Training using a heart rate monitor

[huwsparky]

had a fairly fast ride this afternoon (one segment being 14.5 km long) .... I managed to push my hearbeat rate up to 172 ....

There's no point you mentioning segment lengths of 14.5km to determine your max HR. I don't think your understanding the type of effort you need to do to obtain your true max.

You'll get your max reading from a sprint effort, you'll not be able to sprint for 14.5km's.

Have a look at this link below. Test 1 will be your best bet of obtaining you true max HR. Please forget about 15km efforts for max HR purposes.

https://www.cycling-inform.com/how-to-test-for-your-cycling-max-heart-rate

 

[dim]

There's no point you mentioning segment lengths of 14.5km to determine your max HR. I don't think your understanding the type of effort you need to do to obtain your true max.

You'll get your max reading from a sprint effort, you'll not be able to sprint for 14.5km's.

Have a look at this link below. Test 1 will be your best bet of obtaining you true max HR. Please forget about 15km efforts for max HR purposes.

https://www.cycling-inform.com/how-to-test-for-your-cycling-max-heart-rate

thanks for that .... I will have a close look at this

on my ride today, I gave it my best for the 14.5km ....

it's a long stretch between Swaversy and Milton road Cambridge on the guided busway (long stretches on a good cycle path) .... a few road intersections where the busway crosses busy roads, but all in all a good course to sprint and do TT .... The busway is between Milton rd and St ives and is 12 miles long (I worked in Swavesy, which is 3 miles away from St Ives)

on the last small segment, called the CRC sprint of 0,8km .... my average speed was 36.3km/hr and my max speed was 40.7km/hr .... average heart beat was 168 ...I sprinted as fast as I could ... thats where I got the 172 heartbeat ...

I had my Garmin set to use the Virtual Partner as a test on this feature as I have only had my Garmin for a week and am trying to learn how to use it. So, on this stretch, I was already pretty knackered and sprinted as fast as I could. Not sure if the hill climbing test will get my heart pumping faster than this

So, saying this, I am still trying to figure all this out ....

my age is 56, so, if we use the 220 minus the age, my max heartbeat rate works out to 164

so, now, I pushed my h/r to 172 .... so, 220-172=48 .... means that someone 48 years old should have a max h/r of 172

does this now mean that my heart is as good as reasonably fit 48 year old (8 years younger than me)?

looking at the formula of 220 minus age, the younger that you are, the higher you can push your heart to pump faster? ....

 

[Crackle]

If you are not training for something like racing, you don't actually need to know your max HR. You can track changes over time on same routes, you can monitor your recovery rate, your resting HR, you can spot elevated HR's (dodgy strap or impending bug), low HR's (fatigued), no real need to kill yourself trying to find out what your max HR is so you can set zones you may never use. There's also good old, perceived effort, out of favour these days but you know when you're going hard and easy. Just take the Max HR you've ever seen and adjust it with time and experience.

 

[dim]

If you are not training for something like racing, you don't actually need to know your max HR. You can track changes over time on same routes, you can monitor your recovery rate, your resting HR, you can spot elevated HR's (dodgy strap or impending bug), low HR's (fatigued), no real need to kill yourself trying to find out what your max HR is so you can set zones you may never use. There's also good old, perceived effort, out of favour these days but you know when you're going hard and easy. Just take the Max HR you've ever seen and adjust it with time and experience.

thanks .... makes sense. This is new to me and just trying to figure out what the numbers mean. Your post clarifies it well.

I do know a guy who does not worry about strava or speed or cadence. He only uses heart beat to train and he most prob uses it as you have described

 

[Red17]

my age is 56, so, if we use the 220 minus the age, my max heartbeat rate works out to 164

so, now, I pushed my h/r to 172 .... so, 220-172=48 .... means that someone 48 years old should have a max h/r of 172

does this now mean that my heart is as good as reasonably fit 48 year old (8 years younger than me)?

....

Depends on the 48 year old. I've always found the formulas to be totally inaccurate - for example I'm a similar age (55) and my max recorded on hard climbs is 186.

 

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

my age is 56, so, if we use the 220 minus the age, my max heartbeat rate works out to 164

so, now, I pushed my h/r to 172 .... so, 220-172=48 .... means that someone 48 years old should have a max h/r of 172

does this now mean that my heart is as good as reasonably fit 48 year old (8 years younger than me)?

looking at the formula of 220 minus age, the younger that you are, the higher you can push your heart to pump faster? ....

