Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-26-11, 06:16 AM   #1
FasterNearGirls
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Bikes:
Posts: 632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Determining Maximum HR by feeling light headed?

Yesterday I rode so hard that my MHR was at 102% since I had set it to 187bpm but was at 191bpm... I guess I have a new maximum? Or maybe even more than that? I felt light headed big time.

Good news is I thought I was riding with the B group but after we finished I found out I was with the B+ . That made the suffering almost worth while.

Here's the data -

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/81625607
FasterNearGirls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-11, 06:55 PM   #2
Camilo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
A max is a max. You don't get a new max. How did you determine that 187 was your max? Did you use the "formula"? Because they are worthless.

There are a lot of guides out there how to determine your own max. It is very, very difficult to achieve a true max on your heart beat, plus it will be different for running vs. cycling vs. swimming vs. skiing, etc.

I've always used my lactate threshold as a benchmark instead of max. HR, and then design workouts around that instead. I've never done a LT blood study, but have used the average I get during a full effort race for 45-60 minutes.

I also know what my "marathon race pace" is - My average for 3-5 hour marathon type ski events is very consistent and I can use that as a benchmark for whatever workout I'm trying to do.

If you haven't already, you might consider reading a couple of books on HR training - they're very interesting. There are some variations in methodology, but you'll get a good idea.

Last edited by Camilo; 04-27-11 at 06:58 PM.
Camilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-11, 09:37 AM   #3
FasterNearGirls
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Bikes:
Posts: 632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camilo View Post
A max is a max. You don't get a new max. How did you determine that 187 was your max? Did you use the "formula"? Because they are worthless.

There are a lot of guides out there how to determine your own max. It is very, very difficult to achieve a true max on your heart beat, plus it will be different for running vs. cycling vs. swimming vs. skiing, etc.

I've always used my lactate threshold as a benchmark instead of max. HR, and then design workouts around that instead. I've never done a LT blood study, but have used the average I get during a full effort race for 45-60 minutes.

I also know what my "marathon race pace" is - My average for 3-5 hour marathon type ski events is very consistent and I can use that as a benchmark for whatever workout I'm trying to do.

If you haven't already, you might consider reading a couple of books on HR training - they're very interesting. There are some variations in methodology, but you'll get a good idea.
Thanks for the tips.
I didn't mean that my true max changed. New max because I had estimated 187 based on hard effort that had taken me to 185 previously. But since on Monday I had an extra hard effort @ 191bpm while feeling light headed, i figured it's a "new" max! I was wrong in my estimate before.
FasterNearGirls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-11, 12:17 PM   #4
Camilo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
That's probably exactly right. I had a coach once who told me to use an effort like that as an estimated 90 or95% of true max. From what I know about "zone" training, a few beats in error in estimating zones won't be a big deal. I'd bet that 190-195 as your estimate of true max would be plenty accurate, more accurate than most people (who use the age related formula). That's what I'd do anyway.
Camilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 PM.