What do you guys make of my heart rate?
01-10-15, 10:01 PM
#26
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,534
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
My language was sloppy. Instead of single point. So many things can influence heart rate a single lead number is nearly useless by itself. That there is a change over time really doesn't mean much.
Roger on the incompatibility. That is why I've settled on ANT+ stuff. It is also compatible with my smartphone, although I don't use my smartphone for nav or the toy factor.
Roger on the incompatibility. That is why I've settled on ANT+ stuff. It is also compatible with my smartphone, although I don't use my smartphone for nav or the toy factor.
01-10-15, 10:02 PM
#27
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,448
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3146 Post(s)
Liked 1,711 Times
in
1,033 Posts
Modern HRM transmitters are coded and locked to their receivers. That's been the case for well over a decade. Older HRM transmitters only had a range of about 6'. I've never seen crosstalk between HRMs on a group ride and I've been on well over 1000 of them. Never. I'm calling it . . .
Besides that, you're just wrong. HRMs are as accurate at displaying and recording HR as an EKG. One does hear reports of static from jersey flap, a failed transmitter strap, or failure to use EKG gel to get a good connection to the skin. But that's happens so seldom it's almost impossible to document. To me, maybe once a year, maybe less.
I've been using HRMs as a training tool for over 15 years. They are accurate and invaluable. Many people prefer them to power. That said, HRMs display physical stress. There are reasons for physical stress other than as a result of physical activity. However, knowing one's level of physical stress is always a good idea.
Besides that, you're just wrong. HRMs are as accurate at displaying and recording HR as an EKG. One does hear reports of static from jersey flap, a failed transmitter strap, or failure to use EKG gel to get a good connection to the skin. But that's happens so seldom it's almost impossible to document. To me, maybe once a year, maybe less.
I've been using HRMs as a training tool for over 15 years. They are accurate and invaluable. Many people prefer them to power. That said, HRMs display physical stress. There are reasons for physical stress other than as a result of physical activity. However, knowing one's level of physical stress is always a good idea.
01-10-15, 10:12 PM
#28
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,534
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
According to my doctor, who is a athletic training physician (his speciality) as well as a primary care physician, he regurgitates what I've heard before. It's all about efficiency. To put it simply, the reason we see changes in heart rate is because the heart becomes more efficient, and has to do less work to get the same amount of blood flowing. It's also why we have to keep improving in order to keep burning as many calories (one of the reasons he suggested a HRM for keeping track of calories burned. Anything else is just a wild guess). Because as the heart becomes more efficient, it requires less fuel to keep going. Suddenly a 12 minute mile burns fewer calories than it used to and now we need to move up to a 10 minute mile to continue to get the same benefit as before, etc. (But the effort level for the 10 minute mile should be the same as the 12 minute mile when we first made it to that speed). And so on and so forth until you're Ussain Bolt 
A sedentary lifestyle breeds an inefficient heart that pumps less blood per contraction and thus has to beat more (The reason heart rate typically drops when we become active), though the advantage of beginning to lose weight after being sedentary is that our inefficient heart has to work really hard to do even a moderate (by an athletes standards) amount of work; burning a lot of calories!
A sedentary lifestyle breeds an inefficient heart that pumps less blood per contraction and thus has to beat more (The reason heart rate typically drops when we become active), though the advantage of beginning to lose weight after being sedentary is that our inefficient heart has to work really hard to do even a moderate (by an athletes standards) amount of work; burning a lot of calories!
The heart does not become more efficient. As it becomes more muscular in response to athletic stress, its stroke volume goes up. Thus HR for the same effort goes down. However, that has nothing to do with calorie burn. The heart pumps the same amount of blood for a given effort, regardless of HR. Thus it accomplishes the same amount of work and burns the same (very small) number of calories. Calorie burn is dependent on speed, swept area, and weight, with some minor terms for bike efficiency. No matter what your HR, you burn the same calories at the same speed on the same slope. It's just physics. However, variation of HR with effort in response to training is one reason that HRM calculated calorie burn is hilariously wrong and frequently double actual burn.
