Fifty Plus (50+) - HR and BP for 50+ year olds

How many of you keep track of your heart rate and blood pressure on a regular basis? I’ve noticed something peculiar (I think) about mine and biking. My normal (winter) BP is about 130/80 with a HR of 68. My exercise level is moderate. I use a trainer or weights 3 or 4 times a week for 45 minutes. However, when I can ride several times a week (maybe 75 to 100 miles, total) my BP drops to 110/65 and my HR rises to 85+. These readings are fairly consistent throughout the day (unless its been a bad work day and my BP max’s). Has anyone else experienced this, or am I (as my wife insists) weird.

I'm sure your wife knows best...so you must be wierd.

I'm 47 and track mine. My blood pressure falls when I ride often as well. My HR will usually fall too unless I over train. Are you getting enough rest?

I use a heart monitor whenever I am exercising, and not at other times. On a ride, I have to progressively get my HR up. 130 rest-140 rest -150 rest and then I am ready to abuse my body. I have an upper age limit of 165, and generraly ride to keep a max of 155. Hills do mean that if I am feeling good, then I can keep up 160, and the final fling will be up to 165. However, on the technical trails and very steep slopes where Experience and capability counts, I like to show the less competent youngsters how to do it, and HR can reach 170+, just to prove I can do it and they can't

At the gym however, I rarely get above 155, and to be honest, can't be bothered to go higher. Workouts at the gym are for cardio vascular so like to keep a steady 150 or just over for each 20 minute exercise stint.

Resting heart rate was around 75 in december. with the extra exercise I am doing at present it is getting nearer 60, but I do not often sit still long enough to get it that low, nor can I be bothered to measure it.

I'm sure your wife knows best...so you must be wierd.

I'm 47 and track mine. My blood pressure falls when I ride often as well. My HR will usually fall too unless I over train. Are you getting enough rest?


My wife doesn't bike so I"m not sure she knows best. :D

I try and get 8 hours a night.

I meant rest days for your heart...not training every day. Overtraining will increase your heart rate. And I meant your wife knows best about you being weird...after all she insists it's so.

Intense physical exercise will stretch your blood vessels, and afterwards there is a corresponding drop in your blood pressure. Well-known physical phenomenon.

How many of you keep track of your heart rate and blood pressure on a regular basis? I’ve noticed something peculiar (I think) about mine and biking. My normal (winter) BP is about 130/80 with a HR of 68. My exercise level is moderate. I use a trainer or weights 3 or 4 times a week for 45 minutes. However, when I can ride several times a week (maybe 75 to 100 miles, total) my BP drops to 110/65 and my HR rises to 85+. These readings are fairly consistent throughout the day (unless its been a bad work day and my BP max’s). Has anyone else experienced this, or am I (as my wife insists) weird.

If your basal heart rate (the rate on awakening) is higher than normal, then you are not getting proper rest and the body is stressed. When I started riding, my resting heart rate was 52, and it is now 44. BP of course drops in response to regular aerobic exercise.

... When I started riding, my resting heart rate was 52, and it is now 44. ... Nice work. You just passed ahead of me in a game where low score wins. :)

I have some problems with mine in that it beats irregularly and I have a dodgy valve which allows blood back into my lungs which makes me a little more breathless than I would otherwise be normally.

I had all the tests and my BP was a tad high but since I've been riding, training and racing (I'm not real good in the sprints) my pressure and HR are both down. yipeeeeeee!!

Nice work. You just passed ahead of me in a game where low score wins. :)

What amazes me the most, is that when I was winning the national masters cross country championship around a quarter of a century ago, my resting pulse was 48. Now from biking 5 days a week since mid-May (when I started) I cruise along at a wonderful 44, and I suspect I can go lower as I continue to build my base. I just started interval work for my first competition - I'm excited!!

What amazes me the most, is that when I was winning the national masters cross country championship around a quarter of a century ago, my resting pulse was 48. Now from biking 5 days a week since mid-May (when I started) I cruise along at a wonderful 44, and I suspect I can go lower as I continue to build my base. I just started interval work for my first competition - I'm excited!!

Hmm! If you exercise enough, will the following happen?

48
44
38
34
28
24
18
14
8
4
0
??????

Heart rate:

Since my continuous Atrial Fibrillation, my heart rate is controlled only by medication (beta blockers) and some response to exercise. Additionally, I get about 70% heart output as compared to August, 2004.

So, the only way I know is by perceived tiredness/exertion. I find that I can exert myself pretty hard and have been successful in building up my output.

Blood pressure:

I do monitor it daily, and have had a rather remarkable and noticeable lowering the past 4 weeks, while reducing my meds. Not sure just why, except quite a weight loss, and being on the CPAP machine.

Very difficult now for me to monitor my "fitness."

Hmm! If you exercise enough, will the following happen?

48
44
38
34
28
24
18
14
8
4
0
??????

Fox, I had a training partner back in the mid 70's who had a heart rate in the low 30's. It was the oddest thing to listen to his pulse. I like the above sequence to about the 30's, but I would just as soon stop there. My fiance's deceased husband was in incredible shape. He was a very active triathalete, and one day during a swimming training period, he sufferred sudden cardiac arrest. The autopsy revealed no coronary arterial blockage. It was discovered that he had something that is not usually tested, but can lead to SCA - LDL pattern B.

