Be still my speeding heart

A

Andre Jute

Guest
On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>
> Joseph

Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
(an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
Maximum heart rate approaches:
210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html

"Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes
>> based
>> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>>
>> Joseph

>
> Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).
>
> As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> Maximum heart rate approaches:
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> Andre Jute
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html

It doesn't matter which method is used, it will not fit with the
majority of people. Statistically, max HR is normally distributed with a
mean and a standard deviation for each age group. 95% of the population
will be in the range of plus or minus 2 standard deviations from the
mean.

Phil H

On Apr 16, 2:26 am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes
> >> based
> >> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> >> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> >> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> >> Joseph

>
> > Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> > people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> > is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> > supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> > of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> > for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> > (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

>
> > As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> > heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> > between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> > the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> > necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> > confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> > Maximum heart rate approaches:
> > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

>
> > Andre Jute
> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html

Do you disagree with the physicians I spoke to:

> It doesn't matter which method is used, it will not fit with the
> majority of people.

Or do you agree with them:

> Statistically, max HR is normally distributed with a
> mean and a standard deviation for each age group. 95% of the population
> will be in the range of plus or minus 2 standard deviations from the
> mean.

You can't have it both ways.

> Phil H

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE HUMOUR.html

On Apr 16, 2:26 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> > on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> > population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> > to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> > Joseph

>
> Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).
>
> As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> Maximum heart rate approaches:
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

People afraid of blowing a gasket are doing more harm to themselves
worrying about overdoing it than they ever would by actually overdoing
it. So what if in every HRM manual, and every magazine articel about
exercise it says to consult a doctor before starting an exercise
program? It also says "HOT: use extreme caution" on McDonalds coffee
lids.

Encouraging people to use their bodies as billions have done before
them without fear is harldy reckless. What is perhaps reckless is
scaring people into thinking they are fragile entities on the verge of
death who need affirmation from a doctor before they do anything.

Sure the formula you cite works well sometimes, but it is still just
an estimation. Probably good enough, and a fine starting place, and
perhaps even correct! But like I say, you can come up with a formula
to determine shoe size from head circumfrence that will probably be
just as accurate, but it won't work for everyone. So if you really
goes for HR.

Measuring max HR isn't any harder than riding up a hill as hard as you
can until you have to ease off, then looking at the HRM. Hardly
dramatic or reckless.

Joseph

On Apr 16, 4:23 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> People afraid of blowing a gasket are doing more harm to themselves
> worrying about overdoing it than they ever would by actually overdoing
> it. So what if in every HRM manual, and every magazine articel about
> exercise it says to consult a doctor before starting an exercise
> program? It also says "HOT: use extreme caution" on McDonalds coffee
> lids.

I thought it was the other way around - consult a doctor before
consuming coffee, and use extreme caution with a heart rate monitor.

R

On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> > on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> > population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> > to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> > Joseph

>
> Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).
>
> As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> Maximum heart rate approaches:
> 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

That's still off by nearly 10 beats per minute in my case, which is
not acceptable. The problem with statistical correlations like that
is that they're based on the average population. Anyone who actually
needs to know their max heart rate is most likely an outlier in one
direction or another.

On Apr 16, 1:38 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:23 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > People afraid of blowing a gasket are doing more harm to themselves
> > worrying about overdoing it than they ever would by actually overdoing
> > it. So what if in every HRM manual, and every magazine articel about
> > exercise it says to consult a doctor before starting an exercise
> > program? It also says "HOT: use extreme caution" on McDonalds coffee
> > lids.

>
> I thought it was the other way around - consult a doctor before
> consuming coffee, and use extreme caution with a heart rate monitor.
>
> R

I thought coffee was rehabilitated, full of goodies. (Free radicals?
What has it to do with politics?) -- Andre Jute

On Apr 16, 2:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> > > on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> > > population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> > > to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> > > Joseph

>
> > Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> > people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> > is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> > supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> > of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> > for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> > (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

>
> > As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> > heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> > between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> > the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> > necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> > confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> > Maximum heart rate approaches:
> > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

>
> That's still off by nearly 10 beats per minute in my case, which is
> not acceptable.  The problem with statistical correlations like that
> is that they're based on the average population.

The advantage of the statistical determination of the normal
distribution of some universe, in this case maximum heart rate by age
subdivisions of the populace, is that it is a scientific method,
unlike the anecdotal witterings of self-declared "experts" in virtual
space. But nobody claims that statistical methods lead to perfect
judgements: their very nature is to provide a guideline within defined
limits of confidence.

