heart rate/cadence info

piobhan

What can ya learn from this data, im just training for about 3 months now,nearly 4. Have a garmin 500 with the hr monitor and cadence info.

here is 2 examples, I did a race last week, here is the data from it
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/93997318

average hr 185 average cadence 101
max hr 200 max cadence 130

Here is another link to a 55 mile route,id guess I was pushing it around 75% id say
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/95294535

average hr 162 average cadence 97
max hr 183 max cadence 123

obviously for the race its a lot higher, when my average hr is 185 for 90 mins does that show my fitness level needs improving or that ive a good threshold for pain to hold it for that long.

Any help,advice welcome, im still a relative newbie

Beasty

Doesn't really say anything, as everyone has different heart rate thresholds. With more date you will be able to track changes, but all you are doing at present is setting a benchmark, unless you have some historic HR data to compare with

mgmt

I got a couple of VO2max tests done. This test provides you with your max heart heart. From there you can work out your heart rate zone:

Heart rate based training
I will use the concepts of A1 , A2 and A3 that are the different intervals (zones) of heart rate in the workouts. "A" stands for Aerobic-exercise.

Training in the A1 zone means that you can talk freely and feel comfortable like when your doing slow running (jogging).

Training in the A2 zone means that you will breathing faster but you can maintain the temp for quite some time.

Training in the A3-zone means striving heart and lungs significantly at a pace you can hold a maximum of 15-20 min.
http://www.xc-skiers.com/world-of-skiing.asp?skiing=training-for-Vasaloppet-heart-rate-based-training&lang=eng

During the Ring of Kerry this w/end I'll be keeping an eye on my heart rate and making sure I don't venture into the A3 zone but maintain a comfortable A1/A2 pace which can be kept up for hours.

Cookie_Monster

your average and peak heart rate should come down as you get fitter as your heart needs to do less work for the same exercise. a useful guide is 220 bpm minus your age = max HR.
High HR should not cause pain unless your approaching 100% of max in which case your stressing your heart more than needed.
As you get fitter you'll notice your HR fluctuating more also as it starts to react quicker to changes; ie climbing or descending. There are ranges of HR that suit different things better, iirc 60-75% is best for fat burning, 75%+ is for cardio and building fitness or something like that



don't know as much about cadence but you should be trying to keep it fairly consistent, using your gears as need to maintain a rough range. From the activities it looks like you did that fairly well.

Beasty

But that 220-age formula is very rough and ready (if not I've just gone back to 1994)

Cookie_Monster

Beasty wrote: »

But that 220-age formula is very rough and ready (if not I've just gone back to 1994)

true, but it's a useful catch all starting point

there are of course others, with factors or powers and what not . My friend is a cardiologist and it's the one he recommends for simplicity so that's why I mentioned it...

moggs1972

first thing you should do when training using heart rate is to work out what your MAX heart rate (MHR) is for your age, a rough guide is 220- your age. this gives your max heart BPM and this is not a target! then you need to work out HR zones to train within. a few simple suggestions are as follows:
60-65% MHR for long easy rides to improve combustion of fat.
65-75% MHR for longish rides of medium intensity and building base endurance
75-82% MHR for development of aerobic endurance.
82-89% MHR for simulating pace for a race for instance
89-94% MHR for raising anaerobic threshold
94-100% for high intensity interval training.
in a nutshell, to improve endurance keep below 82%, anything above this limit to short efforts to avoid heart attack/death!!
the race heart info seems "very high" so maybe you should look at improving endurance. there are plenty of articles out there on the interweb which will baffle/inform you. hope this was of some help.

Beasty

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

true, but it's a useful catch all starting point

there are of course others, with factors or powers and what not . My friend is a cardiologist and it's the one he recommends for simplicity so that's why I mentioned it...

I don't disagree, but it does need the caveat. The guy who first came up with it was shocked when he discovered people were treating it almost as gospel. Otherwise perfectly healthy people could read into it that something is wrong.

piobhan

cheers for that info lads, im meant to be doing a proper hr test with my club(castlebar) soon so will see how that goes, that will work out my max and we will go from there.
For the race data alright I thought it was worringly high!??

Cookie_Monster

moggs1972 wrote: »

in a nutshell, to improve endurance keep below 82%, anything above this limit to short efforts to avoid heart attack/death!!

that seems remarkably low to me. Garmin shows my average HR is 80% of max on everything recorded over the last 6 months. means HR is frequently well over that over the course of a spin...

has dropped to 78% over last two months

Joeyde

what about cadence, any thoughts on that?

I recently got a double wireless and I keep my cadence around 100rpm and gear accordingly just to keep spinning...may have just heard it somewhere?

macnab

The 220 minus your age is loose at best. At 42 years old my max heart rate would be 178bpm. I average 176bpm on some of my group rides and have seen over 200bpm register on my garmin twice.

The correct way to do it is a VO2 max test, but failing that I set myself up on the Turbo trainer and gradually increased my work rate until I felt I was near my limit. I reached 194bpm so I used 200bpm as my max.
Then you find your minimum heart rate by taking your pulse when you wake up in the morning, for me that was 48bpm.
I then deduct 48 from 200 which gives 152, this is used to calculate the zones.
So for the Energy Efficient zone 60%-70%:
152 x 60%=91.2, add 48 = 139.2bpm
152 x 70%=106.4, add 48 = 154.4bpm
So my Energy efficient zone is 139.2bpm to 154.4bpm.

moggs1972

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that seems remarkably low to me. Garmin shows my average HR is 80% of max on everything recorded over the last 6 months. means HR is frequently well over that over the course of a spin...

has dropped to 78% over last two months

the thing about HR training is that everyone is different and the figures i qouted (from various training books) are just a general guide for the average person. like you i have similar figures but what is important is that the heart is a muscle like any other in the body and continuously working it at levels up to and over 100% is putting stress on it. i guess the only way to get exact figures is to undergo proper testing but i reckon that will cost a bit!