Waking pulse is 57. I generally work out on the bike in high 150's-low 160's (zone 3 - 4). Intervals in zone 5 High 160's to mid 170's.

I have nominally high blood pressure and am taking Lopressor for it. My bp has been normal to nominally high at times dispite it. I weight almost 250 and am currently losing weight. I imagine that bp will decrease with excess weight.

This is a great topic. We should watch ourselves at this age if we are going to keep up with the younger whipper-snappers.

I bought a road bike a year ago and started riding 2-3 times a week. My blood pressure dropped from 125/75 to 115/68. My resting pulse is about the same at 54-58. I always ride with a pulse monitor. The biggest changes are that (i) I can comfortably ride a 7% hill at a pulse of 170-175 when I used to have a very tough time sustaining 150-160 and (ii) I can comfortably ride a more or less flat course at a pulse of 140 for an hour or two when I used to be worn out after an hour at 120-130.

Heart rate:

Since my continuous Atrial Fibrillation, my heart rate is controlled only by medication (beta blockers) and some response to exercise. Additionally, I get about 70% heart output as compared to August, 2004.

So, the only way I know is by perceived tiredness/exertion. I find that I can exert myself pretty hard and have been successful in building up my output.

Blood pressure:

I do monitor it daily, and have had a rather remarkable and noticeable lowering the past 4 weeks, while reducing my meds. Not sure just why, except quite a weight loss, and being on the CPAP machine.

Very difficult now for me to monitor my "fitness."


I had a severe problem with beta bolckers in that they would not allow my heart rate to get above 130, wheras I would have hoped to get it to 170 as a max at that time. No matter what I tried, with the BB's at 130, it felt as though I was at 160. Legs were getting the burn, lungs were not working, and I was not enjoying the riding at all.
What I did was instead of taking the BB in the morning and then riding, I would take it the night before, do the ride and then take a BB after the ride. This enabled me to get the HR up to a more respectable level on the ride. Incidentally, I came off the BB's after about 18months, but I did it gradually, with the co-operation of my doctor, even though he could not understand why I wanted to come off them

jhglaw.

Are you riding consistently in 160's 170's. could be a concern. Most cycling trainers suggest 220 minus your age as you maximum heart rate. You should be able to work efficiently at 80 to 85 percent of that number, which (if you are in your fifties) should be in maybe the 150'.

For example: I am 53 220 minus 53 = 167 (my calculated max). 85 percent of that is my lactic threshold (142 beats per minute.) These are approximations of course and my actual numbers are a little higher. I usually hang out around 160 bpm's. A more accurate test is a field test. Pick a flat to rolling uninterupted 3 mile course. Warm up then start out on the course. Build up to your fastest speed, then back off a tad. You are now at your lactic threshold or about 85 percent of your VO max. This number fo course will "bracket down" as you become more fit.

Working in the appropriate zones coupled with adequate rest should help you be come stronger, faster and avoid overtraining injuries. We 50 plus'ers don't heal very quickly.

Just a concern. If I am totally off base here, I was just being a know-it all. Please disregard.

Most cycling trainers suggest 220 minus your age as you maximum heart rate. You should be able to work efficiently at 80 to 85 percent of that number, which (if you are in your fifties) should be in maybe the 150'.


Just a concern. If I am totally off base here, I was just being a know-it all. Please disregard.

The 220 - age is only a very broad, usually incorrect calculation. It was thought of by two doctors as they reviewed some medical records on an airplane flight. No basis in research.

There are many other more sophisticated "formulas" for calculating MHR, but the best way is to have a test to see.

And we 50+rs aren't really that fragile regarding our heart rates.

Here is a recent posting on this exact topic from an expert on the ACE (American Council for Exercise) forum:



If something is written down often enough, people will begin to believe it is true.

We see so often the generic Max Heart Rate calculation formula 220 - age. I hear so many people say things like:
"I'm 40 and my HR got up to 180, but I felt fine. Should I go see a doctor?"
"I'm trying to exercise in my target HR but I feel like I'm killing myself."

I'm hoping to raise people's awareness of just how flawed 220 - age is. It is not useless. It is easy to remember, easy to calculate, and may make a reasonable estimate for much of the population.

However, it has a standard error of about 10 bpm (depending on your source). Standard error means that ~67% of the population will fall within 10 beats of the formula. 95% of the population will have a range of 40 beats per minute (20 to either side). Another way to think about it is that 1/3 of your clients will fall 10 or more beats per minutes away from the 220 - age formula. 1 in 20 may be 20 beats away from the formula.

For example, say you have a 40 year old client with resting HR of 70:
220 - 40 = 180 theoretical maxHR.
Based on that, say you suggest a targetHR of 80% HRR = 158.
If your client's actual maxHR is just one standard deviation lower (170), then you've inadvertantly suggested a target of 88% of maxHRR.

The ACE Personal Trainer Manual just barely mentions this. If you want to read a lot more about it, someone recently pointed out the following excellent article:
http://www.css.edu/users/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf
Highly recommended reading if you use target heart rates.


quote:...takes into consideration the person's resting heart rate.