If you want a decent estimate of calorie burn, get a Garmin GPS unit with a barometric altimeter. Establish a Strava account with accurate values for you and your bike with typical load. Upload your rides to Strava. It uses the equations of motion to calculate calorie burn and is thus much more accurate than any HRM. It's still an estimate, though.
If you want to know calorie in/calorie out balance, use a scale. Modern digital scales are very accurate.
01-10-15, 10:15 PM
#29
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,558
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 2,179 Times
in
1,469 Posts
Besides that, you're just wrong. HRMs are as accurate at displaying and recording HR as an EKG. One does hear reports of static from jersey flap, a failed transmitter strap, or failure to use EKG gel to get a good connection to the skin. But that's happens so seldom it's almost impossible to document. To me, maybe once a year, maybe less.
.
During the Spring and early summer on days when it's hot and dry, I get bad or no readings maybe 1/3rd of the time. That's why Garmin came out with their "red" package a few years ago. I just got a new Garmin and m anxious to see how it works when it gets hot and dry out and I have just a jersey on
01-10-15, 10:29 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710
Bikes: Nashbar CR5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
You misunderstood your physician. Or possibly you have vastly overestimated your physician's knowledge of athletics.
The heart does not become more efficient. As it becomes more muscular in response to athletic stress, its stroke volume goes up. Thus HR for the same effort goes down. However, that has nothing to do with calorie burn. The heart pumps the same amount of blood for a given effort, regardless of HR. Thus it accomplishes the same amount of work and burns the same (very small) number of calories. Calorie burn is dependent on speed, swept area, and weight, with some minor terms for bike efficiency. No matter what your HR, you burn the same calories at the same speed on the same slope. It's just physics. However, variation of HR with effort in response to training is one reason that HRM calculated calorie burn is hilariously wrong and frequently double actual burn.
If you want a decent estimate of calorie burn, get a Garmin GPS unit with a barometric altimeter. Establish a Strava account with accurate values for you and your bike with typical load. Upload your rides to Strava. It uses the equations of motion to calculate calorie burn and is thus much more accurate than any HRM. It's still an estimate, though.
If you want to know calorie in/calorie out balance, use a scale. Modern digital scales are very accurate.
The heart does not become more efficient. As it becomes more muscular in response to athletic stress, its stroke volume goes up. Thus HR for the same effort goes down. However, that has nothing to do with calorie burn. The heart pumps the same amount of blood for a given effort, regardless of HR. Thus it accomplishes the same amount of work and burns the same (very small) number of calories. Calorie burn is dependent on speed, swept area, and weight, with some minor terms for bike efficiency. No matter what your HR, you burn the same calories at the same speed on the same slope. It's just physics. However, variation of HR with effort in response to training is one reason that HRM calculated calorie burn is hilariously wrong and frequently double actual burn.
If you want a decent estimate of calorie burn, get a Garmin GPS unit with a barometric altimeter. Establish a Strava account with accurate values for you and your bike with typical load. Upload your rides to Strava. It uses the equations of motion to calculate calorie burn and is thus much more accurate than any HRM. It's still an estimate, though.
If you want to know calorie in/calorie out balance, use a scale. Modern digital scales are very accurate.
My doctor was probably simplifying things. It wouldn't be the first time a Physician uber-simplified things to help a patient understand the gist of a concept. When I was 12 I had my appendix out and my surgeon hilariously underestimated my mental/psychological capacity to understand what was going on. She talked to me like I was 4. (Okay now, we're going to have to go night night and then I'm going to do an operation and you'll wake up feeling all better.) 12 isn't an adult grad student; but it's old enough to understand I had something in me that had to come out. Actually, I had a pretty good grasp on what she told my parents. I'm no expert. Only the product of what I've learned. Doesn't mean she wasn't a good surgeon though. Actually she was a professor of surgery (The hospital I went to was attached to a medical school). I wouldn't discount a physician because they don't break things down as well as others. Admittedly, I do like when a Doctor "try's me" and just go ahead and explains the nitty gritty of what's going on and let's me ask questions when I don't understand something; instead of just simplifying it assuming I won't understand.
