Just got a HR monitor. Am I about to die?
#1
I play in the street.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: College: K-State; Home: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 977
Bikes: 2005 Allez Triple, 1971 Schwinn Varsity Fixed Gear Conversion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just got a HR monitor. Am I about to die?
I just got a Garmin Edge 305 with the HR monitor, and my heart rate seems really high.
My max heart rate appears to be about 202, which seems normal for a 21 year old like me, so far so good. My resting heart rate is around 75, also in the normal range, if a little bit high. Here's the weird part: i went for a regular 20 mile ride on relatively flat terrain today, and my heart rate never dropped below 155 bpm (about 75% MHR). Just rolling along and spinning the pedals, I was around 160-170. Working a little harder, but still at a very sustainable pace would put me around 180. Working moderately hard, like what I would normally spend most of a training ride in, I was right at 190. Now I've read a little bit about heart rate zones, and it seems like my zones are much higher and much smaller than they should be. I would chalk it up to being out of shape, but I've been riding for nearly three years now, and have done over 1000 miles this year so far, working pretty hard.
I probably should note that this is my first ride of any considerable distance in about 3 weeks, as I have been out of the country. Would that have an effect? The weird part to me is that I feel totally relaxed and just cruising along at 160-170 bpm.
So do I have heart problems or something? Where's Dr. Pete?
My max heart rate appears to be about 202, which seems normal for a 21 year old like me, so far so good. My resting heart rate is around 75, also in the normal range, if a little bit high. Here's the weird part: i went for a regular 20 mile ride on relatively flat terrain today, and my heart rate never dropped below 155 bpm (about 75% MHR). Just rolling along and spinning the pedals, I was around 160-170. Working a little harder, but still at a very sustainable pace would put me around 180. Working moderately hard, like what I would normally spend most of a training ride in, I was right at 190. Now I've read a little bit about heart rate zones, and it seems like my zones are much higher and much smaller than they should be. I would chalk it up to being out of shape, but I've been riding for nearly three years now, and have done over 1000 miles this year so far, working pretty hard.
I probably should note that this is my first ride of any considerable distance in about 3 weeks, as I have been out of the country. Would that have an effect? The weird part to me is that I feel totally relaxed and just cruising along at 160-170 bpm.
So do I have heart problems or something? Where's Dr. Pete?
#2
Not obese just overweight
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 2,035
Bikes: Trek 7500fx, Cervelo Soloist
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#3
Making a kilometer blurry
Yeah, it varies a lot, but there's nothing alarming to me about your numbers. If you're concerned, you should chat with your Dr.
My max is 192, resting 42, LTHR 170, and I can bounce off 188 several times during a race and not pop off the back. I'm 36 now, and my MXHR back when I was 21 was only 194, so I've lost only two max beats in 15 years. My LTHR used to be up to 176 or so, but it's dropped a bit in the last couple of years, and I've still managed to get a lot faster. Everyone is different.
My max is 192, resting 42, LTHR 170, and I can bounce off 188 several times during a race and not pop off the back. I'm 36 now, and my MXHR back when I was 21 was only 194, so I've lost only two max beats in 15 years. My LTHR used to be up to 176 or so, but it's dropped a bit in the last couple of years, and I've still managed to get a lot faster. Everyone is different.
#4
Going once, going twice..
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 229
Bikes: Trek Domane
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
2 Posts
I'm 33 and my max hr as measured earlier in the summer is 203. I spent years thinking I was pushing myself when really I wasn't going nearly hard enough.
I also cruise at 163-173, outside.
Inside I get bored and 163 feels like I am punishing myself.
I also cruise at 163-173, outside.
Inside I get bored and 163 feels like I am punishing myself.
#5
Duathlete
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My perspective is that of a runner, not cyclist. I have been into HR training for a long time and read a lot on it.
What you see is very normal for most runners I know . . . those who just 'go out and run'. They have trained their body to go too hard too often, which in the end is not effective. This was me as a runner.
I read John Parker, Jr's HR training book and it turned a light on for me. It calls for spending more time at a 70% (and using his formula of finding your real max, subtracting resting, etc). At first this is incredibly hard if you have trained your body to just ramp up to 85% all the time.
For runners this means going very slow and even walking at times to get the HR down. I had to walk a lot and go very slow for a while. It sucked. he tells you it will suck. I stuck with it, many do not.