> Anyone who actually
> needs to know their max heart rate is most likely an outlier in one
> direction or another.

And that is where this thread started, when I twitted Joseph on giving
advice that John Q Public would see as reckless, coming down, as
Joseph's advice does, to "run until you fall down and that is your max
heart rate". Because we are not talking about athletes and suchlike
(those who are already "outliers") but about getting Jane Doe to take
up cycling or some other form of exercise. And most Jane Does will
fall right under the bulge of the Bell Curve.

Nor is it only "outliers" who need to know their MHR. No exercise
regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and
those are all defined as percentages of MHR.

Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence of those whose anecdotal evidence
has the value of experience (say RBT posters) in this case almost
certainly arises from a group in which individuals know their MHR
pretty closely. They may thus be "outliers" but they are not
*ignorant* outliers as you're trying to claim. I think it very likely
that exactly the opposite of your statement is true, that those who
need to know their MHR in most cases already know their MHR.

This is a storm in a chamberpot that blew up because Joseph overstated
a case that only required the words "for regular cyclists" or some
such to be added to be acceptable.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html

the revised equation is:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4 ????

or minus .11*weight in kg skip the 4
is equal to to ur future contract with CSC

On Apr 16, 3:58 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> > > > on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> > > > population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> > > > to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> > > > Joseph

>
> > > Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> > > people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> > > is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> > > supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> > > of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> > > for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> > > (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

>
> > > As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> > > people administering the treadmill test to establish my maximum
> > > heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> > > between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> > > the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> > > necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> > > confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> > > Maximum heart rate approaches:
> > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

>
> > That's still off by nearly 10 beats per minute in my case, which is
> > not acceptable.  The problem with statistical correlations like that
> > is that they're based on the average population.

>
> The advantage of the statistical determination of the normal
> distribution of some universe, in this case maximum heart rate by age
> subdivisions of the populace, is that it is a scientific method,
> unlike the anecdotal witterings of self-declared "experts" in virtual
> space. But nobody claims that statistical methods lead to perfect
> judgements: their very nature is to provide a guideline within defined
> limits of confidence.
>
> > Anyone who actually
> > needs to know their max heart rate is most likely an outlier in one
> > direction or another.

>
> And that is where this thread started, when I twitted Joseph on giving
> advice that John Q Public would see as reckless, coming down, as
> Joseph's advice does, to "run until you fall down and that is your max
> heart rate". Because we are not talking about athletes and suchlike
> (those who are already "outliers") but about getting Jane Doe to take
> up cycling or some other form of exercise. And most Jane Does will
> fall right under the bulge of the Bell Curve.
>
> Nor is it only "outliers" who need to know their MHR. No exercise
> regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and
> those are all defined as percentages of MHR.
>
> Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence of those whose anecdotal evidence
> has the value of experience (say RBT posters) in this case almost
> certainly arises from a group in which individuals know their MHR
> pretty closely. They may thus be "outliers" but they are not
> *ignorant* outliers as you're trying to claim. I think it very likely
> that exactly the opposite of your statement is true, that those who
> need to know their MHR in most cases already know their MHR.
>
> This is a storm in a chamberpot that blew up because Joseph overstated
> a case that only required the words "for regular cyclists" or some
> such to be added to be acceptable.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

I don't feel that qualification is necessary, but I see your point.
Obvioulsy some people are in horrible shape and on the verge, but I
think way more people who in actuality are fine think they are on the
verge. I think that is a problem for many people who are afraid to
start exercising, or at least use that as an excuse to themselves to
put it off.

As for my famous shoe size formula:

(((Head circumfrence in cm) + 4) / 2) / .67 = euro shoe size

Joseph

On 2008-04-16, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As for my famous shoe size formula:
>
> (((Head circumfrence in cm) + 4) / 2) / .67 = euro shoe size
>
> All subjects please report accuracy!

Euro size: 42/43 (I have wide feet)
Santaniello Size(TM): 45 (44.7, but who's counting?)

Not quite 7% error? Not bad, mathematically speaking, but
I somehow doubt my feet care about the math.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff
[email protected]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:26:25 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
>> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
>> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
>> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.
>>
>> Joseph

>
>Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
>people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
>is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
>supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
>of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
>for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
>(an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

Feh. In the absence of heart disease or other defect, pegging that particular
gauge runs you up against a built-in governor and there is no harm done beyond
the expected exertion.

A fair number of us geezers race and whether the HRM is mounted or not, do max
out the heart rate from time to time.

