Be still my beating heart

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 2 Sep 2007 17:52:37 +1000

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Always go for the freak explanation, it's much more fun!

You could try counting your own heartrate to see if the box is
correct.

Zebee

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Often at the start of a ride my heartbeat goes off the dial. I don't
think it's my real heartbeat but a flaw with the monitor. Can you
download it onto a computer? Then you can see if it's just a spurious
thing or your real rate.

Dorfus

On 2007-09-02, Dorfus Dippintush (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Freak!

Quoted message said:

Often at the start of a ride my heartbeat goes off the dial. I don't
think it's my real heartbeat but a flaw with the monitor. Can you
download it onto a computer? Then you can see if it's just a spurious
thing or your real rate.

At the start, you aren't sweaty and the contacts can be poorer.

I put mine on for the first time in a long time tonight, and it was
utterly useless. Mine has a beep mode, and it was all over the place
and none of the beeps corresponded to my real heart rate. Perhaps
dead batteries, but it never has been any good (no name style "M-wave"
from PBK).

--
TimC
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons -- Simpsons

"Resound" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my
max heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end
of the year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual
to individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops
was a bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max
of 195 seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable
at lower intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate
interference (I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty
closely). So am I some kind of freak or this fairly normal?

I don't usally use a heart rate monitor as it just scares me :P

I am 39 and race off scratch or very close to it and was in a team race with
a 50 odd year old guy that rides pretty well close to limit at the Cessnock
club (he used to be a state level B grade rider many years ago and has only
started racing again recently).

We started 3rd as our handicaps were combined, we were 5 mins behind limit
for a 48 km race, I basically rode on the front the entire time with him
glued on my wheel on the first lap he said he had a average heart rate of
189, on the 2nd lap he was 192 on the 3rd lap he was at 194 average, and the
next few laps he was between 193 and 190, on the final lap he was starting
to cramp so the average dropped to 168.

In the end we got fastest time and won the race by around 5 mins, I was
amazed just how strong he was and how good he was able to hold my wheel the
entire time, I rode as smoothly as I could so I could hold him pretty well
at his limit the entire time.

Resound said:

So am I some kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Well this is the same model I have had for over a year now and it always seems pretty accurate for me and it even helped me diagnose a heart problem, when 1 morning going out and my HR went off the scale, turned out my heart was fribulating.

Sometimes as stated the reading can be bad at the start if poor contact is made with the skin, but I tend to wet mine with soap and water before I start and never have an issue.

Have you ever had your heart rate/VO2Max done properly ?? The "average" formula's are just that an average and don't account for the freak-a-zoids, so your ranges could be quite "UN" average.

Maybe give it sometime, might need to get to know you 🙂

On Sep 2, 7:02 pm, MikeyOz <MikeyOz.2wa...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Resound said:

So am I some kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Well this is the same model I have had for over a year now and it
always seems pretty accurate for me and it even helped me diagnose a
heart problem, when 1 morning going out and my HR went off the scale,
turned out my heart was fribulating.

Sometimes as stated the reading can be bad at the start if poor contact
is made with the skin, but I tend to wet mine with soap and water before
I start and never have an issue.

Have you ever had your heart rate/VO2Max done properly ?? The "average"
formula's are just that an average and don't account for the
freak-a-zoids, so your ranges could be quite "UN" average.

Maybe give it sometime, might need to get to know you 🙂

--
MikeyOz

hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Is that the model with the built-in defibrillator?

BTH
("Clear!" *ka-shunk!*)

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

I have collected a large sample size of HR data in the last 12 months
using an Echowell Ruby 100 HRM (which unfortunately just died!). The
monitor did a good job at accurately measuring my HR so I'm pretty
confident with the data, although it would ocassionally give wierd
spikes which would show up as my MaxHR sometimes. Nonethless, I have
noted Ave HR, Max HR and a few other details for every ride where I wore
the monitor and specifically noted Max HR for races and other rides with
an average speed over 30 kph and where I was reasonably certain there
were no data spikes. I picked 30 kph because I usually achieved average
speeds of this or above during races, especially crits, where my HR most
likely max'd. For 27 of such rides my maximum HR was 198.8 ± 22
(standard deviation). The Max HR range was from a minimum of 171 at an
average speed of just 30.7 kph to a max of 245 in a 12-13 min crit with
an average speed of 40.1 kph in high temperatures. Whether this was an
abberant measurement or not I can't really be too sure, but it sure felt
like 245! I'm 35, which puts my average Max HR at nearly 14 bpm over the
220-age calculation.

--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

BT Humble said:

Is that the model with the built-in defibrillator?

Now that would be neat.....!