After about 6 weeks the results were really starting to show. before I started all that I was running like 9 minute miles all the time and could not get much faster. When i started, I had to run like 12's to stay at that heart rate. In 6 weeks or so I was close to back to 9's. After 6 months I was in about 8 min flat. This at my easy rate.
The second part is going hard once a week - over 85%. That used to be easy. It became insanely hard - which means I was getting in shape and I was leg limited. That would take me down to around a 6:30 mile . . . not that I could keep it up for miles and mile.
In that 6 months I dropped 30 minutes off my half marathon time - actual chip time. And the second race (the fast one) was on a much harder hilly course with driving rain and wind. I suspect I would have been 40 minutes faster all things equal.
I have brought this training over to cycling and swimming (when I can, HR is harder there) and it all still applies.
Not saying is approach is for you, or that anything is wrong with you, just giving you information.
What you see is very normal for most runners I know . . . those who just 'go out and run'. They have trained their body to go too hard too often, which in the end is not effective. This was me as a runner.
I read John Parker, Jr's HR training book and it turned a light on for me. It calls for spending more time at a 70% (and using his formula of finding your real max, subtracting resting, etc). At first this is incredibly hard if you have trained your body to just ramp up to 85% all the time.
For runners this means going very slow and even walking at times to get the HR down. I had to walk a lot and go very slow for a while. It sucked. he tells you it will suck. I stuck with it, many do not.
After about 6 weeks the results were really starting to show. before I started all that I was running like 9 minute miles all the time and could not get much faster. When i started, I had to run like 12's to stay at that heart rate. In 6 weeks or so I was close to back to 9's. After 6 months I was in about 8 min flat. This at my easy rate.
The second part is going hard once a week - over 85%. That used to be easy. It became insanely hard - which means I was getting in shape and I was leg limited. That would take me down to around a 6:30 mile . . . not that I could keep it up for miles and mile.
In that 6 months I dropped 30 minutes off my half marathon time - actual chip time. And the second race (the fast one) was on a much harder hilly course with driving rain and wind. I suspect I would have been 40 minutes faster all things equal.
I have brought this training over to cycling and swimming (when I can, HR is harder there) and it all still applies.
Not saying is approach is for you, or that anything is wrong with you, just giving you information.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,481
Bikes: Too many to list!
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
For runners this means going very slow and even walking at times to get the HR down. I had to walk a lot and go very slow for a while. It sucked. he tells you it will suck. I stuck with it, many do not.
After about 6 weeks the results were really starting to show. before I started all that I was running like 9 minute miles all the time and could not get much faster. When i started, I had to run like 12's to stay at that heart rate. In 6 weeks or so I was close to back to 9's. After 6 months I was in about 8 min flat. This at my easy rate.
The second part is going hard once a week - over 85%. That used to be easy. It became insanely hard - which means I was getting in shape and I was leg limited. That would take me down to around a 6:30 mile . . . not that I could keep it up for miles and mile.
In that 6 months I dropped 30 minutes off my half marathon time - actual chip time. And the second race (the fast one) was on a much harder hilly course with driving rain and wind. I suspect I would have been 40 minutes faster all things equal.
I have brought this training over to cycling and swimming (when I can, HR is harder there) and it all still applies.
After about 6 weeks the results were really starting to show. before I started all that I was running like 9 minute miles all the time and could not get much faster. When i started, I had to run like 12's to stay at that heart rate. In 6 weeks or so I was close to back to 9's. After 6 months I was in about 8 min flat. This at my easy rate.
The second part is going hard once a week - over 85%. That used to be easy. It became insanely hard - which means I was getting in shape and I was leg limited. That would take me down to around a 6:30 mile . . . not that I could keep it up for miles and mile.
In that 6 months I dropped 30 minutes off my half marathon time - actual chip time. And the second race (the fast one) was on a much harder hilly course with driving rain and wind. I suspect I would have been 40 minutes faster all things equal.
I have brought this training over to cycling and swimming (when I can, HR is harder there) and it all still applies.
... Brad
#9
Duathlete
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Heartrate training for the compleat idiot
John Parker, Jr.
I think the complete is spelled wrong like I have it, as I recall. Not a over flashy book (even some sub par editing) but it is a bible to many runners. I cannot recommend it enough.
John Parker, Jr.
I think the complete is spelled wrong like I have it, as I recall. Not a over flashy book (even some sub par editing) but it is a bible to many runners. I cannot recommend it enough.