To clarify, most target heart range recommendations rely either on % of MaxHR, or % of Heart Rate Reserve (which incorporates resting heart rate and MaxHR). Either one relies on a reasonably accurate assessment of MaxHR.

Heart Rate Reserve & lactate threshold

Frisbee wrote: I take 220-age-RHR x 65% + RHR = THR

That's the basic Karvonen (heart rate reserve) method with an estimated MaxHR. That is the same formula I used in my calcuation above, but I didn't write out all the steps of the math. I'll restate the example using 65% and show more math:

Example: say you have a 40 year old client with resting HR of 70:

220 - 40 = 180 theoretical maxHR.

Carrying out your formula for a 65% target:

(180 - 70)*.65 + 70 = 72 + 70 = 142 suggested target heart rate.

Now, let's say your client's actual max heart rate is one standard deviation lower (170). That would mean the calculations should have looked like this:

(170 - 70)*.65 + 70 = 72 + 70 = 135 ACTUAL 65% of HRR.

The recommendation of 142 would really be recommendation for 72% of HRR.

It is unlikely that your client's perceived exertion would match your expectations. She is working a lot harder than you would expect.

Resting heart rate provides a correction, but it is not enough to counter the fallibility of 220 - age.

Frisbee wrote: what about lactic acid threshold testing?

If you mean in a lab with blood draws, it provides excellent information about pace. However, lactate threshold is, fortunately, quickly trained. Because it is changing, your client should in theory have this checked regularly. I don't imagine I will ever have clients willing to subject themselves to regular laboratory lactate threshold testing, let alone afford it. (The same test would, however, probably get me a good working MaxHR.)

If you mean using normal models to estimate lactate threshold, I find them difficult to apply. The only common non-lab, yet well accepted test I'm aware of is the "point of deflection" method. In my limited experience, it is hard to zero in on that point of deflection. It is an interesting test to give to a client who is interested and ready to train hard. But I make sure they are aware that it is a fallible test. Furthermore, I wouldn't give it to someone who was not in very good condition.

The VO2Max tests in the ACE trainer manual (and similar tests from other sources), I've found to be quite fallible. I do use some of them because they aren't terrible. Also, there are enough to choose from that you can give one which is appropriate to the client. (E.g., few clients would be unable to handle the Rockport 1 mile walk test.)

But the bottom line is that you must tune into your clients' percieved exertion so that you can recognize when your tests and formulas are off.

I don't know about VOmax , or what my actual MHR is, but at age 49 I do a competitive 30-miler every week in the summer, and after the 2 mile warmup, if my HR drops to 160 I'm loafing. No ill effects other than being hungry. I usually designate the next evening's ride as a 'recovery' ride at around 145 bpm.

Metro:

I only ride short steep hills (15 minutes or less) at high pulse rates. I ride long steep hills at 150 or so. Most of the time I ride at 130 to 140.

Interesting that this topic came up today. I've got a small Tanita HR monitor (touch sensor) that I use to occasionally check waking HR and resting (recliner, in front of TV) HR. Got it down to 52 during American Idol (Simon Cowell, take note). This is quite low for me. My normal HR has always been in 70's & up, and my wife has always been much lower. I've been riding at a level a bit over my head on weekends, recovering Mon & Tues and doing Precor & treadmill Wed & THurs. Two weekends ago, I didn't fuel properly during rides, and my HR was elevated and variable until about Thurday - electrolyte imbalance. Last weekend, I fueled properly during ride, and had normal recovery. As the weather improves, and we all (in the northern hemisphere) get out more, we need to make sure that we're fueling properly and allowing adequate recovery time after difficult rides.

During rides, I use a Polar with download capability. I also log training notes, BP, etc. It's really a good tool. But I can pretty much tell where I am without the monitor: 135-140, ride forever, 150 - starting to notice effort, 160 - out of zone beeper.

When you take BP measurements, make sure you are sitting correctly (discuss with doctor or lookup online). If you use electronic consumer model, you should calibrate with a cuff/stethoscope unit. My wife did study of various consumer units and Omron is generally good, but not always accurate. Many others are junk. Costco is selling a downloadable BP unit which I may purchase. Details:

Microlife® Premium Advanced Blood Pressure Monitor $75.59
Detects Irregular Heartbeat
Medical Grade Accuracy
PC Software Tracks Progress
Averages 3 Measurements Automatically

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?ec=BC-EC11-Cat589&pos=3&whse=&topnav=&prodid=11007838

My BP has been trending up with age (53) and I've become increasingly salt intolerant. I'm still working on how to keep adequate electrolyte balance during exercise without OD'ing on sodium.

I concur DNVRFOX. It it was just a starting point. I am sure you read the entire post where I suggested a field test for a more accurate number. Thank you for all the extra testing data. I had read about some of that too and am still considering its ramifications. My concern was overtraining. Therefore I proposed a managable monitoring system.

As you notice the conventional 220 minus age system yields a conservative number, which can be a good starting point for beginning cyclists. Field tests often reveal a higher threshold, which I agree is a more realistic number. There is also a preceived exertion system to be considered too. You are correct and put in into perspective wonderfully.

