Max heart rate again...?

Preston Crawford said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a

Quoted message said:

different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for

Quoted message said:

about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually.

Blood

Quoted message said:

pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great

shape.

Quoted message said:

I have a little headache today and I'd like to pass that off to the

fact

Quoted message said:

that the last mile and a half of my ride was on highway 26 here in
Portland, going about 35 miles an hour downhill. But I have anxiety,

you

Quoted message said:

know, so my brain is thinking stupid thoughts about how I did a bad

thing.

Quoted message said:

I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop

letting my

Quoted message said:

heart rate get up into that range.

Preston

There is an approximatiion formuls which is 220-your age= max HR. By
that measure you were way below your max. But use at least one grain of
salt. I'm 60 so my max by that formula is 160. But experience shows
that I can climb in the mid 170's for quite a while and my sense is
that I can hold 160 for at least an hour. So,....
If you want to know "the truth" for you you need to go spend lots of $
and get tested.

Preston Crawford said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a
different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for
about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually. Blood
pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great shape.
I have a little headache today and I'd like to pass that off to the fact
that the last mile and a half of my ride was on highway 26 here in
Portland, going about 35 miles an hour downhill. But I have anxiety, you
know, so my brain is thinking stupid thoughts about how I did a bad thing.
I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting my
heart rate get up into that range.

Preston

Your max heart rate as determined by a fitness test (for use in
establishing aerobic/anaerobic/lactic threshold levels) is probably
quite a bit different from what a cardiologist would tell you is "safe"
if you have any heart problems.

The world is FULL of people whose MHR is 20 BMP different to the
220-minus-age formula.

--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

Preston Crawford said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a
different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for
about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually. Blood
pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great shape.

i wouldn't worry about it. but that obviously depends a lot on your max and
your heart. if you're implying your max is 170 then staying at 165 for 10
minutes might be a bit much, tho. i'm 6 years older than you (or perhaps i'm
also 29, hmm) and 160 for me is cruising speed if climbing aggressively.

Quoted message said:

I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting my
heart rate get up into that range.

when you start to puke. ;-)
--
david reuteler
[email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a
different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for
about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually. Blood
pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great shape.
I have a little headache today and I'd like to pass that off to the fact
that the last mile and a half of my ride was on highway 26 here in
Portland, going about 35 miles an hour downhill. But I have anxiety, you
know, so my brain is thinking stupid thoughts about how I did a bad thing.
I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting my
heart rate get up into that range.

Preston

Unless you have diagnosed heart problems...QUIT WORRYING ABOUT IT!!

Humans have evolved over millions of years. Over that time, our bodies have
adapted quite well to handling intermittent cardiovascular stress. Do you
think Og the Caveman sat in his cave the day after being chased by a saber
toothed tiger, wondering if he got his heart rate too high while running
away??? Sheesh...

GG

gds said:

There is an approximatiion formuls which is 220-your age= max HR. By
that measure you were way below your max. But use at least one grain of
salt. I'm 60 so my max by that formula is 160. But experience shows
that I can climb in the mid 170's for quite a while and my sense is
that I can hold 160 for at least an hour. So,....
If you want to know "the truth" for you you need to go spend lots of $
and get tested.

Yeah. Maybe someday. It's just weird, because even though I'm in good
shape I'm still a Clydesdale (260). So that factors into my anxiety over
the issue. Even though my body tells me I'm fine.

Preston

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

Quoted message said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a
different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for
about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually. Blood
pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great shape.
I have a little headache today and I'd like to pass that off to the fact
that the last mile and a half of my ride was on highway 26 here in
Portland, going about 35 miles an hour downhill. But I have anxiety, you
know, so my brain is thinking stupid thoughts about how I did a bad thing.
I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting my
heart rate get up into that range.

Get rid of your heart rate monitor as all it seems to be doing for you is
causing you to worry needlessly. If you were to exercise at max heart rate
for a little while (a few moments), there would likely be no ill effects
unless you have some heart problems (get checked by a doctor if you have
reason to believe you do). If you were to exercise at max heart rate for an
extended period, well, I don't think you could without difficulty coming
from several places (out of breath, lactate acid in blood, muscle pain,
muscle cramps, sore this or that, etc.). Hence, IME, since you report no
ill effects, you're just inventing this because you're reading a number on a
meter. IMO, training at high HR periodically is good for improving heart
and lung strength, assuming it doesn't kill you. My guess is that if you
mention this to your typical doctor s/he would suggest you NOT go to high HR
just because you're worried about it or because they don't understand it.

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

Quoted message said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a
different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for
about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually. Blood
pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great shape.
I have a little headache today and I'd like to pass that off to the fact
that the last mile and a half of my ride was on highway 26 here in
Portland, going about 35 miles an hour downhill. But I have anxiety, you
know, so my brain is thinking stupid thoughts about how I did a bad thing.
I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting my
heart rate get up into that range.

Didn't you have a cardiology workup back when you were starting out? No
heart problems were found, correct?