Keep in mind, that the software I'm using doesn't arbitrarily take heart rate and calculate calories from there. It factors in weight, time, gender, age; and then determines effort level based on heart rate. It can't possibly be super accurate (in terms of counting calories; they are very accurate in terms of heart rate. Really, heart rate is hard to 'mess up'. Some have issues because they are designed to work on sweaty skin; so much so that they are a little finnicky when used on dry skin. But EKG gel or even just clean water often fixes that)
At the end of the day, I'm stronger, I'm faster, and I'm well over 100lbs lighter (though I've only been using a HRM for a portion of it all). So, I guess I could be "wrong". But my "bad info" sure is having some good results. I really don't think the effectiveness of an HRM should be discounted just because it isn't necessary. (I was losing before I started using it, sure. But now that I am using it, I'm losing at about the same rate; a little faster, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to advance in terms of fitness and I'm doing that at a MUCH faster rate. I can run farther, faster, and feel better after a workout since using a HRM on the days I interval train)
And to be clear, I don't rely on calorie burn data from the HRM. I use it more of a benchmark. I think you're maybe thinking that we're using HRM's like a razor sharp science, rather than as an effective metric to view ballpark changes over time.
And, frankly; there is a LOT of science out there to suggest heart rate interval training is EXTREMELY effective. And it has been for me. I haven't STOPPED measuring distance and speed. But I know that HRM interval training has significantly (SIGNIFICANTLY) increased the speed at which I improve. You can interval train without a HRM, but for me at least; it's less effective.
Nope. HR monitors generally provide very reliable readings most of the time. But they are notorious for providing false reading or just not working, especially at the start of a ride. I ride with lots of people and groups and everyone occasionally has problems. I've used Polar, Garmin, Sigma and a couple other brands and they all experience it. It happens most often when humidity is low. Synthetic jersey materials and not enough moisture from the body contact to the straps are the most common causes.
During the Spring and early summer on days when it's hot and dry, I get bad or no readings maybe 1/3rd of the time. That's why Garmin came out with their "red" package a few years ago. I just got a new Garmin and m anxious to see how it works when it gets hot and dry out and I have just a jersey on
During the Spring and early summer on days when it's hot and dry, I get bad or no readings maybe 1/3rd of the time. That's why Garmin came out with their "red" package a few years ago. I just got a new Garmin and m anxious to see how it works when it gets hot and dry out and I have just a jersey on
Last edited by RomansFiveEight; 01-10-15 at 10:36 PM.
01-10-15, 10:41 PM
#31
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,534
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Nope. HR monitors generally provide very reliable readings most of the time. But they are notorious for providing false reading or just not working, especially at the start of a ride. I ride with lots of people and groups and everyone occasionally has problems. I've used Polar, Garmin, Sigma and a couple other brands and they all experience it. It happens most often when humidity is low. Synthetic jersey materials and not enough moisture from the body contact to the straps are the most common causes.
