heart rate guidance

Greg said:

I raced bicycles pretty seriously in the 70's, but have laid off and
just recently got back into it (at age 51), and love it. I have been
doing a lot of mileage below 80 %max heart rate to build slow-twitch
endurance muscle. My problem is, whenever I go out with my Saturdauy
morning club ride, I try to keep up, or attack the 25-30 yr olds
("fast guys" ) and end up spending the whole two hours at 90% plus
heart rate (with maybe 45 min of that at 100%+heart rate), and usually
get dropped anyway. I feel pretty wasted at the end of the ride. I've
read in the cycling books that you only want to be at this high heart
rate for about 10 minutes. So do you think I'm damaging the heart ( I
know some triathletes that are now on pacemakers at 40-50 years old
from exteneded 90% heart rate output). I love riding, and training
hard, and the racing too, but I don't want to be on a pacemaker
anytime soon. Any thoughts?

As a general rule, I would think that no one can spend 90% of their
true maximum heart rate for two hours. I think the anaerobic threshold
tends to be in the 70-80% range--hopefully Dr. Coggin or someone else
who knows who they are talking about will respond more authoritatively.
In any case, if you are starting a program of intense exercise at any
age (let alone 51) after a long layoff, you should get a complete
physical exam from your physician.
BTW, I personally doubt you can create a bradycardia requiring a
pacemaker from being fit (unless your resting pulse is very low and the
cardiologist misinterprets your exquisite fitness for a clinical
bradycardia).

Steve

Greg said:

I raced bicycles pretty seriously in the 70's, but have laid off and
just recently got back into it (at age 51), and love it. I have been
doing a lot of mileage below 80 %max heart rate to build slow-twitch
endurance muscle. My problem is, whenever I go out with my Saturdauy
morning club ride, I try to keep up, or attack the 25-30 yr olds
("fast guys" ) and end up spending the whole two hours at 90% plus
heart rate (with maybe 45 min of that at 100%+heart rate), and usually
get dropped anyway. I feel pretty wasted at the end of the ride. I've
read in the cycling books that you only want to be at this high heart
rate for about 10 minutes. <snip>

What books said that???

We have a cardiologist who rides on our local group rides and often looks
like he's really maxed out. Next time I see him I'll ask if he's ever heard
of anyone damaging their heart by spending too much time at 90%.

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

Mark

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

Quoted message said:

I know some triathletes that are now on pacemakers at 40-50 years old
from exteneded 90% heart rate output).

No, you don't.

Andy Coggan

Greg said:

I raced bicycles pretty seriously in the 70's, but have laid off and
just recently got back into it (at age 51), and love it. I have been
doing a lot of mileage below 80 %max heart rate to build slow-twitch
endurance muscle. My problem is, whenever I go out with my Saturdauy
morning club ride, I try to keep up, or attack the 25-30 yr olds
("fast guys" ) and end up spending the whole two hours at 90% plus
heart rate (with maybe 45 min of that at 100%+heart rate), and usually
get dropped anyway. I feel pretty wasted at the end of the ride. I've
read in the cycling books that you only want to be at this high heart
rate for about 10 minutes. So do you think I'm damaging the heart ( I
know some triathletes that are now on pacemakers at 40-50 years old
from exteneded 90% heart rate output). I love riding, and training
hard, and the racing too, but I don't want to be on a pacemaker
anytime soon. Any thoughts?

I'd say it's nearly impossible for the heart to 'give out' _purely_ as a
result of what you're doing if you have no predisposition, or hidden but
preexisting heart problem, nearly blocked arteries etc. The heart is a very
strong muscle, after all.

Not to say there are not specific incidents, or healthy people can't
exercise and end up in the ER later that day<g>

But back up. You raced in the 70s... That was almost 30 years ago (taking
1975, unless you me 1875, or 2075, <g>😉.

Ask yourself:
o Have I kept fit doing something athletic since then?
o Am I Over/underweight?
o Length of time training again? When did I start back/racing/etc
o Do I have a History of family heart problems/bypasses/sudden death,
cardio.
o What is my VO2max?
o What is my 3 mile TT time?

I'm not asking you to post all this, just asking you to ask yourself these
kinds of questions. ;-)

You're riding two hours at A/A+ group pace, if I read between the lines
above, doing 40-50 mile club rides (hills?, or flats?).

