HEART RATE

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207836612-tXF3gLP7xAtCmoDZu+EXPg

"As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
is and how he knows it."

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Andrew Price said:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...

"As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
is and how he knows it."

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That's my HR when I read the NYT?

Actually that equation works spot on for me.

Joseph

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT),

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That's my HR when I read the NYT?

Actually that equation works spot on for me.

It's the first time I've seen one which not only takes age, but also
weight into account.

Andrew Price said:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT),

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Quoted message said:

That's my HR when I read the NYT?

Quoted message said:

Actually that equation works spot on for me.

It's the first time I've seen one which not only takes age, but also
weight into account.

That struck me as well. Particularly since I am losing weight. I can't
see how my max HR is going to change by a few beats in a few months.

Joseph

Andrew Price said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I came
across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Does it take relativistic effects into account ?

Andrew Price said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

It's about 30 low for me!

Dan Gregory said:

Andrew Price said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

It's about 30 low for me!

16-18 beats too low for me. Just a bit above my AT HR.

Andrew Price said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

Quoted message said:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Bzzt. Both give very similar answers for me - both completely useless.

As per the other poster, the above two account for *about* 80% or so of the
population.

That's great, till you find out you're not part of that 80%.

With that class of error range, the only way is to test it. And you don't
need a treadmill and wires hanging off your chest either, self-testing on a
path or perhaps back streets gives a viable enough answer.

Plenty good enough for those who aren't in the same league as those who are
tested for Hr Max, VO2 and such as a matter of course, in which case, this
cruder testing becomes a moot point anyway.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

Quoted message said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That is amazingly close. The "traditional" 220-age has always given me a
heart rate too low.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Andrew Price said:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...

"As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
is and how he knows it."

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Unless you're Chalo when he still weighed 400 pounds plus, and maybe
even then, the new formula puts all the brackets about 9% of the old
number higher up the scale. My Ciclosport HAC4 HRM broke after only
three years, so I replaced it with a cheap Sigma PC9 HRM. The HAC4 had
to have the max respiration rate and the breakpoints of exercise
regions fed manually; I did it by the old formula. The PC9 does it
automatically, and as usual I just busked the new equipment with a
hack and a prayer rather than RTFM (I have sixteen shelf-feet of high-
level computer software manuals still shrinkwrapped -- if I need a
manual, it is too difficult for me to use), so I missed the bit where
the PC9 automatically set up a 9% higher max than I had on the HAC4,
with the brackets correspondingly shifted. It's important, since I
regulate my entire riding regime not by cadence or even traffic
conditions ("Coming through!"😉 but by putting my heart rate on 80 per
cent of max and holding it there; in short, I go for the max that
falls within the endurance/aerobic bracket, just short of generating
lactic acid in that useless bracket from 80-85 where you take all the
pain you masochists yearn for but gain none of the power benefits that
are supposed to pay for the acid burn. Shortly, in as little as a week
or two after I fitted the new cheap HRM, the Sigma PC9, I noticed that
I spent less time on favourite rides, and less time in each bracket
too, but that I was riding faster -- and feeling better for opening my
lungs out that extra bit. Since then I've lengthened all my favourite
short rides by around ten per cent distance, so that the time taken is
the same as before but the benefit is greater. So, on the whole, I
think that, for me at least, the new formula is A Good Thing. Since I
paid zero attention to the world class sports medicine authorities
working with the teams I played on when I was young (kick own [censored] for
wasting opportunity), I'd be interested in hearing which heart rate
brackets RBTers favour and why.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Per datakoll:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207836612-tXF3gLP7xAtCmoDZu+EXPg

Did I skim that article too fast, or did it not say anything
about the amount of blood a given heart can more per stroke?
--
PeteCresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):

Quoted message said:

Did I skim that article too fast, or did it not say anything
about the amount of blood a given heart can more per stroke?

Oops, now I see it. But only a passing reference.

The idea that some hearts can have larger chambers/more
muscle/larger inflow/outflow vessels seems tb missing.
--
PeteCresswell

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...

Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

That is amazingly close. The "traditional" 220-age has always given me a
heart rate too low.

It also comes very close for me, closer, in fact, than the estimate that my
Polar heart rate monitor produced.

Andrew Price said:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Are tou sure you put the brackets right? Seems a bit pointless to
separate 210 + 4.

On Apr 10, 10:45 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:20:31 +0100, Dan Gregory

Quoted message said:

Andrew Price wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

It's about 30 low for me!

16-18 beats too low for me.  Just a bit above my AT HR.

Clearly you need to eat LOT more ice cream.

Joseph

Andre Jute said:

Andrew Price said:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT), datakoll

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl....

Quoted message said:

"As for my husband, he knows that my fixation on whose heart rate is
higher is ridiculous. Still, I wish I knew what he thinks his maximum
is and how he knows it."

Quoted message said:

I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

Quoted message said:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Unless you're Chalo when he still weighed 400 pounds plus, and maybe
even then, the new formula puts all the brackets about 9% of the old
number higher up the scale. My Ciclosport HAC4 HRM broke after only
three years, so I replaced it with a cheap Sigma PC9 HRM. The HAC4 had
to have the max respiration rate and the breakpoints of exercise
regions fed manually; I did it by the old formula. The PC9 does it
automatically, and as usual I just busked the new equipment with a
hack and a prayer rather than RTFM (I have sixteen shelf-feet of high-
level computer software manuals still shrinkwrapped -- if I need a
manual, it is too difficult for me to use), so I missed the bit where
the PC9 automatically set up a 9% higher max than I had on the HAC4,
with the brackets correspondingly shifted. It's important, since I
regulate my entire riding regime not by cadence or even traffic
conditions ("Coming through!"😉 but by putting my heart rate on 80 per
cent of max and holding it there; in short, I go for the max that
falls within the endurance/aerobic bracket, just short of generating
lactic acid in that useless bracket from 80-85 where you take all the
pain you masochists yearn for but gain none of the power benefits that
are supposed to pay for the acid burn. Shortly, in as little as a week
or two after I fitted the new cheap HRM, the Sigma PC9, I noticed that
I spent less time on favourite rides, and less time in each bracket
too, but that I was riding faster -- and feeling better for opening my
lungs out that extra bit. Since then I've lengthened all my favourite
short rides by around ten per cent distance, so that the time taken is
the same as before but the benefit is greater. So, on the whole, I
think that, for me at least, the new formula is A Good Thing. Since I
paid zero attention to the world class sports medicine authorities
working with the teams I played on when I was young (kick own [censored] for
wasting opportunity), I'd be interested in hearing which heart rate
brackets RBTers favour and why.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
population probably, but near usless for an individual.

Thanks, I am going to use that.

Woland99 said:

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html?adxnnl...

Border line disinformation. For me HRM is a bit like metronome -
it is not to see how fast I can get but to keep steady manageable
tempo. If I understand the idea correctly - effective burning of
carbs and any burning of fat needs steady oxygen supply - so it
is better to keep yourself in mostly aerobic zone.

Fats and carbs will be burned at higher intensities as well, but I
agree that using HR is a nice way to keep the intensity at a level
that doesn't waste time by being too easy, nor too hard which could
result in less total work due to burnout.

Joseph