Too fit or too unfit? HRM question

[mattc]

I think most people are pretty consistent when close to flat-out (I'm assuming your 5km is done flat-out? !?)

Where most people struggle is pacing themselves at lower efforts. Hence so many people start long races/rides too fast, and most people do their 'steady' training sessions at too high an effort. This is where an HRM is perhaps most valuable for most people.

[citoyen]

I think most people are pretty consistent when close to flat-out (I'm assuming your 5km is done flat-out? !?)

Depends what you mean by flat out - I only usually do the last km truly flat out (>95% HRmax) but I aim to do the maximum effort that I can sustain over the whole 5km. The highest average HR I've recorded was 178bpm - my three best parkrun times have all been run at around 175bpm average (with splits of >180bpm for each of the last three km).

I'm not saying HR data isn't useful, just that I don't actively use it while running, only for reference after the event. Maybe if I worked out my zones and actually used them to guide my effort while running, I might improve my performance. Actually, comparing my typical average HR with my best average HR shows that I am physically capable of putting in more effort than I usually do.

Looking at my cycling stats, on Sunday morning club rides (usually around 20mph average), I hardly ever get much above 150bpm average (over a four-hour ride) but again the figures seem to be pretty consistent - though perhaps this is hardly surprising riding with the same group over the same route week in, week out.

d.

[mattc]

I think most people are pretty consistent when close to flat-out (I'm assuming your 5km is done flat-out? !?)

Depends what you mean by flat out - I only usually do the last km truly flat out (>95% HRmax) but I aim to do the maximum effort that I can sustain over the whole 5km.

Yeah, that's what _I_ mean by flat-out. In this context, anyway!

I don't think you can reliably use HR as the perfect race-pace system, but it's a big help in your first few goes at a distance. in a 'race' (or time-trial, whatever) you're just aiming for the maximum effort that I can sustain over the whole [event]. And of course a bit of a sprint finish is nice 20-odd minutes is too short to expect a constant/steady HR for much of the event - maybe in a 25mile TT / half-marathon it makes more sense. [I certainly benefited in the 24h, but I haven't raced at intermediate times/distances!]

HR - and in particular all this zone malarkey - is far more useful in training. You almost never train 'flat-out' - and then for such short intervals that your HR won't reach any kind of plateau.

On a side-note; personally I have no idea what use 'Average HR' is. Especially where HR varies over a wide range (bound to happen on a club-run). But I see a few people logging it, some who know a lot more than me! So this is unknown unknowns for me at this stage ...

[Ningishzidda]

FWIW, Rob Hayles advocates riding at least 5 miles while inhaling only through the nose.
This has become a 'given' for Sir David Brailsford's crowd.

In being disciplined enough to ride at nasal inhalation intensity, no excess effort will damage 'cold' muscles.

The power that this first stage of your 'warm up' will be will be approx half your FTP. Which means you will be riding 15 - 20 minutes, depending on you level of fitness. IF you find you are accelerating to an intensity that requires you to open your mouth, slow down.

After this initial stage, some 30 second intervals to FTP and 140% FTP can be done. Keep in mind lactic acid during these sprints. As you repeat, lactic will ease until it isn't felt any more. During this phase, you are dilating the capillaries carrying O2. That is all.
Now you are ready for your CT20.

[citoyen]

HR - and in particular all this zone malarkey - is far more useful in training. You almost never train 'flat-out' - and then for such short intervals that your HR won't reach any kind of plateau.

I guess that's where I'm going wrong - I don't "train" as such, I just go for a run/ride. I've thought about doing intervals/fartlek but not with any real conviction. I should probably think about it a bit more seriously if I want to make any real improvements to my performance.

On a side-note; personally I have no idea what use 'Average HR' is. Especially where HR varies over a wide range (bound to happen on a club-run). But I see a few people logging it, some who know a lot more than me! So this is unknown unknowns for me at this stage ...

I don't know either. It's just something that gets recorded automatically by my Garmin. I just thought it was interesting that it seems to be so consistent, regardless of actual performance. I have no idea if this means anything.

d.