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

There is a lot of info on the web about "average" HR, eg. en.wikipedia.orgHeart rateOpen ↗

From what I have read, it seems that the "220-age" formula may not be based on any scientific data. Having said that, the other equations (eg. HRmax = 205.8 − [0.685 x age]) gave similar numbers for me (at age 40, they are all within 5 BPM of 180).

As to whether you are a freak - probably not. Since I turned 40 last year, I have seen my max HR over 200 a few times (it is often in the high 190's) and I can maintain an average of over 180 for half an hour. I am not super fit, but have found that I can reach and maintain higher HRs with the increased training I have done in the last couple of years.

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Well, it seems very variable based on my experience.

I find that the 220-age formula is pretty accurate for
me (aged 42). I find that when I'm fit, the HR I can
maintain for long periods goes *down*. In other words,
the perceived effort for a particular HR goes up as I
get fitter. As a guide, I find anything over around 165
bpm is heading into the red. If I hit 170, I know I'm
not far of blowing up. I've hit 181 in a sprint and that
really hurt (lie down for several minutes to recover).
TT efforts for me are around 165.

My mates around my age apparently have higher HR and regularly
hit 180 and higher.

Funny thing though HR. My HR is always higher in races
and yet I don't feel as bad as I would if I was training
or doing a TT. Adrenalin is a wonderful thing!

DeF

--
e-mail: d.farrow@your finger.murdoch.edu.au
To reply, you'll have to remove your finger.

"Bean Long" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have collected a large sample size of HR data in the last 12 months
using an Echowell Ruby 100 HRM (which unfortunately just died!). The
monitor did a good job at accurately measuring my HR so I'm pretty
confident with the data, although it would ocassionally give wierd spikes
which would show up as my MaxHR sometimes. Nonethless, I have noted Ave
HR, Max HR and a few other details for every ride where I wore the monitor
and specifically noted Max HR for races and other rides with an average
speed over 30 kph and where I was reasonably certain there were no data
spikes. I picked 30 kph because I usually achieved average speeds of this
or above during races, especially crits, where my HR most likely max'd.
For 27 of such rides my maximum HR was 198.8 ± 22 (standard deviation).
The Max HR range was from a minimum of 171 at an average speed of just
30.7 kph to a max of 245 in a 12-13 min crit with an average speed of 40.1
kph in high temperatures. Whether this was an abberant measurement or not
I can't really be too sure, but it sure felt like 245! I'm 35, which puts
my average Max HR at nearly 14 bpm over the 220-age calculation.

Well you're probably a damn sight fitter than I am but the bpm sounds about
right. On the commute this morning (15km in 35 mins...watching the numbers
took 5 mins off my usual time!) I was cruising at about 170-175, over 180
was working, over 190 was starting to get into hurties. I don't want to
think about what 245 would feel like but I reckon a decent effort would
crack 200.

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

Wet the contacts. I have the same HR monitor and this weekend i got slack and didn't wet the contacts and the reading was going over 200 BPM and this was the first lap of a crit. 🙂

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula, my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal?

You could answer your own question if you really tried.

However, amoung veterans I vainly competed against there were
several in a club of 200 members who not only were 10 years older than
myself,
but they could keep their heart rate way above where they should have
for an hour, and cover 40km+, something
I have never done. Even with John Howard yelling political obscenities
at me
from a following car, I wouldn't / couldn't push the heart much beyond
140 at age 37.
But I did get 1:05 for 40k once, at about age 40, much faster than a lot
of others.
While the fastest guys hated long distance races and hills, I quite
enjoyed distance,
and sometimes beat blokes who were faster in a time trial, because they
hated hills and the
surging that goes on in races, and I was fitter.

Heart rates for short time trials of 8km can be higher.

The issue for you isn't whether you are a freak or not.
We are all slightly different to whatever group amoung all people
everyone
who happen to be similar to us. Its difficult to be a freak, or unique.
Indurain and Armstrong were naturally quite exceptional. You probably
ain't.

Your question should be to ask why is heart rate important?
How can you control it to get an advantage in a race?

Don't the books and coaches tell you that if you put out a constant
level of effort,
just below where you blow, then you get the fastest time, and heart rate
is a good indicator,
and what you may find if you are not a eleite rider is that your heart
has to go faster than other people's hearts
yet you don't go any faster and don't win.
When I raced I knew when I didn't have anything left to stay with a
faster rider,
especially on a hill, when veterans my own age who had room fulls of
trophies from 20
years of racing slowly but surely passed me.

I sure didn't need a heart meter to tell me what impossible meant.
Or what pain meant, or not getting enough air meant.
The real quick guys were not only able to raise a faster HR, but had
lighter bone structure,
less fat, and were plainly more naturally athletic, and afaik, i would
probably
have done a lot better as rower, not a cyclist.

I used to go from the bottom of Mt Stromlo to the top in 12 minutes
once,
about 3+ minutes slower than a lotta elites. At the top, I'd stop
and record the pulse on the watch, and it'd never be over 140.
But within a minute it was quite low again, so I was fit.

