Talk to me about how to use a heart rate monitor

[Gattopardo]

Well I have aa heart rate monitor and was looking to use it to increase my overall stamina, and burn some fat as well as burn some glycogen.

I've looked on the net and have ended up just being quite confused as there seems to be alot of conflicting information or I'm understanding it

What range should my heart rate be to increase stamina and endurance and for how long should I be in that area for?  this will be the glycogen burning area won't it?

What range should in whilst trying to increase over all strength and muscle mass? How long should I be in that area for?

Would these ranges be different for cycling and for using a rowing machine?

Thank you for the advice

[mattc]

Have you tried the 'Search' link, near the top of the screen?

[Chris S]

Some here in MV's post: Distance training

A good place to start is to find as best you can, your max HR. Don't do this if you are under medical supervision for something heart related, or have reason to believe you might have a heart problem, have hypertension or other circulatory problems. If in doubt - check with your doc before you do it.

I used the ride-your-bike-as-fast-as-you-can-up-a-hill-til-you-almost-puke method of determining my max HR. Just before you black out, or heave your lunch over your handlebars - glance at your HRM - that's near as dammit your HR_max. Like I say - do be careful with this!

Knowing your resting HR can sometimes be useful too. Measure this before you get out of bed in the morning - I don't use a HRM for that though - I just count heart-beats for a minute.

[Gattopardo]

Thanks

I did a search and became quite confused as I didn't under stand the answers.  So asked the questions I needed clear answers to.

I was also asking about the rowing machine and if it made a difference.

[Chris S]

I was also asking about the rowing machine and if it made a difference.

Assuming you know how to row properly, rowing and cycling are very similar as they are both leg-based exercises that use your core and arms for stability. So - no, I don't think it makes much difference - except that rowing is harder if you have a gut as it gets in the way of one's breathing.

[mattc]

Thanks

I did a search and became quite confused as I didn't under stand the answers.  So asked the questions I needed clear answers to.

I was also asking about the rowing machine and if it made a difference.

I wasn't meaning to be unhelpful. I just thought your questions sounded like the same questions everyone has about this stuff (apart from the rowing bit!). Certainly the answers so far are the same ...

Good luck picking through this stuff - there IS a lot of conflicting advice around!

[Bigsybaby]

I bought a Polar CS200CAD HR monitor which is cycling specific.
Through their internet site I was able to upload the data from my rides.
On the site there is a Personal trainer facility which will give you varied training programmes depending on your requirements.
In the archives library there are brief articles on Sports zones etc..

[Gattopardo]

Thanks

I did a search and became quite confused as I didn't under stand the answers.  So asked the questions I needed clear answers to.

I was also asking about the rowing machine and if it made a difference.

I wasn't meaning to be unhelpful. I just thought your questions sounded like the same questions everyone has about this stuff (apart from the rowing bit!). Certainly the answers so far are the same ...

Good luck picking through this stuff - there IS a lot of conflicting advice around!

Sorry if it the reply seemed snappy, it was a genuine thank you I just am lost.

I found lots of conflicting information so thught best to ask here as you guys usually  great source of info.

[Gattopardo]

I was also asking about the rowing machine and if it made a difference.

Assuming you know how to row properly, rowing and cycling are very similar as they are both leg-based exercises that use your core and arms for stability. So - no, I don't think it makes much difference - except that rowing is harder if you have a gut as it gets in the way of one's breathing.

OK, i was taught to push with the legs, arms extended and keep a straight back. Then pull with your arms once your legs had reached full extension.  Is that correct?

so it works the arms and shoulders more than cycling.

[Panoramix]

OK, i was taught to push with the legs, arms extended and keep a straight back. Then pull with your arms once your legs had reached full extension.  Is that correct?

Between the leg bit and the arm bit, you need to pull with your torso (stomach muscles), to do this you need to keep a strong back ideally with a little bit of camber (shoulders toward the back) and lean backward arms locked and finally finish the stroke with your arms.

[saturn]

For endurance I was recommended 2 hour rides between 75-85%MHR. I think this was on the assumption of limited available time on the basis that the best thing for endurance is long rides - the longer the better.

I believe an individual's MHR is different for different forms of exercise.

[JJ]

Well I have aa heart rate monitor and was looking to use it to increase my overall stamina, and burn some fat as well as burn some glycogen.

I've looked on the net and have ended up just being quite confused as there seems to be alot of conflicting information or I'm understanding it

What range should my heart rate be to increase stamina and endurance and for how long should I be in that area for?  this will be the glycogen burning area won't it?

What range should in whilst trying to increase over all strength and muscle mass? How long should I be in that area for?

Would these ranges be different for cycling and for using a rowing machine?

Thank you for the advice

There's a lot of information about HR ranges on the web.  You could look at Polar's seb site for a start.

What I am about to write is as I remember it, but it's no more gospel than anything else on the internet.  You'll have to make your own mind up.