[Ningishzidda]

TBH, HR is of no use to a competative cyclist. In training and in a race, it will be what it will be.

If you use the same turbo on the same resistance setting; and use the same precondition warm up routine, you’ll know you have improved or deteriorated by your ‘Average speed’ during the 20 minute ‘flat out’ test.

As the test progresses, attempt to match, or improve your last ‘Average speed’ by 0.1.
Within the final 2 minutes, give it all you’ve got to make sure you better your last test.

Each week, If you can improve by 0.5%, that’s 0.125 mph in 25 mph , you are doing well.

[mattc]

TBH, HR is of no use to a competative cyclist.

I totally disagree!

(and there are billions of scientific papers that disagree with you)

[L CC]

Someone I know is running a very high HR at the moment, much higher than perceived exertion would imply. In contrast, for the same work, mine is feeble. Apart from the irritation that this means Chris my friend is burning even more calories than he would anyway with the masculine-advantage, what might be causing it? He's not ill, or run down and is otherwise in pretty good shape.

[Ningishzidda]

TBH, HR is of no use to a competative cyclist.

I totally disagree!

(and there are billions of scientific papers that disagree with you)

The world is still divided.

[Feline]

Someone I know is running a very high HR at the moment, much higher than perceived exertion would imply. In contrast, for the same work, mine is feeble. Apart from the irritation that this means Chris my friend is burning even more calories than he would anyway with the masculine-advantage, what might be causing it? He's not ill, or run down and is otherwise in pretty good shape.

Something to do with low carb diet?

I always have a fairly high HR while I'm exercising even when I'm going steady. I guess this is just normal for me. Was his much lower in the same situations previously?

[Chris S]

Someone I know is running a very high HR at the moment, much higher than perceived exertion would imply. In contrast, for the same work, mine is feeble. Apart from the irritation that this means Chris my friend is burning even more calories than he would anyway with the masculine-advantage, what might be causing it? He's not ill, or run down and is otherwise in pretty good shape.

Something to do with low carb diet?

That was my take. Burning ketones for energy has a 25% lower RQ (Clicky) which is why you don't breath so hard when working and burning ketones. This I suspect is the source of the disconnect I've had between perceived rate of work (which I would normally gauge mostly by how hard I'm breathing) and HR; my heart could be hammering away at 170 and I'm certainly working hard; I'm just not breathing as hard as I would have before.

[simonp]

It could be low blood sugar since this can raise your heart rate.

[Chris S]

It could be low blood sugar since this can raise your heart rate.

Well, it's true I haven't tested it when riding

All the morning fasted tests I've done have come out pretty steady at 5.0mmol/L, which is bang on normal.

Also, I'd feel bonked I think - and that's not the case.

[Glover Fan]

If you are about to come down with an illness I find my heart rate goes up by about 10-15 bpm. HRM imo allow you to listen to your body in advance of any problems up ahead. i.e illness, fatigue, lack of fitness.

The most depressing thing is when you are really fatigued and that no matter how hard you try you just cannot get your heart about 160bpm when your max is 190

[mattc]

hang on a sec. Surely diet is way down the list of likely factors?!?

1.Individuals vary emormously in HR-max - and thus HR at all times.
2.On a tandem, there is no way each rider is working at the same % of max effort.

Diet MUST be a distant 3rd, at best. Surely?!?

[L CC]

Maybe he's just been coming down with something?
(And if it was diet, surely I'd have the same effect).

He's asleep on the settee just now. 

[Ningishzidda]

Here's something to consider.

VO2=((0.00212*(Watts*6.12)+0.299)/(0.769*HR-48.5))*100000/kg bodyweight

Its in ml per kg per minute.

How is the result effected if HR decreases?

[mzjo]

A question for those of you who train with heart rate monitors...

I am trying to lose a bit of flab so recently bought a HRM with the intention of trying to keep within the so-called fat Burn Zone while exercising.  No problem using the stuff at the gym – I find it relatively easy to pace my activity to keep at around 110bpm (the  upper limit for the Zone, according to the monitor, is 117). On the spin bikes, it feels as though I am riding along at a relatively good pace, while not pushing it. I’d liken it to a steady Sunday ride.