During the Spring and early summer on days when it's hot and dry, I get bad or no readings maybe 1/3rd of the time. That's why Garmin came out with their "red" package a few years ago. I just got a new Garmin and m anxious to see how it works when it gets hot and dry out and I have just a jersey on
During the Spring and early summer on days when it's hot and dry, I get bad or no readings maybe 1/3rd of the time. That's why Garmin came out with their "red" package a few years ago. I just got a new Garmin and m anxious to see how it works when it gets hot and dry out and I have just a jersey on
Robot Check
It's cheap and works like a charm. If you still have problems, your strap is no good. Hopefully you're running a modern snap-on transmitter. Snap it to one of these:
Polar Replacement Soft Strap for Wearlink/Bluetooth/W.I.N.D. Transmitters
01-11-15, 12:28 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
According to my doctor, who is a athletic training physician (his speciality) as well as a primary care physician, he regurgitates what I've heard before. It's all about efficiency. To put it simply, the reason we see changes in heart rate is because the heart becomes more efficient, and has to do less work to get the same amount of blood flowing. It's also why we have to keep improving in order to keep burning as many calories (one of the reasons he suggested a HRM for keeping track of calories burned. Anything else is just a wild guess). Because as the heart becomes more efficient, it requires less fuel to keep going. Suddenly a 12 minute mile burns fewer calories than it used to and now we need to move up to a 10 minute mile to continue to get the same benefit as before, etc. (But the effort level for the 10 minute mile should be the same as the 12 minute mile when we first made it to that speed). And so on and so forth until you're Ussain Bolt
As your fitness improves the amount of power you can output increases and the number of calories you burn tracks linearly. Change your threshold power from 200 to 300W and you'll change your calorie burn from approx 720 to 1080 Cals/hr. Efficiency varies from one individual to another but it doesn't change much and is not correlated to fitness.
I think you may be confusing stroke volume with efficiency. It's true that an athletes heart can grow and stroke volume can go up allowing the same cardiac output at a lower rate but it doesn't really help you in any meaningful way.
01-11-15, 05:55 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
We started in this by asking what folks made of a heart rate as reported by a person's heart rate monitor. Fact is that number is a single point single parameter measurement that does not tell as person much at all about the heart. Whether the heart rate goes up, down or sideways is influenced by several variables that are just not measured by that device. To attribute much significance to the metric is just wrong.
01-11-15, 06:21 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: SW Fl.
Posts: 5,619
Bikes: Day6 Semi Recumbent "FIREBALL", 1981 Custom Touring Paramount, 1983 Road Paramount, 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3, 2018 Specialized Red Roubaix Expert mech., 2002 Magna 7sp hybrid, 1976 Bassett Racing 45sp Cruiser
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1069 Post(s)
Liked 787 Times
in
505 Posts
Modern HRM transmitters are coded and locked to their receivers. That's been the case for well over a decade. Older HRM transmitters only had a range of about 6'. I've never seen crosstalk between HRMs on a group ride and I've been on well over 1000 of them. Never. I'm calling it . . .
Besides that, you're just wrong. HRMs are as accurate at displaying and recording HR as an EKG. One does hear reports of static from jersey flap, a failed transmitter strap, or failure to use EKG gel to get a good connection to the skin. But that's happens so seldom it's almost impossible to document. To me, maybe once a year, maybe less.
I've been using HRMs as a training tool for over 15 years. They are accurate and invaluable. Many people prefer them to power. That said, HRMs display physical stress. There are reasons for physical stress other than as a result of physical activity. However, knowing one's level of physical stress is always a good idea.
Besides that, you're just wrong. HRMs are as accurate at displaying and recording HR as an EKG. One does hear reports of static from jersey flap, a failed transmitter strap, or failure to use EKG gel to get a good connection to the skin. But that's happens so seldom it's almost impossible to document. To me, maybe once a year, maybe less.
I've been using HRMs as a training tool for over 15 years. They are accurate and invaluable. Many people prefer them to power. That said, HRMs display physical stress. There are reasons for physical stress other than as a result of physical activity. However, knowing one's level of physical stress is always a good idea.
01-11-15, 09:41 PM
#35
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,534
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I suppose it's possible that you might have run across a transmitter with the identical code to yours, but that seems unlikely. I would call Garmin tech support to resolve this issue.
Polar units are different. They pair with the closest coded transmitter when they are turned on. This is not a permanent pairing, but they will not receive data from a different transmitter than the one with which they paired when turned on. Again, were this not true, they would have a very hard time selling units. Very old Polar units were not coded and did not pair, but I haven't seen one of those in a long time, nor did I ever have cross talk problems with them because of their short range.
01-12-15, 04:16 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You all are lucky. My poor, young, heart can only go to 170. Most of the people I ride with are at around the same heart rate I am in the same conditions, but like you all, they can go to 185, 190, 200. Basically, they are hanging out in zone 2 and I am in 3. When they go to 4, I only have a short while before I'm cooked.
