Be still my speeding heart



On Apr 16, 9:29 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I ride easy...
> ... moderately hard...
> ... Just hard enough...
> ... as hard as I can...


> 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* me you're talking to out there! ;-)
 
On Apr 16, 6:16 pm, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <7b057a64-b99f-4ba1-93fe-e60204894...@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


The latest Cycle Sport has an interview with Remy DiGregorio, from the
Francaise de Jeux pro team, who says that he almost never races or
trains with a heart monitor or computer. If you don't need to know
your heart rate to solo off the front wire to wire in a Dauphine
stage, you certainly don't need it to ride around the block.
 
On Apr 16, 4:44 pm, Kristian M Zoerhoff <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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]


Almost everyone will find that the "Joseph Essss Foot in Mouth
Formula" gives two sizes over reality. That's because Joseph worked
with a sample of one, his own head and feet. We may conclude that
Joseph is a real humble guy, which is a good thing as there are
already enough swollen heads on RBT.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE HUMOUR.html
 
On Apr 16, 5:05 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
> here regularily- many of who have read much about cardiovascular
> fitness, and consulted with cardiologists and other physicians, and
> have differing opinions on the subject.


I've every word of your post, feller, and you offer no argument or
rationale for taking your word instead of the specialists I consulted,
quite the opposite: your mode of argument makes me wonder if you
aren't mentally handicapped. Several of your statements further on are
simply stupid. I show just one:
> you have no conscious control over over your heart rate <

Huh? You control your heartrate by exercising harder or slower or
stopping. That's a conscious decision, duh? If you want to give me
attitude, sonny, do try not be stupid. The rest of your post, with
further offensive examples of your silliness, is below. -- Andre Jute

>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 Apr 17, 5:43 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:44 pm, Kristian M Zoerhoff <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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]

>
> Almost everyone will find that the "Joseph Essss Foot in Mouth
> Formula" gives two sizes over reality. That's because Joseph worked
> with a sample of one, his own head and feet. We may conclude that
> Joseph is a real humble guy, which is a good thing as there are
> already enough swollen heads on RBT.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html


I used a sample of 3 and purposefully omitted myself as my big dogs
were sure to wreck the equation!

Do you all have such small feet? I wonder how you mange a stiff wind?

Perhaps we need to plot some data points and somebody who knows how to
do math can derive an equation.

Joseph
 
On Apr 16, 5:05 pm, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> 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, domax
> out the heart rate from time to time.


Of course you do, and so do I. I never had a heart rate monitor until
less than a handful of years ago. But, then again, you might argue
that I spent much of my youth being run up and down a 45 degree
incline until I lay face down in own breakfast -- under the
supervision of some of the world's leading practitioners of sports
medicines. It is how rugby players were trained -- and made vicious
too. So it might be said that some knowledge rubbed off even if I
paid no attention at the time.

This argument isn't about whether the knowledgeable, or the presumed
knowledgeable, or those with opportunity and the prior motivation to
knowledge, can get along without a heart rate monitor. They manifestly
can. This entire thread is about a pinhead point: Joseph telling
probably old and very likely already over the edge johnny come
latelies to exercise -- never mind athleticism! -- that they can just
run until they drop, and that is their maximum heartrate. That is all
I'm arguing. The argument you're making here is miles beyond that
point.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE HUMOUR.html
 
On Apr 16, 6:07 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.

>
> 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.


I can understand why you're "Unforgiven" and very probably
unforgivable. You just don't pay attention when people speak. If the
hypothesis is, "The mean (more likely median) heart rate of Everyman
differs by gender and by age brackets." then the correct scientific
method is to investigate a sample from the universe, divided
proportionately to each sub-universe by gender and age. No "inference"
is required because the answer is directly to the point of the
question. If someone else has done the work, and it is statistically
sound, who do it again? It is childish to point out the tautological
truth that tests might be on "a potentially unrelated sample group" --
do you really think that I didn't enquire closely into the sample
group? (More pointedly, that you behave like an idiot is no reason for
assuming the rest of us do.) If the sample group is determined to be
the right one, than the dumb debater's "potential" sampling error is
just that, a numbingly dumb debating trick. Even electrical engineers
are smarter than to try such kindergarten tricks when there are adults
around .Beyond these jerk-up stupidities in the single paragraph
above, you offer no facts, no argument, nothing, just your McCarthyite
suspicion of "potential" sampling error. You're wasting my time.

Andre Jute
Deeply disappointed

>
> > > 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
 
On Apr 17, 6:02 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:05 pm, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.