On Apr 16, 9:58 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> > > > on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> > > > population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> > > > to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> > > > Joseph

>
> > > Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> > > people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> > > is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> > > supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> > > of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> > > for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> > > (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

>
> > > As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> > > people administering the treadmill test to establish my maximum
> > > heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> > > between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> > > the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> > > necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> > > confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> > > Maximum heart rate approaches:
> > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

>
> > That's still off by nearly 10 beats per minute in my case, which is
> > not acceptable.  The problem with statistical correlations like that
> > is that they're based on the average population.

>
> The advantage of the statistical determination of the normal
> distribution of some universe, in this case maximum heart rate by age
> subdivisions of the populace, is that it is a scientific method,
> unlike the anecdotal witterings of self-declared "experts" in virtual
> space. But nobody claims that statistical methods lead to perfect
> judgements: their very nature is to provide a guideline within defined
> limits of confidence.
>
> > Anyone who actually
> > needs to know their max heart rate is most likely an outlier in one
> > direction or another.

>
> And that is where this thread started, when I twitted Joseph on giving
> advice that John Q Public would see as reckless, coming down, as
> Joseph's advice does, to "run until you fall down and that is your max
> heart rate". Because we are not talking about athletes and suchlike
> (those who are already "outliers") but about getting Jane Doe to take
> up cycling or some other form of exercise. And most Jane Does will
> fall right under the bulge of the Bell Curve.
>
> Nor is it only "outliers" who need to know their MHR. No exercise
> regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and
> those are all defined as percentages of MHR.
>
> Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence of those whose anecdotal evidence
> has the value of experience (say RBT posters) in this case almost
> certainly arises from a group in which individuals know their MHR
> pretty closely. They may thus be "outliers" but they are not
> *ignorant* outliers as you're trying to claim. I think it very likely
> that exactly the opposite of your statement is true, that those who
> need to know their MHR in most cases already know their MHR.
>
> This is a storm in a chamberpot that blew up because Joseph overstated
> a case that only required the words "for regular cyclists" or some
> such to be added to be acceptable.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html-Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

you post a bunch of garbage andre; you took a test with some geeks in
a lab- you think their word is an absolute ? I guarentee you it is
not, especially compared to the sheer number of atheletes who post
fitness, and consulted with cardiologists and other physicians, and
have differing opinions on the subject. You sound like one of these
guys who says the earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says
it is. It is important to always question, observe and use your own
mind- And your statement "No exercise regime can be devised without
consideration of heart rate zones, and those are all defined as
percentages of MHR." ranks right up there with thoughtless posts- to
anyone reading this I say, this guy is full of it. You don't need a
mhr or hr zones- what the f*** for ? A training regime can consist of
anything- because you have no conscious control over over your heart
rate you don't need a hr monitor to train for ANYTHING- the results of
the activity speak for themselves, there is no such thing as a heart
rate race

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As for my famous shoe size formula:
>
>(((Head circumfrence in cm) + 4) / 2) / .67 = euro shoe size
>
>
>Joseph

Ah, the flaw in this formula is trying to derive one measurement for
two feet from one head. I have odd feet. The formula comes out as too
big for either of them.
I do however have a large head (63cm). It's a b*gger buying h*lm*ts.
(which is a secondary reason for not wearing them any more).

pete

On Apr 16, 6:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:58 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> > > > > on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> > > > > population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> > > > > to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> > > > > Joseph

>
> > > > Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> > > > people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> > > > is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> > > > supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> > > > of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> > > > for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> > > > (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

>
> > > > As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> > > > people administering the treadmill test to establish my maximum
> > > > heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> > > > between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> > > > the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> > > > necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> > > > confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> > > > Maximum heart rate approaches:
> > > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

>
> > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING..html

>
> > > That's still off by nearly 10 beats per minute in my case, which is
> > > not acceptable.  The problem with statistical correlations like that
> > > is that they're based on the average population.

>
> > The advantage of the statistical determination of the normal
> > distribution of some universe, in this case maximum heart rate by age
> > subdivisions of the populace, is that it is a scientific method,
> > unlike the anecdotal witterings of self-declared "experts" in virtual
> > space. But nobody claims that statistical methods lead to perfect
> > judgements: their very nature is to provide a guideline within defined
> > limits of confidence.

>
> > > Anyone who actually
> > > needs to know their max heart rate is most likely an outlier in one
> > > direction or another.

