It seems to me I heard somewhere that Technology Graphics wrote in
article <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:I am 50 years old and have recently bought a heart rate
monitor, not for fitness training really but because I
can't resist gadgets.
Quoted message said:I have found to my surprise that on a one hour cycle ride I
can average 185bpm and for a short time I can get this up
to 215bpm. I know that I am keeping up a pretty decent pace
because nobody ever overtakes me and in fact I get a pretty
childish thrill from overtaking "kids" half my age.
Quoted message said:According to various web sites and the information supplied
with the equipment my Maximum Heart Rate should be 220 - 50
= 170 and if I am a super athlete I should be training at
90% of this i.e. 153bpm.
That formula is apt to be very inaccurate for finding the
maximum heart rate of any one individual. It is at best a
population approach, and individuals may fall anywhere along
a wide curve. Differences of one standard deviation or more
are not uncommon.
FWIW, in sports newsgroups I have also read suggestions that
the formula originated with a group of physical therapists
who needed a way to approximate MHR, and essentially
developed the formula off the tops of their heads from their
own experience.
There are other better supported formulas that may work
better for individuals. True MHR for a given individual
probably is best derived from stress testing; some specific
hard workouts (runners in particular have developed some)
may give close approximations.
Percentage of MHR may better be calculated by adjusting
for resting heart rate, so that the range of variation is
taken into account. For instance, a person with a resting
rate of 50 and a maximum of 200 has a ROV [my term for
this illustration only] of 150 bpm, and would have a
different 90% level than a person with a resting rate of
30 and a ROV of
170. The formula is ((MRH-ROV) x target %) + ROV. Since
resting heart rate is somewhat related to fitness
level this formula to some extent adjusts for that
difference.
My suggestion, though, is to use the HRM to find your
current level of performance without regard to *MHR*. From
that base it's easy to increase or decrease working HR
targets without trying to apply a formula without knowing
all the variables.
I think modern HRMs are capable of lab-level accuracy, but
not under real-life conditions. During any one workout--or
any portion of one--weather, the athlete's physical and
emotional condition, the terrain, electronic interference
(e.g., power lines), and numerous other things affect the
level of exertion and the readings. It's better to note
readings from time to time and mentally average them for the
entire workout or for the hard parts and the easy parts.
Newer HRMs, of course, can log all the readings for
download, but IMO it's still necessary to average readings
rather than taking spot readings as meaningful.
Quoted message said:I have always had natural fitness but can hardly be
described as an athlete.
Quoted message said:Is this dangerous? Is my heart going to explode or suddenly
stop functioning? Of course I have been doing this for
years but without knowing how fast it was going.
Adding the HRM doesn't add to your risk <G> so if you've
been doing your hour-long rides for a reasonable length of
time you're probably already acclimated to the exertion.
OTOH if you are fairly new you should be patient and build
up slowly to your desired fitness level. Runners suggest
never increasing workload (pace, distance, time) more than
10% over a week or a month. I don't know but suspect bikers
have similar cautions.
Quoted message said:My heart rate at rest is 60 - 65bpm and I am a bit
overweight.
Overweight is a national problem. Stick with your
routine, reduce your intake (many athletes find their
appetite diminishes or their food cravings change as
their fitness grows, and the pounds drop away at
sustainable rates of loss).
RHR, like MHR, is an individual matter. A RHR in the 60s
could be your normal, though it's possible that with
increased fitness it may drop somewhat. FWIW, I'm a
moderately healthy male and have always had somewhat slow
pulse rates. I can easily get into the 40s and 30s under
some conditions.
--
Don [email hidden]