However, when I actually ride my bike on the commute, I find it impossible to stay below the upper limit and am averaging 137bpm over a 45 minute ride.  I’ve tried to ride as steadily and slowly as I can without feeling as though I’m dawdling, but to no avail.  Is my inability to ride gently without my heart thumping a sign that I’m not as fit as I should be, or is it possible that the monitor has assumed that at my age I should be less fit than I am and miscalculated the Zone parameters and I should be able to fat burn at a much higher heart rate?

Any advice would be welcomed!

My heart rate can reach 195bpm on the bike which at my age shouldn't even be possible. I have stopped using the HR band 

+1.
My HR is still about 120bpm coasting down hill. It all depends on a lot of factors other than simple zones. If, like me you have a HR that rises fast then it is all rubbish without the input of specialists. I have given up using a cardio monitor and learnt to read the signs of when I am overdoing things!

[zoxed]

My HR is still about 120bpm coasting down hill...

Whilst analyzing a large set of my TCX files I saw that the highest HR *peaks* occur during fast downhills !!
It took some time to find my highest HR whilst putting in effort !!

[bikenrrd]

My HR is still about 120bpm coasting down hill...

Whilst analyzing a large set of my TCX files I saw that the highest HR *peaks* occur during fast downhills !!
It took some time to find my highest HR whilst putting in effort !!

Isn't this most likely to be that HR measurement is somewhat lagged compared to effort, and you're blasting downhill after going up a steep hill?  i.e. it's the steep up hill that has caused the high HR, not the downhill.

[fuaran]

Whilst analyzing a large set of my TCX files I saw that the highest HR *peaks* occur during fast downhills !!
It took some time to find my highest HR whilst putting in effort !!

If its just a few spikes in the heart rate, then that is probably an error in the reading.
I've found this can be caused on the downhills by flapping clothing. So the obvious solution is to wear a tighter shirt/base layer.

[Ningishzidda]

If its a fast downhill, its your brain subconsiously readying your system by pumping blood to your brain to improve reactions. If its a really fast down hill and control is lost, blood is pumped southward to assist holding the anal sphincter closed.

[Marco Stefano]

Very interesting stuff. Meanwhile, back at the topic...   

I used to use an HRM for rowing training (before the chest sender gave up), more for interest than anything else. My max HR in races was 198 at nearly 50 years of age, so the 220-age formula didn't work for me.

However, the HR ranges for different zones didn't make sense either; all rather low, perhaps done for safety for those users starting out in exercise routines? They seemed to be based on % of HR max, rather than % of HR range (i.e. % of (max HR - resting HR)). When recalculated based on HR range, quoted percentages of actual range for various zones fitted in well for me with published scales of perceived effort, and finally had the desired training effect which they had not been having before.

[mattc]

"HR Range" is also a very common measure used for defining zones.

[Greenbank]

I go away for a year or so and people are still bashing the "220 - age" thing for estimating HR_max. Blimey.

Here's the point...

If you have no idea what your HR_max is then using the "220 - age" formula will give you a rough idea. It's that simple.

If you have more than "no idea" then you can choose to ignore it. If you're 30 and you've seen 195bpm on an HRM (recently) then that's what you use as your HR_max. It's not tricky.

As the link simonp provided on page 2 ( http://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax-info ) the variance among humans is huge.

It may not be accurate but in the absence of any other information, it's about as good estimate you can get from a simple equation like that.

1) With a formula of the form "x - age" then x=220 is the value that makes the best fit for data, any other value makes for a worse estimate (over the general population).
2) There are more accurate (i.e. the provide a better "fit" of the data) formulae available (but they're more complex and not easily doable in ones head), i.e. (208 - (age * 0.7)). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Formulae
3) Nothing beats empirical measurement such as the "warm up, go quite hard for a bit, then go all out and then push a bit more" test.

Also remember that HR_max changes over times so it's worth keeping an eye on and remeasuring every so often (although a single bpm change over a year is not going to affect your zones that much).

So, in the absence of any other information, 220 - age is better than nothing.