Well, then. If approaching MHR were dangerous for someone with no cardiac
issues, athletes would be dropping dead left and right.

I would submit that if you don't actually know your MHR, there's little
point in using a monitor. I agree with the poster who suggested you ditch
it, if all it's doing is contributing to your anxiety.

RichC

David Reuteler said:

Preston Crawford said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a
different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for
about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually. Blood
pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great
shape.

i wouldn't worry about it. but that obviously depends a lot on your max
and
your heart. if you're implying your max is 170 then staying at 165 for
10
minutes might be a bit much, tho. i'm 6 years older than you (or
perhaps i'm
also 29, hmm) and 160 for me is cruising speed if climbing aggressively.

Quoted message said:

I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting
my
heart rate get up into that range.

when you start to puke. ;-)

Here we go with the age thing again, but I am 56 and cruising at 160-170
is not a problem for me. My max is over 180, measured by running sprints
and then taking my pulse against my watch, 45 beats in 15 seconds. After
that it starts to come down fairly rapidly for me, at least. I can only
get to about 170-175 with the bike, but I have to stop and plant my feet
to take my pulse, so the added time may be letting my heart recover some
before I start counting. At 29, you worry too much. Just go out and have
a good time, as long as a little heavy doesn't mean 50 pounds over.
Bill

--
bbaka

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

Quoted message said:

I know, we've been here before. But I'm just curious what's safe for
someone my age (29). Today I did my 13 mile ride into work and took a
different route. It took me on a hill where I was between 160-165 for
about 10 minutes. Got up to 170 at one point. I feel good usually. Blood
pressure is good. I'm still a little heavy, but otherwise in great shape.
I have a little headache today and I'd like to pass that off to the fact
that the last mile and a half of my ride was on highway 26 here in
Portland, going about 35 miles an hour downhill. But I have anxiety, you
know, so my brain is thinking stupid thoughts about how I did a bad thing.
I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting my
heart rate get up into that range.

Preston

I'm 58 and those numbers represent a very normal ride for me. Max is about
194, if I'm rested I can sustain 180+ for a couple of miles on a climb. 172
is an intense but sustainable number for a very long (5-8 miles) 6-8% grade.
If you are healthy you can't ride hard enough to hurt your heart. Your legs
will quit going around and you will fall off first. 🙂 If you are grinning
when you are gasping then there is more fun ahead. Use your heart rate
monitor to keep your heart rate down if when you want to do and easy day. Go
hard, have fun. It's not right for everyone but for those of us that enjoy
it nothing is a better way to unwind.
Bill

Preston Crawford said:

But I have anxiety, you
know, so my brain is thinking stupid thoughts about how I did a bad thing.
I hate it, because I keep wondering at what point I should stop letting my
heart rate get up into that range.

Preston

I am 49 and have a maximum heart rate of 201, at least that is what I
reached on the second stress test to rule out whether I had a heart
problem. The results of the test are that everything is completely
normal. At my age and with diabetes I felt I needed to check it out.

I recommend that you find out your maximum heart rate. The safest
possible way of doing it is a stress test where they monitor your heart
while you exercise. Alternatively, you could go to an exercise
physiologist for tests of max heart rate, lactate threshold, VO2 max,
which would cost $300 or so but tell you a lot about what exercise zones
will be most effective for you. Or you could just run until you are out
of breath and see how high you can get your heart rate. A few monitors
supposedly set a personal zone for you, but they are worthless (at least
for me).

Once you know your maximum heart rate, then you can, if you want to be
careful, not exert yourself beyond 90% of whatever your own personal
maximum is. Plenty of people do go beyond 90%, but most sources say
that doesn't help you to become more fit. Exercise in the 70-90% zone
will do the most to increase your fitness, while the 60-70% zone will
still burn fat but not do as much for fitness.

All of this works better if you are in a gym than on a bike on real
roads. When I come to a hill I go up it if I can, even if it means
going above 90% of my maximum heart rate. I do choose still to use a
heart rate monitor because it helps me not get lazy and I do try to slow
down (if that is possible and still get up the hill) when I hit 90% of
maximum. I also watch for my heart rate to come down quickly after a
hill--that (plus of course no chest pain) are signs of a healthy heart.

Think about what will work for you. If the monitor will just feel your
anxiety, don't use it. Alternatively, if the monitor helps you to feel
more in control, test your personal maximum heart rate and decide on
what zones you will exercise in.

Pam

pam_in_sc said:

Once you know your maximum heart rate, then you can, if you want to be
careful, not exert yourself beyond 90% of whatever your own personal
maximum is. Plenty of people do go beyond 90%, but most sources say
that doesn't help you to become more fit. Exercise in the 70-90% zone
will do the most to increase your fitness, while the 60-70% zone will
still burn fat but not do as much for fitness.

This training advice seems to be very common, but the science
doesn't appear to support it.