Glad to hear that you only hit those numbers on hills JHGLW. It sounds like you are working within reasonable heart rate ranges.

I concur DNVRFOX. It it was just a starting point. I am sure you read the entire post where I suggested a field test for a more accurate number. Thank you for all the extra testing data. I had read about some of that too and am still considering its ramifications. My concern was overtraining. Therefore I proposed a managable monitoring system.

As you notice the conventional 220 minus age system yields a conservative number, which can be a good starting point for beginning cyclists. Field tests often reveal a higher threshold, which I agree is a more realistic number. There is also a preceived exertion system to be considered too. You are correct and put in into perspective wonderfully.

Glad to hear that you only hit those numbers on hills JHGLW. It sounds like you are working within reasonable heart rate ranges.

Just to clarify, I did not write the quoted text. It wa written by an ACE certified fitness expert and placed on the ACE Fitness forum.

While I am in training for my certification, I am not there yet.

Thanks for your feedback

Thank YOU for the feedback. I can use the info myself to improve my training. I am still sorting out this training thing and have had concerns with accurate training zones. When I first started training, I was not working hard enough to make a difference. I was afraid to overtrain and began reading some material. This gives me a bit more to chew on. I am new to the forum and hope to learn a lot from the posts. Anything you feel might be helpful will be greatly appreciated.

I just started cycling last September and still use my HR monitor every ride. I'm 54, my max heart rate is 183 and my resting heart rate is 67. I haven't checked either since shortly after I started riding, so it's probably time to check them again.

I do 3 weekday evening rides of 17 miles. Two are at recovery pace HR's of 130's to 140's. On the other ride, I keep my HR above 160. I do one longer weekend ride of 40 to 60 miles (a club ride), and mix in some hard sprints with easy riding.

I think a heart rate monitor really helps, if you plan on training very seriously at all. I've noticed that sometimes, I feel great while holding that above 160 pace, and other times I feel like I'm really putting out a hard effort, but the HR monitor only shows 150. That tells me that my perceived effort is not a very reliable indicator of how hard I'm riding; the HR monitor is much better. I'm really not riding enough hours for overtraining to become a factor, but I still like keeping up with the easy data the HR monitor gives me.

It's funny how quickly my casual riding for fitness turned into really trying to become a strong rider. It's a testament to the fun of bike riding, I think.

I've been social MTB riding with reasonably high effort for about five years. I recently had a cardiologist do some tests to check BP and heart fitness levels. I've have had an irregular HR all my life and my BP was a tad high. An ultrasound detected a leaky valve. I was advised it wasn't a major problem and I should continue cycling but to avoid weights.

I began riding my road bike again late last year, training with a tri bunch. We do aprox 50k at an average in the low 30k's.
This year I've started racing and at present I'm doing crits Sunday morning and Monday night. I'm managing it much better now that I spin down to facilitate recovery Tuesday and Wednesday on my commute and begin to wind up again Thursday and Friday in prep for Sat., Sun. and Monday. I don't use a HR monitor. I rely solely on my own perception of my ability to do what I gotta do at any given time.

It's getting easier and my race results improve weekly so I think I'm managing quite well but I wonder what the cardiologist would make of my current endeavour and training/racing campaign???
In light of the above, maybe I should give him a call. :rolleyes:
Oh I'm 63, 64 in April.

I'm 53 and have been active all my life. Probably 10-15 pounds heavier than I would like but have been the same weight for 15 years or longer. Doc looks at me like I'm nuts when I tell him I want to lose weight but just plain eat as much or more than I burn off.

I started spinning classes about a year ago and had been inactive since late October when the bike season wound down up here in the frozen tundra we call Canada. I had never paid much attention to HR.

In spinning they constantly talk about what HR you are at, what zone to go in and to check your pulse regularly during the class, so I did. Granted I was out of shape the 1st few weeks and the classes were killers, but I was shocked at how high my HR was. Resting was 60's waking up was 50's but on the bike at the highest was 200 or more, sustained 185-190 on the really high intensity stuff. Got a HR monitor and sure enough those were my rates. Once warmed up cruising was 150-160. When spring came I went out as soon as I could, cold, windy and I freaked out to see I was in the 180's steady without even feeling like I was exerting myself that much. My wife was telling me I was overdoing it and to back off.

Instead I went to my family doctor, himself a real workout fiend and my age and he ordered a stress test and a visit to a cardiologist, but felt that nothing was wrong unless the test came back with abnormalities. Tests were normal.

Got rid of the monitor and immediately felt better not being so preoccupied with my HR.

Long and the short of it is that I rode 5,000km from April to October and decided to get a monitor again just to see what difference being in such good shape had made.

Bingo freakout time again. Cruising at a good pace (I'm no racer) into a medium headwind on the flats once warmed up without feeling especially tired mid 180's. Climbing up a short hill (sprinting actually) high 190's. I am sure that in the mountains I go over 205.

Went back to the doc freaked out and he sent me at my request to a different cardiologist, one involved in research and working in the Heart Institute. He had me take a nuclear stress test and when the results came back told me to do whatever I want at any heart rate I want for as long as I want, i.e. no restrictions. I forgot to mention that the 1st cardiologist I went to told me even though the tests were normal, that he would not exceed 85% max HR as the studies show that "extreme" athletes have poorer long term prognosis (i.e. croak younger) than the general population. I did not follow his advice, and the 2nd cardiologist confirmed that in my case at least, it was his opinion that I could workout at what ever zone I wanted to.

