Cycling UK Forum

I wear a Fitbit watch all the time and a Wahoo Tickr chest strap for riding. Comparing the data for a recent ride the Fitbit captured heart rate every 5 seconds, it tracked pretty well with the Tickr at a steady state but completely missed a 3 minute max effort that the Tickr shows. Looking at an export of the data, for the 3 minutes effort the Fitbit readings have a confidence rating of '0' which I believe indicates that it is failing to measure correctly and I would assume the numbers shown are just extrapolated from previous readings.
The Fitbit is their cheapest model so more expensive versions may work differently or function better.

cycleruk wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022, 9:34pm I'm 75 - 12 stone with a resting HR = 49.
Usually ride about 15mph and with a general riding HR at 130 but can hit 169 on a climb.

My last ride = easy 17 miles - Avg speed -12.1mi/h. Avg HR -120bpm. Max HR -149bpm.
Previous ride = hard 35 miles - Avg speed - 14.4mi/h. Avg HR -139bpm. Max HR - 162bpm

Thanks for that , feel a lot better about pushing on up hills now .

ANTONISH wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022, 7:33pm Are you using the 220- age formula?
At your age I wouldn't have got up a steep climb without exceeding it.
I've had mine measured a couple of times on a ramp test and it definitely excceeds the formula.

I have been told that a rough and ready way of measuring max heart rate is to sprint up a steep climb until you "blow up".
Never tried it myself but I've come close.

Yes , 220 -age . I’ll go out and actually see what my max h/r is .

Thanks everybody , I appreciate all your replies . Good to get a different perspective on Heart rate and aging from fit active people . I think the stuff that I’ve been reading has been aimed at the average Britain/ Yank ( the internet is somewhat dominated by the US) and they’re not very healthy .

Nearholmer wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022, 11:26pm

How do you know that?

Because I wore it while simultaneously fitted-up with a portable 24hr recording ECG thingamajig, and the results tallied.

The Polar Beat thingy is only recording HR, but it’s sampling rate must be pretty high, although clearly nothing like so high as an ECG, and the app seems to store the lot.

Quite why the watch failed during cycling I’m not sure, I think a combination of vibration messing up the sensing, which is by light, unlike an ECG or the polar beat animal, and the way it “economically” stored data which missed short-term variations. Whether it averaged over a period, or simply stored only some spot readings I don’t know, but the logged data were useless for finding peaks.

Which model do you have? I can see the H9 and H10 on the website but can't see what the difference is

richardfm wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 3:02pm Which model do you have? I can see the H9 and H10 on the website but can't see what the difference is

From DCRainmaker review of the Polar H10.
– Polar H9 only supports a single concurrent Bluetooth connection (but still supports ANT+)
– Polar H9 doesn’t have onboard storage (remember, that requires the Polar Beat app for usage)
– The Polar H9 strap doesn’t have the little bumpy traction things, though I often use the H9 and rarely notice the lack of them.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/12/pol ... eview.html

H10. When it was bought for me, that was the only one there was I think. The H9 seems to be a pared-down version to allow it to be sold cheaper.

This explains the differences https://onemanengine.com/polar-h9-and-h10-differences/

The key practical difference seems to relate to the chest strap being better on the H10, unless you want to use it when swimming, where I think the “in device storage” becomes important.

Drumnagorrach wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 2:22pm Thanks everybody , I appreciate all your replies . Good to get a different perspective on Heart rate and aging from fit active people . I think the stuff that I’ve been reading has been aimed at the average Britain/ Yank ( the internet is somewhat dominated by the US) and they’re not very healthy .

I think that's exactly right, and goes to show how much difference regular exercise makes to general health. It puts you outside national averages and can surprise and confound health professionals

Bsteel wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 3:13pm

richardfm wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 3:02pm Which model do you have? I can see the H9 and H10 on the website but can't see what the difference is

From DCRainmaker review of the Polar H10.
– Polar H9 only supports a single concurrent Bluetooth connection (but still supports ANT+)
– Polar H9 doesn’t have onboard storage (remember, that requires the Polar Beat app for usage)
– The Polar H9 strap doesn’t have the little bumpy traction things, though I often use the H9 and rarely notice the lack of them.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/12/pol ... eview.html

Nearholmer wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 3:17pm H10. When it was bought for me, that was the only one there was I think. The H9 seems to be a pared-down version to allow it to be sold cheaper.