Performance is limited by oxygen delivery. Oxygen delivery is limited by beats per minute and stroke volume, per beat. (Plus loads of other stuff, like how much oxygen is carried in a unit of blood.)
To the OP: if your heart can pump away comfortably at 170 (my max) you can theoretically deliver a lot more blood than I can, at the same level of exertion. Lucky bastard!
I have worked a lot on stroke volume, which can increase with exercise. My resting HR in the morning dips into the 30s. But I'll never be a great cyclist because of that damn low max HR.
Performance is limited by oxygen delivery. Oxygen delivery is limited by beats per minute and stroke volume, per beat. (Plus loads of other stuff, like how much oxygen is carried in a unit of blood.)
To the OP: if your heart can pump away comfortably at 170 (my max) you can theoretically deliver a lot more blood than I can, at the same level of exertion. Lucky bastard!
I have worked a lot on stroke volume, which can increase with exercise. My resting HR in the morning dips into the 30s. But I'll never be a great cyclist because of that damn low max HR.
01-12-15, 05:00 AM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 65
Bikes: Batavus
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I never heard of HR monitors failing, except when people don't apply some water to the sensors before riding.
It is written in pretty much all documentation to apply water to the strap before putting it on. (I know that at least Garmin, Suunto, Polar and Sigma tell their users to do so).
They will hardly ever fail, and there is never any cross-signalling because all modern sensors are coded.
The only problem I have is when I ride past a pirate-radio station that is located near my route, and it shows a HR of over 200 for a couple of seconds.
And a max HR of 195 or 160, it doesn't really matter, pretty much everyone can reach the same results (poweroutput) (within limits of course).
It is written in pretty much all documentation to apply water to the strap before putting it on. (I know that at least Garmin, Suunto, Polar and Sigma tell their users to do so).
They will hardly ever fail, and there is never any cross-signalling because all modern sensors are coded.
The only problem I have is when I ride past a pirate-radio station that is located near my route, and it shows a HR of over 200 for a couple of seconds.
And a max HR of 195 or 160, it doesn't really matter, pretty much everyone can reach the same results (poweroutput) (within limits of course).
01-12-15, 06:27 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,061
Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You misunderstood your physician. Or possibly you have vastly overestimated your physician's knowledge of athletics.
The heart does not become more efficient. As it becomes more muscular in response to athletic stress, its stroke volume goes up. Thus HR for the same effort goes down. However, that has nothing to do with calorie burn. The heart pumps the same amount of blood for a given effort, regardless of HR. Thus it accomplishes the same amount of work and burns the same (very small) number of calories. Calorie burn is dependent on speed, swept area, and weight, with some minor terms for bike efficiency. No matter what your HR, you burn the same calories at the same speed on the same slope. It's just physics. However, variation of HR with effort in response to training is one reason that HRM calculated calorie burn is hilariously wrong and frequently double actual burn.
If you want a decent estimate of calorie burn, get a Garmin GPS unit with a barometric altimeter. Establish a Strava account with accurate values for you and your bike with typical load. Upload your rides to Strava. It uses the equations of motion to calculate calorie burn and is thus much more accurate than any HRM. It's still an estimate, though.
If you want to know calorie in/calorie out balance, use a scale. Modern digital scales are very accurate.
The heart does not become more efficient. As it becomes more muscular in response to athletic stress, its stroke volume goes up. Thus HR for the same effort goes down. However, that has nothing to do with calorie burn. The heart pumps the same amount of blood for a given effort, regardless of HR. Thus it accomplishes the same amount of work and burns the same (very small) number of calories. Calorie burn is dependent on speed, swept area, and weight, with some minor terms for bike efficiency. No matter what your HR, you burn the same calories at the same speed on the same slope. It's just physics. However, variation of HR with effort in response to training is one reason that HRM calculated calorie burn is hilariously wrong and frequently double actual burn.