Got rid of the HR monitor again this time for good. I know many people swear by them, for me it just makes me nervous as hell and I seem to know my body well enough to get a pretty good feel for what zone I am in anyways. The only time I might help me would be on recovery rides, because it's hard (for me) to stay in the low zones. Have to really back off.

My 2 cents.

I'm 53 and have been active all my life. Probably 10-15 pounds heavier than I would like but have been the same weight for 15 years or longer. Doc looks at me like I'm nuts when I tell him I want to lose weight but just plain eat as much or more than I burn off.

I started spinning classes about a year ago and had been inactive since late October when the bike season wound down up here in the frozen tundra we call Canada. I had never paid much attention to HR.

In spinning they constantly talk about what HR you are at, what zone to go in and to check your pulse regularly during the class, so I did. Granted I was out of shape the 1st few weeks and the classes were killers, but I was shocked at how high my HR was. Resting was 60's waking up was 50's but on the bike at the highest was 200 or more, sustained 185-190 on the really high intensity stuff. Got a HR monitor and sure enough those were my rates. Once warmed up cruising was 150-160. When spring came I went out as soon as I could, cold, windy and I freaked out to see I was in the 180's steady without even feeling like I was exerting myself that much. My wife was telling me I was overdoing it and to back off.

Instead I went to my family doctor, himself a real workout fiend and my age and he ordered a stress test and a visit to a cardiologist, but felt that nothing was wrong unless the test came back with abnormalities. Tests were normal.

Got rid of the monitor and immediately felt better not being so preoccupied with my HR.

Long and the short of it is that I rode 5,000km from April to October and decided to get a monitor again just to see what difference being in such good shape had made.

Bingo freakout time again. Cruising at a good pace (I'm no racer) into a medium headwind on the flats once warmed up without feeling especially tired mid 180's. Climbing up a short hill (sprinting actually) high 190's. I am sure that in the mountains I go over 205.

Went back to the doc freaked out and he sent me at my request to a different cardiologist, one involved in research and working in the Heart Institute. He had me take a nuclear stress test and when the results came back told me to do whatever I want at any heart rate I want for as long as I want, i.e. no restrictions. I forgot to mention that the 1st cardiologist I went to told me even though the tests were normal, that he would not exceed 85% max HR as the studies show that "extreme" athletes have poorer long term prognosis (i.e. croak younger) than the general population. I did not follow his advice, and the 2nd cardiologist confirmed that in my case at least, it was his opinion that I could workout at what ever zone I wanted to.

Got rid of the HR monitor again this time for good. I know many people swear by them, for me it just makes me nervous as hell and I seem to know my body well enough to get a pretty good feel for what zone I am in anyways. The only time I might help me would be on recovery rides, because it's hard (for me) to stay in the low zones. Have to really back off.

My 2 cents.

I would opine that your maxium HR is a bit high. Contrary to popular opinion, MHR comes down with conditioning. I used to incorrectly believe the opposite until reading two excellent treatises on the subject. That bit about elite athletes is the current "in" thing in that Dr. Cooper of the famous Aerobic Clinic in Dallas has come off his old beliefs of training hard indicating that hard training leads to a build up of free radicals which is what tends to kill us. He now is a big proponent of walking rather than hard running.

The best example of an elite athlete that I know of that debunks that opinion is a member of our St. Petersburg Bike Club. His name is John Sinibaldi. He was a two-time cycling olympian ('32 & '36) and a 10 time national cycling champion. He rides at least 5 times a week, and cranks down the street easily at 22 mph with no exertion. When he was 80, he was still winning sprints in the sprint zones on our rides. He has the bearing and gait of a young man. I want to be like him when I grow up!

I always wear my Polar S520 on my rides.

I'm 53 and have been active all my life. Probably 10-15 pounds heavier than I would like but have been the same weight for 15 years or longer. Doc looks at me like I'm nuts when I tell him I want to lose weight but just plain eat as much or more than I burn off.

I started spinning classes about a year ago and had been inactive since late October when the bike season wound down up here in the frozen tundra we call Canada. I had never paid much attention to HR.

In spinning they constantly talk about what HR you are at, what zone to go in and to check your pulse regularly during the class, so I did. Granted I was out of shape the 1st few weeks and the classes were killers, but I was shocked at how high my HR was. Resting was 60's waking up was 50's but on the bike at the highest was 200 or more, sustained 185-190 on the really high intensity stuff. Got a HR monitor and sure enough those were my rates. Once warmed up cruising was 150-160. When spring came I went out as soon as I could, cold, windy and I freaked out to see I was in the 180's steady without even feeling like I was exerting myself that much. My wife was telling me I was overdoing it and to back off.

Instead I went to my family doctor, himself a real workout fiend and my age and he ordered a stress test and a visit to a cardiologist, but felt that nothing was wrong unless the test came back with abnormalities. Tests were normal.