90% and above is typically called "zone 5" and is the top end of the
heart rate training zones. While most sources don't recommend much
time be spent in zone 5 (since it is difficult and takes time to
recover from it), it does cause several very beneficial fitness
adaptations. Andy Coggan (who posts here occasionally) writes that
zone 5 is the most effective for the following:

+ Increased plasma volume
+ Hypertrophy of slow twitch muscle fibers
+ Increased muscle capillarization
+ Increased stroke volume/maximal cardiac output
+ Increased VO2max

Note that all these adapations are the ones that increase aerobic
ability. The one missing item is lactate threshold, which is best
achieved with zone 4 training. Andy describes zone 5 training:

"Typical intensity of longer (3-8 min) intervals intended
to increase VO2max. Strong to severe sensations of leg
effort/fatigue, such that completion of more than 30-40
min total training time is difficult at best. Conversation
not possible due to often 'ragged' breathing. Should
generally be attempted only when adequately
recovered from prior training - consecutive days of
level 5 work not necessarily desirable even if possible."

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rechung/wattage/coggan.pdf

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:30:41 -0500, pam_in_sc <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I am 49 and have a maximum heart rate of 201, at least that is what I
reached on the second stress test to rule out whether I had a heart
problem. The results of the test are that everything is completely
normal. At my age and with diabetes I felt I needed to check it out.

That's good to hear. I remember your initial posts, but I didn't
remember reading how the doctor's visit came out.

Pat

Email address works as is.

GaryG said:

Unless you have diagnosed heart problems...QUIT WORRYING ABOUT IT!!

Humans have evolved over millions of years. Over that time, our bodies have
adapted quite well to handling intermittent cardiovascular stress. Do you
think Og the Caveman sat in his cave the day after being chased by a saber
toothed tiger, wondering if he got his heart rate too high while running
away??? Sheesh...

Have we been waiting that long for Cateye to finally release the
CC-TR100?

--Blair
"Or is that just me?"

Patrick Lamb said:

That's good to hear. I remember your initial posts, but I didn't
remember reading how the doctor's visit came out.

Pat

Thanks! I did post it, but buried deep in a thread about something else.

Pam

Terry Morse said:

90% and above is typically called "zone 5" and is the top end of the
heart rate training zones. While most sources don't recommend much
time be spent in zone 5 (since it is difficult and takes time to
recover from it), it does cause several very beneficial fitness
adaptations.

But what about base training? There's a pretty detailed set of
articles at bike.com that make a strong case for engaging in
low-intensity training for 8-16 weeks per year. For example:

http://www.bike.com/template.asp?date=11/18/2004&lsectionnumber=5

Perhaps as a non-competitive non-racer it is silly for me to go through
an extended base period, but I like the idea of taking it easy for a
few months over the winter to give my joints a break.

The last time I tested my max HR I was spot on the 220-age measurement
(178 at age 42). That means my low-intensity "base" rides are all done
at <= 128.

JR

SlowRider said:

Terry Morse said:

90% and above is typically called "zone 5" and is the top end of the
heart rate training zones. While most sources don't recommend much
time be spent in zone 5 (since it is difficult and takes time to
recover from it), it does cause several very beneficial fitness
adaptations.

But what about base training? There's a pretty detailed set of
articles at bike.com that make a strong case for engaging in
low-intensity training for 8-16 weeks per year. For example:

http://www.bike.com/template.asp?date=11/18/2004&lsectionnumber=5

Interesting. I'll have to study that article further. Andy Coggan's
article lists no adaptation that's optimized with zone 2 (base)
training. Possibly a confilct.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Diablo Scott said:

Your max heart rate as determined by a fitness test (for use in
establishing aerobic/anaerobic/lactic threshold levels) is probably
quite a bit different from what a cardiologist would tell you is "safe"
if you have any heart problems.

Thanks. That's good to know. It's so hard to tell. My anxiety gets the
better of me with this stuff, you know.

Preston

pam_in_sc said:

Think about what will work for you. If the monitor will just feel your
anxiety, don't use it. Alternatively, if the monitor helps you to feel
more in control, test your personal maximum heart rate and decide on
what zones you will exercise in.

I use it for both. I use it to stay in "the zone", but unfortunately,
yeah, I use it as a crutch.

Preston

Rich Clark said:

Didn't you have a cardiology workup back when you were starting out? No
heart problems were found, correct?

This is true, yes. A few years ago, though. And, when you have anxiety
like me, your mind tends to really get imaginative about all the kinds of
things going on in your body that you're not aware of.

Quoted message said:

Well, then. If approaching MHR were dangerous for someone with no cardiac
issues, athletes would be dropping dead left and right.

I would submit that if you don't actually know your MHR, there's little
point in using a monitor. I agree with the poster who suggested you ditch
it, if all it's doing is contributing to your anxiety.

It doesn't generally "contribute" to my anxiety. More often than not, it's
relationship to my anxiety is as a crutch. Meaning I use it sometimes to
make sure I don't get into "danger areas" even if I feel okay. It's only
sometimes that I actually let this worry me. Like the other day.

Preston