On Apr 17, 6:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> 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 ifyou 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.
"With my eyes glued to my heart rate monitor listening intently for it
to
beep" -- do you listen with your eyes? That's some trick!
On Apr 17, 6:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> 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 formulaethan
> > > > > > 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.
You really are mindlessly intent on having the last word. The median
in the age/gender subuniverse is the question for the individual as a
first approximation for his individual MHR; there is no conflict
between the concepts. You're the only one making excuses -- for not
having your mind in gear.
