Heart rate

[black'n'yellow]

Well then I guess that put us both in our place eh? Unless, of course you try to understand where the OP is coming from in his admission of ignorance about using HRM and answer accordingly (see MattHB above) and not from your high horse.

Except that nobody can answer the OP's question in any meaningful sense, because it simply isn't valid - which is all any of us have been trying to point out. Which in itself is an answer, incidentally - and just as useful/useless as any other.

An HRM gives you an indication of how fast your heart is beating - that's all it does. If you happen to know your maximum HR, it can also be used to extrapolate an indication of effort level, but it's not even a particularly reliable measure of that either, as effort and HR are not linear.

 

[mr messy]

Except that nobody can answer the OP's question in any meaningful sense, because it simply isn't valid - which is all any of us have been trying to point out. Which in itself is an answer, incidentally - and just as useful/useless as any other.

An HRM gives you an indication of how fast your heart is beating. If you happen to know your maximum HR, it can also be used to provide an indication of effort level, but it's not even a particularly reliable measure of that either, as effort and HR are not linear.

My impression is the OP has no point of reference as its his first HRM and merely wants to know if its reasonable to have his figures during a ride. Are they typically "normal" or not. Personally i'd be rather alarmed if he said his max was 200bpm and min was 0bpm!!!

 

[Rob3rt]

My impression is the OP has no point of reference as its his first HRM and merely wants to know if its reasonable to have his figures during a ride. Are they typically "normal" or not. Personally i'd be rather alarmed if he said his max was 200bpm and min was 0bpm!!!

That is the crux of it, what is typical or even reasonable for one person is not for another.

These HR discussions come up again and again and go round in the same old boring circles, with the same old posters. I would advise reading up on HR based training a bit, it will make things a lot clearer as to what the numbers mean. It is a bit much to start explaining the in's and out's here without at least some basis for discussion.

 

[mr messy]

That is the crux of it, what is typical or even reasonable for one person is not for another.

These HR discussions come up again and again and go round in the same old boring circles, with the same old posters. I would advise reading up on HR based training a bit, it will make things a lot clearer as to what the numbers mean. It is a bit much to start explaining the in's and out's here without at least some basis for discussion.

I agree. But having having results relating to ones health which can't be interpreted will always pose questions until some knowledge is gained, usually through discussion with others

 

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

Well then I guess that put us both in our place eh? Unless, of course you try to understand where the OP is coming from in his admission of ignorance about using HRM and answer accordingly (see MattHB above) and not from your high horse.

I understand where the OP is coming from. And unlike you I understood the original question.

It still doesn't make the answers comparable. My avg over 40miles being around 140 means absolutely nothing(as per the original question) to anyone and frankly never will(as per the second question). The avg HR of a guy 35years older is never comparable to mine in any way.

 

[Upstream]

Hi there,
I'm a newbie but I do use a heart rate monitor and I'm happy to share my experiences with you...
My understanding is that if you're trying to improve your fitness that you should be training at around 75% of your maximum rate and that doing this will cause you to burn fat. If you train at a rate above around 85% (don't quote me on that figure though) you then burn carbohydrates. As a rough guide, the max heart rate for an adult male is 220 minus your age so for an example - if you are a 40 year old male, your max heart rate could be 180 beats per minute.

When I'm using my spin bike I tend to try to stay at around 75 - 80% for an hour's session. On the road with hills etc it can vary but during a quick food stop, my HR usually drops back to around 100. At rest, mine sits at around 61 - 65 beats per minute.

I have my monitor set to alert me (beeping) at 100% of max heart rate. Generally it doesn't go off although on a few occasions when going up some tough hills it has and I have tended to back off just a little.

Oh... I'm mid forties.

 

[Rob3rt]

I don't mean to offend, but I don't even know where to start with regards to the above, so I will not offer any specific advice, it should be noted what you are doing is not wrong (well, it is debatable and I really can not be arsed with this debate again as it will not help you, I would just say what you are doing is not making the best use of your time, regardless of your goals), but you could really benefit from understanding basic HR training, or indeed training for cycling in a bit more depth, you could do a bit of googling or buy a book, many sources will give you at least something to go on (as I said before, it is a bit much to explain everything in a forum post, if you have any questions after reading up a bit, I am sure people on here can help a bit more if you have some specific questions). As for the 100% HR alert, no idea why you have that.

 

[Upstream]

I don't mean to offend, but I don't even know where to start with regards to the above, so I will not offer any specific advice, it should be noted what you are doing is not wrong (well, it is debatable and I really can not be arsed with this debate again as it will not help you, I would just say what you are doing is not making the best use of your time, regardless of your goals), but you could really benefit from understanding basic HR training, or indeed training for cycling in a bit more depth, you could do a bit of googling or buy a book, many sources will give you at least something to go on (as I said before, it is a bit much to explain everything in a forum post, if you have any questions after reading up a bit, I am sure people on here can help a bit more if you have some specific questions). As for the 100% HR alert, no idea why you have that.

Hi Rob,
I'm just an average guy who likes cycling - I certainly don't claim to be an expert. All I did was came across a thread where someone had asked for about the experiences of others and as he didn't seem to be getting many responses, I thought I'd offer mine. I have read some books but as I cycle just for fun and fitness, the depth to which I follow the training guides isn't particularly great (just an overview). Had the person who started the thread asked for training advice - I'd have left that to those much more knowledgeable than myself. As for the 100% alert - believe me, that's more than enough for me ;-)

 

[Rob3rt]

Hi Rob,
I'm just an average guy who likes cycling - I certainly don't claim to be an expert. All I did was came across a thread where someone had asked for about the experiences of others and as he didn't seem to be getting many responses, I thought I'd offer mine. I have read some books but as I cycle just for fun and fitness, the depth to which I follow the training guides isn't particularly great (just an overview). Had the person who started the thread asked for training advice - I'd have left that to those much more knowledgeable than myself. As for the 100% alert - believe me, that's more than enough for me ;-)

What I mean is, the alarm is redundant, you can not exceed 100% MHR, it is a maximum value. Further if you hit 100% MHR you will not need to remind yourself to back off, you will back off, it is impossible not too, it can not be maintained. You would be better off using the alarm function to warn you of the upper and lower limits of a target HR range and heeding the beeps to maintain your HR in the desired range.

