Let's drag this thread kicking and screaming back to where it started. If you get an HRM, the formulas they use to set the maximum rate for on the display is intended to be safe for statistically all people, which is why it ends up being reasonably low. If you read the fine manual, you will probably see a note about exceeding that rate only under a doctors supervision. This is because while a very fit life long athlete may be able to exceed that rate by a significant margin, not everyone can. Take for example Jonathan, he is 47, smokes, needs to lose 80lbs, has a desk job, spends all his spare time time in front of the TV, he did kinda play football (his position was bench warmer) decides he needs to get healthy as his 54 year old brother just dropped dead due to cardiac pump failure. So he starts cycling, because his knees bother him so running is not a good idea.

He buys the fancy new plastic computer (with GPS and HRM) for his fancy new plastic bicycle, and needs a MaxHR to put into the machine. (220-age)*.8 is close enough, at this point while still being reasonably safe. If when he is 50 he has lost the weight and the coffin nails and wants to do more, his doctor can send him to a sports medicine specialist to do the proper testing for true MaxHR.

I would certainly admit that I don't have the medical background that these people have. Perhaps having that background allows one to work around these problems and make the most of an imperfect test. Hopefully they recognize the shortcomings of the protocol and take that into account. Unfortunately, in my experience many docs blindly accept 220-age from the textbook and don't realize the problems. The "loads of history" she refers to may be repetition of the basic error. Polar has "loads of history" and they build 220-age into their monitors. As far as the "first do no harm" theory, what about those on the low side of the curve who would be pushed to a level they can't attain?

This (from the NYT article) is what Dr. Michael Lauer, a cardiologist and the director of clinical research in cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation said on the issue:
"The danger, he said, is that when doctors use that formula to decide when to end a treadmill test, they can inadvertently mislead themselves and their patients. Some patients may be stopping too soon and others may seem to have a heart problem because they never can get to what is supposed to be their maximum rate.

"Some people are being pushed and others are not," Dr. Lauer said. "In my view, that is unacceptable." (emphasis added)
I agree.

Problem is, the formula can just as easily give too high a number as too low of one.

But do they go on to tell him that the rates given are only a rough estimate and may be too high or low for his individual circumstance? Or that the nice, neat training zones they detail may be way off for him? I think Polar et. al. have a vested interest in making HR training easy and simple to follow. I don't think the misleading nature of their literature has altruistic motives. How many monitors would they sell if they told people that they are useless unless they spend a couple of hundred bucks at a physiology lab to figure out their accurate zones or do enough self testing to figure it out themselves?

Tom, I've had a stress test, and it did not result in getting a medical recommendation as to my training zones. I just had one again the other day (follow up after a few years), and we'll see if I can get that.

How did you get that information out of the stress test, or perhaps a better question, what information did you get from the stress test?

Ok, I want to read this, but I really can't find a link to what you are talking about. Would you please repeat it, or PM it if repetition is too irritating to others?

I think you are on the right track.

I started riding / training with heart rate when I restarted cycling in May 2006 @ age 57. I found it confusing and that my heart rate tended to be high most of the time. Also, it was easy to get to a high heart rate or maximum. Over time, I received guidance from cycling coaches, read books / articles and gained a lot of experience just riding and especially racing.

Here are some of my experiences:

1. When i first started out, my body was not efficient at channeling blood to power producing muscles and temperature control under higher power so my heart would pump faster and flood everything with blood. My face used to get very red especially if it was hot. That does not happen any longer.

2. My heart rate would go high and when I would stop or coast stay high. The rate of decline was slow. If I reduced my level of effort but increased cadence my HR would shoot up. Today, my HR drops quickly the moment I reduce effort @ 25 beats per minute and if I am pedaling hard at say 90 rpm and go from the front of the pack to the interior and increase cadence to 100 to 110 my heart rate still drops fast and I get a faster recovery. This is key to the ability to race in a pack or paceline. The faster the heart rate drops after sustained efforts the better the fitness of the athlete.

3. As I became more fit, it was increasingly more difficult to get to a max. Today, I need to be warmed up, a lot of adrenaline and competition in a race situation to get to a max. I cannot do it on my own no matter how hard I kill and I am really good at this.

4. The best way for me to get heart rate zones is to base them on lactate threshold. The best way for me to get that number is from a time trial. I found Joe Friel's .95 for the average HR of a time trial race to be the most reliable. For heart rate zone calculation I use the Coggan formula developed by Andy Coggan and published in his book Training and Racing with a Power Meter and plug in the number from a time trial.

