"Ride lots" or heart rate monitor

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

I'd say that depends on how fit you are now, and how much cycling
experience you have. If you are just starting out, go with the "ride
lots" to build some base endurance and get used to riding, etc. If you
already have a good handle on your fitness and riding in general, then
maybe an HRM would be a good idea. But only if you like fiddling with
figures, and generally would get some enjoyment out of "playing" with
an HRM. 100 miles is within reach. I'll bet you could do it now, You
might suffer and it might take forever, but mental strength is the most
important thing for completing long rides. Fitness is important for
finishing them quickly.

I'd go for the ride lots for the time being, unless I was going to get
some enjoyment out of creating a training plan, etc. The whole point is
to have fun, right?

I think a structured training plan including HRM only makes sense once
you plateau from just riding lots, and have a desire to further improve
your performance.

Have fun!

Joseph

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

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Bill

Welcome Bill

If you can judge what your body is doing, you don't need a HRM, really.
However, when I got back into doing exercise (a few years ago now) I didn't
use one for about 6 months, and noticed that I wasn't getting any faster or
improving my stamina. I got the cheapest HRM I could find and 'according to
the book' I was exercising far too intensely. I backed off a bit, and
things started improving immediately. Now I know better what different
intensities feel like, and just watch my HR for the record. If you're not
aiming to do it quickly, don't bother with gadgets, just get out and slowly
build up the distance. Perhaps consider keeping a diary of what distance
you cover, terrain, weather, how you felt, and you'll soon be able to see
how your body is reacting (hopefully adapting) to the new activity.

I'm guessing that you're new or coming back to cycling. If so, you might
want to have a word with your doctor, just to make sure. 100 mile rides
shouldn't be a distant dream for someone of your age. I know guys 10 years
older who do 70+ twice a week, and think little of it. It's not really
trivial though. The main problems are knowing you can do it, telling your
backside and hands that everything's ok, and eating/drinking properly. If
it takes you 8 hours at 400 calories an hour (wild guesses) that's and extra
3200 calories.

One thing that really will help is comfort. You won't go far with a sore
bottom. You might want to get some more shorts and gloves and review your
position on the bike now and again.

Good luck.
Skippy
E&OE

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Ride lots. (Unless you care about your /speed/ on that 100-mile ride?
Then, yeah, maybe "training" would trump enjoyment.)

I've never quite understood the whole HRM thing. Figure if my heart stops
beating I'll be notified soon enough.

(That said, I just did a treadmill "stress test" thing and was surprised at
how low my HR stayed. Barely went over 150 at any point, although my BP got
up there a bit.)

Bill "old, fat, slow, weak...but could do 100 miles easy" S.

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Ride lots. (Unless you care about your /speed/ on that 100-mile ride?
Then, yeah, maybe "training" would trump enjoyment.)

I've never quite understood the whole HRM thing. Figure if my heart stops
beating I'll be notified soon enough.

(That said, I just did a treadmill "stress test" thing and was surprised at
how low my HR stayed. Barely went over 150 at any point, although my BP got
up there a bit.)

But if you had used an ergo-bike (or whatever the bike equiv of a
treadmill is) you could have gotten your HR much higher. The whole
specificity thing.

Joseph

Duh, the "HRM thing" is to provide a reliable gauge on how your body is
reacting that day's ride. It's just information. Like the gauges on your
car. Just helpful information. You don't have to be a slave to it, but
why not have the information? It's no panacea but I'd rather have the
information than not.

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Ride lots. (Unless you care about your /speed/ on that 100-mile ride?
Then, yeah, maybe "training" would trump enjoyment.)

I've never quite understood the whole HRM thing. Figure if my heart stops
beating I'll be notified soon enough.

(That said, I just did a treadmill "stress test" thing and was surprised at
how low my HR stayed. Barely went over 150 at any point, although my BP got
up there a bit.)

Bill "old, fat, slow, weak...but could do 100 miles easy" S.