Say you have (apparently) kept in shape, were a pro-athlete in some other
synergistic sport, or have a natural genetic talent...

Then ask:
o Have I laid down an endurance base pre-season
o Have I done periodization training
....etc.

Finally, if you've done something rash like grabbed the racing bike out of
storage, jumped on it a year ago and this past spring did your first club
ride, didn't get any medical exam, etc... ;-D

ILet me ask -you-...don't most serious racers know a lot about their
attributes, TT times, Cat, and soforth and would already know their approx
level now?)

Sounds like you're very talented, but are fearful that you've lost the
attributes and physical condition, vasculization, LT, mitochondrial prolif.
and are going on past greatness.

Don't worry, you're fine with the base you've re-built since 2002 until
now...you've spent a couple years base training and are in good shape,
since you have been touring the country on a bike, or something. (right?)

If you're doing this kind of riding at 51, but basically have not been on a
bike since 1975, you're gifted with great genetics, a natural racer, wow.
(Lance? have you found the way-back machine and have come back to 2004 from
2030?) Still, get a physical, get VO2max measured, TT for 3 miles, and post
that number. (under 8 min on the flat?)

Can't tell ya much with the info here. <grin>

-B
PS, great job keeping up with those 25 years younger guys - at all.

Addendum:
Men - Rec. Cyclist
3 mile time < 10 min. Intermediate.

Quoted message said:

10 min Beginner

Men - Racer
3 mile time < 8 min Intermed Racer to Advanced Racer

Quoted message said:

8 min Intermed Racer.

Badger -
3 mile TT 10:31 - (late spring 04, point-to-point, in traffic
one stop light Va Beach area
flat course, distance estimated by car
odometer at 3.0 miles.)
Resumed training: 08/12/03
Age: 50
Fitness no Pro experience. Very low fitness at start due to
chronic injury to hip.1999. Prior, wknd athlete.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:04:51 GMT, "Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I know some triathletes that are now on pacemakers at 40-50 years old
from exteneded 90% heart rate output).

No, you don't.

Andy Coggan

Unless he means on that new top secret Kestral frame:

The AirFoil-Extreme BXLNT-2U, 2.5lb, made of buckyball carbon (formed as
beta-pleated sheets), said to evoke such fantastic performances, it's been
dubbed "The PaceMaker".by the the KAPR (Advanced Projects Research lab).

Due out to only selected pro triathletes 12/04.

http://www.kestrel-usa.com/products/triathlon/airfoil_pro.html

-B

(It's rumored that Holtzman, Brown and Jurgen Zach are camped out near
Santa Cruz to get an advanced test ride next week.)

Mark Fennell said:

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

Except they may get you out and riding on occasion when a fireplace
and a beer are more inviting.

OK, you're right. They are counterproductive.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Mark Fennell said:

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

WTF, who cares if it's productive. Is it fun? [censored] "training".

Mark Fennell said:

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

WTF, who cares if it's productive. Is it fun? [censored] "training".

Mark Fennell said:

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

WTF, who cares if it's productive. Is it fun? [censored] "training".

gym gravity said:

Mark Fennell said:

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter
productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

WTF, who cares if it's productive. Is it fun? [censored] "training".

:smiley face:

gym gravity said:

Mark Fennell said:

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter
productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

WTF, who cares if it's productive. Is it fun? [censored] "training".

:smiley face:

gym gravity said:

Mark Fennell said:

BTW, I'm starting to think that typical group rides are counter
productive
for training ...especially in the winter.

WTF, who cares if it's productive. Is it fun? [censored] "training".

:smiley face:

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

Quoted message said:

I raced bicycles pretty seriously in the 70's, but have laid off and
just recently got back into it (at age 51), and love it. I have been
doing a lot of mileage below 80 %max heart rate to build slow-twitch
endurance muscle. My problem is, whenever I go out with my Saturdauy
morning club ride, I try to keep up, or attack the 25-30 yr olds
("fast guys" ) and end up spending the whole two hours at 90% plus
heart rate (with maybe 45 min of that at 100%+heart rate), and usually
get dropped anyway. I feel pretty wasted at the end of the ride. I've
read in the cycling books that you only want to be at this high heart
rate for about 10 minutes. So do you think I'm damaging the heart ( I
know some triathletes that are now on pacemakers at 40-50 years old
from exteneded 90% heart rate output). I love riding, and training
hard, and the racing too, but I don't want to be on a pacemaker
anytime soon. Any thoughts?