>
> Of course you do, and so do I. I never had a heart rate monitor until
> less than a handful of years ago. But, then again, you might argue
> that I spent much of my youth being run up and down a 45 degree
> incline until I lay face down in own breakfast -- under the
> supervision of some of the world's leading practitioners of sports
> medicines. It is how rugby players were trained -- and made vicious
> too. So it might be said that some knowledge  rubbed off even if I
> paid no attention at the time.
>
> This argument isn't about whether the knowledgeable, or the presumed
> knowledgeable, or those with opportunity and the prior motivation to
> knowledge, can get along without a heart rate monitor. They manifestly
> can. This entire thread is about a pinhead point: Joseph telling
> probably old and very likely already over the edge johnny come
> latelies to exercise -- never mind athleticism! -- that they can just
> run until they drop, and that is their maximum heartrate. That is all
> I'm arguing. The argument you're making here is miles beyond that
> point.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html


I realize you are using humorous hyperbole, but I never advocated
determining max HR by telling folks to "run until they drop."

Reaching max HR is not as dramatic as you make it out to be. No
recycled breakfasts need make appearances.

Joseph
 
On Apr 17, 3:01 am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:78d95bad-0c95-4b04-85bc-66d6b7bb8712@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 2:26 am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >news:d9910e25-18c6-49f6-97c4-8398eeb87925@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

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

>
> Make up your mind, Phil.
>
> 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.


Interesting. But the 220 minus age formula is supposed to be subject
to 10% variation either way, which at the high end would put it spot
on the more complicated formula result.

I found that my (calculated) maximum heart rate jumped almost 10% when
I switched from 220 minus age to the more complicated formula. Since I
regulate my exercise by trying for a work rate over any and all kind
of terrain of 80% of maximum respiration, my output also went up 10%
-- and I felt so much better for it. I know that's subjective but it
shows that, for me anyway, the complicated formula works better.

There's a coach Down Under, whose name now escapes me, whose netsite I
read a lot when I started taking cycling more seriously. He believes
in subjective fulfillment, not heart rate monitors. It looks like my
heart monitor proved him right. (Just to repeat -- that is entirely
off the subject of the thread, which is not athletes with reasonable
judgement of their own limits but determining the MHR of overage and
overweight Jane Does.)

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE HUMOUR.html
 
On Apr 16, 11:16 pm, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <7b057a64-b99f-4ba1-93fe-e60204894...@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 tothis, 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


Nah, I'm talking about a overage, overweight exercise-newbies, who
need a heart rate monitor or a specialist standing by when maximum
exercise rates are determined. You're talking about athletes -- and
there I agree with you. -- AJ
 
On 2008-04-17, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:43 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I used a sample of 3 and purposefully omitted myself as my big dogs
> were sure to wreck the equation!
>
> Do you all have such small feet? I wonder how you mange a stiff wind?


Well, I'm all of 5'9", 160 lbs (1.75 m, 72.7 kg), so I think my feet are
rather proportional to my frame. In fact, they're actually a bit wide,
which makes shoe shopping a true pain. Keen are about the only shoes
that I can quite literally wear out of the box without going up a full
size -- I only have to go up 1/2 size instead!

As for wind, I manage just fine on the drops; I was about 10° leaned over
yesterday due to crosswind, but I managed to stay on the road.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff
[email protected]
 
On Apr 17, 4:17 am, Dan O <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:29 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I ride easy...
> > ... moderately hard...
> > ... Just hard enough...
> > ... as hard as I can...
> > 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* me you're talking to out there! ;-)


I don't see why one needs one's head down to the HRM. I have mine
trained like a good dog to make a discreet beep at the fransitions
between zones. My HRM is set up a fraction low, so that when I'm
rolling along at 80% of MHR, it beeps every few seconds as I cross the
line up or down, and I hardly hear it any more, I just pedal harder or
slower to keep it on 80%. It works brilliantly with my Cyber Nexus
automatic gearbub, which changes up and down to keep the same pedaling
effort on all road-inclinations. In fact, it is such a complementary
combination that I am surprised Shimano didn't build a heart rate
monitor into the Cyber Nexus Flight Deck (which is their pompous name
for the controller and bike computer that comes with the Cyber Nexus).
Of course they didn't do it, because their paradigm for constant
output is cadence and big and little toothed wheels, an obsolete
concept with the "Smover" type of bike.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE HUMOUR.html
 
On Apr 17, 12:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:16 pm, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <7b057a64-b99f-4ba1-93fe-e60204894...@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 youreally think you need it, is usually enough
> > for most of us. Heartrate-shmeartrate...

