Heart Rate Monitor figures.

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

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





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.

Good to know.

PS: why is everyone using 220-age?

Consider yourself excused

 

[Si_]

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.

You didnt as i recall "ask" any of the above until just now. Merely posted rather inflammatory single sentence "clever clogs style" comments., however....

you post of "no it hasnt" was i presume alluding to a timeframe. so the 1970's didn't count then eh? thats a theory been around for oooh 43 years.

like i have repeatedly said, "how scientific do you need/want to get" for a guy starting out the admittedly limited and flawed 220 minus age is a good "starting point" which if you'll recall i pointed out was a guideline. the obvious extrapolation from this is that as one trains, so one replaces "theoretical" figures with measured ones, from actual data. a fact i thought so painfully obvious that i didnt feel the need to spell it out.

also if you're suggesting a 44yr old returning to cycling subject himself to a VO2max and HR max test, i hope your insurance is up todate. Sure once a certain amount of training is known and theres a more quantifiable set of peramaters, then go for it, do a full on test condition data set, but to say its needed to start training is plain wrong. (and that would seem to be the point youre making or at least infering)

Another clever person once said "keep it simple stupid" i.e dont over complicate things. 220 - age works, to a point, and like all theories, outdated or other wise it has its flaws. in this case its a simple effective model to assist some one to start training on HR, untill and unless they want to take that model further and "get geeky"

As the running example shows from above there are a multitude of people for whom this model doesn't hold long term, as they are fitter than it would suggest. in short every persons training is based on their own physiological reserves etc,and thus is unique to them, and will require "tuning" but you have to start somewhere.

simples really.

 

[Si_]

hows about this then ?

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/science-a-better-formula-for-fitness-872/

cites that all formulae are flawed (get away really? isn't that what i just said? )

or

http://www.thefitnessconnectiononline.com/heartzones.html

again this article points out the 220 minus age has been around but you cannot stick slavishly to the numbers. (guidelines.. guidelines...) And takes the theory a bit further.

look past the headline and read the article,

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/max.htm#.UV3-lKs-srg

now add allthat up,and ask "whats the safest way to advise a guy on a forum to start training, such that he won't over train and cause himself grief? " 220-age gives a fair approximation or if you like " rule of thumb" that will stop someone trying to go beyond 188 when they are potentially not ready. it may result in undertraining sure, but thats never hurt anyone right?

i rest my case.

g'night

 

[Rob3rt]

I have an observation.................

Drop a question like this in the beginners section and you get the blind leading the blind.
Drop a question like this in the training section and you get an argument between us data obsessed training and racing nerds!

You can't win!

 

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

You didnt as i recall "ask" any of the above until just now. Merely posted rather inflammatory single sentence "clever clogs style" comments., however....

I certainly did.

you post of "no it hasnt" was i presume alluding to a timeframe. so the 1970's didn't count then eh? thats a theory been around for oooh 43 years.

No. It was in response to this

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

like i have repeatedly said, "how scientific do you need/want to get"

As you have been told by myself and others, a little more scientific than outdated formula that you admit yourself is useless.

for a guy starting out the admittedly limited and flawed 220 minus age is a good "starting point"

It's not really. The maxHR the OP has seen is 12 beats higher than his 220-age maxhr. Yes, you can adjust zone calculations, but how many people will realise that?

Explain to me how being completely wrong, is a good starting point?

which if you'll recall i pointed out was a guideline. the obvious extrapolation from this is that as one trains, so one replaces "theoretical" figures with measured ones, from actual data. a fact i thought so painfully obvious that i didnt feel the need to spell it out.

It's obvious. It's also obvious that the OP's current known maxhr is 188. His 220-age is meant to be 176. "theoretical" lol - plain wrong!

also if you're suggesting a 44yr old returning to cycling subject himself to a VO2max and HR max test, i hope your insurance is up todate.

Why not? All sorts of people do these tests all the time.

Sure once a certain amount of training is known and theres a more quantifiable set of peramaters, then go for it, do a full on test condition data set, but to say its needed to start training is plain wrong. (and that would seem to be the point youre making or at least infering)

I never said it was needed. I asked if you are going to train by HR, why would you not test properly for your figures, instead of rely on 220- age. An outdated non-specific formula you both abhor and promote in the same sentences.

Another clever person once said "keep it simple stupid" i.e dont over complicate things. 220 - age works, to a point, and like all theories, outdated or other wise it has its flaws. in this case its a simple effective model to assist some one to start training on HR, untill and unless they want to take that model further and "get geeky"

It works. If you like inaccurate figures.