How do you know what your max heart rate actually is? The reason I ask is
because there is no way _you_ can spend more than a minute or two at your
ACTUAL max heart rate. Don't rely on the age minus 220 rule because it's
wrong about as often as it's right.

As an educated guess from what you've said above I'd say that your average
HR during your two-hour rides is closer to 80% of your actual MHR. If you
were really fit it might be higher, and some people have a naturally high HR
at this intensity compared to their actual MHR, but that's probably not you.

For development of your slow twitch you should probably keep your HR about
15 beats lower than what you average during those group rides. More
information from you would allow for more precision.

FWIW, my own MHR is near 200 and I'm 45 years old.)

-WG

Steven Bornfeld said:

As a general rule, I would think that no one can spend 90% of their
true maximum heart rate for two hours. I think the anaerobic
threshold tends to be in the 70-80% range--hopefully Dr. Coggin or
someone else who knows who they are talking about will respond more
authoritatively.

I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll contribute an anecdote. One
year I measured my max HR at 211, based on a hill climb near my house. That
year I regularly raced crits around 2 hours long with an average HR of 186.
That's 88% of my max HR. Initial stages of an attack would have me well over
190 for a minute or two. Can the anaerobic range differ from person to
person, or are the lab boundaries pretty well set in soft stone?

I hope I'm still riding when I'm 50.

Kyle Legate said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

As a general rule, I would think that no one can spend 90% of their
true maximum heart rate for two hours. I think the anaerobic
threshold tends to be in the 70-80% range--hopefully Dr. Coggin or
someone else who knows who they are talking about will respond more
authoritatively.

I don't know what I'm talking about,

That's never stopped anyone here before.

so I'll contribute an anecdote. One

Quoted message said:

year I measured my max HR at 211, based on a hill climb near my house. That
year I regularly raced crits around 2 hours long with an average HR of 186.
That's 88% of my max HR. Initial stages of an attack would have me well over
190 for a minute or two. Can the anaerobic range differ from person to
person, or are the lab boundaries pretty well set in soft stone?

I hope I'm still riding when I'm 50.

I don't even remember when I measured my max. HR--I never liked to hurt
that much. I did participate in a study for an exercise physiology
masters where I did almost barf on an ergometer, but I've tried to push
that memory out of my mind.
According to my doubtless faulty memory, I could never maintain over
about 80% of whatever that damned max rate was for more than a couple of
minutes. I'm sure that the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold can
differ, and I think I've read that it can change, not only as a function
of age but as a function of fitness level. What I don't know is how you
can be sure you've reached your maximum heart rate. Maybe I never have
because I'm a wimp.
But I'm not as tough as you are.

Steve (old and in the way)

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

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

Quoted message said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

As a general rule, I would think that no one can spend 90% of their
true maximum heart rate for two hours. I think the anaerobic
threshold tends to be in the 70-80% range--hopefully Dr. Coggin or
someone else who knows who they are talking about will respond more
authoritatively.

I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll contribute an anecdote. One
year I measured my max HR at 211, based on a hill climb near my house.

That

Quoted message said:

year I regularly raced crits around 2 hours long with an average HR of

186.

Quoted message said:

That's 88% of my max HR. Initial stages of an attack would have me well

over

Quoted message said:

190 for a minute or two. Can the anaerobic range differ from person to
person, or are the lab boundaries pretty well set in soft stone?

The "anaerobic range" does vary from one person to another. For some people
it might be near 82% of MHR and for others it could be closer to 90%. A
better term for "anaerobic range" would be something like "lactate
threshold" since that is a more accurate description of what I think you're
referring to.

FWIW, max heart rate is often underestimated because the effort to get there
is so hard. Then throw in the effect of adrenalin during the final sprint of
a race, use of caffeine or other stimulants, etc. and "MHR" becomes a number
that isn't always the same for one person.

All of this variablity is good reason to use something other than MHR for
guiding your training zones.

One thing that doesn't change much is the HR at your lactate threshold
(however you choose to define that intensity). Once you've been training for
a month or so the heart rate AT THAT SAME INTENSITY won't vary more than a
few beats in the following months, assuming you're not tired, too hot or
cold, over-stimulated, etc.

