|
| Author |
Message |
kanto
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
 |
 Posted Thu Nov 5, 2009 5:49 pm |
Greetings. I recently started cycling and I had not had an exercise test such as graded exercise test, Wingate, or any maximal test that would give an accurate picture of my HR, since I was about 18 and in university. I also forgot the HR I had back then. I'm now 22, and I have been using the 220-age formula for a few years. I never really broke 90% HR max on my 5km runs, even going up hills at almost maximal speed. So I believed the HR I got from 220-age was at least a little close if not 2-5% off, and I raised it a few to 200 BPM. So I have used this when cycling.
I have been going on a few hilly rides and today I decided to put it all in on a 12% 1km climb, and I ended up peaking at 216 BPM, almost 10% higher than my predicted HR. As you can imagine I'm a little disappointed as during my rides and running I always tried to keep a HR max of roughly 85%. So after discovering my HR is a lot higher, it only means I have been keeping a pace of 75% HR max. Alternatively, is a Polar RS200 likely to give a dodgy peak reading?
I guess climbing really does get the HR going, as even 10 milers at the highest speed I could manage on the flats only got me at about 85-90% max. Nothing compared to the 110% I encountered today.
Thanks Terry
|
|
|
Gav888
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 432
Location: Suffolk
|
|
|
kanto
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
|
Posted Thu Nov 5, 2009 7:23 pm |
| Gav888 wrote: | The 220 formula is a rough guide to fit the majority of people and as you have found out it is way off for you. Ive recently bought a HR monitor and set it up initially based on the same formula, my HR was 187 using it, but I went out for a ride and went max effort up a hill and recorded 197. Ive probably got a little left so I would imagine I can do 200 with another go 
Personally a better training method is to use LTHR (Lactate Threshold Heart Rate) which is what im now doing after alot of research. I ended up using Joe Friels HR zones and recently did a threshold test and my HR is 173... not bad a guess for a beginner but its trainable where as MaxHR isnt.
Im sure others will recommend MaxHR for training but each to there own. There is load of info about LTHR training on the internet if your interested.... |
Hey, thanks for your advice. I also think you are right about the LT stuff, as maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) is actually said by most to be the best indicator of endurance performance. Better than LT, VO2 Max, etc. So if you are able to get the MLSS higher from LT training, then that is going to better than the HR Max stuff, for sure. I will take a look into training more efficiently now I'm a little more comfortable on the bike, and my legs have a certain level of training in them. Didn't want to get into that much depth at the start, but will try and get deeper into training methods now.
Thanks
|
|
|
Bronzie
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 3263
Location: Ampthill, Beds.
|
Posted Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:43 pm |
| kanto wrote: | | I ended up peaking at 216 BPM, almost 10% higher than my predicted HR. |
The 220-age "formula" can be out by as much as +/-15bpm I believe, so really can't be relied on.
It is possible that this was just a one-off spike in your heart rate or even interference with your HRM. If you can reach those sorts of heart rates repeatedly, then it would be safe to assume that your max is around that figure, but I wouldn't base all of your training zones on just one measurement.
It's a Lifestyle! |
|
|
xRichx
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
Posted Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:50 pm |
| Bronzie wrote: | | kanto wrote: | | I ended up peaking at 216 BPM, almost 10% higher than my predicted HR. |
The 220-age "formula" can be out by as much as +/-15bpm I believe, so really can't be relied on.
It is possible that this was just a one-off spike in your heart rate or even interference with your HRM. If you can reach those sorts of heart rates repeatedly, then it would be safe to assume that your max is around that figure, but I wouldn't base all of your training zones on just one measurement. |
I concur.
at one month short of 25, my max on the 220 system should be 195bpm, I've hit 207-8 quite a few times now, so consider that as my max heart rate, even tho I've seen 212 pop up once.
|
|
|
Sheptastic
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 62
Location: Worcestershire
|
Posted Fri Nov 6, 2009 7:23 pm |
| xRichx wrote: | | Bronzie wrote: | | kanto wrote: | | I ended up peaking at 216 BPM, almost 10% higher than my predicted HR. |
The 220-age "formula" can be out by as much as +/-15bpm I believe, so really can't be relied on.
It is possible that this was just a one-off spike in your heart rate or even interference with your HRM. If you can reach those sorts of heart rates repeatedly, then it would be safe to assume that your max is around that figure, but I wouldn't base all of your training zones on just one measurement. |
I concur.
at one month short of 25, my max on the 220 system should be 195bpm, I've hit 207-8 quite a few times now, so consider that as my max heart rate, even tho I've seen 212 pop up once. |
+1 In theory i shouldnt be able to get mine over 199 but had 209 this week!
"It's got nothing to do with your performance. Could I have done more training? Irrelevant. You are who you are today. The only thing you can be is as good as you can be.
