My Recent Experiences with Heart Rate Monitoring

[EGO-Maniac]

I've known the basics of using a heart rate monitor for over 2 decades but only actually started using one this month, largely as a way to refresh my training after the drudgery of preparing for LEL for the first half of the year. So far I've found it quite insightful - and although it's still too early to say what the tangible outcomes will be from using a HRM, I must say it is making my rides really interesting (and more challenging, in a fun way).

I'd be interested to get any useful anecdotes any of you guys may be able to share from your own experiences, but my big lessons so far have been the following:

1. Using a monitor I can often train a lot harder than I instinctively would have thought was possible. In the past I would often have held back on a second hard session after doing one earlier in any given week, thinking I still needed time to recover - but the monitor has shown this was unnecessary. I'm learning that sometimes a hard ride 'feels' harder than it actually is and if I didn't use the monitor I'd have gone a lot easier, when in actual fact my body didn't need to hold back and was quite capable of performing another hard ride.

2. Many of the people I ride with like to hold back knowingly, mainly out of fear of overdoing things. I've been a big time offender in that regard myself and without using data this can seem like a pleasant way to get out and ride socially. But I was shocked to discover on a recent group training ride, when I used the monitor just out of curiosity, that my heart rate in that easy ride was exactly the same as when I am walking. Now, I know we all like to get out and about and to enjoy it - but spending two and a half hours of a Sunday morning 'strolling' through the countryside might not be the most productive way to use one's riding time - especially if one's goal is to participate in ultra distance rides from time to time. I feel you can still enjoy a ride at a pace that actually makes you stronger and better able to enjoy the bigger challenges. I am beginning to think there is a massive scope for personal improvement if I can train more scientifically, which is quite exciting when you've been at it a while. Only time will tell, but it's great to be able to set new goals for next year and to visualise myself being a better rider. Progress is motivating, as is the prospect of progress!

3. When going on feel alone it takes a lot of concentration to put in a really fast ride, but if you rely on HR data you can actually take your mind off focussing on how hard you should be pushing at each section and instead take in other aspects of the ride. The data tends not to lie, so if you see the heart rate falling you can push a little harder until it gets back to where it is meant to be - no guesswork and no anxiety once you know what intensities to use.

I don't think every session needs to be hard, but I think it is important to have a variety of training intensities and to be able to judge them more accurately. My plan for next year is to see if I can manipulate my training intensity more scientifically to produce a much stronger version of myself - without increasing the amount of time I spend training. I quite like the prospect of getting the most out of the least training and have always tried to see how little I can 'get away with' while still being in very good shape. Back in 2011 I actually did an experiment in which I only rode once a week (70-miles each ride, as hard as I could comfortably do it) and I actually performed really well that year in sportive rides. But, admittedly, it was not always fun - and I largely did it because I had to (I was very short of riding time during the week and could only go out on Sunday mornings). But it's great to know one has the option to make such training adaptations when circumstances demand.

Nowadays I like the idea of 2 or 3 training rides weekly (a shorter but very intense ride and a longer but somewhat easier ride each week - and possibly a recovery ride in there as well) and I want to see if I can refine that even further with heart rate monitoring (to get significantly better results without increasing peak training mileage or total training time). For anyone who's not happy with how their riding is going I'd urge you to consider using heart rate data if you don't already do so. Having a more focussed approach to your riding could help you make the changes you need to make in order to make the improvements you seek - and it can make things much more interesting.

As I said, any clever 'discoveries' and techniques you can share relating to heart rate monitoring would be appreciated, as well as feedback on what hasn't worked. I'm still trying out the various approaches and refining things - and I will possibly explore how well I can use HR data in very long rides, next season....

[Ningishzidda]

"as hard as I could".
The only way to get better.

HRM
An inexpensive way to pace oneself during an event.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Heart rate isn't everything. Fatigue, particularly during long events, naturally drops heart rate. Strangely my cruising speed doesn't seem to change much.

I used to train properly when I raced but lost interest, due to the pain involved. Now I just ride my bike for fun, at a slower pace. I'm happy with the trade-off but YMMV.

[Auntie Helen]

My heart rate monitor has become a useful predictor of when I'm coming down with the lurgy - my HR is usuallu up 10-20 for what feels like normal effort and, lo and behold, the next day I'm in bed with something.

i have trouble with mine staying in place, being a lady 'n all.

[EGO-Maniac]

I used to train properly when I raced but lost interest, due to the pain involved. Now I just ride my bike for fun, at a slower pace.

