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


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-09-12, 03:09 PM   #1
ChrisM2097
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
ChrisM2097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Milpitas, CA
Bikes: 2007 Specialized Rockhopper Disc; Trek 7.5 FX
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Maximum Heart Rate

I know that standard, one-size-fits-all calculation is 220-age...but this isn't really a one-size-fits-all approach, in my opinion. Everyone's different.

Anyways, I'm 35, so according to the above, my HRmax = 185. I'm also 6'2" & 275lb. When climbing hills, my HR is around 165-175 on average, with some spikes up to 185.

I was curious about what MY personal HRmax should be, so I e-mailed my doctor about doing a cardiac stress test.

Below is the response:

"As for the cardiac treadmill test, that is a test we use to risk stratify angina, which is heart related chest pain to see is there may be any potential blockages in any of the coronary arteries.

Target heart rate for fat burning is 220-your age.
"

Now, the first part sounds reasonable, and typical of Kaiser...but the last sentence, according to everything I've read, leads me to believe my Dr. doesn't know what she's talking about. My understanding is that my target HR for 'fat burning' should be around 120, NOT 185.
ChrisM2097 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-12, 05:38 PM   #2
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,664
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Doc is a waste, as so many are. Try:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
for several ways to calculate MHR, none of which are accurate. The only real way is to max it out, but that's quite difficult to do. You can search this forum for more info.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-12, 07:10 PM   #3
Athens80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
The 2x20 Anaerobic threshold test posted in this forum is a useful guide to your heart rate zones. The "220 minus your age" is neither correct about your maximum heart rate nor your 'fat burning' zone. And as you probably know, there is no special 'fat burning' zone; you're using fat always but the ratio of fat to other fuels consumed is highest at a moderate level of exertion. So while the doctor knows angina, her answer doesn't indicate that she know fitness.

Standard disclaimer -- no one should choose to do vigorous physical exercise against the advice of the doctor.
Athens80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-12, 07:30 PM   #4
Athens80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Doc is a waste, as so many are. Try:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
for several ways to calculate MHR, none of which are accurate.
Yeah, I've frequently gone 10bpm higher than the highest max heart rate calculated by those formulas, and I don't think I've ever gone remotely close to all out while wearing a heart rate monitor. I can ride for an hour at what the lower formulas calculate as my max heart rate. The ranges indicated by the aerobic threshold test put my true max heart rate 28 bpm higher than any of those formulas indicate. So they may be right for the middle of the bell curve of a population, but I don't know that they are useful for an individual.

So perceived exertion is a good way to start, and then doing the threshold test at an appropriate point will fine-tune the numbers for those who love numbers. And a laboratory test will get even more precise figures but at a cost.
Athens80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-12, 10:23 AM   #5
JoeMan
Question Authority
 
JoeMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oregon USA
Bikes: Rocky Mountain Solo 30, 2007 REI Novara Safari and Cannondale MTB
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One method I have been expermenting with is monitoring calorie per hour use on my heart rate monitor (Polar 100RS). This has helped me define my percieved effort scale more precisely. This method is especially helpful if you are taking blood pressure medications.
JoeMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-12, 05:41 PM   #6
bluefoxicy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Baltimore, MD
Bikes: 2010 GT Tachyon 3.0
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisM2097 View Post
Now, the first part sounds reasonable, and typical of Kaiser...but the last sentence, according to everything I've read, leads me to believe my Dr. doesn't know what she's talking about. My understanding is that my target HR for 'fat burning' should be around 120, NOT 185.
It's all bogus.

I'll attack the fat burn question first: When you start out your body will start burning free glucose, guaranteed. Then the pancreas releases glucagon to start burning glycogen (converts to glucagon). Glycogen is hard to replenish (you must eat), and so once your system has had time to get everything warmed up it'll start releasing proteins into the blood to initiate lipolysis (conversion of fat into blood sugars).