As the running example shows from above there are a multitude of people for whom this model doesn't hold long term, as they are fitter than it would suggest. in short every persons training is based on their own physiological reserves etc,and thus is unique to them, and will require "tuning" but you have to start somewhere.

simples really.

Start with a guess. Right

 

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

hows about this then ?

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/science-a-better-formula-for-fitness-872/

cites that all formulae are flawed (get away really? isn't that what i just said? )

or

http://www.thefitnessconnectiononline.com/heartzones.html

again this article points out the 220 minus age has been around but you cannot stick slavishly to the numbers. (guidelines.. guidelines...) And takes the theory a bit further.

look past the headline and read the article,

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/max.htm#.UV3-lKs-srg

now add allthat up,and ask "whats the safest way to advise a guy on a forum to start training, such that he won't over train and cause himself grief? " 220-age gives a fair approximation or if you like " rule of thumb" that will stop someone trying to go beyond 188 when they are potentially not ready. it may result in undertraining sure, but thats never hurt anyone right?

i rest my case.

g'night

It's kinda funny. You were happily promoting 220-age with no mention of it's flaws until I posted asking why people were using it.

Now it's still "a good rule of thumb" even after your own admission(and lots of links showing why) that it's all flawed. A very quick turnaround for a man with a degree in physiology.

 

[ianrauk]

I have an observation.................

Drop a question like this in the beginners section and you get the blind leading the blind.
Drop a question like this in the training section and you get an argument between us data obsessed training and racing nerds!

You can't win!

Indeed. And the end result is no one is any wiser.

 

[tadpole]

Indeed. And the end result is no one is any wiser.

SSDD

 

[Rob3rt]

To Wobblybob, ignore what you have read in this thread (ignore all of it, most of it is a load of old horse muck, granted a small amount of it is useful but picking through and deciding what is useful and what is not is going to be a task in itself) and buy a book like this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Total-Heart-Rate-Training-Customize/dp/1569755620/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1365147362&sr=8-2&keywords=heart rate training

Authors I would give some* credence to (amongst others) are:

Dr Andrew Coggan
Hunter Allen
Joe Friel
Chris Carmichael

* Some of what every author states is bound to be debated, but you should be able to get a decent handle on things from such texts.

 

[Garz]

It just cements my observation from other posts that certain folk detract from topic and get a kick out of the personal elements.

 

[Rob3rt]

Personally, I find it frustrating to see someone like Wobblybob (who clearly wants to learn and is receptive to advice) being provided with information which is either wrong or incomplete. I would like to see him get accurate information, presented in a logical format that he can read, digest, understand and ultimately implement in such a way as to achieve his aims. Sadly, he won't get that here for numerous reasons, hence the recommendation to buy a book.

Things will always be debated, but how on earth is anyone expected to obtain correct information if those providing the information are not experienced or knowledgeable enough to provide robust information, or the information is embedded within a debate between data junkies (I am guilty of doing this) arguing over minor definition differences or some such?

 

[PK99]

hows about this then ?

now add allthat up,and ask "whats the safest way to advise a guy on a forum to start training, such that he won't over train and cause himself grief? " 220-age gives a fair approximation or if you like " rule of thumb" that will stop someone trying to go beyond 188 when they are potentially not ready. it may result in undertraining sure, but thats never hurt anyone right?

i rest my case.

g'night

Surely you are misunderstanding the formula, it does not give a "safe for all" number, it gives a whole population average ie It may seriously overestimate the maximum heart rate for some.

 

[Rob3rt]

Surely you are misunderstanding the formula, it does not give a "safe for all" number, it gives a whole population average ie It may seriously overestimate the maximum heart rate for some.

Said poster misunderstands many things, despite physiology apparently being "his area". This is a case of the blind leading the blind.

 

[Garz]

Wobblybob has enough information to move on with his next phase of using HR and training. What needs continuing is the "data junkies" and I guess specialists among us on an entirely new thread.

 

[PK99]

It's obvious. It's also obvious that the OP's current known maxhr is 188. His 220-age is meant to be 176. "theoretical" lol - plain wrong!


t

I'm 57. ie theoretical max = 220-57 = 163.

i rode comfortably up from Normandy onto the Hog's back on Wednesday with a peak of 174bpm, with a lot left in the tank*. I've no idea what my real max is, but the "formula" number is gibberish.

* I suppose I should have done a max test at that point and got out of the saddle and sprinted the last 50m!