Heart Rate Monitor findings.

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Simon Mason, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175, so
    I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
    cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around 140
    and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along on the
    level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use for
    training for fitness.

    I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought that
    by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by cycling up
    hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175! It was
    typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I couldn't
    believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max, whereas by
    cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.

    One odd thing happened - I listen to AM radio on my rides which is inside a remote control attached
    to my jacket at chest level, right next to the chest strap. Even though the transmitted signal from
    the sensor is 5 kHz, the radio picks it up, meaning that I can hear my heart rate as an audible
    "pip" in my earpieces.

    Simon Mason Kingston upon Hull
     
    Tags:


  2. On 23 Feb 2004 19:07:39 -0800, [email protected] (Simon Mason) wrote:

    >I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
    >so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
    >cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
    >140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
    >on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
    >for training for fitness.
    >
    > I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought
    > that by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by
    > cycling up hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175! It
    > was typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I couldn't
    > believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max, whereas by
    > cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.

    The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike! Triathletes
    ( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level of effort
    returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always the highest!

    I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the less
    percentage of calories coming from fat, but the more calories burnt in total. THey all have to come
    from somewhere!

    Cheers,

    Steve
    >
    > One odd thing happened - I listen to AM radio on my rides which is inside a remote control
    > attached to my jacket at chest level, right next to the chest strap. Even though the transmitted
    > signal from the sensor is 5 kHz, the radio picks it up, meaning that I can hear my heart rate as
    > an audible "pip" in my earpieces.
    >
    > Simon Mason Kingston upon Hull
     
  3. ANY exercise will burn fat. Twirling effortlessly will burn fat. The rate at which it burns it is
    another matter.

    People who walk fast think that they burn more fat per mile. They don't. They just burn it faster.
     
  4. 2LAP

    2LAP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try posting this on the www.cyclingforums.com training forum.
     
  5. W K

    W K Guest

    "Steve Holdoway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 23 Feb 2004 19:07:39 -0800, [email protected] (Simon Mason) wrote:
    >
    > >I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175

    A figure that is seldom correct.

    > >Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around 140 and I
    > >could not get it to go above 150 even
    ...
    > > I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought
    > > that by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by
    > > cycling up hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175!
    > > It was typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I
    > > couldn't believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max,
    > > whereas by cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.

    Do you actually get excited playing football? OTOH short bursts of very fast running will give you a
    higher rate. I can, and do, get just as high HRs on a bike as running.

    > The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike!
    > Triathletes ( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level
    > of effort returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always the
    > highest!

    I bet lance's is pretty damn high when he's going up a hill sitting down (esp after being knocked
    off by a kid!). It's got to have a lot to do with your proportions of muscles and their blood
    supplies. I have certainly found that on some hills I could feel my legs running out of oxygen, and
    the heart rate staying reasonable. I'll agree that its likely that unless you are very specialised
    as a cyclist, running will give you higher rates.

    > I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the less
    > percentage of calories coming from fat, but the more calories burnt in total. THey all have to
    > come from somewhere!

    If you are using mainly carbohydrates, they'll come from food, very very quickly unless you can
    manage to ignore your hunger. I'm less sure how this works if you are using a higher proportion of
    fat, but you can certainly get far more hours in per week at such rates.
     
  6. 2LAP

    2LAP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the goal is weight loss then burning most calories is preferable to maximising fat metabolism, given that the difference between energy in and energy out dictates weight loss/gain.

    While the greatest percentage of calories may come from fat at lower intensities (particularly while siting down watching TV) at higher intensities there is a greater absolute amount of fat and energy used (even though fat may provide a smaller % contribution of the energy).

    There is lots of evidence now to suggest that if you want to maximise weight loss via exercise exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours. Exercising in this way maximises the amount of calories and fat used during the exercise (as a side effect you will also get fitter faster than if you ride around at 115 bpm).

    Also if you wish to maximise fat use don't bother with training on an empty stomach or similar, but get fit instead. The fitter you are the more fat you use at relative and absolute intensities compared to less fit people.

    www.cyclingforums.com
     
  7. Graham

    Graham Guest

    "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
    > so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
    > cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
    > 140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
    > on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
    > for training for fitness.
    >
    > I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought
    > that by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by
    > cycling up hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175!
    > It was typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I
    > couldn't believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max,
    > whereas by cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.
    >
    > One odd thing happened - I listen to AM radio on my rides which is inside a remote control
    > attached to my jacket at chest level, right next to the chest strap. Even though the transmitted
    > signal from the sensor is 5 kHz, the radio picks it up, meaning that I can hear my heart rate as
    > an audible "pip" in my earpieces.
    >
    > Simon Mason Kingston upon Hull

    I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good idea !

    Graham
     
  8. I was maintaining 175bpm for half an hour on some of my fastest commutes. The exertion felt extreme
    but exhilarating.

    Those occasions where I was unable to raise my rate above 140bpm were when I was seriously
    carbohydrate depleted. Progress was painfully slow.