I am not trying to wade all over your advice., I just think even for a general fitness cyclist, you could do well to understand better the different aspects of fitness and how HR training comes into play, else there is little point in even wearing one, which also has it's benefits.

 

[Upstream]

What I mean is, the alarm is redundant, you can not exceed 100% MHR, it is a maximum value. Further if you hit 100% MHR you will not need to remind yourself to back off, you will back off, it is impossible not too, it can not be maintained. You would be better off using the alarm function to warn you of the upper and lower limits of a target HR range and heeding the beeps to maintain your Hr in the desired range.

Hi Rob,
I see what your saying about having the beeps indicate the desired training range - that's a great idea and if my monitor supports that functionality I'll definately use it.

With the 100% MHR though - I'm unsure of what you mean about it not being able to be exceeded. My understanding is that the formula I referred to in my earlier post is a guide and that different people dependent upon a number of factors can have higher or lower levels so just because my MHR based on that formula may be 180 doesn't mean that it isn't possible for me to push my heart rate above that threshold.

 

[Rob3rt]

Hi Rob,
I see what your saying about having the beeps indicate the desired training range - that's a great idea and if my monitor supports that functionality I'll definately use it.

With the 100% MHR though - I'm unsure of what you mean about it not being able to be exceeded. My understanding is that the formula I referred to in my earlier post is a guide and that different people dependent upon a number of factors can have higher or lower levels so just because my MHR based on that formula may be 180 doesn't mean that it isn't possible for me to push my heart rate above that threshold.

That is why the MHR formulas are useless, if you really want to train by HR you need to ascertain your real MHR, by one of several methods. By definition MRH is the maximum figure you will see, therefore if you see a higher figure, then you know your previously thought MHR is not your max. If you go over your calculated MHR, you may as well take that value as your MHR and keep doing so, at least each iterative MHR figure will be more accurate than the last.

Eg if your calculated MHR = 180 bpm, and you one day see 186 bpm, you may as well alter your MHR in your device to 186 BPM (because you now KNOW that the value from the formula was wrong and the new value is closer to the real value), it still might be wrong but it is better than the previous value. If you then see, 189 BPM, do the same thing. You will keep getting closer and closer.

It would be best to perform a MHR test, but this way would be less painful and you wouldn't have to go out of your way to do it.

 

[Crackle]

Maybe it's time for a Heart Rate Monitor FAQ, as it's always the same stuff that comes up.

I'm not volunteering by the way, you don't want the blind leading the blind.

 

[Upstream]

That is why the MHR formulas are useless, if you really want to train by HR you need to ascertain your real MHR, by one of several methods. By definition MRH is the maximum figure you will see, therefore if you see a higher figure, then you know your previously thought MHR is not your max. If you go over your calculated MHR, you may as well take that value as your MHR and keep doing so, at least each iterative MHR figure will be more accurate than the last.

Eg if your calculated MHR = 180 bpm, and you one day see 186 bpm, you may as well alter your MHR in your device to 186 BPM (because you now KNOW that the value from the formula was wrong and the new value is closer to the real value), it still might be wrong but it is better than the previous value. If you then see, 189 BPM, do the same thing. You will keep getting closer and closer.

It would be best to perform a MHR test, but this way would be less painful and you wouldn't have to go out of your way to do it.

Aha - thanks for the clarification on this!

Now I know where I was going wrong with this MHR thing... My interpretation of MHR (the books I had read didn't make it clear) was that this was a figure given as to the maximum rate that the person's heart could efficiently pump blood at and that it could go above this level but that it would be highly inefficient doing so. If I understand what you're saying - a person's MHR is the maximum BPM at which their heart can pump blood (efficiency etc doesn't come into it as it is a hard limit regardless of how much you throw at it). Is this what you're saying?

 

[Rob3rt]

Maximum Heart Rate = The maximum rate at which your heart can beat, nothing more.

What you appear to be refering too, in a roundabout way is what is known as Lactate Threshold or Threshold HR, this is the HR value where your body can no longer clear lactate from the muscles faster or as fast as it accrues, i.e. the lactate builds up and your legs burn. An often used example is that of a water tank with an inflow and an outflow, if the outflow lets water escape at a faster rate than the inflow provides fresh water the tank will empty, if the outflow and inflow are matched the volume in the tank will remain constant, if the outflow is less than the inflow, the volume of water in the tank will increase.

 

[Upstream]

I think that Crackle's comment about a HR FAQ is a good one ;-)
Rob - Thanks for providing some clarification. I do have another question which has come out of one of your answers though...

With a person's MHR is this genetically predetermined or does fitness play a part (and if so then the MHR could shift). Let me explain what I'm getting at. Let's say you have an individual who for the past ten years or so has lead a sedentary lifestyle. They then jump on a bike and push themselves to their maximum (to the point of exhaustion) and record the MHR. If that person then went on a training regime for 12 months and then jumped onto a bike and pushed themselves again, although the distance covered and speed is likely to be significantly higher than on their earlier attempt - would their MHR be the same on both occasions?