5. If I lower my cadence by 10% or do low cadence climbing intervals 50 rpm, my heart rate is much lower for a large level of effort. Conversely, if I do high 100 cadence z4 climbing intervals, my heart rate is very high and approaches what would be z5 or z6.

6. Most of my training is targeted to z3 which is the 140 ish heart rate. However, the cyclist's heart as it becomes more fit gets larger and the wall thickens. It can produce a greater stroke volume per beat. So the effect is 1 beat equals a lot more power than it was before and all the blood get channeled to power production i.e. lungs, transport and muscles required for power. Other bodily functions are systematically managed to give priority to those muscles. Hence, I have to keep going faster and faster to maintain z3.

I started training with a power meter last August and got a new coach who understands how to coach with power. It was very revealing and much harder. My heart rate is all over the place from day to day and varies greatly due to rest, hydration, stress, sleep, food, digestion and etc. I read and studied Racing and Training with a Power Meter by Coggan and Allen and belong to the google Wattage group where Allen and Coggan post and answer questions.

The key advantage of power meter training is having perfect communication with my coach and doing the higher intensity intervals to completion at the prescribed power level. Heart rate is a terrible indicator for doing z5 and z6 intervals. IMO, one is better off relying on perceived effort than heart rate.

Maintaining z3 power at 100 cadence is tough. Maintaining z3 heart rate at 100 cadence is pretty easy. The reason is the rest that one gets but is not really aware of it. When I ride at z3 power, it feels relentless. On the slight downhill, the power immediately starts to drop and I have to shift into a bigger gear and work hard. With HR, I unintentionally tended to let up on the slight downhill and even a little rest for a few seconds and I am getting a recovery. With z3 power, there is not even a moment of recovery. So one learns to keep the power on the pedal and what it feels like. That is the most important aspect of interval training is to keep the power on for the duration. That is what increases power and endurance over the interval and produces the most physiological changes.

Training is not about heart rate but shocking your body. I am always doing things that are difficult. - High cadence, high power, Low cadence, high power, Low power very high cadence or high power self selected cadence long duration.

Now for riders returning to cycling to get the most from heart rate is just ride and keep it easy and observe how you react. HR is going to fluctuate but the key is you have to develop some bike fitness before you can get into more advanced stuff.

So my advice is ride a lot, spin easier gears and bias the rides to longer distances (more endurance) for a few months. Track your heart rate and over time you will learn your lactate threshold and get a better handle on the zones and how to use heart rate training as a tool.:)

Very educational and informative Hermes. Thanks for taking the time to share the information.

Here it is. You may have to register with the New York times to read, but its free and worth it.

Nice post. I've never tried power training ( and probably won't-- as a non-race it's hard to justify the expense. There are other toys I could spend $1000+ on). But I am somewhat confused by it. I understand that it more accurately tells you how much work you're performing and allows for precise replication of workouts. But if the point of training is to induce adaptations by stressing the body, how does it gauge this? Assume I do the same power based workout on 2 different days. The first time I'm at a HR of x bpm; the next time, because of rest, biorhythms , etc I'm at x + 10 bpm. Haven't I worked harder the second time? Or if, as a result of training, I'm now able to do the workout at x-10 bpm,, am I not working less hard & need to increase intensity to continue to produce adaptations?And if I only use power, how will I know this?

Off the subject, I know, but I've wondered about this.

I don't have an HRM, so I do not know exactly what the manual says. I think it's pretty safe to assume that the guidelines are going to err on the side of caution. The person returning to cycling after a 20 or 25 year hiatus, is probably fine using the guideline at the start. If they want to go higher then the guideline then they need a cardiac workup with a stress test. If they are serious about training for performance, then they need MaxHR and LT tests. Mind you, a good percentage of cyclists, the ones who ride for fun and exercise, don't need these numbers. I know I don't, see I really don't care.

To finish dragging this back to the OP's question:

The numbers provided with the HRM are a rough guideline, they are not gospel. If you want your actual MaxHR, which may in fact be considerably higher, you need to get your doctor to refer you to a sports medicine specialist who does specific testing to discover it. Your doctor will probably do a full cardiac workup first, including a stress test, to make sure there are no underlying cardiac issues that could make the testing dangerous.