-WG

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:51:40 +0200, "Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

As a general rule, I would think that no one can spend 90% of their
true maximum heart rate for two hours. I think the anaerobic
threshold tends to be in the 70-80% range--hopefully Dr. Coggin or
someone else who knows who they are talking about will respond more
authoritatively.

I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll contribute an anecdote. One
year I measured my max HR at 211, based on a hill climb near my house. That
year I regularly raced crits around 2 hours long with an average HR of 186.
That's 88% of my max HR. Initial stages of an attack would have me well over
190 for a minute or two. Can the anaerobic range differ from person to
person, or are the lab boundaries pretty well set in soft stone?

I hope I'm still riding when I'm 50.

I don't know what I'm talking about either, but a thought or two...

The reason, imo, that cyclists talk about getting a heart rate monitor is
that exertion is hard to quantify. There is a 'perceived exertion', and at
the upper limit an 'unknown exertion limit', say, on any day, any climb,
any obstacle.

Since biking has such fine control over exertion, with gearing and
coasting, and alternate muscle recruitment adjustment (my quads wore out,
so I 'switched' to hams, calves, glutes, calves for a few seconds), what
one might think is a limit is not really a limit. We're all trying to get
the max muscle involvement into the pedal stroke, or understand that
theory, with talk of spinning up, and soforth.

In no other sport that I'm aware is there such a neat breakdown of Training
Zones i(such as Carmichael's table)...with recovery riding, endurance base,
"at tempo" rides, aerobic base, LT, Max VO2, I don't know if cycling
'invented' this, or subsumed it. (exception: rowing?)

But how do you cogitate/practice this? OK, Mr Obvious...people pair it up
with the HR in a table format as we all know.

But as we start and as we progress the meaning is enhanced.

At a beginning/intermediate level, probably only 20% of the table has any
meaning. I can do base training (I think), I can do recovery riding (I
think), but I don't know anything (in practice) about Aerobic base
training, and LT training, and Max VO2 training. Sometimes I breathe really
hard, sometimes I break through this, sometimes I exceed my current
"limits". It's surprising (and joyous).

Thus even when intermediate riders go purchase and set up a HR monitor, and
they can see readings and make the age specific calculations, and see the
chart and feel their exertion, but due to lack of experience the meaning is
less clear, less revealing... IOW, a year from now the HRM data may be
totally different, used more, or used less, to plan one's training. I don't
know.

The neat thing is that riding the bike opens these meanings like a flower,
and with experience more and more of the table/training zones paradigm
happen to them, 'a-ha' moments occur, and we learn to interpret what's
happening in the body.

Duh. So I'm trying to say if you get a HR monitor that's great, important
even...as you use it, and monitor your rides and results things start to
coalesce, and make sense.

I'd guess newbie HR junkies make a chart and cut it out and tape it to the
handlebars...haha. (I'm not there yet...).

But, heh, we have the info, we have the technology, and it's all great!

The limits, the breakthroughs, the understandings take time, =but= we have
the means to analyze, and predict and fine tune like no other sport!

I've seen ppl who run wearing a HR monitor, but ISTM that the fine control
of effort is not there for most runners to take advantage of the
HRM...maybe, like there is with cycling.

Still the ride may eclipse the known...we may do things not believed
possible. The tools to monitor and improve performance in biking are quite
nice, nevertheless.

-B
Not sure if I said anything there...d'oh. ;-P

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

Quoted message said:

In no other sport that I'm aware is there such a neat breakdown of

Training

Quoted message said:

Zones i(such as Carmichael's table)...with recovery riding, endurance

base,

Quoted message said:

"at tempo" rides, aerobic base, LT, Max VO2, I don't know if cycling
'invented' this, or subsumed it. (exception: rowing?)

Runners use pacing, minutes per mile. What a cyclist may call LT intensity a
runner would call it 15k race pace, or "8-minute mile" pace, depending on
their time for that event. So they want to do their base training at
something like 9-minute mile pace, pickups at 6-minute mile pace, or if
they're on a track they'll do laps at a certain number of seconds. Actually,
many track cycling people do laps at a certain number of seconds per lap
too.

Quoted message said:

Thus even when intermediate riders go purchase and set up a HR monitor,

and

Quoted message said:

they can see readings and make the age specific calculations, and see the
chart and feel their exertion, but due to lack of experience the meaning

is

Quoted message said:

less clear, less revealing... IOW, a year from now the HRM data may be
totally different, used more, or used less, to plan one's training. I

don't

Quoted message said:

know.