Chris Boardman |
|
|
Pokerface
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 1344
Location: UK
|
Posted Sat Nov 7, 2009 1:28 am |
Ironically, 220-age is exactly correct for my max HR. Based on riding up the steepest hill I could find, as hard as I could.
|
|
|
ozzzyosborn206
Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 102
|
Posted Sat Nov 7, 2009 5:11 pm |
i am 20 and have had 215 on the turbo, i don't know anyone whos heart rate is 220 minus their age, it is possible that you heart rate max is that high but polars suffer quite badly from interference from telegraph poles and the like which is why i think the best way to test it is on a turbo, you said you trained for a fair while using the calculated max and then at 70% how hard did that feel?
|
|
|
Nickwill
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 2035
Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:32 pm |
I am 52 and have a max of 192. 220-age would give me a max of 168. The 220 - age is totally discredited and was thrown together on a very small sample of sedentary people.
Ignore it!
http://www.sportivecentral.com |
|
|
doyler78
Joined: 29 May 2004
Posts: 1039
Location: Co Down, Ireland
|
Posted Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:22 am |
| ozzzyosborn206 wrote: | | i am 20 and have had 215 on the turbo, i don't know anyone whos heart rate is 220 minus their age, it is possible that you heart rate max is that high but polars suffer quite badly from interference from telegraph poles and the like which is why i think the best way to test it is on a turbo, you said you trained for a fair while using the calculated max and then at 70% how hard did that feel? |
I have always found that heart rate spike is accompanied by a spike in all the other sensors also (speed and cadence) so they are easy to identify and really they are very few and far between (at least they were for me).
Some people can achieve a maxHR on a turbo, others can't so not ideal either 
As for 220-age. Well it's rubbish for most people. See here for real life examples of how effective it is:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12594618&highlight=maxhr+220age
|
|
|
doyler78
Joined: 29 May 2004
Posts: 1039
Location: Co Down, Ireland
|
Posted Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:24 am |
| Nickwill wrote: | I am 52 and have a max of 192. 220-age would give me a max of 168. The 220 - age is totally discredited and was thrown together on a very small sample of sedentary people.
Ignore it! |
It's not discredited. It is simply being used for a purpose for which it was never intended. The fitness industry have latched on it as it makes it easier to sell heart rate monitors Look simple formula - train in this zone - get massive results. Simple 
|
|
|
ShockedSoShocked
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1693
Location: Middlesbrough, Jewel of the North-East
|
|
|
the_village_idiot
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 108
|
Posted Sun Nov 8, 2009 7:07 pm |
its less accurate for women
be careful about hitting your max heart rate unless your experienced folkes 
|
|
|
kanto
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
|
Posted Mon Nov 9, 2009 5:50 pm |
| ozzzyosborn206 wrote: | | i am 20 and have had 215 on the turbo, i don't know anyone whos heart rate is 220 minus their age, it is possible that you heart rate max is that high but polars suffer quite badly from interference from telegraph poles and the like which is why i think the best way to test it is on a turbo, you said you trained for a fair while using the calculated max and then at 70% how hard did that feel? |
I went up a steeper and longer climb than the one I hit 216 BPM on, and I also hit 216 BPM on that climb. I was literally on my last legs and rolling at 4-5 mph, but at 100% effort. So it would seem my max is at about 216, or maybe a few BPM higher. I might get higher running, but I can't see it getting higher on the bike, and I was out of the saddle too.
Working at my percieved 85%, which is now only 75% I found that it was probably close to the most I could manage. It translated to about a 20 mph average speed on the flats, providing I didn't have traffic.
I have been pushing it a little harder on the flats now I know I wasn't working as hard as I thought. And I plan to look at the AT/LT reccomendations.
|
|
|
kanto
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
|
Posted Mon Nov 9, 2009 5:51 pm |
| ozzzyosborn206 wrote: | | i am 20 and have had 215 on the turbo, i don't know anyone whos heart rate is 220 minus their age, it is possible that you heart rate max is that high but polars suffer quite badly from interference from telegraph poles and the like which is why i think the best way to test it is on a turbo, you said you trained for a fair while using the calculated max and then at 70% how hard did that feel? |
I went up a steeper and longer climb than the one I hit 216 BPM on, and I also hit 216 BPM on that climb. I was literally on my last legs and rolling at 4-5 mph, but at 100% effort. So it would seem my max is at about 216, or maybe a few BPM higher. I might get higher running, but I can't see it getting higher on the bike, and I was out of the saddle too.
Working at my percieved 85%, which is now only 75% I found that it was probably close to the most I could manage. It translated to about a 20 mph average speed on the flats, providing I didn't have traffic. I could probably keep up >80% for maybe 20-30 minutes or so, so might experiment with some higher intensity periods.
I have been pushing it a little harder on the flats now I know I wasn't working as hard as I thought. And I plan to look at the AT/LT reccomendations.
|
|
|
|
Search