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Bill

If your goal is to just do 100 miles then the "ride lots" approach will
get that done. However, if your goal is (or eventually becomes) to do
100 miles "fast" then an HRM and a structured training program will
help a lot.

Best of luck to you.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

_ The most useful information you get out of a HRM is in avoiding
too much intensity in your riding. If you're just getting back in
shape it's pretty easy to get in a trap of riding "as fast as you
should" (ie. somewhere near what you used to ) rather than as
fast as makes sense. If you have the time one of the best ways
to get better at riding long distances is long slow distance
training, but without an HRM you easily end up doing long medium
distance which is the least effective means of training. It's
too fast to provide the best endurance training and too slow to
provide much intensity training. Of course you don't need an
HRM to figure this out, if you do a long ride and you're wasted
the next day, it was probably too hard. However, an HRM is a
pretty useful tool in this context, it's just a tool though.

_ I also find it a very useful tool on the day of the ride. If
you're doing organized centuries and are at all the least
competitive it's very easy to get sucked in early to riding
at a pace you can't maintain over the distance. For me anyway,
avoiding digging an early hole that I can't get out of is the
key to finishing strong in a century.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRJgu5WTWTAjn5N/lAQHAywP/Z5/CzHn5ncGAvLtB3MVvFvYIKA1ArTzI
TEMpkhJto/rA7nIF6s9scCYGAosoAqd7g5AJydIgJ6ut9zHcK6XVRAEBZ3C7KUGo
vWgWo4b8PbdXLGdMJSyjNsPCCKTTz7uakgmOdQTV74f6F6piFHmignisgRD5kpXY
4x7+gENWDUs=
=vroe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

The HRM could help you control intensity, for following "zone"
recommendations while you ride as much as is enjoyable (i.e., doesn't
burn out your enthusiasm). As another poster noted, it's easy to ride
too hard (esp. with groups), which can be counterproductive for
building and enjoying in the longer run.

A Century is a big goal, and IMHO a most worthy one. I still remember
my first. Turned a corner (ahem) that day, for sure. In fact, I'm
building for another, after a bunch of years away from "riding lots".
Very much within reach at this time; I did approx. 70 with a fast group
this last Sunday, only dropped when they charged up the long hills. Not
bad for "D-y v. 5.7", and I like it like that! (The plan is to add
gentle miles before and after the group fandango, as needed, to reach
the magic 100 and still be a useful family entity during the
post-accomplishment afterglow...)

One possible help toward building endurance is riding twice in a day in
some weekly (or whatever) routine that works for you. "XYZ" in the
morning, the long ride of the day, then another, shorter ride; say
about an hour and a half, maybe along toward dark during these long
summer days-- nice and easy, just hard enough to keep the weight off
the saddle. This also can be a big help for your sleep performance <g>.

The HRM might also be used to take a pulse in the morning to help judge
recovery.
Like a digi bathroom scale, the news isn't always good (humor attempt),
or even totally "reliable", but it is an accurate measurement of the
moment.

Calibrate your cyclometer carefully <g>! --D-y

Gary said:

Duh, the "HRM thing" is to provide a reliable gauge on how your body is
reacting that day's ride. It's just information. Like the gauges on your
car. Just helpful information. You don't have to be a slave to it, but
why not have the information?

Because you have to wear the goddam strap thing.

Peter Cole said:

Gary said:

Duh, the "HRM thing" is to provide a reliable gauge on how your body is
reacting that day's ride. It's just information. Like the gauges on your
car. Just helpful information. You don't have to be a slave to it, but
why not have the information?

Because you have to wear the goddam strap thing.

IMHO if the strap is bothering you, either you have an old one or your
doing something wrong. Once on, I never even notice its there.

My experience is almost identical to one of the previous posters. I
was running at the time and found it hard to progress at all. I was
starting to get discouraged. I got the HRM and found I was training
well above my "zone". Once I started using it wisely, my improvement
was remarkable. I now don't really need to use it but I still do, just
to keep tabs. My advice to the OP would be to use the HRM initially to
learn his zone, and then go from there.