My experiences monitoring HR are almost the inverse of this statement because I find that being able to know in advance how hard I am going to be pushing myself takes away some of that 'misery' you can sometimes encounter in a hard training session (because if I am controlling my HR and keeping it within specified boundaries, I know exactly what I am in for). When going by feel alone one can push oneself so hard that the suffering is immense and that can make future hard training less likely to happen, due to 'mental blocks' forming. But if you control how hard you work the harder sessions can be much less intimidating and much more enjoyable because you know there's nothing to fear and you'll never go 'over the edge'...

[Kim]

My heart rate monitor has become a useful predictor of when I'm coming down with the lurgy - my HR is usuallu up 10-20 for what feels like normal effort and, lo and behold, the next day I'm in bed with something.

Yes, it seems to be particularly useful for this.

i have trouble with mine staying in place, being a lady 'n all.

What I did see somewhere was a sports bra with the electrodes for the transmitter bit built in.  There's no point googling though because you can guarantee that even if it does fit your chosen HRM, it won't be available in the right size.

[mattc]

Just so that noone else will (hopefully) post it:

My HR-max is nowhere near what all those age-based rules predict - they are rubbish!!!

[Kim]

While we're at it, my HR-max doesn't seem to be any different when lying down on the job to what it is on an upwrong.

[L CC]

Bras with HRM.

I'm experimenting with doppler gel as my readings were so inconsistent as to be worthless. It doesn't seem to make much odds- they're still wildly inconsistent with no apparent correlation between perceived exertion and HR.
 

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I used to train properly when I raced but lost interest, due to the pain involved. Now I just ride my bike for fun, at a slower pace.

My experiences monitoring HR are almost the inverse of this statement because I find that being able to know in advance how hard I am going to be pushing myself takes away some of that 'misery' you can sometimes encounter in a hard training session (because if I am controlling my HR and keeping it within specified boundaries, I know exactly what I am in for). When going by feel alone one can push oneself so hard that the suffering is immense and that can make future hard training less likely to happen, due to 'mental blocks' forming. But if you control how hard you work the harder sessions can be much less intimidating and much more enjoyable because you know there's nothing to fear and you'll never go 'over the edge'...

At the time, I was trying to get onto the national track team and, if I'd actually done it, I would have beaten a former world record holder and the then world champion. The hard training to get the required speed was very hard; there was no way around it.

Nonetheless, I'm glad the HRM is working for you. Just be aware that power output and heart rate can be strangely disconnected at times. I found it helpful to work out how and why that disconnect happened.

[Kim]

Bras with HRM.

*clicky*  *clicky*  *thunk*

 

(I note it's got one of those come-unhooked-at-awkward-moments two-way strap designs, but that's nothing a bit of sewing can't fix.)

[EGO-Maniac]

"I used to train properly when I raced but lost interest, due to the pain involved. Now I just ride my bike for fun, at a slower pace. At the time, I was trying to get onto the national track team and, if I'd actually done it, I would have beaten a former world record holder and the then world champion. The hard training to get the required speed was very hard; there was no way around it."

Makes sense. Still, the whole premise of doing this monitoring - in my view - should be that regardless of what your aim is, if the depth of 'suffering' is always 'controlled' then that takes away most of the training 'anxiety' which often seems to make people inconsistent with their hard training, due to motivational issues.

Of course this links nicely to your second comment, below:

"Just be aware that power output and heart rate can be strangely disconnected at times. I found it helpful to work out how and why that disconnect happened."

I agree, this second point is a fundamental and very important one, which I have often debated with people in relation to comparing effort levels in different forms of training. If you are running the heart rate almost has a different behaviour and 'meaning' to if you are cycling or rowing, etc. And even within a single activity, as mentioned above, one sometimes does not connect the readings to how the effort feels. So is heart rate monitoring something like a car's tachometer, which shows how high the car engine is revving but does not tell you the fuel consumption or power output at those revs?

It possibly is.

For instance, I have checked my heart rate when using the leg press in the gym. Even at the most intense and heaviest parts of the workout my HR never exceeds 125 BPM lifting weights. I don't rest when lifting weights for the legs (except for maybe 3 seconds when moving the pin to the next weight level) so the effort is reasonably constant and sustained. Riding on my ElliptiGO bike I can hang onto a HR of 160 BPM when working moderately hard, and higher still when working at my hardest. Does that mean I am not working hard in the gym?

Of course not.

I have noticed when people are comparing different training methods HR is often used as the benchmark - but if we go by the above example it would suggest that activities which require more of a strength and anaerobic component may skew the meaningfulness of the readings because the effects of anaerobic work don't seem to affect the HR so much. Sometimes your perception is obviously more 'accurate' than a reading, it would appear.

