heart rate

[NUKe]

Last year I bought a Garmin Vivosport, As a fitness indicator rather than a training aid, However I notice that even when I push myself I don’t seem to get particularly high reading HRM, its high enough to believe it is reasonably accurate, so this is not a device question, but about me. I have only once got near my theoretical max of 220 – age (56). Which puts me at 164. Normally I am around the 130’s very occasionally pushing into the low 140’s. I can usually get to the point where I am breathing deeply. So I feel I am pushing as hard as I can. One thing I did notice after a Christmas break from the bike of 3 weeks first day back my commute both ways peaked at 150. I am not too worried about the peak but knowing my peak would give me my other zones. But it didn’t repeat so I assume it was the shock of being back on the bike. Should I be worried that my peak rate I achieve is so low? It is no different between bent and upright. or should I just forget about it As I am getting a decent amount of exercise just by communing five days a week.

[foxyrider]

From my experience it takes a considerable effort to get anywhere near your 'max'. I'm of a similar age and my avg Max is @ 150bpm although on some rides it might struggle to 125! Even on a hilly ride my avg is only @ 112 - it has dropped over the last year as i've got fitter and lost weight - i'm still riding the same speed but with less effort.

I wouldn't worry about it too much unless it starts getting erratic or climbs.

[rjb]

I had a check up at the hospital and got put on the tread mill for a max heart rate check. The technician told me it's easy to check your own by walking quickly up an incline, no running necessary. I tried this a couple of times and it's easier than climbing a hill on the bike.

[NUKe]

From my experience it takes a considerable effort to get anywhere near your 'max'. I'm of a similar age and my avg Max is @ 150bpm although on some rides it might struggle to 125! Even on a hilly ride my avg is only @ 112 - it has dropped over the last year as i've got fitter and lost weight - i'm still riding the same speed but with less effort.

I wouldn't worry about it too much unless it starts getting erratic or climbs.

I wasn’t really worried just wondering really, tried again on the way home from work pushing myself has hard as I thought I could 133. Used the building technique. High cadence low gear, then increase the gear and keep the cadence. I am happy to know we are similar

[NUKe]

I had a check up at the hospital and got put on the tread mill for a max heart rate check. The technician told me it's easy to check your own by walking quickly up an incline, no running necessary. I tried this a couple of times and it's easier than climbing a hill on the bike.

I do a lot of walking as well, climbing the tower block stairs at work doesn’t do it, and there isn’t any long hills for walking round here.

[foxyrider]

Out of interest, today I did a fairly hard ride, 140km at a reasonable place - 80km sort of tale wind and 60 hillier km back home into the wind. I was seeing some higher numbers than usual but overall the max was still only 155 and the average 134bpm. My average speed was a couple of KMH higher than a Peak District ride.
I didn't feel I was going particularly hard and it quickly settled back to silly low once I got home. (my rest rate is between 40 and 50bpm)

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
What you really should do is talk off effort (if you want) which will be average % of max.
That's your max when pressed hard for I believe 20 + minutes with a team bearing fog horns and sticks

[foxyrider]

Hi,
What you really should do is talk off effort (if you want) which will be average % of max.
That's your max when pressed hard for I believe 20 + minutes with a team baring fog horns and sticks

I'll get the backup squad booked for the warm sunny day!

The problem with FTP is that even that, done on the road (as opposed to a fancy lab) isn't telling you very much. It might be very important for riding a fast ten but for most of us it tells us nothing particularly useful.

I have read that the experts are now debating the whole 220 minus age thing but i've not seen an alternative put forward.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Tonight on the torture machine

[Tangled Metal]

Cycling generally results in a lower HR for given effort than say running. Most HR training advice has been based on running.

IIRC 220 - age for men is more relevant for runners but still isn't right. There's a lot of advice on how to adjust that formula based on activity times. IIRC to do a fixed length run at a perceived effort and then look up your time on a chart against HR max I think. Something like that. I've not seen similar for cycling however I did read something about dropping your running HR max when cycling.

