Max heart rate when training

steve

I recently bought a Garmin Edge with a heart rate monitor. I have been
having fun using the virtual training partner to motivate myself to
push hard. On a recent ride I did 14 miles at an average heart rate of
167 and hit a maximum of 179. I’m 57 years old and all the formulas
that I have seen put my maximum heart rate at ~163 to 170. I have been
running and biking my whole adult life so perhaps my max heart rate
should be a bit higher but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I should
back off a little. During the ride I was at 90% of my max heart rate
(based on 174) for 35:30. As I understand it 90% is not supposed to be
sustainable. I was pushing very hard but I didn’t think I was maxed
out.

The fun data point is that I supposedly burned 1030 calories in 41
minutes.

Thanks for any thoughts
Steve

MagillaGorilla

steve wrote:

> I recently bought a Garmin Edge with a heart rate monitor. I have been
> having fun using the virtual training partner to motivate myself to
> push hard. On a recent ride I did 14 miles at an average heart rate of
> 167 and hit a maximum of 179. I’m 57 years old and all the formulas
> that I have seen put my maximum heart rate at ~163 to 170. I have been
> running and biking my whole adult life so perhaps my max heart rate
> should be a bit higher but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I should
> back off a little. During the ride I was at 90% of my max heart rate
> (based on 174) for 35:30. As I understand it 90% is not supposed to be
> sustainable. I was pushing very hard but I didn’t think I was maxed
> out.
>
> The fun data point is that I supposedly burned 1030 calories in 41
> minutes.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts
> Steve


First of all, stop getting so excited about a 14 mile training ride.
This must stop immediately. You can ride 14 mile training rides until
you die and it will do little for you. Just not long enough.

Second, 1 pound of fat = 4,000 calories.

Third, stop talking about heartrate and all these other numbers. You
sound like one fo those Weight Watchers women. The max heartrate
formula means nothing. Your 179 means nothing (and no, it's not caused
by your previous exercise). And no, it doesn't mean you're "better"
than normal.

In fact, the physiological conditioning of top athletes allows their
heart to pump more efficiently (less beats). How you got up to 179 on a
14 mile training ride indoors sounds like you're out of shape.

So stop paying attention to all those numbers. Go outside and ride your
bike, smell the air, feel the wind.

If you cntinue to ride your bike indoors, not only will you accomplish
little, but your top tube will rust.

Magilla

steve

On Jun 11, 7:17 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> steve wrote:
> > I recently bought a Garmin Edge with a heart rate monitor. I have been
> > having fun using the virtual training partner to motivate myself to
> > push hard. On a recent ride I did 14 miles at an average heart rate of
> > 167 and hit a maximum of 179. I’m 57 years old and all the formulas
> > that I have seen put my maximum heart rate at ~163 to 170. I have been
> > running and biking my whole adult life so perhaps my max heart rate
> > should be a bit higher but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I should
> > back off a little. During the ride I was at 90% of my max heart rate
> > (based on 174) for 35:30. As I understand it 90% is not supposed to be
> > sustainable. I was pushing very hard but I didn’t think I was maxed
> > out.
>
> > The fun data point is that I supposedly burned 1030 calories in 41
> > minutes.
>
> > Thanks for any thoughts
> > Steve
>
> First of all, stop getting so excited about a 14 mile training ride.
> This must stop immediately. You can ride 14 mile training rides until
> you die and it will do little for you. Just not long enough.
>
> Second, 1 pound of fat = 4,000 calories.
>
> Third, stop talking about heartrate and all these other numbers. You
> sound like one fo those Weight Watchers women. The max heartrate
> formula means nothing. Your 179 means nothing (and no, it's not caused
> by your previous exercise). And no, it doesn't mean you're "better"
> than normal.
>
> In fact, the physiological conditioning of top athletes allows their
> heart to pump more efficiently (less beats). How you got up to 179 on a
> 14 mile training ride indoors sounds like you're out of shape.
>
> So stop paying attention to all those numbers. Go outside and ride your
> bike, smell the air, feel the wind.
>
> If you cntinue to ride your bike indoors, not only will you accomplish
> little, but your top tube will rust.
>
> Magilla

First off I found the numbers fun and interesting. Second I have never
claimed to be anything but a fatty master.

Third I rode the 14-mile outside and 14 miles is about all I can
manage on a lunch hour. On weekends I ride more.

It is ridiculous to claim that anybody who hits 179 heart rate in 14
miles is out of shape. You have no idea how fast or slow I was
riding.