Your requirements are a bit conflicting.   For increased stamina and endurance you probably want to be upwards of 75% and less than 85% of your max.  That's the aerobic region.  For how long depends where you are starting from.  You might start at 15 mins and build up.  Personally after an hour on the rowing machine I need help to find my marbles.  You should just about be able to talk.

Max HR can be estimated from 220 minus your age, or measured estimated a bit more closely by taking your HR at the end of a series of flat-out bursts.

For fat burning, you need to be much lower for much longer, say 65% of max. I would suggest leaving the HR at home and riding your bike at a comfortable pace, ie one where you can easily chat,  for an hour or more.  It does kick in sooner than that, but you need to be going a fair while to make any impression.  4 hours would be better.

For muscle mass and strength leave the HR at home and do heavy weights.  Select the weight so as to be unable to lift it after fewer than 10 reps.  Start with one set per muscle group and aim for 3.  Make sure you know how to use the equipment safely first and if you are using free weights, have a spotter around.

It's far back in my memory, but I think you'll be buring glycogen in any exercise scenario.

Assuming you're using a Concept II rower,  put the resistance lever not too high to avoid overloading your lower back, and concentrate on connecting your leg drive through a strong back to a point between your shoulder blades.  Complete the draw by bringing your elbows back past your body and then get your hands away past your knees before you start to slide back for the next stroke.  Aim to spend half as much time in the power phase as in the recovery phase of the stroke.

If it feels jerky, it's wrong.  You're trying to accellerate the boat flywheel smoothly, not stamp it into submission.

It may be different for someone who has more cycling than rowing in their past, but my experience is that my HR is 10 BPM higer for the same perceived effort on the rower than on the bike.  This might be because there are more muscles involved and it might be because my heart has less resistance to overcome on the relatively horizontal rower, or it might be a figment.
- Edit ^ Wot e sed^

Good luck.

[saturn]

Max HR can be estimated from 220 minus your age, or measured estimated a bit more closely by taking your HR at the end of a series of flat-out bursts.

IME that estimation can be so far out to be misleading (although it's the most quoted method). If I used it to estimate what my 85% level would be I'd actually be working at 71%. Turning it round, it would mean I'm the same age as my eldest daughter 

It only takes one session with an all out effort at the end or one all out effort up a reasonably long hill to arrive at a fairly accurate figure so I don't see why this 220-age estimate is so popular.

[JJ]

Yes, you're right.  The 220-age thing is a very crude tool.  It serves as a starting point, but you rapidly build up knowledge of your own body.  Actually, the most important thing in practise is to get to know your own ranges.  The breakdown of 65-75, 75-85, 85-95 is just as crude.  Your lactate threshold and resting pulse are both very much affected by training.

In practise, and in the absence of a qualified coach, there's much to be said for going by what you can feel, and then using the HRM to compare between sessions.

Fat burning = Can easily chat (or even sing a bit!)
Aerobic (endurance) = Can just about speak a sentence at a time.
Anaerobic (lactic acid tolerance, raising lactate threshold) = Breathing progressively more deeply.  Can't really talk.
Flat out = you'll know it when you do it!

The zones don't really have sharp cutoffs but the clearest one is between aerobic and anaerobic.  Your breathing changes and your pulse starts to rise more rapidly for little or no increase in output.

A couple of other factors to think about:  If the same workout gives you a pulse rate that is say 10bpm higher than usual, you may be brewing a virus and should consider taking it easy.  Even if your pulse isn't raised, it's worth playing safe if you don't feel right.
During an aerobic training session, you will experience HR creep.  where for the same output your pulse will rise steadily.  This will be especially true if you can't drink and are't well ventilated, eg on the rower.  For me this kicks in after about 20 min.
It can take a few minutes for your body to settle into a regime.  I don't hit a stable aerobic rate until about 8 min.

All the above varies from individual to individual and there are different schools of thought on much of it, so do your own reading and listen to your own body.

[mattc]

Max HR can be estimated from 220 minus your age, or measured estimated a bit more closely by taking your HR at the end of a series of flat-out bursts.

IME that estimation can be so far out to be misleading (although it's the most quoted method). If I used it to estimate what my 85% level would be I'd actually be working at 71%. Turning it round, it would mean I'm the same age as my eldest daughter 

Yes, but noone ever seems to say it OVERreads. So it is err-ing on the safe side, which I think is good for a beginner/benchmark figure. (The Flat-Out test is probably a bad thing if you are untrained.)

I'm guessing that you're 50+ Saturn (from your figures)?!? I bet most riders with HR-max larger than the 'standard formula' have trained much of their lives, and so HR-max has not dropped as quickly as 'normal' with age.

[I've stopped caring about making these sweeping statements - if NOONE pops up with a counter-example (which will prove nothing), I'l be surprised!]

[Greenbank]

[I've stopped caring about making these sweeping statements - if NOONE pops up with a counter-example (which will prove nothing), I'l be surprised!]