The other factor is your HR sensor. Wrist based is capable of being accurate but less so due to certain activities. Cycling is bad because of the wrist positron when on the handlebars. Something about light leakage from the sensor. Chest straps are better but still not always accurate. I once got a 250 HR wearing one so I stopped and meditated whilst I monitored my own heart beat. I had been pushing it whilst walking in the lakes but not very hard. My pulse dropped to 80 in about 2 minutes then I set off again and caught everyone up very quickly by working even harder but the hrm had me worrying at about 100 bpm. I've not used that strap and HR watch that it connected to since.

My point is doing exercise based on HR isn't always accurate. Perhaps it's best to use them for trends not absolutes. The other point is trust your own sensor. That is perceived effort. You know when you're working hard or finding it hard. One day you do a route fast and it's easy, another day it's slow and hard. Your body tells you a lot if you listen. That's why I consider RPE (Rate of Perceived Effort) used with other metrics / devices gives you better information.

PS looking at the Garmin vivosport myself, the latest one with GPS that came out last year. That or the fitbit charge 3 with connected GPS. Does the vivosport give good GPS data? That's a question to NUKe who had the Garmin tracker. Unless you have the older version without the GPS.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I always thought that cycling gives a higher HR, but it maybe down to the individual.
Despite running marathons, I gave up the cycling at that time, so cycling then running then back to cycling, no doubt about it my cycling gave me a good springboard to running with an already well developed cardio vascular system.

https://www.active.com/articles/why-are ... vs-running

"What I hope to impart is that it isn't set in stone that your heart rates must be 10 or 15 beats lower while on the bike vs. running. If you can't get your heart rate up while cycling it's simply because you're a better runner than a cyclist."
This is of course just one opinion.
This is amusing below
If you get no sound see the bottom link which has the video.
https://hdm-streaming.hearst.io/3266154 ... _56756.mp4

https://www.bicycling.com/training/a200 ... hs-busted/

"No matter which way you calculate it, your max HR is not an indication of performance, Golich says. “If your max is 200, and someone else’s is 190, it doesn’t mean one of you is the better athlete.” In fact, Golich has worked with numerous talented athletes at both ends of the spectrum. "
Which is why you need to use percent of your max for an effort guide, our max is different depending on individual, zones are specific to the individual based on your max HR.

[NUKe]

PS looking at the Garmin vivosport myself, the latest one with GPS that came out last year. That or the fitbit charge 3 with connected GPS. Does the vivosport give good GPS data? That's a question to NUKe who had the Garmin tracker. Unless you have the older version without the GPS.

Yes I have the gps one, and the gps is as accurate as my etrex 20.the problem is though the battery life,when on gps is about 8hours no good for audaxes above 100km . It does a lot more than I use it for.

[althebike]

On the British cycling web site, very little attention is given to max heart rate ( if any at all) Training zones are worked out as % of threshold .Cycling as hard as you can for 30 mins and measuring your HR for the last 20 mins would give you a figure you can enter into their zones calculator.
It is interesting the Cris Froome has a naturally low heart rate. He mentioned that when rivals would lean over and the the HR on his device, they would think he was going much easier than he felt he really was.
If I find it hard to bring my HR up , I know I am overdoing things and need to back off training. If my HR is high or too responsive to effort, I am usually sickening for something.
In my marathon running days, I would train on a track which had a white post at 200M I would run laps, increasing my HR by 10 beats every 200M until I could not go any harder. I would have someone time each segment .Producing a graph of the times, there would be a big kink in the graph line, where my threshold was at that time.

[Cunobelin]

I have the VivoSmart and it is a reasonable trend indicator, but would not use it for more than that.

Mainly because I spend much of maytime with fatally low oxygen levels, and more stress when at home than work

The reason is that we cannot wear watches at work, is it sits on my belt. My belt's heart rate is usually fine, and its stress levels low, however the SpO2 is always fatally low

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Yes FTP / FTHR probably better than MHR.
I might just set my zones to that.
You can just guesstimate your MHR but the others FTP etc need a workout which is painful