As I understand it, if I know my maximum heart rate I can use that to
put my training on a more rational basis. Obviously, if I ride 35
minutes at 90% of my max heart rate then the number I’m using for the
max heart rate is wrong. I’m just wondering what number I should use
and is it possible to overdo it.

1000 calories = how many cookies? Not as many as I eat. You have no
sense of fun.

Steve

ilanpsi@gmail.com

On Jun 12, 3:47 am, steve <SJgerdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I recently bought a Garmin Edge with a heart rate monitor. I have been
> having fun using the virtual training partner to motivate myself to
> push hard. On a recent ride I did 14 miles at an average heart rate of
> 167 and hit a maximum of 179. I’m 57 years old and all the formulas
> that I have seen put my maximum heart rate at ~163 to 170. I have been
> running and biking my whole adult life so perhaps my max heart rate
> should be a bit higher but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I should
> back off a little. During the ride I was at 90% of my max heart rate
> (based on 174) for 35:30. As I understand it 90% is not supposed to be
> sustainable. I was pushing very hard but I didn’t think I was maxed
> out.
>
> The fun data point is that I supposedly burned 1030 calories in 41
> minutes.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts
> Steve

The 220 - age formula may have validity on average, but the variation
among individuals is so large that it has no practical value. Among
older cyclists, values like yours are not uncommon, so don't worry.
Also, it doesn't mean anything . A high max heart rate doesn't mean
you're in shape or out of shape. Max heart rate usually goes down a
little when you get in shape, or doesn't....

14 miles is certainly sufficient for a good workout if you ride
intensely enough, which you did since you reached close to your max
HR. You may need to go on longer rides to gain more base endurance.

This newsgroup has a lot of people with extreme views, it's just a
provocative method of eliciting responses. Typically if you say
something true but boring, no one ever responds to your messages.

Good luck!

-ilan

ilanpsi@gmail.com

On Jun 12, 3:47 am, steve <SJgerdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I recently bought a Garmin Edge with a heart rate monitor. I have been
> having fun using the virtual training partner to motivate myself to
> push hard. On a recent ride I did 14 miles at an average heart rate of
> 167 and hit a maximum of 179. I’m 57 years old and all the formulas
> that I have seen put my maximum heart rate at ~163 to 170. I have been
> running and biking my whole adult life so perhaps my max heart rate
> should be a bit higher but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I should
> back off a little. During the ride I was at 90% of my max heart rate
> (based on 174) for 35:30. As I understand it 90% is not supposed to be
> sustainable. I was pushing very hard but I didn’t think I was maxed
> out.
>
> The fun data point is that I supposedly burned 1030 calories in 41
> minutes.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts
> Steve

I forgot, 90% is usually close to your "threshold" heart rate, that
is, the heart rate ou can sustain for about an hour. For some people
it's slighltly higher or slightly lower.

-ilan

MagillaGorilla

steve wrote:

> On Jun 11, 7:17 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>steve wrote:
>>
>>>I recently bought a Garmin Edge with a heart rate monitor. I have been
>>>having fun using the virtual training partner to motivate myself to
>>>push hard. On a recent ride I did 14 miles at an average heart rate of
>>>167 and hit a maximum of 179. I’m 57 years old and all the formulas
>>>that I have seen put my maximum heart rate at ~163 to 170. I have been
>>>running and biking my whole adult life so perhaps my max heart rate
>>>should be a bit higher but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I should
>>>back off a little. During the ride I was at 90% of my max heart rate
>>>(based on 174) for 35:30. As I understand it 90% is not supposed to be
>>>sustainable. I was pushing very hard but I didn’t think I was maxed
>>>out.
>>
>>>The fun data point is that I supposedly burned 1030 calories in 41
>>>minutes.
>>
>>>Thanks for any thoughts
>>>Steve
>>
>>First of all, stop getting so excited about a 14 mile training ride.
>>This must stop immediately. You can ride 14 mile training rides until
>>you die and it will do little for you. Just not long enough.
>>
>>Second, 1 pound of fat = 4,000 calories.
>>
>>Third, stop talking about heartrate and all these other numbers. You
>>sound like one fo those Weight Watchers women. The max heartrate
>>formula means nothing. Your 179 means nothing (and no, it's not caused
>>by your previous exercise). And no, it doesn't mean you're "better"
>>than normal.
>>
>>In fact, the physiological conditioning of top athletes allows their
>>heart to pump more efficiently (less beats). How you got up to 179 on a
>>14 mile training ride indoors sounds like you're out of shape.
>>
>>So stop paying attention to all those numbers. Go outside and ride your
>>bike, smell the air, feel the wind.
>>
>>If you cntinue to ride your bike indoors, not only will you accomplish
>>little, but your top tube will rust.
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> First off I found the numbers fun and interesting. Second I have never
> claimed to be anything but a fatty master.



