hr topic...

[Chrisz]

Don't forget that fat takes a fairly long time to metabolise - hence the low recommended HR zone - at lower levels you are able to go on for greater duration. If you train at higher HR for long duration you use more energy and thus more fat - you will not be able to train for 2hrs + at an exercise intensity that takes you out of the 'fat burning zone'.

In short, it's duration rather than intensity that burns the fat.

AS for a 234bpm - that sounds very much like an anomolie (spike), possibly cause by some interferance in the signal to the monitor. Doing 149 down hill is perfectly acceptable - you have much less ressistance to push against, exercise intensity is reduced and therefore heart rate falls accordingly.

As for the competitive cycling bit, as jimbaolee stated, you should be aiming to replicate 'perfect' rides during competition rather than worry about heart rates, although post-event analysis can tell a coach/performer a lot about their strengths and weaknesses (e.g. not working hard enough/too hard on hills, drags etc.).

Personally, although I don't ride competitively any more I still go out with a combined computer/heart rate monitor on just so I can see how I did afterwards and compare heart rates with RPE (rate of perceived exertion). I have even taken to keeping the computer/HRM out of site to avoid riding according to Av. speed, heart rate etc. consequently I feel I actually enjoy my rides more as I no longer concentrate on keeping average speed up to a target level or heart rate within a pre-set training zone.

 

[jimboalee]

Agreed ChrisZ

2 hours is about the duration of the ride between controls on a Randonnee. This is done at above the zone for fat burning, so I supplement with some carbs.

A populair, however, is at a more sedate pace, so the majority of a 100km ride is running on adipose at a HR of between 110 and 125 bmp.

100km pop's are finished in the same manner as a club B ride with a cake and coffee at half distance.
200km Randos need about 50% of the 'text book' carb requirement.
300km Randos need 100% of the 'text book'.

When it comes to data gathering, what ChrisZ is saying is "Time spent in reconnaissance is never time wasted".

 

[mr-marty-martin]

i still think a hr monitor is good for warming u, cooling down at races, also recovery rides with the alarm on is handy...

i dont ride tt, but cross and road, also a bit of mtb. at the start of the cross season i used to replacate races, although abit harder now with the dark nights so a spend allot of my time on the rollers, although in the next couple of weeks am goin to do a couple of race replacations in prep for the regionals and nationals

 

[doyler78]

Just to clear comething up here the Karvonen method is not a way of determing maximum heart rate. It is a method of finding a heart rate range around which training levels can be prescribed.

The heart rate range (or as polar calls it in their software the heart rate reserve) is:

maximum heart rate - resting heart rate

That assumes you know both resting and maximum heart rates which are both easily found by testing (not by using a useless formula which for most people doesn't come anywhere near what their actual max is).

 

[Chrisz]

Use the Karvonen Formula (220 - age) to work out estimated maximum heart rate as already stated. For most people this is accurate enough for working out your training zones.

Like wot was said ages ago

 

[Chrisz]

(not by using a useless formula which for most people doesn't come anywhere near what their actual max is).

Sorry mate, but the Karvonen formula is NOT useless!!

If you have someone who has lead a relatively sedentary lifestyle and wants to start CV fitness training, the Karvonen formula is an EXCELLENT, tried and well-tested method for ESTIMATING their maximum heart rate and therefore their approximate reccomended heart rate training zones (usually expressed as a % of maximum heart rate).

Once said sedentary/beginner is used to (a) working with a heart rate monitor and ( working at a high intensity level you can then perform a true maximum heart rate test to ascertain their actual maximum heart rate and adjust set training zones accordingly.

As has already been stated (several times now) - this "useless formula" is used to provide a rough estimate of a person's maximum heart rate.

I would never countenance getting a novice/beginner to 'max out' on a first session to determine max HR - surely it is far better (and safer) to perform a simple calculation to estimate max HR and then, once they are fully familiar with the exercise, perform a max HR test?

 

[doyler78]

Sorry mate, but the Karvonen formula is NOT useless!!

I never it was

If you have someone who has lead a relatively sedentary lifestyle and wants to start CV fitness training, the Karvonen formula is an EXCELLENT, tried and well-tested method for ESTIMATING their maximum heart rate and therefore their approximate reccomended heart rate training zones (usually expressed as a % of maximum heart rate).