#11
bannned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 2,228
Bikes: black bike, white bike, blue bike, yellow bike, silver bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I read somewhere that a good, basic test for heart disease is to get to zone 5 (like >90% maxhr) and stop to see if you drop 25 bpm in a minute.
I've seen my max get up to 212bpm (crash) and resting down to 49bpm. My LT is around 184 or something.
I've seen my max get up to 212bpm (crash) and resting down to 49bpm. My LT is around 184 or something.
#12
Duathlete
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
He wants most training, especially at first to be at low HR, along with one hard day a week. If you train 5 or 6 days a week he recommends 2 hard days after a while.
He is not unique, others say similar things. The real key is not going to hard on easy days and not too easy on hard days. It takes some real discipline to do the easy days, especially at first. I got passed by runners that I could smoke. In cycling, you will get dropped by people you know are not nearly the rider you are. Dealing with the ego is honestly the hardest part. But it is worth it.
Wat will happen is that your easy days will keep getting faster and faster. On the flip side, it is harder and harder to get to the to the HR on the hard days.
Some bullet points:
He uses a formula that takes resting HR out when doing the %, so 70% in his book (which is the easy day ceiling) is not as low as just taking 70% of your max . . . so that is nice. It is not TOO low that it drives you crazy. I think it is Max - resting *.7 + resting. then your hard day is 85% using the same formula.
For me in year one (2004) 151 was my easy ceiling and 169 was my hard floor. So on easy days I had to spend all the time at under 151 . . . but it is best to get as close as I can to it (kind of price is right). On my hard days I try to have as much as I can over 169 - after a warm up of course. I would run an easy mile or two and then get over 169 and stay there as long as I could and then jog or walk it off. Then repeat.
This is what a lot of cyclist do . . . have easy recovery days that are 15+ beats under their LT. Then they have intervals.
Parker does not present anything new, but I like how he explains the reasons behind it and I like his formulas. I failed at 'feeling' my way before living with a HRM. Many can do this, know when they are going easy and hard . . . but many are wrong when they are doing this and the HR is just the facts. I can do a lot without a HR now, after 3 years of doing most all my training with one. I can look down at it and be about +-5 beats on a guess. I run without it some.
#13
Duathlete
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Cannot understand how this would indicate heart disease, but I am no doc.. It is a fair assessment of overall conditioning. Well trained people drop HR like a rock.
#14
Son of the Dark One
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hell (DC)
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
In a nutshell . . . yes.
He wants most training, especially at first to be at low HR, along with one hard day a week. If you train 5 or 6 days a week he recommends 2 hard days after a while.
He is not unique, others say similar things. The real key is not going to hard on easy days and not too easy on hard days. It takes some real discipline to do the easy days, especially at first. I got passed by runners that I could smoke. In cycling, you will get dropped by people you know are not nearly the rider you are. Dealing with the ego is honestly the hardest part. But it is worth it.
Wat will happen is that your easy days will keep getting faster and faster. On the flip side, it is harder and harder to get to the to the HR on the hard days.
Some bullet points:
He uses a formula that takes resting HR out when doing the %, so 70% in his book (which is the easy day ceiling) is not as low as just taking 70% of your max . . . so that is nice. It is not TOO low that it drives you crazy. I think it is Max - resting *.7 + resting. then your hard day is 85% using the same formula.
For me in year one (2004) 151 was my easy ceiling and 169 was my hard floor. So on easy days I had to spend all the time at under 151 . . . but it is best to get as close as I can to it (kind of price is right). On my hard days I try to have as much as I can over 169 - after a warm up of course. I would run an easy mile or two and then get over 169 and stay there as long as I could and then jog or walk it off. Then repeat.
This is what a lot of cyclist do . . . have easy recovery days that are 15+ beats under their LT. Then they have intervals.
Parker does not present anything new, but I like how he explains the reasons behind it and I like his formulas. I failed at 'feeling' my way before living with a HRM. Many can do this, know when they are going easy and hard . . . but many are wrong when they are doing this and the HR is just the facts. I can do a lot without a HR now, after 3 years of doing most all my training with one. I can look down at it and be about +-5 beats on a guess. I run without it some.
He wants most training, especially at first to be at low HR, along with one hard day a week. If you train 5 or 6 days a week he recommends 2 hard days after a while.
