you would struggle to maintain the pace and talk then youre working "too hard"

maybe dropping on one "harder" ride a week would work for you. but its certinaly not a good idea to do ALL the training at HRmax or high zones.

 

[WobblyBob]

Anything under 12 BPM recovery in two minutes is bad news, if you are getting 70 your heart is mega fit! http://www.johnstonefitness.com/201...ess-hrrest-hrmax-hrr-recovery-hr-and-vo2-max/

Mmmm....... i might need to do this a bit more scientifically me thinks

 

[Si_]

No it hasn't.

read this.
http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong/

I admit the 220 is an imperfect model, but how scientific do you want to get? invented inthe 1970's does in my book qualify for the "being used for years tag"

BTW my first degree was in physiology. therefore you might want to assume i actually know what im talking about. But in this context VMAx o2MAX and partial pressure thresholds are really over kill ;-)

 

[Haz]

Its a case of percentages. zone one is light easy stuff, which is good for recovery rides. (50% 60%)
zone 2 60-70% (aerobic endurance work)
zone3 (70-80% ) moderate exercise
zone4 (80-90) improves high speed endurance
zone 5 (90-100%) increases maximal work load and power capacity etc.

What training zone is 113%?
According to my HR monitor yesterday on what I thought was a very average ride (plenty of time to take in the coutryside, put my chain back on, stop at lights etc.) with fairly short climbs and lots of lovely long freewheeling downhill sections, I reached 224bpm?! Either I had a small heart attack at some point during my ride without me noticing, or it was malfunctioning. Nice one. Pretty sure it's the monitor malfunctioning option this time!

 

[WobblyBob]

yep, no point at this stage doing all your training in the max zones. Youre doing the miles, so you are going to have the endurance base, simply by riding. But to nick a mantra from team sky's david brailsford. "incremental gains" small gains. I would concentrate on the endurance and fat burn level. just under the "out of breath point" A good rule of thumb is to work onthe basis that ifyou can carry on a conversation with a riding partner whilst on the bike you're in the endurance zone. if you would struggle to maintain the pace and talk then youre working "too hard"

maybe dropping on one "harder" ride a week would work for you. but its certinaly not a good idea to do ALL the training at HRmax or high zones.

Well if it's good enough for Team Sky then etc etc.....

Thanks for all the info, its been really helpful.

 

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

read this.
http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong/

I admit the 220 is an imperfect model, but how scientific do you want to get? invented inthe 1970's does in my book qualify for the "being used for years tag"

BTW my first degree was in physiology. therefore you might want to assume i actually know what im talking about. But in this context VMAx o2MAX and partial pressure thresholds are really over kill ;-)

Perhaps a little more scientific than a guess? Particularly if basing zones and training off HR??

 

[Si_]

What training zone is 113%?
According to my HR monitor yesterday on what I thought was a very average ride (plenty of time to take in the coutryside, put my chain back on, stop at lights etc.) with fairly short climbs and lots of lovely long freewheeling downhill sections, I reached 224bpm?! Either I had a small heart attack at some point during my ride without me noticing, or it was malfunctioning. Nice one. Pretty sure it's the monitor malfunctioning option this time!

thats a malfunction, either That or you have a bit of fibrillation going on there bud, ;-)

 

[Si_]

Perhaps a little more scientific than a guess?

Ok, so perhaps you might like to furnish the debate with a scientifically based theory of your own in response to the OP's question then? instead of merely picking holes in the advice of others and refusing to be constructive. If you know more then please share......???

 

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

Ok, so perhaps you might like to furnish the debate with a scientifically based theory of your own in response to the OP's question then? instead of merely picking holes in the advice of others and refusing to be constructive. If you know more then please share......???

Perhaps you could address the full post.

 

[Si_]

Sorry? At what point have you actually contributed more than one sentence at a time to this thread? Its obvious you just prefer being a T.I.T than bringing anything of actual use to the discussion. Kindly take yourself elsewhere. Unless of course you can back up your comments with any underpinning evidentiary knowledge? if thats the case im all ears.

As i said before how scientific do you want/need to get? A chap call Einstein reportedly once said "if you cant explain something simply then you dont understand it well enough"

As the OP is happy and I seem to have helped then i will end this "spat" now for fear of pulling the thread so far off topic if becomes useless.

 

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

Lets recap.

I asked why people are using 220-age

You provided a link with 10 reasons why it is useless after defending it as a "good rule of thumb" while claiming to know what you're talking about.

I asked, if you are going to base training on HR, then would you not want to have accurate figures to calculate zones with? ie: by undertaking an actual test to determine the figure.

There was no need to be childish and start calling me names. Although I have incredibly thick skin, so I can't say I'll lose sleep.

 

[MrJamie]

read this.
http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong/

I admit the 220 is an imperfect model, but how scientific do you want to get? invented inthe 1970's does in my book qualify for the "being used for years tag"

BTW my first degree was in physiology. therefore you might want to assume i actually know what im talking about. But in this context VMAx o2MAX and partial pressure thresholds are really over kill ;-)

I use a HRM for running more than cycling, but mostly just to monitor stats as I like looking at numbers and progress on the computer while im collapsed into a chair after exercising. I couldn't rely on the formula for zones though, at 32 my max should be 188bpm, but ive averaged 180+ for an hour and often peak to about 197-199 if i sprint finish the end of a run. I suspect my max HR is around 199/200 which means if i tried to use zones based on 220-age i'd probably be in the zone below what I was trying to achieve

Bupa's running guides (not cycling I know), use perceived effort levels, ( table here ) which i found incredibly useful when making myself programmes, I'm not sure if someone has done something similar for cycling. What I generally find works for me is to mix things up, have a longer slower ride on the weekend for endurance, a fast short ride in an evening and even doing silly intervals on a short ride by racing as fast as you can for a signpost or tree etc or deliberately make a hilly route. Not as scientific as you guys, but as long as I see improvements I'm happy

 

[Garz]

Lets recap.

I asked why people are using 220-age

Err come to think of it, this is factually incorrect, see snippet:

No it hasn't.

I read this when I once bought a wired cheap cycle computer. When setting up zones for a later purchase of a HRM watch I read these instructions too which I disregarded, however these instructions did say it was a guide.

Thus it does remain however 'people' are using this formula but it has not been directed correctly as I for one did not use this. I did read into the other formulas and worked out a sensible figure to base some 'training' on.

 

[PK99]

read this.
http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong/

I admit the 220 is an imperfect model, but how scientific do you want to get?)[/quote]

.

a modicum of up to date science would do! as the article you link to makes clear, the 220-age is by that measure dangerous gibberish