The Karvonen Method, as I explained in my post, is another way of calculating the figure on which heart rate zones are based. I rather simplified the formula as there is debate around exactly what percentages should be used within the formula and not going into that detail didn't detract from me pointing out that you have used the Karvonen Method to refer to something to which it doesn't refer. It is NOT a method of estimating maximum heart rate. Basically Karvonen believed maxHR on its own was not a good enough metric to prescribe exercise intensity as different people with the same maxHR could have wildly different effective heart ranges within which they could train as resting heart rates vary greatly so then did the actual range of heart rate that you could train in vary greatly too and thus any zones based around this range would also vary. However Karvonen used higher % at the bottom end of the scale than the traditional zones based on maxHR and when compared they actually were not a million miles apart and as hr are in themselves highly subjective then such nuances are probably not worth worrying about however there is logic in what he says and for those that would be interested in complicating their calculations here's how then can do it in its full glory this time.

(Maximum Heart Rate - Resting Heart Rate) multplied by the % of zone (lower or upper percentage) + Resting Heart Rate ie

If my maxHr is 200, my resting heart rate is 50 and our first training zone is 50% to 59% then the training zone is:

Lower Zone Limit: (200-50)*0.5+50=125
Upper Zone Limit: (200-150)*0.59+50=139 (rounded up).[/QUOTE]

Once said sedentary/beginner is used to (a) working with a heart rate monitor and ( working at a high intensity level you can then perform a true maximum heart rate test to ascertain their actual maximum heart rate and adjust set training zones accordingly.

As has already been stated (several times now) - this "useless formula" is used to provide a rough estimate of a person's maximum heart rate.

I would never countenance getting a novice/beginner to 'max out' on a first session to determine max HR - surely it is far better (and safer) to perform a simple calculation to estimate max HR and then, once they are fully familiar with the exercise, perform a max HR test?

I wouldn't recommend a maxHR test for anyone you hasn't exercised in sometime simply because it is unlikely they would actually reach a peak even if they tried.

Do I think then that this makes 220-age a useful formula. I'm afraid not for several reasons.

1) If you are using the hr zones to moderate your exercise intensity then if you don't know the maxHR then you don't know the exercise intensity therefore what's the point.

Perhaps you might say because it stops that person working too hard and is close enough to make no difference. Well perhaps for some that might be true for others it can be up to 25 points out. If that happens to be on the underside ie you maxHR is much lower you have seriously overestimated the training load a given heart rate so how exactly does that help moderate effort.

You might say to that for most people that is not going to be the case and you would probably be right however actual maxHR versus 220-age formula is actually out by quite a bit for a lot of people so you might underestimate how close this for a lot of people. There is huge variability and this huge variability makes it an exceedingly bad predictor and thus why anyone who is concerned about protecting someone from overdoing things use such a highly volatile metric. That's just another way of looking at it and it's my view.

Then I have to ask myself well is it the best we can hope for and all the evidence in exercise physiology now points to the fact that athletes can better quantify their effort by feel (perceived effort) than is predicted by Heart Rate. That of course is athletes and as athletes train extensively and presumably know there limits much better then it is perhaps that they are simply better calibrated to understand the effort however ask most people to describe how any exercise felt on a scale of one 1 to 10 where you list the kinds of things they might be feeling and they can follow that pretty well so for me if perceived effort is understood then it would make a much better method for people to ease themselves into exercise.

All the evidence also is that as exercise intensity increases so then does hr become increasingly irrelevant as hr is a lagging indicator of effort then you can have put a signficant effort in and this will not be reflected until later and as such as a means of moderating upper effort again hr isn't the best and perceived effort, particularly at this is end of things, has been found to be much better than hr.

There are a lot of people who still prescribe 220-age (and variants thereof) so you are not alone in believing in its usefulness however I think personally it is a hangover from the past which has just been adopted rather than actually understood and applying it to fit individuals as it still is frequently shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to why it was even postulated in the first place which was expressed as a means of better protecting those at significant risk not to protect form all risk.

 

[Chrisz]

For a beginner - i.e. someone new to using heart rates as a method of measuring exercise intensity I feel it is still a very valid method. It is simple and easy to calculate. For an athlete it's a completely different matter. An athlete is used to working at set RPEs - a beginner is not. A trained athlete will also use other methods to measure exercise intensity - a beginner has no frame of reference and therefore needs a simple method with which to gauge their exercise intensity - the 220 - age therefore suits their (basic) needs.