Reebok HRM, Comments about - Page 8 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

03-08-2005, 04:13 PM

Thanks for the angle correction. When I'm running on the thing and I punch
the 45 button it feels like I'm trying to run up a wall. Without really
paying attention I just assumed it meant 45 deg.

'Nuther reason I like using a HRM, is incentive. Just like a bike computer
nudges one to get a higher avg/max speed or distance then the last time, a
HRM monitor nudges to try harder and lets me know immediately that I'm
slacking.

I also like using the gym gear capability that lets one set a target rate
then it auto adjust the speed/load to keep you at that HR. It's like
having a coach yelling at you.

"Weston Beal" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
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.
>
>
>

03-09-2005, 12:11 AM

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

Why have a spedometer in your car? I mean: do you really
look at it all the time, or do you rely on "perceived
velocity" most of the time? On the other had, don't you
keep one eye on your spedometer when you see a cop nearby?

The answer to your question is: while "perceived exertion"
(RPE) can be used, it is a subjective indicator. In contrast,
measuring your HR is an objective indicator of exertion. Both
can be misleading under some (differing) conditions.

But they are simply two methods of measuring the same thing.
Your choice is a matter of personal preference.

In fact, it is widely held that there is a statistically
linear relationship between RPE and HR. For example, if your
RPE is 14 on the Borg scale, it is widely held that your HR
is about 140. Even the ACSM asserts this.

Personally, I find that assertion remarkable. However, I
would believe a relationship between RPE and %MHR (or %VO2max).
Also, I want to reiterate that I said "statistically linear".
Like the age-based MHR formulas, there is probably wide
variation among individuals.

03-09-2005, 10:00 AM

Bob Alan wrote:
> 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.

I've not heard of a quantifiable benefit of MaxHR training, and I've
asked people who should know.

One advantage of trying to work at that intensity COULD be: the fitter
you are, the harder you have to work to see appreciable gains. It can be
very demanding. So trying to push your HR higher can get you "up there."
However, anyone who achieves that state of fitness is very likely
self-motivated enough to maximize their training.

Work at the high levels also requires discipline as overtraining is an
inevitable consequence of continually pushing yourself harder.

--
--
Lynn Wallace [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

03-09-2005, 10:06 AM

DaOoch wrote:
>>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

The heart isn't skeletal muscle, of course, so it doesn't respond the
same way.

IIRC, I've only seen the assertion that your heart tires in one source,
but it was a pretty good one with plenty of information I've seen
corroborated elsewhere: Speed On Skates. The effect cited was that your
max HR will be lower at the end of a workout/competition than before.

--
--
Lynn Wallace [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

03-09-2005, 10:13 AM

Sskb wrote:
> 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?

You get what you pay for.

"Moderately easy 6 mile runs" aren't a good way to estimate your max.
But you're right in alluding to your nine months of training. I wouldn't
be comfortable asking a couch potato to find their max. Always ramp up
gradually in terms of intensity and training volume.

In your case, I suggest going harder. Not all the time, just enough
times to get your HR up there. Listen to your body, blah blah, and
always approach your limits with care. But after a few such workouts
(varieties of self tests are available for the searching), you'll gain a
useful understanding of your max.

Then you can calculate zones based on percentages, and exercise strictly
accordingly. Or, you can just work out like you usually do. If you're
not a competitive or otherwise serious athlete, the latter suffices.

--
--
Lynn Wallace [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

03-09-2005, 10:22 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>
>>Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>>That said, why even measure HR?
>
>
> Why have a spedometer in your car? I mean: do you really
> look at it all the time, or do you rely on "perceived
> velocity" most of the time? On the other had, don't you
> keep one eye on your spedometer when you see a cop nearby?
>
> The answer to your question is: while "perceived exertion"
> (RPE) can be used, it is a subjective indicator. In contrast,
> measuring your HR is an objective indicator of exertion. Both
> can be misleading under some (differing) conditions.

I rarely bother to take my HRM to a workout anymore. Once I had one and
wore it for several weeks of working out, I was able to correlate my RPE
with my HR. ("When I feel like this, my heart's pounding this fast.)
Importantly, I found that a "recovery zone" workout was much much easier
than I thought. Since then, I've had the knowledge I feel I need to work
productively.

I'm not a competitive athlete, just an athlete. Were I competing, I'd
pay much more attention to my numbers, beyond HR.

I think the most beneficial result of tracking your HR is to diagnose
fatigue or possible health problems. If your resting HR is higher than
usual, that's a signal to work a little easier that day, or even take
the day off.

--
--
Lynn Wallace [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

03-09-2005, 07:37 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1110355866.109772.184020@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Sam wrote:
>> Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>> That said, why even measure HR?
>
> Why have a spedometer in your car? I mean: do you really
> look at it all the time, or do you rely on "perceived
> velocity" most of the time? On the other had, don't you
> keep one eye on your spedometer when you see a cop nearby?
>
> The answer to your question is: while "perceived exertion"
> (RPE) can be used, it is a subjective indicator. In contrast,
> measuring your HR is an objective indicator of exertion. Both
> can be misleading under some (differing) conditions.

HR is a measure of heart rate. It is an indirect indicator of exertion
at best. You gave a good point on why not to use HR since it is more
susceptible to differing conditions. RPE is very robust. If it is hot out
and one is running 7min/mile, it will likely feel harder than the same pace
at a cooler temperature.