If you want a decent estimate of calorie burn, get a Garmin GPS unit with a barometric altimeter. Establish a Strava account with accurate values for you and your bike with typical load. Upload your rides to Strava. It uses the equations of motion to calculate calorie burn and is thus much more accurate than any HRM. It's still an estimate, though.
If you want to know calorie in/calorie out balance, use a scale. Modern digital scales are very accurate.
But I do not think we know enough about what happens when a person transitions from highly unfit to being fit or even highly fit... There are simply too many factors involved to make blanket conclusions...
An unfit person will be stressing the heart (for instance) beyond its normal range of efficiency and, while it may be doing its best to keep providing for the needs of the rest of the body, is it doing so efficiently? An analogy where things are better known is heart failure -- where the actin and myosin fibers of the myocytes (the heart's muscle cells) have been stretched out beyond their ability to work efficiently and so the heart muscle simply does not have the strength to operate efficiently -- its working hard, but not pumping much blood... Or tachycardias where the heart is beating so quickly that it simply does not have time for its chambers to refill with blood before the next pump -- so it is working hard but still not pumping much blood....
Or, a simpler analogy may be an old car in need of a tune up: it's burning a lot of gasoline (calories), but its not producing much actual power....
01-12-15, 06:49 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,061
Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I weigh most of my food on a digital scale. Have since I begun losing weight. A little over 120 pounds down now so, I must be doing SOMETHING right.
...
And, frankly; there is a LOT of science out there to suggest heart rate interval training is EXTREMELY effective. And it has been for me. I haven't STOPPED measuring distance and speed. But I know that HRM interval training has significantly (SIGNIFICANTLY) increased the speed at which I improve. You can interval train without a HRM, but for me at least; it's less effective.
...
.
...
And, frankly; there is a LOT of science out there to suggest heart rate interval training is EXTREMELY effective. And it has been for me. I haven't STOPPED measuring distance and speed. But I know that HRM interval training has significantly (SIGNIFICANTLY) increased the speed at which I improve. You can interval train without a HRM, but for me at least; it's less effective.
...
.
And I agree that there is a lot of science out there to support heart rate based interval training -- just as there is to support non-heart rate based interval training...
I think too often we here take things too seriously and think too much:
Which exercise should we do? Walking? Walking at a moderate pace? Riding? Riding at a moderate pace? Or an easy pace with 10% intervals?, Or Z4 instead of Z3, Or...
The fact is: pretty much any activity is better than no activity and when we get down to splitting hairs over which one is best -- and then start extrapolating that one is effective and the other is not, we are losing the forest for the trees...
Are heart rate based intervals beneficial? -- of course they are...
Are non-heart rate based interval beneficial? -- of course they are...
... Now, which one is MOST beneficial? Perhaps it is the one that you will do? Or, perhaps if your heart is your limiting factor (as it is for many new to fitness), then heart rate based training is the best for you. I know for myself, when I took my first ride 3 years ago, I made it 3 miles and nearly fell off the bike with my heart pounding, my head spinning and my legs like quivering... Clearly my cardiovascular system could not keep up. Today, after a lot of work, my cardiovascular system is better able to keep up the pace than is my skeletal muscle -- at the end of a ride, my body is tired and worn out but my heart and my breathing quickly return to normal levels and do not feel stressed at all...
As my fitness level has changed my exercise regimens have had to change as well... There is no 'one size fits all solution'.
01-12-15, 12:56 PM
#40
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,534
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
All good points -- and certainly true within a given range of fitness.
But I do not think we know enough about what happens when a person transitions from highly unfit to being fit or even highly fit... There are simply too many factors involved to make blanket conclusions...
An unfit person will be stressing the heart (for instance) beyond its normal range of efficiency and, while it may be doing its best to keep providing for the needs of the rest of the body, is it doing so efficiently? An analogy where things are better known is heart failure -- where the actin and myosin fibers of the myocytes (the heart's muscle cells) have been stretched out beyond their ability to work efficiently and so the heart muscle simply does not have the strength to operate efficiently -- its working hard, but not pumping much blood... Or tachycardias where the heart is beating so quickly that it simply does not have time for its chambers to refill with blood before the next pump -- so it is working hard but still not pumping much blood....