    Carbo Queen.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
     
  9. Elyob

    Elyob Guest

    "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good idea
    !
    >

    I listen to the radio in one ear myself, and that's on a commute. I can still hear
    aproaching traffic.
     
  10. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 24/2/04 9:30 am, in article [email protected],
    "2LAP" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Steve Holdoway wrote:
    >> I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the
    >> less percentage of calories coming from fat, but the more calories burnt in total. THey all have
    >> to come from somewhere! Cheers, Steve
    >
    >
    > If the goal is weight loss then burning most calories is preferable to maximising fat metabolism,
    > given that the difference between energy in and energy out dictates weight loss/gain.
    >
    > While the greatest percentage of calories may come from fat at lower intensities (particularly
    > while siting down watching TV) at higher intensities there is a greater absolute amount of fat and
    > energy used (even though fat may provide a smaller % contribution of the energy).

    Doesn't this ignore teh various different stages of metabolism?

    For the first few seconds you burn available ATP in the muscles. This is a sprint and cannot be led
    for long. It is entirely anaerobic

    The next stage is to burn carbo from existing free sources (eg food.) After about 45 minutes the
    body shifts towards glucogenesis which burns fat.

    The trick is to not overdo the first part and end up in an anaerobic state otherwise you will be
    unable to continue until the body has caught up with you.

    Eating directly after exercise is also a very good way to put the pounds back on. Energy adsorption
    is maximal in the 30-60 minutes after exercise.

    > There is lots of evidence now to suggest that if you want to maximise weight loss via exercise
    > exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours.
    > Exercising in this way maximises the amount of calories and fat used during the exercise (as a
    > side effect you will also get fitter faster than if you ride around at 115 bpm).

    The trick is to maximise output over that timescale. If you go hell for leather for one hour but
    then cannot continue, you will burn less than trundling for eight hours.

    > Also if you wish to maximise fat use don't bother with training on an empty stomach or similar,
    > but get fit instead. The fitter you are the more fat you use at relative and absolute intensities
    > compared to less fit people.

    Surely training on an empty stomach (especially if you are going longer, slower) will be more
    beneficial at any given point. However, getting fitter will move that point, even if it doesn't burn
    as many calories.

    I am speaking from the experience of having lost over 15 kg in the last 6 months through exercise
    and moderating input as well as having a nodding acquaintance with the sports science centre across
    the road (I do some work for some of the researchers there and go tot he lunchtime circuit
    training).

    Weight loss has come about by a combination of 1. Don't eat so much. Have a pathalogical aversion to
    refined sugars and minimise the carbohydrate. No snacking between meals. Save alcohol and chocolate
    as rewards..

    2. Exercise. Short and hard. The lunchtime circuit trainign is about 30-40 minutes including warm
    up. I aim to maintain a heart rate of 150-170 (I am
    3) during the exercises. Some are easier than others. The strength ones I typically rate about 120.
    I have a circuit I can do on the bike that involves riding around and up the local hill. There is
    a road around the hill (about 1.5-2km per circuit) and it is just under a K to the top (75m
    height gain). So I do laps and on alternate laps I ride up the hill. The aim is to do as many as
    possible before I either get bored or too tired. This is long interval training.

    4. Exercise long and far. I have been riding longer distances on the weekends. WIth so many small
    towns and nice roads around there is plenty of variety to make loops longer or shorter, hillier
    or flatter. These rides are from 2-4 hours duration at present. I'd like to be up to doing a
    short audax event in the summer.

    On the long rides I will drop by between 1-2 kilos in weight which after rehydration gives a weight
    loss of about 0.5kg. I typically head off early in the morning and eat when I get back. The major
    problem is not so much the fitness as the joints feeling a bit sore after that time on the bike.
    Pulserate tends to be around 120-140, pushing up to 150-160 on the longer hills.

    The downside is the perpetual hunger but you get used to that. Drink water instead of snacking. the
    upside is the weight loss and feeling much better because of it. I still rank as 'obese' on the
    standard BMI scales though. Only another ten or so kilo to go.

    ..d
     
  11. Temp3st

    Temp3st Guest

    "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good
    idea
    > !
    > >
    >
    > I listen to the radio in one ear myself, and that's on a commute. I can still hear aproaching
    > traffic.
    >
    >

    that's maybe true but your mind could be elsewhere
     
  12. W K

    W K Guest

    "2LAP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Steve Holdoway wrote:
    > > I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the
    > > less percentage of calories coming from fat,
    but
    > > the more calories burnt in total. THey all have to come from
    somewhere!

    > If the goal is weight loss then burning most calories is preferable to maximising fat metabolism,
    > given that the difference between energy in and energy out dictates weight loss/gain.

    I'd be suspicious at the simplicity of this point. If you use up 500g of carbohydrate today, you'll
    either eat that much to catch up, or you won't be cycling tomorrow. Not entirely sure how that
    works with fat.

    > There is lots of evidence now to suggest that if you want to maximise weight loss via exercise
    > exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours.

    Does this evidence take into account hunger and eating behaviour? I don't doubt its the best way of
    burning the most calories, but as above, I'm far from convinced on the logic that got us here.