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Bill

If your goal is simply to finish a century, then just riding at any old
pace will get you there. Its best to ride a fair amount to condition
the body for a full day of riding.

If your goal is to ride it fairly fast and not be stressed too much,
then you have to train a bit. Focus on speed work. Not distance.
Speed will take care of the distance part. Find a group of fast riders
and stay with them as long as possible. Go to the redline so to speak
the whole ride. Repeat this 3 days in a row for maximum benefit. You
need to build on the speed work from the day before by forcing your
body to go hard without 100% recovery. These would be short 20-40 mile
rides. Add in a longer weekend ride or two of 50-60 miles or so. Not
as fast on these rides. But still not just poking along.

BirdiePutt said:

My experience is almost identical to one of the previous posters. I
was running at the time and found it hard to progress at all. I was
starting to get discouraged. I got the HRM and found I was training
well above my "zone". Once I started using it wisely, my improvement
was remarkable.

I'm interested in some clarification. You were training too hard... and
so your fitness stagnated? And then you trained at a lower intensity
and got better? And what does "above my zone" mean? Were you going to
hard for the distance you were trying to pace for, and getting
discouraged?

Just wondering... overtraining is certainly possible, but this
condition is not so easy to diagnose... and I really don't know how you
could use a HRM to do it.Otherwise, increasing intensity and volume is
generally necessary to improve.

My advice for the OP is to start slow and pace himself so that he is
able to easily finish the distances he wishes to do. Get plenty of rest
between rides. Gradually increase the speed and/or distance as he gets
more fit... repeat. When he gets to where 100 miles is doable, then
some high intensity training (intervals, etc) will help a lot to
increase speed.

An HRM might be useful for pacing, but learning to listen to your body
is better. My heart rate varies so much that I really can't use it as a
reliable gauge. It is useless for intervals in any case because of the
lag.

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

You can easily do a century simply by riding increasingly-longer distances,
without benefit of a heart monitor. But if you want to ride a century
faster, or without fear of over-doing it in the middle and dying towards the
end, a heart monitor can be a big help, *especially* in uncharted territory.

Yes, doing what you're familiar with, you generally have a clue about how
hard you're working, and what a sustainable effort is. But outside of that
area, you may not realize that you're either totally loafing along (which is
fine, if that's what you want to do) or buring the candle at both ends. A
heart monitor has helped me with both. Specifically-

-I used to not enjoy riding the flats (level terrain), and thought I was
simply no good at it, what's the point, etc. I thought I was riding at a
similar effort to what I do in rolling or mountainous terrain, and that if I
pushed harder I'd flame out. Uh-uh. If I can climb for half an hour at a
heart rate 165 or above, then it's kinda obvious that a heart rate of 145 or
so on the flats is an indication that I'm nowhere close to what I could be
doing. So, with the heart monitor, I'm now dramatically faster on the flats
that ever before, and I don't mind them so much.

-Riding up Haleakala last November, a *very* long climb (36 miles, just over
10,000ft), made longer by missing a turn and adding another 1800ft of
climbing. I've never done a long, unbroken climb like that before, so it
required a measure of pacing I'm not used to. What I discovered, as the
climb went on (specifically above 8500ft or so) was that if I let my heart
rate get above about 158, the only way to bring it back down was pretty much
a complete stop. Keep it at or below 158, no problem. Let it drift up and
I'd get into trouble very quickly.

For years and years and years I didn't see the point to a heart monitor.
Just one of those things you don't understand until you actually start using
one.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Bill

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

Bill

Train according to what 'book'...'buy' a trainer, and use their
expertise but yep, ya gotta 'ride lots'...