>
> > And that is where this thread started, when I twitted Joseph on giving
> > advice that John Q Public would see as reckless, coming down, as
> > Joseph's advice does, to "run until you fall down and that is your max
> > heart rate". Because we are not talking about athletes and suchlike
> > (those who are already "outliers") but about getting Jane Doe to take
> > up cycling or some other form of exercise. And most Jane Does will
> > fall right under the bulge of the Bell Curve.

>
> > Nor is it only "outliers" who need to know their MHR. No exercise
> > regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and
> > those are all defined as percentages of MHR.

>
> > Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence of those whose anecdotal evidence
> > has the value of experience (say RBT posters) in this case almost
> > certainly arises from a group in which individuals know their MHR
> > pretty closely. They may thus be "outliers" but they are not
> > *ignorant* outliers as you're trying to claim. I think it very likely
> > that exactly the opposite of your statement is true, that those who
> > need to know their MHR in most cases already know their MHR.

>
> > This is a storm in a chamberpot that blew up because Joseph overstated
> > a case that only required the words "for regular cyclists" or some
> > such to be added to be acceptable.

>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> you post a bunch of garbage andre; you took a test with some geeks in
> a lab- you think their word is an absolute ? I guarentee you it is
> not, especially compared to the sheer number of atheletes who post
> fitness, and consulted with cardiologists and other physicians, and
> have differing opinions on the subject. You sound like one of these
> guys who says the earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says
> it is. It is important to always question, observe and use your own
> mind-  And your statement "No exercise regime can be devised without
> consideration of heart rate zones, and those are all defined as
> percentages of MHR." ranks right up there with thoughtless posts- to
> anyone reading this I say, this guy is full of it. You don't need a
> mhr or hr zones- what the f*** for ? A training regime can consist of
> anything- because you have no conscious control over over your heart
> rate you don't need a hr monitor to train for ANYTHING- the results of
> the activity speak for themselves, there is no such thing as a heart
> rate race

That's why I don't use an HRM for any of my training. This whole
business with zones is so arbitrary and fuzzily defined as to be
essentially meaningless, IMO.

I use an HRM for pacing in time trial races, but I don't use just one
value. I calibrate myself based on conditions, etc, and use it more
for helping maintain an even pace, not so much for establishing what
that pace should be.

I ride easy rides where I try to keep slow enough that I can breath
through my nose (just) for 80% of my "training", and then the
remaining 20% is divided between moderately hard rides where I try to
go fast without going too hard. Just hard enough that I have to
concentrate on keeping the pace up, and interval sessions where I ride
2.5 minutes as hard as I can, followed by 5 minutes of rest, repeated
10 times. Perhaps these fall into certain HR zones, but so what? Why
keep my eyes glued to some tiny screen when the great outdoors is
rushing past?

That is of course my opinion, and the way I like to do it. Some people
enjoy the information they get from an HRM, and I don't mean to say
they are wasting their time, just that it is an unnecessary gadget.

Joseph

On Apr 16, 6:18 pm, Peter Grange <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT),
>
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >As for my famous shoe size formula:

>
> >(((Head circumfrence in cm) + 4) / 2) / .67 = euro shoe size

>
> >All subjects please report accuracy!

>
> >Joseph

>
> Ah, the flaw in this formula is trying to derive one measurement for
> two feet from one head. I have odd feet. The formula comes out as too
> big for either of them.
> I do however have a large head (63cm). It's a b*gger buying h*lm*ts.
> (which is a secondary reason for not wearing them any more).
>
> pete

Didn't you learn in school you are supposed to SHOW YOUR WORK!

The formula doesn't work for me either. I have a moderately big head
(61cm) and bigger feet (Euro 50).

Joseph

On Apr 16, 9:58 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes based
> > > > on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> > > > population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only way
> > > > to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> > > > Joseph

>
> > > Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> > > people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> > > is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> > > supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any idea
> > > of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a recipe
> > > for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe cyclists
> > > (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

>
> > > As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked the
> > > people administering the treadmill test to establish my maximum
> > > heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation exists
> > > between the population and some of the more complicated formulae than
> > > the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> > > necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> > > confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> > > Maximum heart rate approaches:
> > > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

>
> > That's still off by nearly 10 beats per minute in my case, which is
> > not acceptable. The problem with statistical correlations like that
> > is that they're based on the average population.

>
> The advantage of the statistical determination of the normal
> distribution of some universe, in this case maximum heart rate by age
> subdivisions of the populace, is that it is a scientific method,
> unlike the anecdotal witterings of self-declared "experts" in virtual
> space. But nobody claims that statistical methods lead to perfect
> judgements: their very nature is to provide a guideline within defined
> limits of confidence.
>

And here I thought that the scientific method had something to do with
actually testing a hypothesis rather than trying to infer the answer
from someone else's tests on a potentially unrelated sample group.