One of the best things a beginner can do with a HRM is to make sure they
don't ride too hard during times when they're not supposed to. When I first
got an HRM in 1987 I was surprised to learn that I was riding too hard
during recovery rides and what were supposed to be low-intensity distance
rides.

Quoted message said:

I'd guess newbie HR junkies make a chart and cut it out and tape it to the
handlebars...haha. (I'm not there yet...).

Even experienced riders will do this at times, and/or tape a chart on the
stem of the power outputs they want to do for certain types of training.

Quoted message said:

I've seen ppl who run wearing a HR monitor, but ISTM that the fine control
of effort is not there for most runners to take advantage of the
HRM...maybe, like there is with cycling.

I dunno. My wife runs with a HRM frequently because speed while running can
be hard to measure (unlike on a bike) and intensity of the efforts can be
measured with an HRM better than any other way that is convenient.

Quoted message said:

Still the ride may eclipse the known...we may do things not believed
possible. The tools to monitor and improve performance in biking are quite
nice, nevertheless.

I think you're touching on what are the limits of the tools available? What
I know is that some people are better at using the tools (and data) than
others. It's not so much what you see displayed on the HRM or power meter,
but how you apply that information.

-WG

Warren said:

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

Quoted message said:

In no other sport that I'm aware is there such a neat breakdown of

Training

Quoted message said:

Zones i(such as Carmichael's table)...with recovery riding, endurance

base,

Quoted message said:

"at tempo" rides, aerobic base, LT, Max VO2, I don't know if cycling
'invented' this, or subsumed it. (exception: rowing?)

Runners use pacing, minutes per mile. What a cyclist may call LT intensity a
runner would call it 15k race pace, or "8-minute mile" pace, depending on
their time for that event. So they want to do their base training at
something like 9-minute mile pace, pickups at 6-minute mile pace, or if
they're on a track they'll do laps at a certain number of seconds. Actually,
many track cycling people do laps at a certain number of seconds per lap
too.

I -know- this! <g> Guess I'm emphasizing too much the 'coarse adjust' with
running, vs the 'fine adjust' w/ biking. I've -rarely- seen a runner with
HRM, is all I'm saying, let alone chart/tools, etc. (speedometer, distance,
time). I like the technical, specific parts being emphsized in biking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thus even when intermediate riders go purchase and set up a HR monitor,

and

Quoted message said:

they can see readings and make the age specific calculations, and see the
chart and feel their exertion, but due to lack of experience the meaning

is

Quoted message said:

less clear, less revealing... IOW, a year from now the HRM data may be
totally different, used more, or used less, to plan one's training. I

don't

Quoted message said:

know.

One of the best things a beginner can do with a HRM is to make sure they
don't ride too hard during times when they're not supposed to. When I first
got an HRM in 1987 I was surprised to learn that I was riding too hard
during recovery rides and what were supposed to be low-intensity distance
rides.

I've heard that. Thx for bringing it up again. Hah...it's hard to hold back
and do that, low-I stuff, paradoxically.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd guess newbie HR junkies make a chart and cut it out and tape it to the
handlebars...haha. (I'm not there yet...).

Even experienced riders will do this at times, and/or tape a chart on the
stem of the power outputs they want to do for certain types of training.

Really? OK, a good illustration of the 'fine adjust' of intensity, mebbee?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've seen ppl who run wearing a HR monitor, but ISTM that the fine control
of effort is not there for most runners to take advantage of the
HRM...maybe, like there is with cycling.

I dunno. My wife runs with a HRM frequently because speed while running can
be hard to measure (unlike on a bike) and intensity of the efforts can be
measured with an HRM better than any other way that is convenient.

She has a ba-ad influence, heh... But this is uh, clever!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still the ride may eclipse the known...we may do things not believed
possible. The tools to monitor and improve performance in biking are quite
nice, nevertheless.

I think you're touching on what are the limits of the tools available? What
I know is that some people are better at using the tools (and data) than
others. It's not so much what you see displayed on the HRM or power meter,
but how you apply that information.

Not so much. I mean as an individual, still be able to take off all the
gear and go nuts! At some point I'll want to do that, I can feel it.

In a couple years power monitors will streamline and cost will come down
(?) and we'll all be 'watting', our little hearts out! Haha!

-B