No it means your max HR calculated with 220-age was incorrect, 220-max HR=age is not a sum anyone would normally do.

Your max HR is not comparable to anyone elses but you are correct, the older you get the lower your maxHR is.

 

[HLaB]

Depends on the 48 year old. I've always found the formulas to be totally inaccurate - for example I'm a similar age (55) and my max recorded on hard climbs is 186.

Yip the formulae are completely in accurate I forget what the more 'advanced' formulae give but the simple 220minus your age gives me 179bpm, whereas I hit 201bpm and a friend of mine who's 10 years younger than me and is a uber strong cyclist has a max HR less than the formula.

 

[S-Express]

so, now, I pushed my h/r to 172 .... so, 220-172=48 .... means that someone 48 years old should have a max h/r of 172

That's an absurd misinterpretation of an already inaccurate and discredited formula.

does this now mean that my heart is as good as reasonably fit 48 year old (8 years younger than me)?

No. See above.

looking at the formula of 220 minus age, the younger that you are, the higher you can push your heart to pump faster? ....

Why are you assuming that a high heart rate = high performance? Stroke volume and cardiac output are more useful indicators of that. Attempting to compare your HR with someone else, or another age group is completely pointless.

 

[dim]

That's an absurd misinterpretation of an already inaccurate and discredited formula.

Why are you assuming that a high heart rate = high performance? Stroke volume and cardiac output are more useful indicators of that. Attempting to compare your HR with someone else, or another age group is completely pointless.

I'm not a cardiologist .... that's why I'm asking these stupid questions .... I'm trying to figure out why some say that h/r is important as a cycling/sport training tool, and I'm trying to understand what the numbers mean

 

[S-Express]

I'm not a cardiologist .... that's why I'm asking these stupid questions .... I'm trying to figure out why some say that h/r is important as a cycling/sport training tool, and I'm trying to understand what the numbers mean

The numbers won't mean anything until you correctly establish either your max HR or lactate threshold HR. Until then, you might just as well make them up. It would also be helpful to understand what it is you are expecting to achieve through monitoring your HR in this way.

 

[screenman]

Like many others I first used a HRM back in about 1992 I was also under the guidance of Peter Read, and following what was then his red book I saw massive improvements in fitness. There are better options out there now that were not known about back then.

A MHRT is not fun, and should be best done on the turbo rather than the road, after mine I was certainly not in a very nice place each time.

 

[dim]

It would also be helpful to understand what it is you are expecting to achieve through monitoring your HR in this way.

I'm pretty competitive and enjoy giving it my best ... I cycle lots, but most of my miles are 'junk' miles as I commute through Cambridge city and it's slow ... On weekends, I swap bikes and give it stick

I will struggle to get a KOM, as I'm old now, but my times are in the top 3 of my age group who ride the same segments as me.... so, I race against my own age group.... and I'm just trying to figure out how H/R comes into play as I have just recently bought a Garmin 1000 and it's one of the features

 

[screenman]

Dim, why not do some proper races?

Try and get a download of a Peter Read book, it will help you a lot.

 

[S-Express]

but most of my miles are 'junk' miles

No such thing.

and I'm just trying to figure out how H/R comes into play

HR is a measure of how fast your heart is beating, same as looking at a watch is a measure of what time of day it is. It is no more complex than that. HR can be used as a training metric up to around 85% of MHR, beyond which it becomes fairly unreliable as an indicator of steady effort. If you intend to use HR as a training aid, you need to establish an accurate baseline (such as MHR or LTHR). If you don't have an accurate baseline, the data is meaningless.

Peter Read's 'black' book is useful, but there are other more contemporary guides now which are easier to find, such as the BC training guides - or just google training with HR.

 

[dim]

Dim, why not do some proper races?

Try and get a download of a Peter Read book, it will help you a lot.

it's been suggested by some of my friends, but I prefer riding solo ... I don't like riding close to other people,s wheels and get nervous when others ride close behind me

i'm training to do long audax rides ... started running a week ago but I was shocked as I thought that I'm pretty fit from cycling, swop my cleats for trainers and go for a sprint ....

but running is a whole different scenario ..... my legs are still sore and I struggled to walk after 3 days of running (had 2 days off and will start running again tomorrow)