    > Exercising in this way maximises the amount of calories and fat used during the exercise (as a
    > side effect you will also get fitter faster than if you ride around at 115 bpm).

    again, if I do 1 hour of intense exercise today, I won't be doing any tomorrow. "always as hard as
    possible" is not a good exercise plan.
     
  13. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    [email protected] (Simon Mason) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
    > so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
    > cycling.

    Forget about 220 minus your age. It's nonsense. Your mhr is whatever it is. It varies by individual
    and by activity. Mine goes way over 200 minus my age.

    --
    Dave...
     
  14. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    Steve Holdoway <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<rbvl309bdpotmp99n7elet[email protected]>...

    > The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike!
    > Triathletes ( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level
    > of effort returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always the
    > highest!

    It depends on a lot of factors. My max heart rate is about 15 bpm higher for cycling than
    for running.

    --
    Dave...
     
  15. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 24/2/04 12:32 pm, in article
    [email protected], "Dave Kahn"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected] (Simon Mason) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >> I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
    >> so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
    >> cycling.
    >
    > Forget about 220 minus your age. It's nonsense. Your mhr is whatever it is. It varies by
    > individual and by activity. Mine goes way over 200 minus my age.

    According to my max heart rate I am ten years younger...

    (according to my shoe size and weight I am six inches taller as well).

    Must remember to return this body for one the right size, if only I could find the receipt.

    ..d
     
  16. On 24 Feb 2004 04:27:15 -0800, Dave Kahn wrote:

    > Steve Holdoway <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >> The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike!
    >> Triathletes ( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level
    >> of effort returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always
    >> the highest!
    >
    > It depends on a lot of factors. My max heart rate is about 15 bpm higher for cycling than for
    > running.

    This is very strange and contrary to everything I have ever read about HRMs. Have you done stress
    tests for both activites? Here's one for running: http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm2.htm Read all
    the warnings!

    > For those unfortunate enough to live in an area lacking hills (did I say unfortunate ?) it is
    > possible to carry out a test on a flat piece of road or at your local running track. The plan of
    > attack is to run 800 meters very quick. For the first 400 meters run at up to your current
    > 90/95% MHR (to be achieved by the end of the first lap) and for the last 400 go for it. During
    > this second lap you should max out. Very fit athletes may have to repeat this test after a few
    > minutes rest (minimum of 65% MHR) to be able to achieve a true maximum. This test is very
    > reliable.

    You can do something similar on a bike but it's not a good idea to do it on the road - in case
    you collapse.

    --
    Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having you
    here." -Stephen Bishop www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk
     
  17. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Simon Mason wrote:
    > I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
    > so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
    > cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
    > 140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
    > on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
    > for training for fitness.
    >

    That's the problem with HRMs and MHRs. Everybody if different. My MHR should be 150 according to the
    formula but its actually around 200 and I can cruise all day at 160. Others are equally the other
    side. Forget the formula and work out what the right figures are for you. Or throw it away and
    listen to what your body is telling you.

    Tony
     
  18. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:52:20 -0000, Tony Raven wrote:

    > Simon Mason wrote:
    >> I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
    >> so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
    >> cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
    >> 140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
    >> on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
    >> for training for fitness.
    >>
    >
    > That's the problem with HRMs and MHRs. Everybody if different. My MHR should be 150 according to
    > the formula but its actually around 200 and I can cruise all day at 160. Others are equally the
    > other side. Forget the formula and work out what the right figures are for you. Or throw it away
    > and listen to what your body is telling you.
    >
    > Tony

    Crikey Tony, are you really 70? I guessed you were much younger than that.

    (Or might you be using a dodgy formula? MHR = 220 - Age is the most commonly quoted. Another is
    MHR = 205 - (Age/2). Or are you talking about the upper range of your training heart rate zone -
    85% of MHR?)

    You can only get an accurate determination of MHR by doing a stress test and not many people do,
    because it's bloody hard.
    --
    Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having you
    here." -Stephen Bishop www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk
     
  19. W K

    W K Guest

    "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > You can only get an accurate determination of MHR by doing a stress test and not many people do,
    > because it's bloody hard.

    Another way of looking at it is your Lactate threshold. (warped from the Burke and Pavelka book).

    They have an approximation of what that is of - the most you can sustain for 30 minutes. I played
    about with this whilst running, and found that I had a fairly marked threshold where 175 was
    possible, but pushing it further was pointlessly tiring and difficult to recover from.

    Even if it isn't really the LT, its a damn useful red line to know about. Going over it probably
    even slows me down in the long run as it takes some doing to recover from.
     
  20. Elyob

    Elyob Guest

    "Temp3st" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:5lG_b.11363$Y%[email protected]...
    >
    > "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > text.cableinet.net...
    > >
    > > "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good
    > idea
    > > !
    > > >
    > >
    > > I listen to the radio in one ear myself, and that's on a commute. I can still hear aproaching
    > > traffic.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > that's maybe true but your mind could be elsewhere
    >
    >

    True, but with the number of lifesavers I have to do, it's difficult to 'phase out'.
     
Loading...
Loading...