I once rode from King's Cross in Sydney to the top of Black Mountain in
Canberra
between 1AM and 4PM back in 1988. I must have been fit, but there were 5
blokes with me on the day
who were 15 years younger, and who did it 1 hour faster. Some who were
youger were slower.
One [censored] wouldn't take a turn in front all bloody day.

You can treat your body like a machine, and read all sorts of numbers
about it,
and not win any more often.

If you are worried about the heart, then get an ECG test done while you
are on a cycle machine
while somone applies a whip. Most ppl won't do this as they age, they
have this
silly fear of death.
If there was lots of history of heart troubles in you relatives, watch
out, maybe you're next,
and this can be regardless of how fit and healthy you like to consider
yourself to be.
I'm 60 now, and can do Stromlo comfortably with a 68 inch gear, ie, ONE
gear using 44t x 18t.
As each decade slips relentlessly past, you'll need an extra tooth
on the rear sprocket, and everything you did last year becomes slightly
slower than this year, but it doesn't feel much worse unless you have
some
old injuries ands arthritis etc.

I am much more concerned about my BMI than about my heart. If the BMI is
ideal
then you don't need to be obsessive about your body.
Some athletes diet down to nearly a skeleton, and still don't win. This
is quite silly.

Patrick Turner.

Resound said:

Well you're probably a damn sight fitter than I am but the bpm sounds about
right. On the commute this morning (15km in 35 mins...watching the numbers
took 5 mins off my usual time!) I was cruising at about 170-175, over 180
was working, over 190 was starting to get into hurties. I don't want to
think about what 245 would feel like but I reckon a decent effort would
crack 200.

I went on a ride with a guy in his 50's late last year who had a max of
230-ish. He'd been to specialists to confirm that max rate and it was
apparently real. Most people would drop dead just at the thought of
getting up there often! It just proves that everyone is a little
different and variable from "average"

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

leestevens said:

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It
does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula,
my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end
of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops
was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max
of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at
lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate
interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am
I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal? Wet the contacts. I have the same HR monitor and this weekend i got

slack and didn't wet the contacts and the reading was going over 200
BPM and this was the first lap of a crit. 🙂

I agree with the need to wet the contact patches on the Polar CS200
belt. However, I've noticed that it can take 1-2 mins to allow water to
soak in properly for readings to be accurate right from start of
exercise. Yesterday, wearing belt after only about 30 secs of prep, I
had probs with spurious HR readings of 220+ bpm, annoying as this stuffs
up the true reading for max HR, average HR, and Time Above Zone.
Stopping and adding more fluid, eg spit, usually seems to help, but not
always.

Do people with other HR monitors have same probs? I've never had probs
at spin classes using plastic electrode belts, only with the cloth-based
Polar CS200 belt.

Graeme

Barty said:

Do people with other HR monitors have same probs? I've never had probs
at spin classes using plastic electrode belts, only with the cloth-based
Polar CS200 belt.

Yeah, mine won't work without a wet contact but it takes a very short
period of time to work up a sweat.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

Barty said:

leestevens said:

Resound said:

Ok, so I picked up the new bike computer today; a Polar CS200cad. It
does
speed, cadence, heartrate and so on. Now, using the 220-age formula,
my max
heart rate *should* be somewhere around 183-184 (I turn 37 at the end
of the
year). Even given that there's scope for variance from individual to
individual and even given that the exploratory spin down to the shops
was a
bit brisker than the usualy commute, and average HR of 173 and a max
of 195
seems a bit off base. The heart rate generally seemed reasonable at
lower
intensities and there weren't any spikes which would indicate
interference
(I was doing the new toy thing and watching it pretty closely). So am
I some
kind of freak or this fairly normal? Wet the contacts. I have the same HR monitor and this weekend i got

slack and didn't wet the contacts and the reading was going over 200
BPM and this was the first lap of a crit. 🙂

I agree with the need to wet the contact patches on the Polar CS200
belt. However, I've noticed that it can take 1-2 mins to allow water to
soak in properly for readings to be accurate right from start of
exercise. Yesterday, wearing belt after only about 30 secs of prep, I
had probs with spurious HR readings of 220+ bpm, annoying as this stuffs
up the true reading for max HR, average HR, and Time Above Zone.
Stopping and adding more fluid, eg spit, usually seems to help, but not
always.

Do people with other HR monitors have same probs? I've never had probs
at spin classes using plastic electrode belts, only with the cloth-based
Polar CS200 belt.

Water isn't very conductive on its own, spit is better, and sweat is
better again. Try using spit at first instead of water.

Bleve said:

Water isn't very conductive on its own...

If it's distilled or purified otherwise. Tap water should be fine.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying