Heatrate monitor
View Full Version : Heatrate monitor
I also bought a Heart rate monitor. What should my heartrate be while
running? (Iam a total noob when it comes to stuff like this)
I dont know what 80% or 60% of my Heart rate is etc. Is there any way to
find out?
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:28:25 GMT, vze1r2ht <vze1r2ht@verizon.net>
wrote:
>I also bought a Heart rate monitor. What should my heartrate be while
>running? (Iam a total noob when it comes to stuff like this)
>
>I dont know what 80% or 60% of my Heart rate is etc. Is there any way to
>find out?
Yes. Run as hard and as fast as you can until your heart explodes,
then take 80% of that.
vze1r2ht wrote:
> I also bought a Heart rate monitor. What should my heartrate be while
> running? (Iam a total noob when it comes to stuff like this)
>
> I dont know what 80% or 60% of my Heart rate is etc. Is there any way to
> find out?
Because of your foot problems on runs of 30 min or less (if I read your
other post correctly), I would just run at "conversational" effort -
even if there's no one to talk with, talk with yourself in complete
sentences. You may aggravate an injury by trying to run hard to
determine max hr.
If you're going to use a hrm, it's a good idea to get a book (or read
web pages) about training with a hrm. You really should understand the
principles. A couple books that people have used include Precision Heart
Rate Training (Ed Burke) and Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat
Idiot (John Parker). (I've used Burke, but not Parker.)
In the meantime, you might try lining up efforts with "perceived effort"
column in this chart:
http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf
PLease note that % of max hr and % of effort are different %.
"Official" methods of determining max usually involve running hard like
at end of 5k or hard up hill, but this might not be a good idea with
your foot problem. You should probably also check with a doctor before
trying this. The method that I used was to run "hard" (for me) up hill
at end of regular run. Where I got breathless was the 90% max hr
(LT/VT). You can google the group for old discussions of this or get one
of the books.
Dot
--
"If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough."
- Matt Carpenter
real simple.
220- your age = max heart rate.
if you are 40, your max HR is 180
60% of that is 108
80% is 144
Keep it between 108-144 and you're getting an aerobic workout.
> real simple.
>
> 220- your age = max heart rate.
Very debatable
--
Mark
_______________________________________
Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter
everything is debatable, but 220-age is the "rule of thumb" that is
used most, unless you know of another. the best way would be to have a
physical and let your doctor tell you personally. in the absence of
that, there is no more universally accepted formula.
Dred wrote:
> everything is debatable
No it's not.
On 1 Nov 2005 08:03:56 -0800, "Ebenezer Scrooge"
<thescroogemeister@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No it's not.
Yes it is.
So, it is like the speed of light, that no one can live past 180 years
old withouf a pace maker to pump up the heart rate.
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dred wrote in article
<1130860613.834298.11510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>everything is debatable, but 220-age is the "rule of thumb" that is
>used most, unless you know of another. the best way would be to have a
>physical and let your doctor tell you personally. in the absence of
>that, there is no more universally accepted formula.
It's the one that's used most, but it started life as a rule of thumb
based on hunches and impressions and that's what it's remained. Even if
it were accurate (and this is true for any HRM formula) most of the
population doesn't fall at the center of the curve, so for an individual
it can be wildly misleading.
--
Don Kirkman
"Dred" <dredturner@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130781213.091992.262840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> real simple.
>
> 220- your age = max heart rate.
> if you are 40, your max HR is 180
>
> 60% of that is 108
> 80% is 144
>
> Keep it between 108-144 and you're getting an aerobic workout.
True, but if his max is 180, 144 is 80%, and that's a sub-threshold workout
for most people. My max is ~190 at age 42, and my normal runs must be <140
or my legs accumulate fatigue over successive days. IMO the best way to use
a HR monitor is to find out what HR you can sustain without getting tired
legs, then stay under that for most of your runs. For faster stuff I use %
of max HR more.
-Tony
In article <jx4bf.125$w_6.115@trndny09>,
"Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dred" <dredturner@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1130781213.091992.262840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > real simple.
> >
> > 220- your age = max heart rate.
> > if you are 40, your max HR is 180
Rubbish! This formula is just an approximation, and I'm sure there are
40-year-olds with MHR well above 180 (I'm 39 and I've gotten my HR to
190, and that was not a maximal effort).
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>Rubbish! This formula is just an approximation,
Which is a reasonable starting point for someone who's out of shape though.
> and I'm sure there are
>40-year-olds with MHR well above 180 (I'm 39 and I've gotten my HR to
>190, and that was not a maximal effort).
Yup. I'm 46 and my observed max is (at least) 188.
These formulae may be more useful for runners and older (30+) people
HRM = 210 - age/2 HRthreshold = 180 - age/4
Taken from this page (in French, sorry)
http://fsp.saliege.com/
In article <op2qm1df4retoitl2pgvonpn9cnseisgl9@4ax.com>,
steve common <stevenZ.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Rubbish! This formula is just an approximation,
>
> Which is a reasonable starting point for someone who's out of shape though.
>
I'm not so sure.
First of all, there's the school that says that max HR is, by
definition, untrainable. Of course, THAT depends on *exactly* how you
define it. Are you saying that max HR is the maximum HR your body could
possibly attain if you were in the best shape you could ever be in?
Then, yes, it's untrainable. But if you mean the maximum HR you could
achieve right now, that's certainly trainable, since many people
probably don't have the legs to get the HR as high as it could possibly
go. In any case, I don't know why the formula would be more reasonable
for people who are out of shape.
Secondly, the 220-age is most likely culled from a linear regression
model, which means that there would be substantial scatter around the
line. It would be interesting to see what a prediction interval would
say for the HR for someone who is 40; it would probably be something
like "There is a 95% chance that someone who is 40 years old has a
maximum heart rate between 150 and 210." I don't see how it would be a
reasonable starting point if it's potentially off by 30 or so BPM.
For someone out of shape, perceived exertion is probably a good starting
point.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>"There is a 95% chance that someone who is 40 years old has a
>maximum heart rate between 150 and 210." I don't see how it would be a
>reasonable starting point if it's potentially off by 30 or so BPM.
Funny you should say that, I just read that very paragraph in a book while
relaxing in the bath :-)
>For someone out of shape, perceived exertion is probably a good starting
>point.
OK I get the point and agree with you. I just meant that choosing (220 -
age) was a reasonable starting point for estimating HRmax because other
formulae, like the one's I posted, are fitted to more "specialised"
populations where the 220 formula was for sedentaries IIRC.
In article <no_one_knows-69291E.16152505112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Secondly, the 220-age is most likely culled from a linear regression
>model, which means that there would be substantial scatter around the
>line. It would be interesting to see what a prediction interval would
>say for the HR for someone who is 40; it would probably be something
>like "There is a 95% chance that someone who is 40 years old has a
>maximum heart rate between 150 and 210." I don't see how it would be a
>reasonable starting point if it's potentially off by 30 or so BPM.
Standard deviation for the 220-age is 12 bpm iirc, so +- 30 is
probably closer to 98% than 95, but your point stands. The formula
itself wasn't the result of taking a sizeable population and doing a
linear regression. It was about 12 people, and eyeball regression.
The purpose wasn't to construct the be-all end-all of max heart rate
estimation. The best of such formulas gets the standard deviation
down to 'only' 10 bpm iirc. Not a great improvement. Age just
isn't a great predictor of max hr.
>For someone out of shape, perceived exertion is probably a good starting
>point.
Regardless of condition, perceived effort is probably a good
working point.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Harold Buck wrote in article
<no_one_knows-69291E.16152505112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>In article <op2qm1df4retoitl2pgvonpn9cnseisgl9@4ax.com>,
> steve common <stevenZ.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Rubbish! This formula is just an approximation,
>> Which is a reasonable starting point for someone who's out of shape though.
>I'm not so sure.
>First of all, there's the school that says that max HR is, by
>definition, untrainable. Of course, THAT depends on *exactly* how you
>define it. Are you saying that max HR is the maximum HR your body could
>possibly attain if you were in the best shape you could ever be in?
>Then, yes, it's untrainable. But if you mean the maximum HR you could
>achieve right now, that's certainly trainable, since many people
>probably don't have the legs to get the HR as high as it could possibly
>go. In any case, I don't know why the formula would be more reasonable
>for people who are out of shape.
>Secondly, the 220-age is most likely culled from a linear regression
>model, which means that there would be substantial scatter around the
>line. It would be interesting to see what a prediction interval would
>say for the HR for someone who is 40; it would probably be something
>like "There is a 95% chance that someone who is 40 years old has a
>maximum heart rate between 150 and 210." I don't see how it would be a
>reasonable starting point if it's potentially off by 30 or so BPM.
No, the point I was making earlier is that the 220-age formula was put
together by two men on a plane on their way to a conference where they
were to present something; it was based on a survey of several earlier
studies. This is alluded to, but not detailed, at
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf.
I'm extracting a short bit of what I see as persuasive evidence about
the origin of the formula:
[Begin]
The question of how to find maximum heart rates is not just of academic
interest, medical experts say. The formula for calculating the maximum
rate has become a standard in cardiology and in fitness programs, and an
entire industry has grown up around it, with monitors sold to
individuals and built into exercise equipment.
.. . .
Doctors use the formula when they test patients for heart disease,
asking them to walk on treadmills while the speed and incline are
gradually increased until their heart rates reach 85 percent of the
predicted maximums.
.. . .
Personal trainers and exercise instructors design fitness programs
around the maximum heart rate, often telling people to wear heart rate
monitors and then to exercise at 80 to 90 percent of the maximum in
brief spurts to build aerobic capacity and at 65 percent to 75 percent
to build endurance.
Some heart monitors built into exercise machines even shut the machines
down if an exerciser exceeds 90 percent of the predicted maximum. But if
the heart rate formula is wrong, these exercise prescriptions are
misguided.
"If you're trying to improve their aerobic fitness or to train for
certain endurance events, then you want to know with a reasonable
accuracy what intensity you're exercising at," Dr. Seals said. "If your
estimate is 10 or 20 beats too low, then you're pretty far off."
Exercise physiologists say, however, that being pretty far off is more
common than most people expect.
"The more information we have, the more we realize that that formula is
just a very rough consideration," said Dr. Jack H. Wilmore, an exercise
physiologist at Texas A&M.
And while Dr. Seals is now proposing a new formula to use as a general
guide, he and others say it is simplistic to rely on a single formula to
predict the maximum heart rates of individuals.
The common formula was devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell, then a
young physician in the federal Public Health Service and his mentor, Dr.
Samuel Fox, who led the service's program on heart disease. They were
trying to determine how strenuously heart disease patients could
exercise. In preparation for a medical meeting , Dr. Haskell culled
data from about 10 published studies in which people of different ages
had been tested to find their maximum heart rates.
The subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the
population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at
Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart disease.
On an airplane traveling to the meeting, Dr. Haskell pulled out his data
and showed them to Dr. Fox. "We drew a line through the points and I
said, `Gee, if you extrapolate that out it looks like at age 20, the
heart rate maximum is 200 and at age 40 it's 180 and at age 60 it's
160," Dr. Haskell said. At that point, Dr. Fox suggested a formula:
maximum heart rate equals 220 minus age. But, exercise physiologists
said, these data, like virtually all exercise data, had limitations.
They relied on volunteers who most likely were not representative of the
general population. "It's whoever came in the door," Dr. Kirkendall
said.
[End]
http://archive.roadbikereview.com/04/0EE8DBBD.php
--
Don Kirkman
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0 -
TalkFinance.net 