Or, a simpler analogy may be an old car in need of a tune up: it's burning a lot of gasoline (calories), but its not producing much actual power....
But I do not think we know enough about what happens when a person transitions from highly unfit to being fit or even highly fit... There are simply too many factors involved to make blanket conclusions...
An unfit person will be stressing the heart (for instance) beyond its normal range of efficiency and, while it may be doing its best to keep providing for the needs of the rest of the body, is it doing so efficiently? An analogy where things are better known is heart failure -- where the actin and myosin fibers of the myocytes (the heart's muscle cells) have been stretched out beyond their ability to work efficiently and so the heart muscle simply does not have the strength to operate efficiently -- its working hard, but not pumping much blood... Or tachycardias where the heart is beating so quickly that it simply does not have time for its chambers to refill with blood before the next pump -- so it is working hard but still not pumping much blood....
Or, a simpler analogy may be an old car in need of a tune up: it's burning a lot of gasoline (calories), but its not producing much actual power....
An unfit person's heart will certainly beat more frequently in response to exercise than a fit person's. I don't think we are morally qualified to judge that heart's efficiency. It's its own best judge of how to beat.
01-12-15, 01:11 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 710
Bikes: Nashbar CR5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
As in every dorm room conversation, "Define your terms." Romans was defining heart efficiency as reduced calorie burn at the same speed, which of course is not true. The entire circulatory system becomes better able to deliver oxygen and nutrients to the body as fitness increases. The physiology of those changes is well known and, barring the various heart diseases to which you refer, does not invalidate any heart rate based training scheme; in fact those changes are the very thing that these training schemes are designed to deliver.
An unfit person's heart will certainly beat more frequently in response to exercise than a fit person's. I don't think we are morally qualified to judge that heart's efficiency. It's its own best judge of how to beat.
An unfit person's heart will certainly beat more frequently in response to exercise than a fit person's. I don't think we are morally qualified to judge that heart's efficiency. It's its own best judge of how to beat.
Hey, I'm always learning. And I still think HRM interval training has, at least for me, been really beneficial. But I was improving with interval training before I got a HRM, too.
01-12-15, 01:29 PM
#42
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,534
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Fair enough. I'm learning like anyone else. I guess my confusion was constantly reading/hearing that it takes more and more work to burn the same amount of calories as we become more fit. But I realize that this is probably better expressed rather than in 'effort' but by in the work done. I.e., a 12 minute mile for someone out of shape who is cramping up at the end of it has probably burned more calories than an athlete for whom a 12 minute mile is something they could do in their sleep. Or is that not accurate?
Hey, I'm always learning. And I still think HRM interval training has, at least for me, been really beneficial. But I was improving with interval training before I got a HRM, too.
Hey, I'm always learning. And I still think HRM interval training has, at least for me, been really beneficial. But I was improving with interval training before I got a HRM, too.
07-08-15, 07:12 PM
#43
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 118
Bikes: 1999 Raleigh 24 spd Mtn bike, 2019 Trek ALR Checkpoint touring bike, 2012 Scott Speedster S30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
3 Posts
well, I think 170 bpm is pretty good. A nice rate to maintain for a long cycle. If you want to challenge yourself, you can either change gears and go faster, or go somewhere going uphill, then your heart rate will increase. I read a book about training using heart rate. In this book, they said that its not good to depend on the "generic" heart rate limit that the doctor imposed because one athlete wrote in this book saying that he can run and his heart rate can go up to 140 bpm while the doctor recommend that a man of his age should maintain a bpm of "165" for weight loss. So he had to run harder and faster in order to increase his heart rate. Myself, I ride bike often that when I pedal hard enough to enter zone 4 maybe 5, my bpm probably would beat 185 or 190. On a normal day of pedalling with some speed and challenge, I can barely get it over 165 bpm. So i think thats a good rate for a normal day of biking. keep it up.