He is not unique, others say similar things. The real key is not going to hard on easy days and not too easy on hard days. It takes some real discipline to do the easy days, especially at first. I got passed by runners that I could smoke. In cycling, you will get dropped by people you know are not nearly the rider you are. Dealing with the ego is honestly the hardest part. But it is worth it.
Wat will happen is that your easy days will keep getting faster and faster. On the flip side, it is harder and harder to get to the to the HR on the hard days.
Some bullet points:
He uses a formula that takes resting HR out when doing the %, so 70% in his book (which is the easy day ceiling) is not as low as just taking 70% of your max . . . so that is nice. It is not TOO low that it drives you crazy. I think it is Max - resting *.7 + resting. then your hard day is 85% using the same formula.
For me in year one (2004) 151 was my easy ceiling and 169 was my hard floor. So on easy days I had to spend all the time at under 151 . . . but it is best to get as close as I can to it (kind of price is right). On my hard days I try to have as much as I can over 169 - after a warm up of course. I would run an easy mile or two and then get over 169 and stay there as long as I could and then jog or walk it off. Then repeat.
This is what a lot of cyclist do . . . have easy recovery days that are 15+ beats under their LT. Then they have intervals.
Parker does not present anything new, but I like how he explains the reasons behind it and I like his formulas. I failed at 'feeling' my way before living with a HRM. Many can do this, know when they are going easy and hard . . . but many are wrong when they are doing this and the HR is just the facts. I can do a lot without a HR now, after 3 years of doing most all my training with one. I can look down at it and be about +-5 beats on a guess. I run without it some.
#15
Duathlete
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The transition has been great, in so much that I love it.
Now to really answer your question.
#1 - I am just now able to really get to my hard HR level and stay there for even a little time. For a while my legs were simply the limiting factor as the muscles you guys use are just different than distance runners. So my legs felt like someone was pouring acid on them and my HR was like 120. Mentally it was very odd . . . running is different that it is hard to stay low and now it was hard to go high.
#2 the thing I love so very much about cycling is how long I can do it. My first ride was 31 miles and at the time it took just over 2 hours. A two hour run was someone normal for me, but man did I feel it afterwards. Now 8+ months on a bike (though not as much as you guys do) I can ride for 4 hours and come home and feel like going for a swim or mowing the yard or playing with the kids. A 3 hour run basically took me out for a day. So I can now exercise for 3 or 4 hours at my easy HR ceiling and feel great. That was the main thing that drove me to do 3 sports instead of just running. I wanted to workout more, but when I was hitting about 35 miles a week I just could not. I was falling apart, and that was about 5-6 hours a week. With 3 sports I am now more like 10-12 hours a week. I am not particularly fast at anything, but I enjoy going long. To me, a 5k race is harder than a half marathon. A 100 meter swim race is harder than a 500. I do, however, know that those hard short things help make be better at the long stuff, so I do them and do them the best that I can.
Now to really answer your question.
#1 - I am just now able to really get to my hard HR level and stay there for even a little time. For a while my legs were simply the limiting factor as the muscles you guys use are just different than distance runners. So my legs felt like someone was pouring acid on them and my HR was like 120. Mentally it was very odd . . . running is different that it is hard to stay low and now it was hard to go high.
#2 the thing I love so very much about cycling is how long I can do it. My first ride was 31 miles and at the time it took just over 2 hours. A two hour run was someone normal for me, but man did I feel it afterwards. Now 8+ months on a bike (though not as much as you guys do) I can ride for 4 hours and come home and feel like going for a swim or mowing the yard or playing with the kids. A 3 hour run basically took me out for a day. So I can now exercise for 3 or 4 hours at my easy HR ceiling and feel great. That was the main thing that drove me to do 3 sports instead of just running. I wanted to workout more, but when I was hitting about 35 miles a week I just could not. I was falling apart, and that was about 5-6 hours a week. With 3 sports I am now more like 10-12 hours a week. I am not particularly fast at anything, but I enjoy going long. To me, a 5k race is harder than a half marathon. A 100 meter swim race is harder than a 500. I do, however, know that those hard short things help make be better at the long stuff, so I do them and do them the best that I can.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I just got a Garmin Edge 305 with the HR monitor, and my heart rate seems really high.