Ron Ruff said:

BirdiePutt said:

My experience is almost identical to one of the previous posters. I
was running at the time and found it hard to progress at all. I was
starting to get discouraged. I got the HRM and found I was training
well above my "zone". Once I started using it wisely, my improvement
was remarkable.

I'm interested in some clarification. You were training too hard... and
so your fitness stagnated? And then you trained at a lower intensity
and got better? And what does "above my zone" mean? Were you going to
hard for the distance you were trying to pace for, and getting
discouraged?

Just wondering... overtraining is certainly possible, but this
condition is not so easy to diagnose... and I really don't know how you
could use a HRM to do it.Otherwise, increasing intensity and volume is
generally necessary to improve.

In general, you're zone is something like 75-85% of your Max heart rate
(which is a function of age). If you train above this level for too
long, you just can't get the amount of time in that you need. I found
I was training at too high a HR, once I paced myself a little better, I
not only could go longer distances and times, but the rate that I
improved on these was increased.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ron Ruff said:

Just wondering... overtraining is certainly possible, but this
condition is not so easy to diagnose... and I really don't know how you
could use a HRM to do it.Otherwise, increasing intensity and volume is
generally necessary to improve.

_It's not so much "overtraining" as wrong training. It's very
easy to get into a flat spot where you ride too hard on your
long rides and not hard enough on your intensity rides.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRJlXdmTWTAjn5N/lAQEllgQAq0onPrNaXcKxoJ9CjLlEkN00kxda1n05
LT/GGLHfVt29l5l44iZ8S8IdMi4ImDt2QIexb4KL7gK2mX+DHb/UN95+S4MrzjcY
l84XbuNhyiSwsVi0i8QV3cA+XMadFNbZkJBecCYgXtGd7fVEastO3hRDTnp+6mct
Ya9X52moMxU=
=jdwc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Quoted post said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

I find that the HRM mostly confirms what I already knew from perceived effort.
Not a bad thing at all, and it is nice to hang a nice objective looking number
on a perception, a thing that's apt to be subjective. But then HRM numbers are
also subjective in that it's another way of listening to what your heart is
already telling you.

Ron

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

Quoted message said:

On 20 Jun 2006 08:11:56 -0700, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

I find that the HRM mostly confirms what I already knew from perceived

effort.

Quoted message said:

Not a bad thing at all, and it is nice to hang a nice objective looking

number

Quoted message said:

on a perception, a thing that's apt to be subjective. But then HRM numbers

are

Quoted message said:

also subjective in that it's another way of listening to what your heart

is

Quoted message said:

already telling you.

True but I find it strange that we don't have a discussion like this about
bike computers. IMO your HRM is a much more relevant number for a work out
than the speed number on your bike computer and everyone has a bike computer
...not?

Lou, only needs HRM and cadence

Lou Holtman said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 20 Jun 2006 08:11:56 -0700, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 55 and retired, and I want to improve my ability to ride long
distance, with a goal of riding 100 miles in a day. Should I just
"ride lots", or should I buy a heart rate monitor and train according
to the book?

I find that the HRM mostly confirms what I already knew from perceived

effort.

Quoted message said:

Not a bad thing at all, and it is nice to hang a nice objective looking

number

Quoted message said:

on a perception, a thing that's apt to be subjective. But then HRM numbers

are

Quoted message said:

also subjective in that it's another way of listening to what your heart

is

Quoted message said:

already telling you.

True but I find it strange that we don't have a discussion like this about
bike computers. IMO your HRM is a much more relevant number for a work out
than the speed number on your bike computer and everyone has a bike computer
..not?

Lou, only needs HRM and cadence

I use only a simple HRM that shows heart rate and elapsed time (if I
bother starting the stopwatch). Only for some events do I put a
computer on to keep track of distances to food stops.

As far as "training" goes, I only am interested in the HRM, or just the
feel. Getting hung up in only managing say 29.9km/h for a ride adds a
level of aggravation I don't need. I like to just think, or look around
while riding, not get wound up in average speeds, etc.

Joseph