>
> > Mike

>
> The latest Cycle Sport has an interview with Remy DiGregorio, from the
> Francaise de Jeux pro team, who says that he almost never races or
> trains with a heart monitor or computer.  If you don't need to know
> your heart rate to solo off the front wire to wire in a Dauphine
> stage, you certainly don't need it to ride around the block.


One thing wrong with this rose-tinted picture. You aren't Remy
DiGregorio, and you will never be: you'll never "solo off the front
wire to wire in a Dauphine stage". -- AJ
 
On Apr 17, 7:03 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:17 am, Dan O <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 9:29 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > I ride easy...
> > > ... moderately hard...
> > > ... Just hard enough...
> > > ... as hard as I can...
> > > 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* me you're talking to out there! ;-)

>
> I don't see why one needs one's head down to the HRM. I have mine
> trained like a good dog to make a discreet beep at the fransitions
> between zones. My HRM is set up a fraction low, so that when I'm
> rolling along at 80% of MHR, it beeps every few seconds as I cross the
> line up or down, and I hardly hear it any more, I just pedal harder or
> slower to keep it on 80%. It works brilliantly with my Cyber Nexus
> automatic gearbub, which changes up and down to keep the same pedaling
> effort on all road-inclinations. In fact, it is such a complementary
> combination that I am surprised Shimano didn't build a heart rate
> monitor into the Cyber Nexus Flight Deck (which is their pompous name
> for the controller and bike computer that comes with the Cyber Nexus).
> Of course they didn't do it, because their paradigm for constant
> output is cadence and big and little toothed wheels, an obsolete
> concept with the "Smover" type of bike.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html


It is clear your are a gadget freak, and live harmoniously with your
gizmos (I mean that in a good way!). I'm sure you get quite a bit of
enjoyment and utility out of them, and just because I don't like HRM's
doesn't mean I think others should dislike them as well.

For me, riding with a HRM is akin to saying "don't think about an
elephant." It is an additional layer of distraction which I find to be
not so much irritating, but detracting from the enjoyment of my ride.
And as it provides no real advantage in my case, this makes it more
than pointless.

I think your attachment to the automagic shifting is quite similar to
my attachment to fixed gear riding. Both require less mental attention
than traditional geared riding, but go about it in decidedly different
ways. You putter along fast enough to keep the beeps at bay, and the
bike does the figuring, and I putter along just fast enough to keep my
legs moving at a comfortable cadence, and the hills do the figuring!

Joseph

PS: I am humble. As a matter of fact I'm the most humble person I
know. I'm so humble that... Well you get the picture ;-)
 
On Apr 17, 12:18 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:07 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.

>
> > 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.

>
> I can understand why you're "Unforgiven" and very probably
> unforgivable. You just don't pay attention when people speak. If the
> hypothesis is, "The mean (more likely median) heart rate of Everyman
> differs by gender and by age brackets." then the correct scientific
> method is to investigate a sample from the universe, divided
> proportionately to each sub-universe by gender and age. No "inference"
> is required because the answer is directly to the point of the
> question. If someone else has done the work, and it is statistically
> sound, who do it again? It is childish to point out the tautological
> truth that tests might be on "a potentially unrelated sample group" --
> do you really think that I didn't enquire closely into the sample
> group? (More pointedly, that you behave like an idiot is no reason for
> assuming the rest of us do.) If the sample group is determined to be
> the right one, than the dumb debater's "potential" sampling error is
> just that, a numbingly dumb debating trick. Even electrical engineers
> are smarter than to try such kindergarten tricks when there are adults
> around .Beyond these jerk-up stupidities in the single paragraph
> above, you offer no facts, no argument, nothing, just your McCarthyite
> suspicion of "potential" sampling error. You're wasting my time.
>
> Andre Jute
> Deeply disappointed
>
>
>
> > > > 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


If the mean is the hypothesis. If the question is maximum heart rate
for an individual, you either test it or you make up excuses not to.
 
On Apr 17, 1:06 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:16 pm, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > In article <7b057a64-b99f-4ba1-93fe-e60204894...@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

>
> > The latest Cycle Sport has an interview with Remy DiGregorio, from the
> > Francaise de Jeux pro team, who says that he almost never races or
> > trains with a heart monitor or computer. If you don't need to know
> > your heart rate to solo off the front wire to wire in a Dauphine
> > stage, you certainly don't need it to ride around the block.