Indeed. One suggests that something is "an average" or "an estimate" and that seems to be taken as an invitation for lots of people to post single data points that, in the context of an average/estimate, are utterly meaningless.

Estimated HR_max = 220-age is the best fit formula (of the form: X-age) based on lots of data. Based on real data; 215-age would, on average, produce results that are too low and 225-age would, on average, produce results that are too high compared to observed results.

Saying "that's wrong, I'm X and my HR_max is Y" is no different from responding to "The average age of people in the UK is 39" with "Hah, that's rubbish, I'm only 23" or "That's way out, I'm 67!"

[saturn]

I'm guessing that you're 50+ Saturn (from your figures)?!? I bet most riders with HR-max larger than the 'standard formula' have trained much of their lives, and so HR-max has not dropped as quickly as 'normal' with age.

Nearly 47, MHR approx 205. Nothing to do with long term training, I've only been riding a bike a few years having previously been sedantry. I'm a slowish plodder, no serious training, just an occasional turbo session if the weather prevents cycling for too long or preferably club runs, audaxes and gentle rides in the countryside. I think my high MHR is just a genetic / physiological thing and says nothing about fitness or lack thereof. The one thing I've noticed as I've become a bit fitter is that I have to work harder to get the rate up to a given level and then to keep it there.

Having done the 200-age calculation and then gone way over that going up a hill fast I was so gobsmacked I swapped HRM's with someone for a while to check mine wasn't dodgy. Finally I figured out just how crude the 200-age thing is, so much so that one has to question it's worth. You hopefully won't kill yourself riding up one hill as fast as you can and even if that doesn't quite get you to your max it'll be a lot closer than any theoretical method.

[gonzo]

HR max varies with exercise, thus you'd need to get a different value for both.

For strength training, HR isn't that important. What you need is a low cadence.

HR monitors won't tell you everything, they just give you an indication of your heart functionality.

Saying "that's wrong, I'm X and my HR_max is Y" is no different from responding to "The average age of people in the UK is 39" with "Hah, that's rubbish, I'm only 23" or "That's way out, I'm 67!"

The standard deviation is so high that using average age to estimate your age isn't much worse than guessing your HR by using 220-age.

[simonp]

I was also asking about the rowing machine and if it made a difference.

Assuming you know how to row properly, rowing and cycling are very similar as they are both leg-based exercises that use your core and arms for stability. So - no, I don't think it makes much difference - except that rowing is harder if you have a gut as it gets in the way of one's breathing.

Max HR on rower can be higher - viz. my 185bpm on the bike vs 195 on a rower (once only, when sprinting at the end of a rowing session).

[PloddinPedro]

This is a novice question (probably reveals I don't really understand the HR thing at all!) but I can't now remember whether conventional wisdom has it that as an individual gets fitter, his/her maximum heart rate gets higher or lower - ?

I realise it's probably merely academic but I last used a HR monitor quite a few years ago, when I recall my max HR was circa 170 bpm. Picking the thing up again this last month (exactly the same unit, just a fresh sender belt and battery) now aged 62 and thrashing my proverbials off, I can't get above 151 bpm. Question is: is the reduced max figure down to increased age, a decline in fitness (or both?)

Or am I completely on the wrong track?

[mattc]

The "standard rule of thumb" is that you lose about 1 off your HR-max per year of life, assuming a similar exercise regime.

[Greenbank]

Over time HR_max tends lower.

On average you'll lose 1bpm per year but, obviously, this is just the average. Individual cases may differ significantly. (Awaits flood of anecdotes.)

I'm not sure of the effect of exercise or fitness on HR_max. My *observed* HR_max hasn't changed significantly over the last 3 years and I'm considerably fitter now than I was back then. Note that cycling isn't good for getting near HR_max. I can get my HR up to 205bpm playing 5-a-side football, but my highest on the bike is only 195bpm.

Fitness obviously affects HR_min, mine has dropped substantially though in the last 3 years.

[Chris S]

I always understood that one's recovery rate was a measure of how fit one is.

When I do 2x20 intervals, it usually takes about 2 mins for my HR to come down from 175 (where it's been for 20 minutes!  ) to about 110 as I bimble around in the granny gear prior to the second 20, and after I get home - my HR is down to about 60 by the time I've hung up my bike and staggered into the house.

The chap we sent to hospital on LEL on the other hand - had a HR of 145 after three hours sleep  .

[simonp]

My HR tends to remain somewhat elevated after a long exercise session.  Around 90bpm for the remainder of the evening.  Back to the normal 50bpm in the morning, usually.  Not sure why that is - the initial recovery period is very quick, it drops rapidly once I stop.

[mattc]

My HR tends to remain somewhat elevated after a long exercise session.  Around 90bpm for the remainder of the evening.  Back to the normal 50bpm in the morning, usually.

I think that's abnormal Simon. If it was me I'd look into that. (There's probably a good explanation, and it's quite common, but better safe ...etc ... etc ... )

(The good news is that 50bpm next morning suggests you're basically OK!   )