Heart Rate Monitor figures.

[Si_]

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.

oh yes emninantly sensible, suggest to someone whom youve never met and dont know, and who's medical level of fitness you cannot judge in any way that they should do amaximal work out on a hill. yes great. very safety concious that. ( i`assume you know exactly why i queried the resting hr of 53 and beta blockers since your such an expert)

you seem hell bent on the wrong assumption that i believe the 220 to be "an absolute" and yet ignore the fact that i posted many many times in this very thread that its a guidleine, as starting point, a theory and a formula. yes it has its limits, yes, it has been superseded, yes you can get infinately more technical, but honestly, does the OP need to?

as for the abuse, it was directed at you for one simple reason. i cannot stand those who will happily sit back and smuggly say things like "no it hasnt" etc etc on threads, without bothering their arse to actually answer the OP's query.

Perhaps i have made an error on this thread, namely one of ever giving your oringal posts any attention at all. whilst im sure youre really a lovely peroson, and ya mother loves you dearly, and you may even give to charity, you clearly have been acting as afairly large prick toward another forum member (me) who simply proffered an answer. something you have yet to actually do

could a mod please lock this thread to stop any more stupidity and clean it up so it can be of use to other new starters, thanks....

 

[PK99]

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.

check out reply 4 in the thread >>> http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/

I did hear that the original 220-age formula was produced (allegedly) by a cardiologist going to a conference and needing a paper to present, he did a quick and dirty literature review of previous medical (note not training/athlete) studies and came up with 220-age as a poor best fit. the rest is (horrible) history.

 

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

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.

oh yes emninantly sensible, suggest to someone whom youve never met and dont know, and who's medical level of fitness you cannot judge in any way that they should do amaximal work out on a hill. yes great. very safety concious that. ( i`assume you know exactly why i queried the resting hr of 53 and beta blockers since your such an expert)

You've conveniently ignored the part where the OP rode up a hill and saw 188bpm. Is there any posted reason why this isn't possible again?

you seem hell bent on the wrong assumption that i believe the 220 to be "an absolute" and yet ignore the fact that i posted many many times in this very thread that its a guidleine, as starting point, a theory and a formula. yes it has its limits, yes, it has been superseded, yes you can get infinately more technical, but honestly, does the OP need to?

You don't seem sure what you believe 220-age to be yourself. But you have ignored the simple fact that the calculation YOU POSTED is not the same as the actual figure recorded. As I've asked before, if you are going to train in HR zones, why would you not want the most accurate figures to calculate zones with? A figure taken from an HRM and recording device (in this case a garmin 500) is clearly and irrefutably going to be better to base zones off. In fact, I'm slightly confused as to why 220 was even mentioned in the thread at all. Once again, that was your doing.

as for the abuse, it was directed at you for one simple reason. i cannot stand those who will happily sit back and smuggly say things like "no it hasnt" etc etc on threads, without bothering their arse to actually answer the OP's query.

I have but you choose to not bother reading.

Perhaps i have made an error on this thread, namely one of ever giving your oringal posts any attention at all. whilst im sure youre really a lovely peroson, and ya mother loves you dearly, and you may even give to charity, you clearly have been acting as afairly large prick toward another forum member (me) who simply proffered an answer. something you have yet to actually do

Once again with the insults. Once again not reading.

could a mod please lock this thread to stop any more stupidity and clean it up so it can be of use to other new starters, thanks....

Done making yourself look silly?

 

[jazzkat]

To the Op, if its any use!!!
When I first got into heart rates. I used the 220 measurement and soon realised it was just a generalisation. Admittedly I had been riding for a good few years so I just rode by perceived effort (although I had not heard of this term at the time) I eventually just let my hrm have my max heart rate from the peak it had seen (190 something going over the Hardknott pass in the lakes) but, and I believe this is a biggy, for us mere mortals watching the numbers is fairly irrelevant.
I am, I believe, a fairly (averagely) fit cyclist, aged 44. I find watching the numbers in a training sense to be a waste of time, although I still do it, lol . The batteries packed up in my computer recently and when I replaced them I found I was riding faster than the previous week!

My advice, as a mere amateur, is to go off perceived effort and make a note of the numbers, eventually you will get a feel for how your body feels and you will respond accordingly.

Hope that helps!!!

 

[Rob3rt]

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.

You may have offered advice but it was advice was littered with errors, seemingly due to, from my perspective, a lack of understanding of general training theory and terminology. Or at least an inability to get what is in your head onto the page.

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.

My opinion on the technical stuff is that people should consider a few things before giving advice on it. The two most important things to consider are, do you have a good enough understanding to provide accurate information? Are you able to communicate your understanding? If either of these questions come back with a no, you shouldn't give advice on it!

Further those offering advice should be able to defend this advice in a sensible way.

 

[yello]

Si_, if it's of any consolation (and sadly I guess it probably won't be now ) I understood completely what you were saying and the context within which you were saying it.

 

[Stonechat]

An interesting thread
I am 62 and frequently ride with hr 160-166 for longer periods so that 'rule' is not good

FWIW my resting HR is 60 or less (never checked first thing in the morning)
THis is down from 78 when I started cycling again.

I have tried finding functional thresold heart rate, but never sure how accurate these are.
MEximum heart rate I have seen is 192 - possibly could go higher.
I really find it's only on hills I can really push it up so much.

I have been using British CYcling training plan to do the London to Brighton (now done)
I find it hard to keep to zone 2 when called for.
Equally when a zone 5 effort it called for , I can't get there unless on an incline (praps I need a turbo - though I don't want one)

Either way I am doing a lot right as I feel I could ride a century though 74 miles is the max to date

 

[Deleted member 22722]

Glad that I took the time to look at this thread. Always wear a heart rate monitor but rarely look at the stats for this. Just gone to check my stats and realised that my HR hasn't been recording since the start of the month. Battery must be flat. Doh!