So why monitor HR at all?

My belief is that it is still pretty accurate for measuring aerobic power and output - i.e sustainable effort (as opposed to anaerobic effort). So it is probably worthless for pure sprinting and strength work, but is much more helpful for sustainable aerobic efforts. If that's the case, the HRM is still potentially useful for training scientifically and improving your intensity in measured and controlled increments. That's because in more sustained efforts - like long rides and time trials - I believe the HR is quite closely matched to your sustained training effort and it's only when you go to seriously anaerobic intensities that the meaning of the readings is then lost.

So unless one is training for pure sprint events the monitor should still prove useful in some ,or all, of your sessions. If you do long distances - like I do - it probably is useful for all your sessions. If you are a sprinter, it is probably more useful for the endurance and base-building sessions - or to more accurately measure your recovery between efforts (time taken for HR to settle down after a tough effort).

As for using a monitor in actual cycling events - again, I would probably go by the above theory and use it only to control effort levels earlier on in an event - or even just as a 'limiter' for how hard I go up hills. But I think an event is more 'art' than 'science' and in the end it will normally come down to having some 'heart' (pardon the pun!) - so there comes a point in n event where knowing your HR readings could even be counter-productive (because you have to go with 'gut feel' and dig deep to get the absolute best out of yourself. That sort of flexibility to 'dig deep' is helpful in an event, but is probably unscientific for regular training (as it's hit and miss in nature) - which is not ideal for progressively loading your effort levels in a measurable way.

That's my evolving view, as I study THIS more and do more training experiments.

In the end, what you do most consistently is what determines the training outcomes you get - and we need to balance ideal performance improvements with sustainability. Sustainability is largely linked to 'enjoyment' - but what we 'enjoy' the most tends to be closely linked to what we value (and how closely our efforts are bringing us to our goals and values). If your goal is to ride fast, or achieve certain times, to win championships, set records, etc, etc - then you'll never be happy with inadequate but easier training. However, if you can hit your goals with less structured and easier riding - then why 'suffer' any more than you have to.

A lot relates to your goals and how close you are to achieving them. Like mentioned above - the further you stretch yourself the more likely you will be to face decisions related to your training intensity and you will need to contemplate harder, more scientific and more regimented training. The closer you push towards your absolute capabilities, the more structured and scientific you will be forced to become, as the margin for error tightens up in all aspects of your training.

[mrcharly-YHT]

At the time, I was trying to get onto the national track team and, if I'd actually done it, I would have beaten a former world record holder and the then world champion. The hard training to get the required speed was very hard; there was no way around it.

I've trained seriously, once up a time (that's when I found out I had the athletic ability of a snail).

Training until you retch gets old very quickly.

There was a recent BBC article about a study of athletes teeth and finding out that they were very poor. I wonder if the dentist who did the study knew about how often athletes end up vomiting in training and races? The distinctly un-glamourous side of sport.

[EGO-Maniac]

"There was a recent BBC article about a study of athletes teeth and finding out that they were very poor. I wonder if the dentist who did the study knew about how often athletes end up vomiting in training and races? The distinctly un-glamourous side of sport."

Did they mention in the programme you watched why they thought these athletes' teeth were so bad? I don't believe throwing up is actually the main reason for tooth decay, in most cases (you'd probably have to have bulimia to throw up that much and that often - even if training at the most intense levels possible).

But I do know that one definite cause of tooth decay among endurance athletes is the almost daily use of high sugar carbohydrate supplements during training. Think about it - when we tell kids not to eat too many sweets in order to avoid rotting their teeth - the same logic applies to adults as well.

Athletes who use sugary snacks and sports drinks during training (a large majority) are consuming more pure sugar than any child could ever process - week in and week out. Even with quite diligent brushing it is bound to have its consequences (if these athletes don't show superior 'tooth maintenance' techniques, when compared to the general public). With endurance sports being heavily carbohydrate-driven it's very difficult to avoid this exposure to sugar, so the athletes who do endurance sports probably need to be even more diligent with oral hygiene than the average person...

I recall during one 24 hour time trial I rode on my ElliptiGO bike that I consumed only chocolate bars and biscuits - for the full 24 hours (and that was at least one bar every hour - sometimes more)! I'm actually okay with regard to the state of my teeth though, probably because I am virtually obsessive-compulsive about my oral hygiene...

[Kim]

There's a strong genetic factor in susceptibility to tooth decay.  I have pretty good teeth and I practically live on chocolate and fruit juice (most of my dental issues have been caused by physical damage).  My calorie-hating sister in law brushes her teeth umpty times a day and they still fall to bits.  Which isn't to say that decay won't follow sugar consumption in a population, of course, just that there will always be individual outliers, and you may be one of them.