My max heart rate appears to be about 202, which seems normal for a 21 year old like me, so far so good. My resting heart rate is around 75, also in the normal range, if a little bit high. Here's the weird part: i went for a regular 20 mile ride on relatively flat terrain today, and my heart rate never dropped below 155 bpm (about 75% MHR). Just rolling along and spinning the pedals, I was around 160-170. Working a little harder, but still at a very sustainable pace would put me around 180. Working moderately hard, like what I would normally spend most of a training ride in, I was right at 190. Now I've read a little bit about heart rate zones, and it seems like my zones are much higher and much smaller than they should be. I would chalk it up to being out of shape, but I've been riding for nearly three years now, and have done over 1000 miles this year so far, working pretty hard.
I probably should note that this is my first ride of any considerable distance in about 3 weeks, as I have been out of the country. Would that have an effect? The weird part to me is that I feel totally relaxed and just cruising along at 160-170 bpm.
So do I have heart problems or something? Where's Dr. Pete?
My max heart rate appears to be about 202, which seems normal for a 21 year old like me, so far so good. My resting heart rate is around 75, also in the normal range, if a little bit high. Here's the weird part: i went for a regular 20 mile ride on relatively flat terrain today, and my heart rate never dropped below 155 bpm (about 75% MHR). Just rolling along and spinning the pedals, I was around 160-170. Working a little harder, but still at a very sustainable pace would put me around 180. Working moderately hard, like what I would normally spend most of a training ride in, I was right at 190. Now I've read a little bit about heart rate zones, and it seems like my zones are much higher and much smaller than they should be. I would chalk it up to being out of shape, but I've been riding for nearly three years now, and have done over 1000 miles this year so far, working pretty hard.
I probably should note that this is my first ride of any considerable distance in about 3 weeks, as I have been out of the country. Would that have an effect? The weird part to me is that I feel totally relaxed and just cruising along at 160-170 bpm.
So do I have heart problems or something? Where's Dr. Pete?
The training approach that Indy talks about is essentially what both Friel and Carmichael suggest. You need to work easy on your easy days so you're rested enough to get full benefit out of your hard workouts.
__________________
Eric
2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)
Read my cycling blog at https://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
Like climbing? Goto https://www.bicycleclimbs.com
Eric
2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)
Read my cycling blog at https://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
Like climbing? Goto https://www.bicycleclimbs.com
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Got the book "Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot"
I have to say, I am loving it!
I have been doing it for about 2 weeks only, but I have actually seen some results already (granted it has been getting a lot cooler, so I'm sure that has something to do with it).
My <70% days pace has increased from 10:17 miles the first time I tried it (painfully slow) to 8:28 miles today (pretty close to my old normal pace that was about 80% of MHR)
I have done a few 5 mile runs at 6:50 / mile pace and they were exhausting and really hard, but enjoyable.
I am curious to see how this will play out over the 3 months that he suggests for it to really take root.
I agree with Indygreg that for a person like me (primarily a runner) it is really hard to apply these same zones to a bike.
I am extremely leg limited in that the only time I hit 80+ % is when sprinting or on a climb.
My legs just get too tired to keep going at anything more than 70 - 73% for a prolonged period of time.
I highly recommend this book.
I have to say, I am loving it!
I have been doing it for about 2 weeks only, but I have actually seen some results already (granted it has been getting a lot cooler, so I'm sure that has something to do with it).
My <70% days pace has increased from 10:17 miles the first time I tried it (painfully slow) to 8:28 miles today (pretty close to my old normal pace that was about 80% of MHR)
I have done a few 5 mile runs at 6:50 / mile pace and they were exhausting and really hard, but enjoyable.
I am curious to see how this will play out over the 3 months that he suggests for it to really take root.
I agree with Indygreg that for a person like me (primarily a runner) it is really hard to apply these same zones to a bike.
I am extremely leg limited in that the only time I hit 80+ % is when sprinting or on a climb.
My legs just get too tired to keep going at anything more than 70 - 73% for a prolonged period of time.
I highly recommend this book.
#18
hobo
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CO
Posts: 3,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
To the OP, to answer your question " Just got a HR monitor. Am I about to die?"... the answer is, 'yes'. Unfortunately, we can't tell you when, where, or how, but it's gonna happen.
Everyone's zones are different, and as you improve in fitness, the time it takes to recover will improve too, as will which zone you're general riding will be in. When I first started paying attention and using an HRM, all my rides would be in mid-high zone 4 all the time. Now they're in high zone 3 for the most part.