>
> One thing wrong with this rose-tinted picture. You aren't Remy
> DiGregorio, and you will never be: you'll never "solo off the front
> wire to wire in a Dauphine stage". -- AJ


Perhaps not, but I will ride around the block. And I won't do it with
my eyes glued to my heart rate monitor listening intently for it to
beep telling me to slow down. Somehow, I might even enjoy the
experience of being on the bike.
 
In article
<11599e92-6f60-488b-a034-880503a35943@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

[..]

> I think your attachment to the automagic shifting is quite similar to
> my attachment to fixed gear riding. Both require less mental attention
> than traditional geared riding, but go about it in decidedly different
> ways. You putter along fast enough to keep the beeps at bay, and the
> bike does the figuring, and I putter along just fast enough to keep my
> legs moving at a comfortable cadence, and the hills do the figuring!
>
> PS: I am humble. As a matter of fact I'm the most humble person I
> know. I'm so humble that... Well you get the picture ;-)


Yes, you are more humble than I;
but I have much more to be humble about.

--
Michael Press
 
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:08:54 -0700, Colin Campbell
<[email protected]> wrote:

[---]

>I've recently resumed training with an HRM. On at least half of my
>rides where I've worn the strap, I've gotten some kooky max like 218,
>233, even 253. I keep thinking these are because some other rider was
>wearing a sending unit, and walked too close to my bike while I was also
>near it.


In my experience, those kind of crazy peaks are due to the electrodes
suddenly moving slightly (belt not sufficiently tightened) or bad
contact through insufficient sweat.
 
On Apr 17, 2:41 pm, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:08:54 -0700, Colin Campbell
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
> >I've recently resumed training with an HRM. On at least half of my
> >rides where I've worn the strap, I've gotten some kooky max like 218,
> >233, even 253. I keep thinking these are because some other rider was
> >wearing a sending unit, and walked too close to my bike while I was also
> >near it.

>
> In my experience, those kind of crazy peaks are due to the electrodes
> suddenly moving slightly (belt not sufficiently tightened) or bad
> contact through insufficient sweat.


Some monitors also spike because of interference near power
transmission lines and railroad tracks.
 
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:03 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 4:17 am, Dan O <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 16, 9:29 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > I ride easy...
> > > > ... moderately hard...
> > > > ... Just hard enough...
> > > > ... as hard as I can...
> > > > 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* me you're talking to out there! ;-)

>
> > I don't see why one needs one's head down to the HRM. I have mine
> > trained like a good dog to make a discreet beep at the fransitions
> > between zones. My HRM is set up a fraction low, so that when I'm
> > rolling along at 80% of MHR, it beeps every few seconds as I cross the
> > line up or down, and I hardly hear it any more, I just pedal harder or
> > slower to keep it on 80%. It works brilliantly with my Cyber Nexus
> > automatic gearbub, which changes up and down to keep the same pedaling
> > effort on all road-inclinations. In fact, it is such a complementary
> > combination that I am surprised Shimano didn't build a heart rate
> > monitor into the Cyber Nexus Flight Deck (which is their pompous name
> > for the controller and bike computer that comes with the Cyber Nexus).
> > Of course they didn't do it, because their paradigm for constant
> > output is cadence and big and little toothed wheels, an obsolete
> > concept with the "Smover" type of bike.

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

>
> It is clear your are a gadget freak, and live harmoniously with your
> gizmos (I mean that in a good way!). I'm sure you get quite a bit of
> enjoyment and utility out of them, and just because I don't like HRM's
> doesn't mean I think others should dislike them as well.
>
> For me, riding with a HRM is akin to saying "don't think about an
> elephant." It is an additional layer of distraction which I find to be
> not so much irritating, but detracting from the enjoyment of my ride.
> And as it provides no real advantage in my case, this makes it more
> than pointless.
>
> I think your attachment to the automagic shifting is quite similar to
> my attachment to fixed gear riding. Both require less mental attention
> than traditional geared riding, but go about it in decidedly different
> ways. You putter along fast enough to keep the beeps at bay, and the
> bike does the figuring, and I putter along just fast enough to keep my
> legs moving at a comfortable cadence, and the hills do the figuring!


Very nicely put, Joseph. I believe in live and let live, for all those
who don't put themselves in my face.

> Joseph
>
> PS: I am humble. As a matter of fact I'm the most humble person I
> know. I'm so humble that... Well you get the picture ;-)


Consider my talents, I'm very humble indeed, so I know what you mean,
even if I can never hope to compete with your humility. Girl I knew
studied the Hopi, whose form of competition is to come last in any
race -- now that's humility, or at least until everyone starts doing
it, then it is hubris.

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