Heart Rate Monitor figures.

[tadpole]

220-age is a guide to the average person, same as BMI and bike size calculators, same as heart rate monitors calculating calories, why is that so hard to understand. It's a guide, a pointer, not very accurate for 50% of the population but that being said it's better than plucking random numbers from some dark orifice.

 

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

220-age is a guide to the average person, same as BMI and bike size calculators, same as heart rate monitors calculating calories, why is that so hard to understand. It's a guide, a pointer, not very accurate for 50% of the population but that being said it's better than plucking random numbers from some dark orifice.

A 220-age calculation is better than taking HR directly off a device that measures it?

Two figures which in the case of the OP, are completely wrong by 12 beats(based on recorded highest HR). Enough to throw every training zone off completely.

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!

And likewise, my 220-age would be 195, I've regularly seen 201bpm.

WobblyBobs known "highest" HR is 188 - 220-age is 176... 12 beats lower! But given 188 was on a hard climb, it would be reasonable to assume the same climb will produce 188(or higher) for similar effort.

So why not redo the climb?

 

[Garz]

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

 

[yello]

FWIW, 220 - age is there or therearounds for me I'd say. I only treated it as a starting point and I'd have very quickly found out if it was off the mark - as it seems to be for WobblyBob.

Luckily, in my case, it seems close enough for my purposes to avoid me having to find out the hard way! I'm not into downloading the numbers into a spreadsheet and performing whizzo calculations. I just like to ride my bike and I'm not overly interested in focusing on becoming faster or stronger. I'll accept the fitness benefits as they naturally occur.

 

[wealthysoup]

Nice thread for a beginner to read here, all the arguing wouldn't put them off the forums at all.

To answer the original question (the one that very few people have mentioned since getting caught in the hr argument). Im going to keep it simple here instead of getting bogged down in technical details.

The need/benefit of slow paced recovery rides really depends on how much cycling you are doing. If your out say 5 times a week itd definitely be beneficial, on the other hand if your only out once or twice a week then theres not much benefit. To increase general fitness / lose weight (using heart rates) then you should aim to be somewhere around the aerobic zone. While training outside specific zones will affect the primary benefit from your training the fact that your on your bike instead of sitting around means your fitness is developing. As for what max heart rate to use, if your only cycling for fitness then it will make very little difference, if your training for a race then its important. If your only cycling a few hours a week the book (cant remember its exact name) the time crunched cyclist by chris carmichael takes a good look at the physiological side of things without being too complicated.

 

[WobblyBob]

Wow........sorry, i have'nt been ignoring this thread, i just have'nt been logged on since i went to bed last night then been to work today.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input, there has been ALOT of usefull information & plenty for me to consider on how to use it (or not), but basically i'm gathering that i probably should tone down my rides effort wise as i'm getting out maybe 5 times a week weather permitting i should go relatively easy (aerobic zone) mostly but go out a bit harder once or possibly twice per week.

I'm in this for the long term but being still quite competetive in my own way i was after results i could see quickly, but obviously going about it the wrong way....you live & learn i suppose

Thanks again

 

[Si_]

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.

I pointed out that its a "good rule of thumb" and for a starting point, i stick to that. If you understand as much as youre infering, then you'll also know that i pointed out ALL maximal HR formulae are flawed due to the inconvenient detail of physiological deviations from an average.

the OP was asking as neither an athlete or a scientist therefore i provided a workable solution to his orginal question .

quite frankly, i am inclined to aslo stand by my previous comment of your seemingly expressed desire to be a TIT.

either

you understand the theory and are being obtuse merely to pick and argument whilst steadfastly avoiding putting up any of your own theories and aswers,

or

you dont understand it and are simply picking an argument for the hell of it.

whatever the truth all it does is make you look daft, overly opinionated and ignorant, so crack on. be my guest.

 

[Si_]

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.

indeed however the OP stated he felt "maxed out" at around 188, so i extrapolated based onthat figure.

of course its not a safe for all, but the 220 method does tend to give lower threshold values, hence a lower risk factor of over training. agins there will be those that buck this trend, but the point is still statistically valid.

 

[Si_]

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?

hear hear. however I would like to point out that I proffered the advice and was then "shot down" by proponents of "other" theroies who have yet to actually add to this thread in such a way as to address the OP's orginal question.