Got rid of the monitor and immediately felt better not being so preoccupied with my HR.

Long and the short of it is that I rode 5,000km from April to October and decided to get a monitor again just to see what difference being in such good shape had made.

Bingo freakout time again. Cruising at a good pace (I'm no racer) into a medium headwind on the flats once warmed up without feeling especially tired mid 180's. Climbing up a short hill (sprinting actually) high 190's. I am sure that in the mountains I go over 205.

Went back to the doc freaked out and he sent me at my request to a different cardiologist, one involved in research and working in the Heart Institute. He had me take a nuclear stress test and when the results came back told me to do whatever I want at any heart rate I want for as long as I want, i.e. no restrictions. I forgot to mention that the 1st cardiologist I went to told me even though the tests were normal, that he would not exceed 85% max HR as the studies show that "extreme" athletes have poorer long term prognosis (i.e. croak younger) than the general population. I did not follow his advice, and the 2nd cardiologist confirmed that in my case at least, it was his opinion that I could workout at what ever zone I wanted to.

Got rid of the HR monitor again this time for good. I know many people swear by them, for me it just makes me nervous as hell and I seem to know my body well enough to get a pretty good feel for what zone I am in anyways. The only time I might help me would be on recovery rides, because it's hard (for me) to stay in the low zones. Have to really back off.

My 2 cents.

Very interesting, Dawg. Just curious however: Are you suggesting - given the high HR readings that you've attained with the monitor - that the MONITOR is off? If so, than I can understand you dumping the thing (inaccurate and all).

Or, perhaps (and I'm asking here) are you telling us that, when you wear the HR monitor, you push yourself (perhaps not entirely consciously) a bit too hard? If that's the case, then, again, I can see why you might choose to forego using the thing.

If, on the other hand, the readings are generally accurate, how is it your benefit to NOT know what's going on with your heart, particularly if you're as concerned about the high readings as you seem to be? Getting rid of the monitor in that case is akin to bashing out the red warning light on your car dashboard with the nearest blunt object.

Well I was concerned at the beginning simply because while I have been active all my life I never paid much attention to my HR. Now that I have been cleared after extensive testing I just find it less hassle working out without the HR. And my high HR's were accurate. It's genetic one's max HR and the formula is pretty off the mark for many people (like me).

Well I was concerned at the beginning simply because while I have been active all my life I never paid much attention to my HR. Now that I have been cleared after extensive testing I just find it less hassle working out without the HR. And my high HR's were accurate. It's genetic one's max HR and the formula is pretty off the mark for many people (like me).

And me also I think.
FWIW; I'm very very sceptical of the opinions 'experts', particularly in the field of medicine. They tend to change their minds with the seasons. What is absolute inarguable fact this year will be just so much balderdash next. So, where does that leave me? Well I believe in myself. I believe that I most often know best what is good for me. I believe that my body is way way more capable than I could ever imagine and often will excel in spite of my mind. I believe that negativity is the big destroyer and that being very positive is more beneficial than all the pills and concoctions so eagerly prescribed by physicians. I tent not to take what they say too seriously and my history with there moderate interventions in my life backs my belief.
So I understand BaadDawg fully when he says wearing a HRM is a distraction and an unnecessary continuing negative reminder of one's susceptibility to possibly inaccurate and irrelevant input.
Put simply I put my faith is in other areas.

And me also I think.
FWIW; I'm very very sceptical of the opinions 'experts', particularly in the field of medicine. They tend to change their minds with the seasons. What is absolute inarguable fact this year will be just so much balderdash next. So, where does that leave me? Well I believe in myself. I believe that I most often know best what is good for me. I believe that my body is way way more capable than I could ever imagine and often will excel in spite of my mind. I believe that negativity is the big destroyer and that being very positive is more beneficial than all the pills and concoctions so eagerly prescribed by physicians. I tent not to take what they say too seriously and my history with there moderate interventions in my life backs my belief.
So I understand BaadDawg fully when he says wearing a HRM is a distraction and an unnecessary continuing negative reminder of one's susceptibility to possibly inaccurate and irrelevant input.
Put simply I put my faith is in other areas.

Great philosophical outlook, and as my friend and teammate Dr. George Sheehan used to say, "we are all an experiment of one."

Interesting that you would find a hrm distracting-I find it to be just the opposite. To each is own, makes the world go around.

Interesting that you would find a hrm distracting-I find it to be just the opposite. To each is own, makes the world go around.

I agree - I do every ride with mine - it gives me a good insight into my effort, conditioning, etc. I would no more think of not using it then I would not using a computer that tracks what I do on the bike.

I am not saying that HR monitors are not a good training tool. I just found that it is not for me and that my experiences might be of benefit to others. I am sure I was not the first to strap on a HR monitor and go "holy cow" am I gonna kill myself? And I have been very active all my life, biking, swimming, backpacking etc. In my case ignorance is bliss when it come to my HR.

And I'm presently enjoying immensely riding/racing without a computer. I just haven't swapped mine of my old bike yet but I have to say that it's been a real pleasure, to not be continually checking to see if I'm working as hard as the computer would suggest is best and simply trusting in my intuition. I think the computer on my shoulders is probably a little more sophisticated than a tiny black plastic box with a few little man made processors worth about $80 bucks. But then that's just me.