[mrcharly-YHT]

"There was a recent BBC article about a study of athletes teeth and finding out that they were very poor. I wonder if the dentist who did the study knew about how often athletes end up vomiting in training and races? The distinctly un-glamourous side of sport."

Did they mention in the programme you watched why they thought these athletes' teeth were so bad? I don't believe throwing up is actually the main reason for tooth decay, in most cases (you'd probably have to have bulimia to throw up that much and that often - even if training at the most intense levels possible).

Just retching a bit can do it. Anything that brings up a bit of stomach acid. I have a problem with gastric reflux that has seriously damaged my front teeth.

The report guessed that it might be sugary sports drinks but very properly didn't state a definite cause; that would need another study.

[EGO-Maniac]

"Just retching a bit can do it. Anything that brings up a bit of stomach acid. I have a problem with gastric reflux that has seriously damaged my front teeth."

This is very true . Brushing the teeth immediately after consuming acidic drinks and foods also causes more aggressive erosion of the tooth surfaces (because the acid is still present during brushing, under these circumstances). So it's a good idea to wait some time before brushing the teeth - just after using orange juice, fizzy drinks (like Coke), or (in extreme cases) "just retching a bit" after a tough training session (or due to reflux)...

I would suggest people hold back before reaching the 'retching stage' of a workout - regardless of their training goals. Getting to that stage is not essential to getting the most out of yourself. Admittedly, I've been close to this 'retching stage' during heavy squatting workouts in the gym a few years back, but I always held back - and I almost never get close to it nowadays (being older and wiser - and using less aggressive leg and abdominal exercises - specifically to avoid nausea).

Only weight training can make me feel nauseous - never endurance training or riding...I believe it relates to compression of the abdominal area during hard exercises - which happens with certain weight training exercises (and I guess with road biking on a DF bike, where you are in a hunched-over position, which will compress the gut and exacerbate reflux if you are eating and drinking to fuel your exercise). I suppose that links back to the sports nutrition and tooth decay issue:

- sports nutrition tends to be quite acidic,
- people bent over forward (whilst drinking such drinks and eating regularly) will tend to experience reflux,
- and that tends to drive the whole already vicious cycle (pardon the pun, again)...

[mrcharly-YHT]

I forgot to add that I wasn't cycling, I was kayaking. The 'train until retching' usually happened after speed sessions in the kayak or power-lifting sessions (20 reps as fast as possible with heaviest weight possible, then same on another muscle group. Repeat until unable to continue, no rest periods).

[mattc]

"Just be aware that power output and heart rate can be strangely disconnected at times. I found it helpful to work out how and why that disconnect happened."

<snip>

So why monitor HR at all?

My belief is that it is still pretty accurate for measuring aerobic power and output - i.e sustainable effort (as opposed to anaerobic effort). So it is probably worthless for pure sprinting and strength work, but is much more helpful for sustainable aerobic efforts. If that's the case, the HRM is still potentially useful for training scientifically and improving your intensity in measured and controlled increments. That's because in more sustained efforts - like long rides and time trials - I believe the HR is quite closely matched to your sustained training effort and it's only when you go to seriously anaerobic intensities that the meaning of the readings is then lost.

So unless one is training for pure sprint events the monitor should still prove useful in some ,or all, of your sessions. If you do long distances - like I do - it probably is useful for all your sessions. If you are a sprinter, it is probably more useful for the endurance and base-building sessions - or to more accurately measure your recovery between efforts (time taken for HR to settle down after a tough effort).

yes yes yes!

(LWAB doesn't specify his target event; but most track events are much shorter than road events, and way shorter than the riding most of us here do. Time Trials start at around 24mins for the majority. That's not a sprint! )

[EGO-Maniac]

I forgot to add that I wasn't cycling, I was kayaking. The 'train until retching' usually happened after speed sessions in the kayak or power-lifting sessions (20 reps as fast as possible with heaviest weight possible, then same on another muscle group. Repeat until unable to continue, no rest periods).

Makes a lot of sense now you fill in the detail - that description taps into all my suspicions about what probably causes us to be most at risk of retching... !!!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

(LWAB doesn't specify his target event; but most track events are much shorter than road events, and way shorter than the riding most of us here do. Time Trials start at around 24mins for the majority. That's not a sprint! )

Individual pursuit, 4km at about 55km/hr, something I was fairly crap at. A mix of anaerobic and aerobic.

Heartrate maps fairly closely with aerobic power in most cases but particularly watch for being fatigued, overtrained or ill. Most people get some funny results then.

