Reebok HRM, Comments about - Page 7 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

03-08-2005, 03:17 AM

You bought one of those?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOL

03-08-2005, 07:37 AM

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:18:58 GMT, "Sam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:
>
>" Bob Alan" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:Mq5Xd.12013$2s.3157@lakeread06...
>> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate
>> reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I get if
>> I
>> jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher then
>> any
>> of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>>
>> Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that should
>> be
>> used when working out a cardio training range?

>Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>
>That said, why even measure HR?

To record heart recovery rate, to work out more accurately
improvements in cardio vascular fitness levels.

HTH

03-08-2005, 09:09 AM

In news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ],
Charles <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> rattled on thusly:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:18:58 GMT, "Sam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>>
>> " Bob Alan" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:Mq5Xd.12013$2s.3157@lakeread06...
>>> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart
>>> rate reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same
>>> reading I get if I
>>> jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher
>>> then any
>>> of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>>>
>>> Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that
>>> should be
>>> used when working out a cardio training range?
>
>> Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>>
>> That said, why even measure HR?
>
> To record heart recovery rate, to work out more accurately
> improvements in cardio vascular fitness levels.
>
> HTH

What is the best way to record your recovery heart rate? I've heard some
people take their heart rate at t0 and then t+1minute, t+2minutes and
t+5minutes and leave it at that, others take it at t0 and t+1minute and
subtract one from the other to get a single figure... At the moment I do
neither (or anything else) but would like to start wth my next exercise
session. What do people here do?

M.

--
Psycho killer, qu'est que c'est?

03-08-2005, 10:11 AM

Thanks all, for all the great advice

The treadmill to which I refered is a Nordictrack 9600 and it goes higher
then 45 degrees, it just gets hard to handle more then 45
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I never had any other exercise routine produce a higher HR then a short
burst at that angle.

joeu2004, per the note below, I suspect you meant "highest HR" multiplied
by 0.9 or 0.95 and if I understand what your saying the max HR is slightly
less then highest HR. The highest measured has been over time and using
more then one method of measurement. And yes it's the rate I get when I
push it to the point where I can not keep going.

Is there any value in pushing to the highest HR or is it just harmful
stress. I was guessing that at least doing it for brief periods might be
useful.

Bob

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1110247069.093000.145390@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
Bob Alan wrote:
> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate

> reading of any type of exercise I do. [....] This HR is higher then
> any of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>
> Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that
> should be used when working out a cardio training range?

Yes. The formulas are merely estimates ("predictions")
based on statistical analysis. All of the formulas have a
standard deviation of 10-12 bpm, which means that 32% of the
population might have a true max HR that exceeds or is less
than the predicted max HR by 10-12 bpm, 5% of the population
differ by 20-24 bpm, and 1% differ by 26-31 bpm.

(And frankly, those statistical conclusions are based on
assumptions that I do not know to be true. My own max HR
differs from one predicted max HR by 35 bpm.)

However, it is unlikely that the HR that you hit is your
max HR -- unless you were gasping for breath and unable to
maintain that pace for more than a few minutes.

Depending on how you felt at the time, your max HR might be
that "highest HR" divided by 0.9 or 0.95, perhaps even 0.85.

But before you change your routine based on the new max HR,
I suggest that you measure your peak training HR over a
period of time and take an average. Then divide by the
%max HR that you believe you were measuring, based on your
perceived exertion.

Also, you do not say how you determined your HR. Even a
reliable HRM can give bogus results periodically for a
variety of reasons; and most other methods are very less
consistent. All the more reason to conduct several
experiments before drawing any conclusions.

03-08-2005, 10:22 AM

Mazza wrote:
> In news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ],

> What is the best way to record your recovery heart rate? I've heard
some
> people take their heart rate at t0 and then t+1minute, t+2minutes and

> t+5minutes and leave it at that, others take it at t0 and t+1minute
and
> subtract one from the other to get a single figure... At the moment I
do
> neither (or anything else) but would like to start wth my next
exercise
> session. What do people here do?

Are you interesting in recovery heart rate to measure performance
improvements? I don't measure my recovery heart rate, but what I do is
run the fitness test on the stationary bike at the gym (using a polar
chest strap). It provides a good estimation of VO2 Max without paying
big bucks at a testing facility.

03-08-2005, 10:41 AM

>Tomorrow it might well be different, it'll
>be different while doing something else, and it'll >be different at
the
>end of your workout because your heart gets t>ired just like other
>muscles do.

Does your heart really get tired like other muscles do? I'd say that
day to day fatigue differences would be affected by skeletal muscle way
before cardiac muscle. Just a thought . . . .

Ooch

03-08-2005, 10:58 AM

Mazza wrote:
> What is the best way to record your recovery heart rate? I've heard
some
> people take their heart rate at t0 and then t+1minute, t+2minutes and

> t+5minutes and leave it at that, others take it at t0 and t+1minute
and
> subtract one from the other to get a single figure

I would record actual HR. That can be used for either
way you want to use recovery HR. The delta can be
computed from the actual HRs.

Medical research seems to focus on the delta HR --
specifically the number of bpm dropped in 2 min after
a maximal stress test (85-90% MHR). Medical papers
report a statistical relationship between an X-bpm
drop after 2 min and mortality and some coronary
diseases. Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement
on what "X" is. I have see 22; I have also seen 42.