The owner of my lbs (35 and now retired to the south of France---don't believe your lbs when they cry they aren't making money off you lol) told me that he no longer uses a computer. I was in shock (I was having him install my Flite Deck). He said he knows what his cadence is by feel, who cares how far you go (he goes plenty far enough when he gets time to ride) and he felt much more liberated without one.

Ain't ditching my Flite Deck just yet though, it's nice to see what gear you are in without having to look back at the cassette and half kill yourself in the process.

Ain't ditching my Flite Deck just yet though, it's nice to see what gear you are in without having to look back at the cassette and half kill yourself in the process.

My new Ultegra 10 is FD compatible (one reason I'm prolonging transferring the old one) and I'm really tempted to get one for the reasons you elude to above.

I use HR strictly as a fitness guage - especially resting HR. And I keep a diary. I never use a monitor in a race or even during a fast training ride with other riders. Just have to go until there ain't nothin left. HR is irrelevant at those times. I worry more about not crossing wheels with somebody.

sun

Hey Dawg-if it helps you any, your and my HR's are very similar. My brother is a lot younger than me and has been riding a lot longer than I have and it's interesting that his HR trends and mine are almost identical. The groups we ride with can't understand how our HR's can be so much higher than their's but we've learned that it's just genetics and go on with it.

If you used the rule of thumb, 225 bpm minus age, my max should be in the low 170's. I easily hit the mid 190's when trying to elevate the rate to see what my max is. I still wear a HR monitor, especially for training, as I need to know how my workouts are going.

Welcome to the Mile High HR Club!

My new Ultegra 10 is FD compatible (one reason I'm prolonging transferring the old one) and I'm really tempted to get one for the reasons you elude to above.

I have been very happy with my wireless Flitedeck. Changing modes from the hoods is also very nice. Plus it has a clock on it so I now know the time which used to be a pain with my other computer. There is no option for 12 hour time though, only 24 hour mode, Euro style. The manual is awful, and the modes are a bit weird. You get 1 set of menu options in each mode and cannot choose which ones are in each mode. Changing modes requires a 2 second hold on the left grip button and it's not something you want to be doing every few minutes. The right button menu screens change immediately.

The main annoyance is that total trip distance is in one mode and cannot be seen if you are in the cadence mode. I think that is my peeve, it has been 4 months since I have ridden outside due to living in Canada and feeling like a penguin. The virtual cadence works fine, as good as the wired cadence I havce on my other bike. No good on a trainer though since there is no pedal sensor, just the sensor on the front wheel and fork.



Hey Dawg-if it helps you any, your and my HR's are very similar.

As far as my high HR's that is no longer something I even think about anymore. I was put on a beta blocker in January as a migraine preventative (after suffering for 2 years with almost daily migraines and exercise was one of the triggers, the other still is alcohol). Gave up booze pretty much entirely, something I am not happy about at all, but I have come to associate alcohol (even 1 beer) with a 12 hour headache and a fist full of pain medications so it has really not been hard to give up in the least. Just makes life a bit more boring is all.

The beta blocker is nadolol and is about the lowest dose that you can take of the stuff (20mg) but that is enough to really mess with your HR. Slows it way down, especially under load. But because the dose is so low (it's actually half of the lowest recommended dose) I do not feel the fatigue that the higher doses can cause.

Still with such a lose dose my headaches have virtually gone away and my workouts don't seem to have suffered too much. Will really find out when I hit the hills on the bike.

Used to get palipitations and what felt lke funnu runs of weird feeling HR's and that has really calmed down with the low dose beta blocker. Have always had that and seems to be nothing.

Hey Dawg-if it helps you any, your and my HR's are very similar. My brother is a lot younger than me and has been riding a lot longer than I have and it's interesting that his HR trends and mine are almost identical. The groups we ride with can't understand how our HR's can be so much higher than their's but we've learned that it's just genetics and go on with it.

If you used the rule of thumb, 225 bpm minus age, my max should be in the low 170's. I easily hit the mid 190's when trying to elevate the rate to see what my max is. I still wear a HR monitor, especially for training, as I need to know how my workouts are going.

Welcome to the Mile High HR Club!

Funny you should mention Similar heart rates. I ride a Tandem, I am 58 and Pilot is 40. There is a vast difference on our heart rates on solos, and he just loses me on the uphills. My max for Age is 165 and I can get to 175 before getting off the bike and lying down. He can go 20 above me all the time, but at 195 (20 above me again) he hits the same bit of Grass or Mud that I am going to fall off on.
However on the Tandem, we run at a very similar heart rate, between one or two of each other. When I am at 150 then so is he. We try not to go above 160 in defferance to my age, but occasionally we do have to push to 165, and at that we are both getting tired. I cannot say that he is carrying me as same heart rate and same amount of tiredness. The difference is, For that odd hill where the effort does have to go in,(To save pushing the bike uphill) he can go up to the 190's, and drag me up to around 175 with him. I can assure you, we are both absolutely shatterred then and have to slow down for about 2 miles to recoup our energy.

