Hi all. I have been browsing the board for about a month. I have one question that I can't figure out. When you are testing for resting heart rate, do you take the average or the lowest number? I would think you should take the lowest number but that lowest number might only occur for 5 seconds throughout the entire night and then shoot back to my average. Hmmmmm, what to do?

While I am at it, I can't decide which formula to use for my training zones. Do I use the simple method of max heart x %, or the one that takes into account your resting heart rate? I have read anerobic tests etc, but I would prefer not to put myself through that right now. I will once I am feel I am in better shape. So what do I use for now?
Thanks for any help.

To start out, I would just take a % of your maximum heart rate for setting your training zones. That is what I do. If you get to the point where you are training seriously to race or for some similar reason, you can try to be more precise and hone in. IMO, it is not necessary if you are riding for fitness and enjoyment.

As far as resting heart rate, one generally accepted method is to check it after you wake up but before getting out of bed. Take it five days in a row and average the results. It is best if you are waking naturally rather than with an alarm, which may kick your heart rate up.

A good reference for you - Edwards and Reed, The Heart Rate Monitor Book for Cyclists.

Try Sally's site. There is a heart zone calculator there at the bottom right of the page. Heart Zone (http://www.heartzone.com/index.shtml)
There is some good info on this site. I have the before mention book coming along with her heart zone training.

I discovered that if I hold my head on the pillow just right, I can hear my heartbeat very clearly in my earlobe. Before I get up I just barely open my eyes to check the sweephand of my clock and check it that way.

Thanks for all the replies. What bugs me though is this:
If I am using the percentage of max, I reach zone 1 just while standing still, and I can reach zone 2 almost effortlessly. I have always read how you should warm up in zone 1, but i cant make it onto my bike without getting into zone 2. Ok, I am slightly exagerating on the last point, but you get the picture. That is so confusing to me. Any thoughts on this?

Trumpet: I hear you :) My Zone 1 is 90-107, I stand over the bike at 82 not moving. I get to ride zone 1 when I ride with my 8 yr old daughter. We avg ~ 7 mph. :D That is with me costing most of the time. I even hit 95 bpm last night like this. Most of my rides are in Zone 2 & 3, but I am just starting back riding after a few years off.

I just got Sally's book last night and all I have read is the intro, so I am not sure of the meat on this. I normally just warm up in zone 2 and then move into zone 3. JMO right now.

I am suffering some confusion with Heart Rate Zones right now, specifically based on Sally Edwards zones advice... I am following Sally's advice from Heart Rate for Cyclists and have calculated my zones based on her formula (% of max), but virtually every piece of software I use comes up with different (and higher) numbers than her (meaning I will be working harder to get into each zone).

For instance, according to Sally, my Zone 1 is 93.5 to 111 (based on % max) whereas PC Coach has me set to 129-148 (by taking into account my resting heart rate too). Sally's equations has my Zone 2 max at 149, or same top of Zone 1 in PC Coach!

I have no idea who is right and I am confused! Am I undertaining with Sally, will I be overtraining if I ignore her?

Eep!!

Mark

First of all, have you tested your HRmax properly? The formula 220-age can be off quite a bit for some people. If you have performed a HRmax test and are confident that the number is accurate then I would trust the PC Coach software. Sally's ranges are to wide for me.

I prefer to work with Zones 1,2,3,4a,4b,5a,5b,5c (per Triathletes Training Bible).

Lastly, if you are relatively untrained, Zone 1 can be VERY hard to stay in. As you get fitter, you'll be able to stay in Zone 1 much easier (if you try). Anecdotally, think of a very unfit person just walking up some starirs, their heart rate is SOARING and they aren't even doing anything too strenuous. The fitter person can walk up the stairs at a much lower heart rate.

Be patient, take your "easy" days SUPER easy and your hard days appropriately hard. In time you'll see the difference.

Knighty,

Thanks for the feedback. I am coming back to cycling after three years out of the saddle... before I quit I was doing around 100-150 miles per week and my preference was for the leg busting climbs around where I live. I considered myself a fit cyclist.

I am now 35.

I have never done a scientific HRmax test, however, I have on a few occasions deliberately pushed myself very hard to see how high I could go and at times got into the high 180s before blowing up. I have also used an indoor trainer, approx 3 years ago (as I was coming out of cycling), to do a similar test and also got to around 187 before I was forced to stop. So I am guessing my max then was slightly higher (low 190s) and has now probably fallen to around the 187-190 mark. I will test this once I am properly bike-fit again as I don't want to push too hard, too soon...

So, I guess it comes down to whether % of HRmax or % of HRreserve is considered more appropriate for accurate training. It seems that HRreserve is the preferred model, which means, as you indicate, that Sally Edwards zones are too wide...

Mark.

Knighty,

Thanks for the feedback. I am coming back to cycling after three years out of the saddle... before I quit I was doing around 100-150 miles per week and my preference was for the leg busting climbs around where I live. I considered myself a fit cyclist.

I am now 35.

I have never done a scientific HRmax test, however, I have on a few occasions deliberately pushed myself very hard to see how high I could go and at times got into the high 180s before blowing up. I have also used an indoor trainer, approx 3 years ago (as I was coming out of cycling), to do a similar test and also got to around 187 before I was forced to stop. So I am guessing my max then was slightly higher (low 190s) and has now probably fallen to around the 187-190 mark. I will test this once I am properly bike-fit again as I don't want to push too hard, too soon...

So, I guess it comes down to whether % of HRmax or % of HRreserve is considered more appropriate for accurate training. It seems that HRreserve is the preferred model, which means, as you indicate, that Sally Edwards zones are too wide...

Mark.

I'm 36 :) And from what I have been reading, the only reason that HRmax drops with age is because it is in direct relation to your leg power. If an 80 year old could generate the same muscular power as he could when he was 30, he'd have the same HRmax.

For a time I used HRreserve in calculating my zones, and I do think it more accurately reflects your growing fitness base than straight %HRmax. But for the last 2 years I have been using zones based on Lactate Threshold - I think this is an even more accurate measurement because, unlike resting heart rate which changes very gradually, lactate threshold can move around quite a bit depending on the type of training you are doing and your current physiological state. If you are doing a lot of work near LT your LT can move higher while your resting heart rate may not change very much or at all.

I'm 36 :) And from what I have been reading, the only reason that HRmax drops with age is because it is in direct relation to your leg power. If an 80 year old could generate the same muscular power as he could when he was 30, he'd have the same HRmax.


Well, here you go. After today's ride I took the opportunity on the last section to my home, 3 short steep climbs, to see what I could get on my HRM. So, I climbed the first two quite hard to get the heart pumping and on the third hill went as hard and for as long as I could... results, for this 35 year old, was a max reading of 191. That hurt! :D I guess I could have gone a little higher in the right conditions, so I will now assume my max is more around 195 instead of the age formula calculated 185.

Mark

Sounds perfect. I did a running HRmax test a couple years ago by running a steep hill 5 times (after warm up), each time faster and faster until the 5th time I was sprinting and I almost dropped to my knees and vomited at the top. Reading was 194 so I take 195 as my HRmax for running :) Of course now I do LT tests, but interestingly according to these newer tests my HRmax is still about the same.