Fitness people seem to focus the time to return to
your pre-exercise HR as a measure of fitness. After
a maximal exercise session, a very fit person should
return to his/her pre-exercise HR within 2 min.

03-08-2005, 11:19 AM

Bob Alan wrote:
> Thanks all, for all the great advice
>
> The treadmill to which I refered is a Nordictrack 9600 and it goes higher
> then 45 degrees, it just gets hard to handle more then 45
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

From that page
"You'll enjoy extreme inclines of up to 50%"

50% is *about* 25 degrees, so I suspect you have it set at 45%, not
degrees, but that's still a good workout. One thing nice about that tm
is the 5% decline that many treadmills don't have although it's nowhere
near the strength workout that a 20-30% downhill provides.

But that doesn't change any of the discussion, just wanted to clarify that.

Something you might want to pay attention to is when you start
transitioning from breathing hard to panting. That *may* be close to 90%
of max hr, probably in the 85-95% range. That's how I estimate my max
hr, and the zones I end up with fit pretty well with verbal descriptions
of them.

Dot

--
"After 26 hours 38 minutes, we accomplished our mission, and the next
day were fortunate to read about our adventure in the sports section of
the local papers rather than the obituaries."
-Dean Karnazes recounting their running of the WS100 trail in winter.

03-08-2005, 11:23 AM

The website says that the treadmill will go up to 50%. That's a bit
different than 50 degrees. Slopes measured in % refer to the ratio of
rise over run. So a slope of 50% means that for every 100 feet you move
forward exactly horizontal, the surface rises 50 feet. You can convert
this to an angle if you wish, with this formula:
angle = arctan(percent_slope/100)
50% slope is equal to about 27 degrees angle.

Bob Alan wrote:
> Thanks all, for all the great advice
>
> The treadmill to which I refered is a Nordictrack 9600 and it goes higher
> then 45 degrees, it just gets hard to handle more then 45
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> I never had any other exercise routine produce a higher HR then a short
> burst at that angle.
>
> joeu2004, per the note below, I suspect you meant "highest HR" multiplied
> by 0.9 or 0.95 and if I understand what your saying the max HR is slightly
> less then highest HR. The highest measured has been over time and using
> more then one method of measurement. And yes it's the rate I get when I
> push it to the point where I can not keep going.
>
> Is there any value in pushing to the highest HR or is it just harmful
> stress. I was guessing that at least doing it for brief periods might be
> useful.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:1110247069.093000.145390@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Bob Alan wrote:
>
>>When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate
>
>
>>reading of any type of exercise I do. [....] This HR is higher then
>>any of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>>
>>Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that
>>should be used when working out a cardio training range?
>
>
> Yes. The formulas are merely estimates ("predictions")
> based on statistical analysis. All of the formulas have a
> standard deviation of 10-12 bpm, which means that 32% of the
> population might have a true max HR that exceeds or is less
> than the predicted max HR by 10-12 bpm, 5% of the population
> differ by 20-24 bpm, and 1% differ by 26-31 bpm.
>
> (And frankly, those statistical conclusions are based on
> assumptions that I do not know to be true. My own max HR
> differs from one predicted max HR by 35 bpm.)
>
> However, it is unlikely that the HR that you hit is your
> max HR -- unless you were gasping for breath and unable to
> maintain that pace for more than a few minutes.
>
> Depending on how you felt at the time, your max HR might be
> that "highest HR" divided by 0.9 or 0.95, perhaps even 0.85.
>
> But before you change your routine based on the new max HR,
> I suggest that you measure your peak training HR over a
> period of time and take an average. Then divide by the
> %max HR that you believe you were measuring, based on your
> perceived exertion.
>
> Also, you do not say how you determined your HR. Even a
> reliable HRM can give bogus results periodically for a
> variety of reasons; and most other methods are very less
> consistent. All the more reason to conduct several
> experiments before drawing any conclusions.
>
>
>

03-08-2005, 11:34 AM

Raptor wrote:
> Bob Alan wrote:
> > When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart
rate
> > reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I
get if I
> > jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher
then any
> > of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
> >
> > Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that
should be
> > used when working out a cardio training range?
> >
> > Thanks for any advice
> >
> > Bob
>
> As joeu noted, it probably isn't your real max. But who really cares?

> You can go to a doctor and have him/her watch you as you push
yourself
> to the absolute limit on a calibrated test, but that's just your max
on
> that day doing that activity. Tomorrow it might well be different,
it'll
> be different while doing something else, and it'll be different at
the
> end of your workout because your heart gets tired just like other
> muscles do.
>
> Continue using your highest number ever seen, add a fudge factor,
crunch
> whatever zones you want to use, and don't obsess over the digits. If
you
> practice specific exercises often enough, base your workouts on
> different maxes, each appropriate to the activity.
>

Using that advice might probably kill off a few people but who's
counting. 45 year old male, 5'9", 160 lb. in decent shape after 9
months in training who got a heart rate monitor and was amazed to see
197-202 avg. hbm on moderately easy 6 mile runs. So what would your
"fudge factor, crunch whatever zones you want to use, and don't obsess
over the digits" advice be?

To the other guy, when there is doubt, go see the doctor. If your
health plan 'discourages' this kind of 'frivolous' visit, go outside
your plan. It's your life.