[EGO-Maniac]

"Individual pursuit, 4km at about 55km/hr... A mix of anaerobic and aerobic."

At that pace a 4km sprint will take about 4:22 - I reckon that's a 50:50 aerobic to anaerobic ratio - so it's hard to motivate yourself to train for that sort of event unless you truly believe your chances of winning or placing well are quite high. Sprints are always at the 'sharp end' of any sport because they are really mainly about winning. You'll never see a sprint meet of London Marathon proportions - they are generally a niche pursuit for people with very high talent levels, because sprints aren't so much about enjoyment or taking part and are more about achievement (through placing)...

Great fun to watch though!

"Heartrate maps fairly closely with aerobic power in most cases but particularly watch for being fatigued, overtrained or ill."

Very good point...

[Chris S]

One thing I've noticed on a ketogenic diet - a separation between perceived effort and HR.

On a "normal" high carb diet, 170bpm would have me panting like a pit-pony, and feeling like I was "well in the red". On a keto diet, I just don't get that feeling; the HRM might be registering 170bpm, but I feel much less stressed.

Something to do with reduced CO2 production when burning ketones for fuel rather than glucose. It's CO2 production and the need to get rid of it, that gives you that urge to pant, and feeling of gasping, not a need for more Oxygen.

[EGO-Maniac]

One thing I've noticed on a ketogenic diet - a separation between perceived effort and HR.

On a "normal" high carb diet, 170bpm would have me panting like a pit-pony, and feeling like I was "well in the red". On a keto diet, I just don't get that feeling; the HRM might be registering 170bpm, but I feel much less stressed.

Something to do with reduced CO2 production when burning ketones for fuel rather than glucose. It's CO2 production and the need to get rid of it, that gives you that urge to pant, and feeling of gasping, not a need for more Oxygen.

That's interesting Chris,

I am also a fan of manipulating ketogenesis as part of my training, but I don't live on the same type of ketogenic diet you'll be using. I prefer intermittent fasting to generate ketogenesis, as I can incorporate it into my longer slower rides (to stoke the fat burning system when training for ultras). Incidentally, I did a brisk ride on my ElliptiGO bike early this morning - at 170 BPM as the target HR - and I found it quite hard. But I don't pant excessively or feel starved of breath at that effort level - it just feels very hard - and I can tell there is a limit to how long I can sustain the same average pace at that heart rate target, before I start to lose pace (despite the HR remaining unchanged). Currently, that limit seems to be about 50 minutes to 1 hour, I think.

I also have a friend who turned in some impressive performances this year after switching to a ketogenic diet more like the one you are following. It does take commitment - making sure all the food in the house is the right type - and that won't suit my lifestyle set-up, otherwise I think I'd definitely make a wholesale move to slower-burn foods, as well as my intermittent fasting approach.

Regarding the last part of your comment about heart rate and perceived effort - is there any evidence you are aware of (apart from your perceived experiences) to suggest a ketogenic diet causes you to feel less stressed at a specific heart rate? Or do you hear similar feedback from people following the same diet and doing similar training to yourself? I am aware of the likely link between CO2 concentration in the blood/lungs and panting, but I'm not sure it applies in the instance described.

My belief is that the heart rate is very closely linked to oxygen exchange and the body's need for oxygen - so that any specific heart rate will closely correspond to the body's need for oxygen at that time. If we all assume that's the case, a lower oxygen consumption should result in a lower heart rate - and lower CO2 production (rather than a lower CO2 production despite a high oxygen consumption) - if we are to follow that logic? It's been a while since I 'stressed' over the topic of carbohydrate conversion at university , but my instinct tells me the oxygen binds to the carbon in the carbohydrates to produce CO2, water and energy. So the amount of CO2 has to be linked to the amount of oxygen being used (as the "O2" in CO2 is the same O2 you are breathing in).

I do believe the CO2 production rate slows depending on the fuel burned - with carbs producing the most and fats the least - but shouldn't this mean the oxygen consumption (and heart rate required to support this) also reduces if the fuel burned produces less CO2? So having high heart rate (meaning high oxygen consumption) and lower CO2 production doesn't add up - unless this logic is flawed.

If you (or anyone else reading this) have some further insights into the pathways involved and can give some sort of 'refresher' on that I'd appreciate it, as it's quite pertinent to this discussion.

[rob]

Just so that noone else will (hopefully) post it:

My HR-max is nowhere near what all those age-based rules predict - they are rubbish!!!

Yup.   If I used the standard formula I would get 180.

On the test rig this morning I hit 205.   My lactate threshold is above the estimated max.