This explains the differences https://onemanengine.com/polar-h9-and-h10-differences/

The key practical difference seems to relate to the chest strap being better on the H10, unless you want to use it when swimming, where I think the “in device storage” becomes important.

Thanks both. I might treat myself to an H10

richardfm wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 5:42pm Thanks both. I might treat myself to an H10

It could be the ideal time as at the moment the Amazon price for the H10 appears to be lower than the normal price for the H9.

When I'm cycling or running I use a chest strap. For everyday use I find the Mi Bands (been using since the 2 and now on the 6) are fine for monitoring HR on the fly and you can view over time on the app. Lots of other health features and parameters as well. Can be had for not much over £20. Small, comfortable and the battery lasts for weeks!

I use it a lot for checking resting HR before getting out of bed and at various times of the day to see what my stress levels are like.

Don't like sports watches, to work properly they usually have to be a little bit too tight. On the bike I use a chest pickup paired with my eTrex 30x. I record every ride and bung the GPX into my home-grown log prog, where I can pull up an analysis of HR vs time spent in each 10%-theoretical-max range (going by the 220-age formula, which is what the medicals use*).

My advice for over-70s (I'm 75)?

- if you spend too long over theoretical max on a ride your recovery time will suffer (well, mine does);

- Put off going electric as long as possible. I put a hub motor on one of my bikes last March, and while it's great fun my condition has suffered. Pre-motor I could still do a 100k ride with 1000m of climbing, but now a 50k coffee tootle on a carbon butterfly leaves my legs stiff for three days.

- if your GP will agree, try to get a stress ECG done by a cardiologist every year just to make sure nothing nasty is creeping up on you.

* In France it's the only one they're allowed to use.

Drumnagorrach wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022, 4:35pm Looking at NHS recommendations , I shouldn’t ride with my heart rate above 85% of max which for me is around 130 bpm (I’m 70 )

I had a double bypass 3.5 years ago and am (obviously) on drugs for life as a result, one effect of which is to manage heart rates. Otherwise, I've made a good recovery. In my early 60s, I can rarely get my heart rate up to 140, even on Zwift, and then only for limited periods. The consultant who discharged me, some months after the operation, was impressed I could manage 140, but seemed quite happy for me to try. Therefore, I've never worried about heart rates.

drossall wrote: ↑28 Nov 2022, 6:54pm

Drumnagorrach wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022, 4:35pm Looking at NHS recommendations , I shouldn’t ride with my heart rate above 85% of max which for me is around 130 bpm (I’m 70 )

I had a double bypass 3.5 years ago and am (obviously) on drugs for life as a result, one effect of which is to manage heart rates. Otherwise, I've made a good recovery. In my early 60s, I can rarely get my heart rate up to 140, even on Zwift, and then only for limited periods. The consultant who discharged me, some months after the operation, was impressed I could manage 140, but seemed quite happy for me to try. Therefore, I've never worried about heart rates.

Beta-blockers? Back in 2008 I was stented for the first time. My BP the morning after was a bit high so they slapped me with a cocktail of BBs and various BP-reducing nostrums. I had three years of climbing hell - quads felt they were on fire above 130 BPM - and missed my qualification for PBP 2011 in consequence. Finally, after forgetting to take my pills on a ride and having absolutely no problems, I talked the cardiologist into dropping them and I've never needed them since. I still bear a very hefty grudge for PBP, though.

Still on the clopidogrel, of course.

toontra wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 8:05pm When I'm cycling or running I use a chest strap. For everyday use I find the Mi Bands (been using since the 2 and now on the 6) are fine for monitoring HR on the fly and you can view over time on the app. Lots of other health features and parameters as well. Can be had for not much over £20. Small, comfortable and the battery lasts for weeks!

I use it a lot for checking resting HR before getting out of bed and at various times of the day to see what my stress levels are like.

My weapon of choice is a wrist mounted Huawei, it's got a load of sensors and a great variety of alerts and feedback.