Incidentally, we put an HRM on the fit 50 year old in our group.He is the one that will lose everyone including the 25 year olds on our rides. That was the day when the tandem riders went to 165 all the way up a steep long hill. We were shifting. He stayed with us all the way up, and admitted that at the top he was shattered. His breathing was very laboured, legs like jelly and body shattered-- He was done in. His Heart rate did not get above 152 as a max for the hill, and we thought it was a duff HRM. it was not his heart rate is lower than the rest of us, and this has been checked on several occasions. He just has a slow heart rate.

Edit

Baaddawg.

Thanks for enlightening me. I have had Migraines for as long as I can remember. After the bypass, I was on beta blockers but it affected my riding so I weaned off them in the following year. For the year or so I was on BB's, I did not have a Migraine. Given the choice now, I will keep the occasional migraine as I am enjoying my riding too much to go down a level again.

Have to honestly say that at the super low dose I am at now (20mg nadolol) that is is enough to keep the headaches under control (I still get them but they are manageable now whereas before they were unmanageable)...acutally they went away almost completely at 40mg still a very low dose but at 40mg I felt tired, my BP seemed too low, my HR seemed to low and I am sure my max HR really went down. Tried 20mg and so far (about a month) it seems to be a happy medium. Some headaches but manageable and no noticeable side efects from the BB.

I've been thinking about a possible link between caffeine and HR.
As I've previously stated I have an irregular heart rhythm. I went off caffeine some while ago and my rhythm settled significantly. Recently I've been allowing myself to indulge again and my rhythm has gone wild again. I'm back OFF coffee/chocolate etc.
I know that lately many high exertion sportspersons have suffered from dangerous fibrillation and a few are now relying on implanted pacemakers to keep them alive. I also know that many of these athletes use/used caffeine in high doses as a stimulant to achieve a higher output. Could there be a correlation??? Maybe caffeine is a more powerful, more disruptive drug than we all imagine. When you think about it we consume significant quantities in our daily lives in coffee, tea, chocolate, Coke etc.

Does anyone know of a study? Could be interesting to find out just what effect it has particularly on our HR'ms. It could explain the recent incidence of uncharacteristic breakdowns in elite triathletes maybe. Just a thought.

I wonder how much caffeine is in those little mini Hershey bars? I love to pop a couple of them after luch with some nuts and raisins. I am also surprised that colas do not list the amount of caffeine they contain.

After having my one and only (so far) episode of Afib, I went off of cola, chocolate and alcohol, but human nature being what it is, I have slowly worked myself back. Fortunately, I drink no coffee or tea, and only have one diet Dr. Pepper a day, and I have no idea how much caffeine is contained in said Dr. Pepper versus the amount in a typical cup of coffee or tea.

As I've previously stated I have an irregular heart rhythm. I went off caffeine some while ago and my rhythm settled significantly. Recently I've been allowing myself to indulge again and my rhythm has gone wild again. I'm back OFF coffee/chocolate etc.
I know that lately many high exertion sportspersons have suffered from dangerous fibrillation

You need to always distinguish between atrial fibrillation (not usually dangerous if controlled with meds) and ventricular fibrillation - life threatening.

Saying someone is in "fibrillation" does not pass the specificity test.

You need to always distinguish between atrial fibrillation (not usually dangerous if controlled with meds) and ventricular fibrillation - life threatening.

Saying someone is in "fibrillation" does not pass the specificity test.

I'm not sure what your point is Dnvr????
I know there's a difference but I doubt the elite athletes I mentioned who are fitted with implants, have them for a/fib and if caffeine is a rhythm destabilser it should be avoided in either case. Irregular heat rythms are a bloody nuisance at best.

I'm not sure what your point is Dnvr????
I know there's a difference but I doubt the elite athletes I mentioned who are fitted with implants, have them for a/fib and if caffeine is a rhythm destabilser it should be avoided in either case. Irregular heat rythms are a bloody nuisance at best.

Sorry. To me, it is sort of like saying someone has "cancer." Doesn't tell you enough - some cancers are very mild and treatable, others are deadly.

Guess I have had too many folks ask me if I was going to get a pacemaker because they heard I have "fibrillation."

And I'm presently enjoying immensely riding/racing without a computer. I just haven't swapped mine of my old bike yet but I have to say that it's been a real pleasure, to not be continually checking to see if I'm working as hard as the computer would suggest is best and simply trusting in my intuition. I think the computer on my shoulders is probably a little more sophisticated than a tiny black plastic box with a few little man made processors worth about $80 bucks. But then that's just me.


As I see it, the heart is a variable frequency and variable stroke pump. The combination of these two variables yields a particular blood flow.
This intensity of this flow can be recognised by a feeling of "Perceived Effort".

Heart monitors can detect the heart frequency rate OK
Can anyone tell me whether they either know or care a tinker's cuss about the VARIABLE stroke volume?

If they don't then I would consider them of limited value only.

Just a thought, as I don't have one, and wouldn't bother until this question is answered satisfactorily..

It's very normal for blood pressure to drop with increased physical activity . . . which is why exercise is prescribed as an "antidote" for hypertension . . . I am 50, have hypertension that is treated with meds, and during the summer - when I am riding between 150 and 200 miles per week - often have my BP drop to 90 something over 60 or 70 something