You better stop talking like that.

Magilla

The Czar

Steve,I happen to agree with you that a 14 mile ride at lunch is a
very good workout. Some folks on this board disagree and that is fine
as well but unless you are a fairly serious rider 14 miles a day will
keep you in good shape. You might want to add a longer weekend ride
when you can. I have done extensive tours in Belgium and Denmark and I
used a 20 mile training ride about 4-5 days a week with a 50 mile
ride on the weekend and it was sufficiant for me. It will not prepare
you for the Tour Day France but it worked for me.

Donald Munro

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> And I suppose you skip lunch too, assuming your lunch break is
> less than 2 hours long, which is abbout how long all this would take.

By the grace of SOTS, some lunch breaks last the whole afternoon.

Robert Chung

On Jun 12, 2:11 am, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:

> This newsgroup has a lot of people with extreme views, it's just a
> provocative method of eliciting responses.

No it's not.

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com

On Jun 12, 3:47*am, steve <SJgerdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I recently bought a Garmin Edge with a heart rate monitor. I have been
> having fun using the virtual training partner to motivate myself to
> push hard. On a recent ride I did 14 miles at an average heart rate of
> 167 and hit a maximum of 179. I’m 57 years old and all the formulas
> that I have seen put my maximum heart rate at ~163 to 170. I have been
> running and biking my whole adult life so perhaps my max heart rate
> should be a bit higher but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I should
> back off a little. During the ride I was at 90% of my max heart rate
> (based on 174) for 35:30. As I understand it 90% is not supposed to be
> sustainable. I was pushing very hard but I didn’t think I was maxed
> out.
>
> The fun data point is that I supposedly burned 1030 calories in 41
> minutes.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts
> Steve

The only way to find your max HR is to measure it. There is too much
individual variation to make any formula particularly useful.

90% for 35 minutes is possible even for a FM, but it is very, very
hard and very unlikely in all but very motivated circumstances. This
indicates to me you are underestimating your max HR. And anyway there
is never any reason to back off from some number on a screen anyway.

Max HR I don' think is trainable, so previous riding and running
shouldn't make any difference.

A friend of mine got a Garmin early last year and has been using the
virtual partner stuff to race himself. He also does all sorts of other
things guided by the Garmin and has become monster strong. It has been
a great tool for him.

My theory of cycling gadgets is that they are sort of like computer
programming languages. People chose the ones they are comfortable
with, and sometimes weigh their decision on what the task is, but then
end result is a program that either sucks or doesn't, depending upon
how it was written, not what it was written in.

In other words, some people will train better with a Garmin, some with
a PowerTap, some with a Polar, some with nothing, etc. And it is the
quality of the training that dictates the outcome in terms of fitness
and speed. So if the Garmin is best for you to make your training
higher quality, have at it!

Joseph

William Asher

Robert Chung wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2:11 am, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> This newsgroup has a lot of people with extreme views, it's just a
>> provocative method of eliciting responses.
>
> No it's not.

Yes it is.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Jun 12, 9:51*am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > And I suppose you skip lunch too, assuming your lunch break is
> > less than 2 hours long, which is abbout how long all this would take.
>
> By the grace of SOTS, some lunch breaks last the whole afternoon.

And this great nation's GDP does not so much as wince. We're all dead
in the long-run.

During a summer semester I would "sprint" to college every morning.
That ride was started cold and lasted about 16 minutes. Some of my
best race conditioning was around that time. Some primates say a ride
of such length of ride does nothing for race conditioning. That is
wrong.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Jun 12, 10:42*am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And anyway there is never any reason
> to back off from some number on a screen anyway.

You think that might be claiming a bit too much?

> A friend of mine got a Garmin early last year and has been using the
> virtual partner stuff to race himself.

The virtual partner's initials wouldn't be GL, would they?

Ted van de Weteringe

SLAVE of THE STATE schreef:
> joseph santaniello wrote:
>> A friend of mine got a Garmin early last year and has been using the
>> virtual partner stuff to race himself.
>
> The virtual partner's initials wouldn't be GL, would they?

Gina Lynn? Ginger Lynn? Ginger Lee? Gigi Lightspeed?