 

[Si_]

I am getting hacked off with this. My apologies to the OP for the tangent.

at TMHNET

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

completely wrong? really? has it escaped you that some individuals may not actually know how the heart, and its rate control works per see? arguing over "theories" is as others have pointed out simply counterproductive. At the point of orginal posting it would seem the OP was unaware of ZONES, and therefore:

"wrong" in this case is your opinion. "relevant as a learning tool" is mine.

and unless youre bradley or froome, a difference of 2-5 bpm on zone levels isn't all that much of an issue at the start. (before you jump on that as an 'error" of course once you begin to emulate messrs froome and wiggins then it becomes so)

my final quote on this is

"opinions are like peanuts, we all have one:"

so, TMHNET, be good enough to accept that others have opinions that differ from yours, and with good reason, and those cases are borne of numerous years of work in the field in question, hence whilst in YOUR opinion those opinions may not be valid, they ARE to many others.

 

[Si_]

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

so enlighten me oh master? ....

you know i was liking this forum, untill i offer advice and assistance to anewbie, stomp on some prick who decided to be a cocky twat and then get all manner of wise ass comments directed at me.

and yes, incase i wasnt subtle enough im a mite pissed off.

fine ROB< and TMHNET,

whats your opinions on the technical stuff? ,,,money where mouth is, or STFU and PO.

 

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

I pointed out that its a "good rule of thumb" and for a starting point, i stick to that. If you understand as much as youre infering, then you'll also know that i pointed out ALL maximal HR formulae are flawed due to the inconvenient detail of physiological deviations from an average.

After all of the links you posted arguing against 220-age, you still defend it? It's not a good rule of thumb, that has long been established but you appear unable to comprehend this. Why would you need a rule of thumb when you have a HRM?

the OP was asking as neither an athlete or a scientist therefore i provided a workable solution to his orginal question .

And a more sensible workable suggestion would be to, I dunno - raise your HR as high as possible? Lets say for example, on the same hill the OP saw 188bpm.

quite frankly, i am inclined to aslo stand by my previous comment of your seemingly expressed desire to be a TIT.

Generally people who enter threads with all the biz about 220-age formula and making a point of telling people you have a degree in physiology, make themselves look like much more of a tit that I will ever be. It's also intersesting that I am not the only person to question your posts yet, abuse is not given to the other user.

you understand the theory and are being obtuse merely to pick and argument whilst steadfastly avoiding putting up any of your own and aswers,

This is interesting. Mainly because you appear to not understand much yourself. You've also left your ability to read somewhere else.

you dont understand it and are simply picking an argument for the hell of it.

It's not even an argument. You lost all credability when you promoted 220-age then provided multiple links showing why it's useless!. It's not my fault you made yourself look like a complete tit.

whatever the truth all it does is make you look daft, overly opinionated and ignorant, so crack on. be my guest.

Once again, you have made yourself look like a complete tit. Distracting from that fact by throwing insults at me is blatantly obvious, and only serves to make you look moreso,of a tit.

PS: I don't have any degrees. Not that it actually matters, because you don't appear to either.

 

[Si_]

220-age is a guide to the average person, same as BMI and bike size calculators, same as heart rate monitors calculating calories, why is that so hard to understand. It's a guide, a pointer, not very accurate for 50% of the population but that being said it's better than plucking random numbers from some dark orifice.

why thank you....

 

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

so enlighten me oh master? ....

you know i was liking this forum, untill i offer advice and assistance to anewbie, stomp on some prick who decided to be a cocky twat and then get all manner of wise ass comments directed at me.

and yes, incase i wasnt subtle enough im a mite ****ed off.

fine ROB< and TMHNET,

whats your opinions on the technical stuff? ,,,money where mouth is, or STFU and PO.

You did all of that yourself

 

[PK99]

220-age is a guide to the average person, same as BMI and bike size calculators, same as heart rate monitors calculating calories, why is that so hard to understand. It's a guide, a pointer, not very accurate for 50% of the population but that being said it's better than plucking random numbers from some dark orifice.

Better still to ignore the 220 formula and rely on a scale of perceived exertion? see cycling plus/active etc