> > Anyone who actually
> > needs to know their max heart rate is most likely an outlier in one
> > direction or another.

>
> And that is where this thread started, when I twitted Joseph on giving
> advice that John Q Public would see as reckless, coming down, as
> Joseph's advice does, to "run until you fall down and that is your max
> heart rate". Because we are not talking about athletes and suchlike
> (those who are already "outliers") but about getting Jane Doe to take
> up cycling or some other form of exercise. And most Jane Does will
> fall right under the bulge of the Bell Curve.
>
> Nor is it only "outliers" who need to know their MHR. No exercise
> regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and
> those are all defined as percentages of MHR.
>
> Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence of those whose anecdotal evidence
> has the value of experience (say RBT posters) in this case almost
> certainly arises from a group in which individuals know their MHR
> pretty closely. They may thus be "outliers" but they are not
> *ignorant* outliers as you're trying to claim. I think it very likely
> that exactly the opposite of your statement is true, that those who
> need to know their MHR in most cases already know their MHR.
>
> This is a storm in a chamberpot that blew up because Joseph overstated
> a case that only required the words "for regular cyclists" or some
> such to be added to be acceptable.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

In article <7b057a64-b99f-4ba1-93fe-e60204894e2e@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> Nor is it only "outliers" who need to know their MHR. No exercise
> regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and
> those are all defined as percentages of MHR.
>

Regardless of the respective pros and cons of utilising heart-rate monitors to maximise the benefits of excercise, this
is just wrong. It is only over the last decade that heart-rate monitors have become readily available for the general
population (and not that much longer for the elite athelete). But prior to this, successful excercise regimes were
devised and used. And for the average 'weekend' sportsperson (and for almost any sport), it is still usually sufficient
to just choose a sensible mixture of resistance, endurance, and sprint training without measuring, monitoring or even
considering MHR. Common sense, and a little advice from a trainer if you really think you need it, is usually enough
for most of us. Heartrate-shmeartrate...

Mike

"Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
On Apr 16, 2:26 am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> Using a formula to figure your max HR is like fitting your shoes
> >> based
> >> on measuring the circumfrence of your head. Some correlation for a
> >> population probably, but near usless for an individual. The only
> >> way
> >> to find out what max HR is is to induce it.

>
> >> Joseph

>
> > Congratulations, Joseph. Your reckless attitude has just put more
> > people off cycling than the entire membership of RBT. Medical advice
> > is that maximum heartrate should be established under medical
> > supervision. Inducing maximum heart rate any old how, without any
> > idea
> > of what approximately it can be or should be, is very likely a
> > recipe
> > for pain or hurt or worse for an entire age group of wannabe
> > cyclists
> > (an age group pretty well represented on RBT, it seems).

>
> > As it happens, I was taking various tests for my heart, and asked
> > the
> > heartrate, and learned from them that a pretty good correlation
> > exists
> > between the population and some of the more complicated formulae
> > than
> > the idiot's mnemonic of 220 minus age (most people leave off the
> > necessary "plus/minus ten per cent" which defines the limits of
> > confidence of this shortcut). Here's a formula that works well:
> > Maximum heart rate approaches:
> > 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

>
> > Andre Jute
> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html

Do you disagree with the physicians I spoke to:

> It doesn't matter which method is used, it will not fit with the
> majority of people.

Or do you agree with them:

> Statistically, max HR is normally distributed with a
> mean and a standard deviation for each age group. 95% of the
> population
> will be in the range of plus or minus 2 standard deviations from the
> mean.

You can't have it both ways.

> Phil H

Statistics means never having to say you're certain

Using the 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4 formula,
my max should be 176.
Using 220 - age = 162.

FWIW, the 162 is pretty darned close but I would estimate I'm at least a
couple of standard deviations below the mean for my age. Go figure.

Phil H

[email protected] aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
> [...]
> I ride easy rides where I try to keep slow enough that I can breath
> through my nose (just) for 80% of my "training", and then the
> remaining 20% is divided between moderately hard rides where I try to
> go fast without going too hard.[...]

Ride on a summer evening on forest trails in the Upper US Midwest, and
you will either be breathing through your nose or inhaling hundreds of
gnats.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Replies
1
Views
483
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
51
Views
7K
Replies
0
Views
594
Replies
0
Views
549