The conventional wisdom that you must keep your body working for, say, 10+ minutes is actually accurate. Beyond that it's raw calorie burn: that VO2[max] and heart rate stuff is all voodoo. Typically if your heart rate is high, it means you're under high demand and thus burning more calories--in fact some people calculate their calorie burn based on heart rate to gauge intensity, and only worry about doing enough exercise (i.e. half hour or one hour sessions) and burning raw calories.

Really, there's a lot of moon people here who think that when your heart rate goes up by 10BMP you're suddenly burning a lot less fat. Like somehow you're gonna burn 600kcal instead of 400kcal but not only are exactly 0 of the extra 200kcal you burned fat, but most of the other 400kcal that was fat is now something else (protein, sugar, glycogen...). Similarly, plenty of people like to argue that the 400kcal at (say) 120bpm is 300kcal fat and 100kcal other, whereas the extra 200kcal at (say) 160bpm is like 5kcal fat and 195kcal other.


As for your max heart rate, I've found that the calculation works for me. You should never pass MHR - 10% from what I've read; what I've found by experience is that my body refuses to pass 175, and my MHR is 194--that's 194 - 19 = 175. I've made it do it on an occasion or two, for several seconds; it's not like you work 10% harder, it's more like you start spinning at 250RPM and climbing an ass-steep hill and you keep doing it until you die, and maybe you'll exceed MHR-10%. Yes, it's red-line, it's not a thing your body will pass willy-nilly. The treadmill test should give you a graph that'll show where you peak out.

Climbing doesn't red-line me as often as biking and I'm very peaky. This is today's climb.

bluefoxicy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-12, 04:30 PM   #7
on the path
Seņor Blues
 
on the path's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: upstate NY
Bikes: Cannondale CAAD 10, Breezer Venturi Custom Build, IRO Singlespeed
Posts: 1,386
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluefoxicy View Post
As for your max heart rate, I've found that the calculation works for me. You should never pass MHR - 10% from what I've read; what I've found by experience is that my body refuses to pass 175, and my MHR is 194--that's 194 - 19 = 175. I've made it do it on an occasion or two, for several seconds
Doesn't work for me, no way. I've been asking about this in a 50+ thread. I'm 56, so that calculation has me at 164 bmp for MHR. I've tried a bunch of other formulas and the number typically comes up at around 170. Last night I averaged a HR of just under 160 for 90 minutes, and I maxed at over 180. Numbers sound way high for someone my age, I know. But in reality I experienced relatively little discomfort for the entire ride.

Btw, your explanation of fuel burning was excellent.
on the path is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-12, 04:57 PM   #8
chasm54
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Bikes:
Posts: 8,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by on the path View Post
Doesn't work for me, no way. I've been asking about this in a 50+ thread. I'm 56, so that calculation has me at 164 bmp for MHR. I've tried a bunch of other formulas and the number typically comes up at around 170. Last night I averaged a HR of just under 160 for 90 minutes, and I maxed at over 180. Numbers sound way high for someone my age, I know. But in reality I experienced relatively little discomfort for the entire ride.
Forget it. People differ enormously on this. I am 57. I still see numbers in the 180s from time to time, frequently go over 170, have a LTHR of about 156. On the other hand, my average HR on a ride is always much lower than that of a buddy of mine. He's 45, has a max over 200, and will average >160 while I am ticking over at 130 or so. Doesn't stop him killing me in a sprint, though.

The formulae are bunk. Your max HR is what it is. There's nothing you can do about it and no need to worry about it.
chasm54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-12, 05:22 PM   #9
on the path
Seņor Blues
 
on the path's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: upstate NY
Bikes: Cannondale CAAD 10, Breezer Venturi Custom Build, IRO Singlespeed
Posts: 1,386
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm54 View Post
Forget it. People differ enormously on this.

...........

The formulae are bunk. Your max HR is what it is. There's nothing you can do about it and no need to worry about it.
Yeah I'm with you. I made occasional glances at the HRM last night, but I was so immersed in the ride that the numbers meant very little to me.

I'm starting to think that there are effective ways to train that will produce significant improvement that don't involve obsessing with these kinds of numbers...at my level anyway. If I was competing with world class cyclists, it would be a different story. But I don't think that will be happening any time soon..
on the path 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 08:05 AM.