In fact RPE is a very good indicator of something like LT where for an
individual it tracks very well.

>
> But they are simply two methods of measuring the same thing.
> Your choice is a matter of personal preference.
>
> In fact, it is widely held that there is a statistically
> linear relationship between RPE and HR. For example, if your
> RPE is 14 on the Borg scale, it is widely held that your HR
> is about 140. Even the ACSM asserts this.

Thanks for proving my point. Use RPE then. The 6 to 20 scale was
developed for use with cardiac rehab patients. Supposedly just adding a
zero to the RPE (multiplying by 10) would give HR. This is not as neat as
you make it out to be. (A lot of things are "widely held" and proven to be
wrong--look at the whole fat burning idiocy).

I would argue that it is better to use the 1-10 RPE scale since so many
metabolic responses are decidely non-linear (look at a lactate curve for
instance).

>
> Personally, I find that assertion remarkable. However, I
> would believe a relationship between RPE and %MHR (or %VO2max).
> Also, I want to reiterate that I said "statistically linear".
> Like the age-based MHR formulas, there is probably wide
> variation among individuals.
>

03-09-2005, 10:54 PM

Bob Alan wrote:
>
> 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.

I may have missed it, but what are your goals? In different hr training
"zones" (really locations along a gradient), you will be shifting
relative sources of energy (as well as some other things). So there's
different benefits to different effort levels. Most training alternates
hard / easy days or weeks in some manner and usually periodizes across a
year. "Hard" efforts are usually a minor percentage of total volume.
Most people use hrm to keep effort easy, since there's a tendency to do
easy workouts too hard and hard workouts too easy. Just a thought.

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.

03-10-2005, 04:34 AM

Dot wrote:
> Bob Alan wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I may have missed it, but what are your goals? In different hr
training
> "zones" (really locations along a gradient), you will be shifting
> relative sources of energy (as well as some other things). So there's

> different benefits to different effort levels. Most training
alternates
> hard / easy days or weeks in some manner and usually periodizes
across a
> year. "Hard" efforts are usually a minor percentage of total volume.
> Most people use hrm to keep effort easy, since there's a tendency to
do
> easy workouts too hard and hard workouts too easy. Just a thought.

Very true. At least for me. For example last night I did a 5 x 4:00 vo2
max workout on the road with rolling hills. On a track it would be
easier to maintain pace and effort. However, I find it more convenient
to do these on a 3-mile stretch of road (business park, after hours, no
traffic). The HRM keeps me honest. I set my vo2 zone in a fairly wide
range, since I find it nearly impossible to get a very high HR while
going downhill. Keeping the easy days truly easy, is also a good reason
to use an HRM. I agree that some people can do this by perceived
effort. After using an HRM for quite a while, I too could probably
perceive my effort pretty well. At this point I think my HRM has become
more of a gadget/toy. I like to track my fitness with actual data. But
that's just me.

Phil M.

03-10-2005, 05:21 AM

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:22:54 -0700, Raptor <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>>>Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>>>That said, why even measure HR?
>>
>>
>> Why have a spedometer in your car? I mean: do you really
>> look at it all the time, or do you rely on "perceived
>> velocity" most of the time? On the other had, don't you
>> keep one eye on your spedometer when you see a cop nearby?
>>
>> The answer to your question is: while "perceived exertion"
>> (RPE) can be used, it is a subjective indicator. In contrast,
>> measuring your HR is an objective indicator of exertion. Both
>> can be misleading under some (differing) conditions.
>
>I rarely bother to take my HRM to a workout anymore. Once I had one and
>wore it for several weeks of working out, I was able to correlate my RPE
>with my HR. ("When I feel like this, my heart's pounding this fast.)
>Importantly, I found that a "recovery zone" workout was much much easier
>than I thought. Since then, I've had the knowledge I feel I need to work
>productively.

That makes sense. Now that I'm riding clipless pedals, and full biking
gear, it takes me almost 30 minutes to get dressed for winter riding. The
thought of having to strap on an HRM and another wristwatch in addition to
the balaclava, helmet, sunglasses, third-eye mirror, cycling shoes, cycling
jacket, utility belt with pepperspray, MP3 player, air-horn, cell phone and
starter pistol would just be too much! ;-)

>I'm not a competitive athlete, just an athlete. Were I competing, I'd
>pay much more attention to my numbers, beyond HR.
>
>I think the most beneficial result of tracking your HR is to diagnose
>fatigue or possible health problems. If your resting HR is higher than
>usual, that's a signal to work a little easier that day, or even take
>the day off.

I have one little half-mile hill at the end of my ride that on good days I
can ride up in a relatively high gear (52x17). On a not so good day, I have
to turn off mid-way and go down a side street and recover a little, then
continue. Regardless, I get this strong sensation of 'heart pounding out of
chest' at times - usually the legs are pretty good, although yesterday the
HR was quite and the legs were a little painful.

It's weird how some days I feel great, even super, mentally, then go out
and the legs just have no 'pop'. Other days I think, 'ok, I'll just do a
slow recovery ride and the legs are full of 'pop' and I spend the whole
route with the 'sprint light' on, heh.

jj

(ok, just kidding about the utility belt)