I have too, and I'm with you. I don't train with power, but I've been using HR for years. And it seems to me that the key to either is to use your intelligence and listen to your body. There are days when I can cruise at close to HR 170 for a long time, and there are days when the perceived effort of that HR is too great to sustain for more than a few minutes. So I back off a bit. Presumably there are days when sustaining 600 watts results in an HR of 160, and days when the same wattage takes an HR of 170+. So is the sensible thing to maintain the wattage and maybe exhaust yourself, or back off and avoid the risk of overtraining? I'd say that with experience, perceived effort is really important. It may be subjective, but nothing could be worse than trying to apply a supposedly objective test to an organic and therefore intrinsically variable system - such as my body.

What is the 'Proper' Heart Rate
 

I don't know what can be done do come up with meaningful advice regarding heart rate monitors and training. There are so many misconceptions and contradictory perspectives that picking which ideas to use amongst all the chatter is indeed a crap shoot.

One or two things will always stand out as "aaaz-backward."

1. The idea of a "new user" trying to determine max heart rate by exercising at the "start" of a fitness routine is just plain dumb - and maybe even dangerous.

2. Absolute ignorance of the idea of recording and developing a personal "library" of heart rate readings across several dozen workouts which would serve as the basis to formulate possible heart rate goals for certain targeted workouts.

In other words, did anyone say just go out and use the monitor, write down results for a couple of weeks and then go figure out what you think your "zones" are?

Your heart rate monitor is only as valuable as your heart-rate/workout-results history.

THanks....

I do not want to derail OPs HR thread with a power discussion. I will start another thread and carry your question over and we and anyone else may join in on the fine points of training (or not) with power.

To pique your curiosity, I will risk stating that IMO, you would love it. And it has nothing to do with racing or even riding a bicycle. If one has an interest in cycling, training, heart rate, performance and its nuances, power training and the information provided by Training Peaks software is totally amazing and a lot of fun. However, if one hates data, analysis, quantification, deeper understanding or lacks the motivation or ability to use the software then it is a bust even if you are a racer.

I don't think this is a valid assumption. That is certainly not the way it is presented. It is presented as a way to accurately determine training zones to achieve specific results. Polar doesn't tell you that the zones built into their watches are just suggestions that may or may not put you into the training zone indicated. And as as I've said, the guidelines may just as well be too high as too low. This is from Polar's website:

"Getting the most out of your training doesn’t always mean working faster or harder. The best way to improving and seeing results is to train at the right intensity. With a Polar heart rate monitor, you can make sure you’re not over or under training, and make each session count. Use Polar as your wrist-based personal trainer, motivating you each and every time you train.

Calculate Your Maximum Heart Rate
220 - Your Age = Maximum heart rate. For example, a 30 year old’s maximum heart rate = 220 - 30 = 190
Level 3 moderate range = 190 x 70-80% = 133-152bpm"

I don't see anything saying this is just a rough guideline that errs on the side of safety.



That's fine; I have no issue with that. I'm just saying that if someone is going to base their training around these numbers, they should be accurate and they should have a clear understanding of what they mean.

I don't think anyone here is advocating this. Certainly not me.

This is basically what Friel and others advocate when they describe how to determine and reevaluate lactate threshold and base training off that.

I'll look for it.

Great. Another way to waste time!

You need to perform periodic tests to determine your threshold (FTP) and/or shorter term power levels. Generally you would do your intervals at a fixed percentage of your FTP so as you become stronger you also work harder.

Training with power makes it easier to do shorter intervals 1-5 minutes where HR doesn't have time to respond.

HR can be higher for a variety of reasons like outdoor temperature or state of hydration. However, just because it's hot outside and your heart is working a little harder to keep you cool doesn't mean your muscles are getting a better workout.

Makes sense. BTW: new thread for this started by Hermes.

What a great bunch of replies on this question. I have learned a tremendous amount and thank each and every one that replied in earnest.

Greg

Richard, are you saying that coaches have absolutely no basis for establishing zones based on good guidelines and some key rider performance data?

It's the only way to train. I use them especially when training for a long distance ride like Colorado's Triple Bypass. It helps me keep a little fuel in the tank for the finish.

Sarge

Check out this as an alternative for focusing just on HR.
http://spintastic.blogspot.com/2008/...perceived.html

Check out this as an alternative for focusing just on HR.
http://spintastic.blogspot.com/2008/...perceived.html