Joeyde

Best way is to join a study in a university sports science department. I got all my V02 max testing done for nothing, just had to go in for a few trials. Even measured my lactic acid threshold etc and my progression over time. It was great. Some require biopsies though...so maybe it does cost something..pound of flesh etc..

piobhan

all good info lads,
Like i said above I am getting a proper hR test done with the club so will so how that goes ang go from there

ThisRegard

Excluding your heart rate then, is there an ideal cadence to work at or is is intrinsically linked to your HR ? I've been looking to improve my times but I reckon I tend to be a masher. Some articles I've read recommend between 85-95 rpm due to how your muscles work, I can't remember the details but basically at a higher cadence your muscles aren't stressed as much, but you work harder cardio wise. When I'm out on the bike I never get tired aerobically but my legs get wrecked so I'm thinking to stay in a lower gear longer.

blorg

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

High HR should not cause pain unless your approaching 100% of max in which case your stressing your heart more than needed.

More than needed? What does that mean? If you are sprinting in a race you aren't thinking 'whoa there, keep it steady, don't want to work my heart "more than needed." You may or may not be able to give what is needed in a race, but that is another issue.

moggs1972 wrote: »

what is important is that the heart is a muscle like any other in the body and continuously working it at levels up to and over 100% is putting stress on it.

It is not possible to work the heart over 100%!

moggs1972 wrote: »

in a nutshell, to improve endurance keep below 82%, anything above this limit to short efforts to avoid heart attack/death!!
the race heart info seems "very high" so maybe you should look at improving endurance.

This is nonsense, by definition he was able to sustain that heart rate over the course of a race and so he has the endurance. Outside of people with cardiac problems, other limiting factors will kick in before an excessively high heart rate kills anyone. If you go too hard, the risk is that you will "blow up" and be unable to sustain the effort, not that you will have a heart attack, fall off the bike and die!

HR is very useful for pacing, but it is useful to avoid blowing up (and thus having an overall sub-par performance on the bike), not to avoid death.

Cookie_Monster

blorg wrote: »

More than needed? What does that mean? If you are sprinting in a race you aren't thinking 'whoa there, keep it steady, don't want to work my heart "more than needed." You may or may not be able to give what is needed in a race, but that is another issue.

hitting 95% + for long periods of time while just out training would be stressing it more than needed, for example. No reason to be reaching that level of HR just for the sake of it. Undue stress, also more likely if someone is unfit and starting out than in a race situation frankly.

blorg wrote: »

It is not possible to work the heart over 100%!

of course it is. 100% of what you can safely reach is different to 100% of what you can physically reach.

Max HR is just a guide as to what you should be able to attain, unless you are doing all the scientific tests to determine it exactly. I've hit 212 when my max should have been about 198 (220- age) a couple of years back while in the gym for example.

seamus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

of course it is. 100% of what you can safely reach is different to 100% of what you can physically reach.

Well the obvious point is that 100% is the max you can actually reach. I think what's meant is that if you take 220-age as your "100%", then you're likely to be veering into the unsafe zone if you go above this "100%". Even though you're not actually going more than 100% max HR.

My max HR should theoretically be 191, but I can maintain an HR of 195 for five to ten minutes without being completely dead afterwards or having my heart ringing in my ears, so I imagine the only true way to find my max HR is to undergo one of those proper test thingies.

blorg

Your max is exactly that, your max. The formula is an approximation, with no relevance to anything. It is not 'the max you can safely attain.' If you have hit a higher value than the formula, all that means is that your max is the value you hit (or higher.) You can disregard the formula in that instance, it means nothing. I can average over my formula "max" in a time trial FFS.

All a ramp-up test does is attempt to push you as hard as possible to get your HR up as high as possible, thereby discovering your max. Again, it is not possible to push yourself over your max, no matter what you do.

No-one is going to be out doing 95%+ "for long periods of time:" because that's not physically possible! Again, the stress on your leg muscles is going to be the limiting factor, not your heart's ability to beat at that speed (presuming your heart is normal/healthy of course.)

Inquitus

blorg wrote: »

Your max is exactly that, your max. The formula is an approximation, with no relevance to anything. It is not 'the max you can safely attain.' If you have hit a higher value than the formula, all that means is that your max is the value you hit (or higher.) You can disregard the formula in that instance, it means nothing. I can average over my formula "max" in a time trial FFS.

All a ramp-up test does is attempt to push you as hard as possible to get your HR up as high as possible, thereby discovering your max. Again, it is not possible to push yourself over your max, no matter what you do.

No-one is going to be out doing 95%+ "for long periods of time:" because that's not physically possible! Again, the stress on your leg muscles is going to be the limiting factor, not your heart's ability to beat at that speed (presuming your heart is normal/healthy of course.)

Is your max actually the highest rate you have ever recorded/sustained over a minute? The 220-Age puts me at 186, I had seen myself up to 188 on the bike, but over the last 400m of a recent 5km run it was sustained at 192/3 for a minute or so.

Should I use 192/3 now in any calcs around HR Max and HR Zones etc. ?

ROK ON

Inquitus wrote: »

Is your max actually the highest rate you have ever recorded/sustained over a minute? The 220-Age puts me at 186, I had seen myself up to 188 on the bike, but over the last 400m of a recent 5km run it was sustained at 192/3 for a minute or so.

Should I use 192/3 now in any calcs around HR Max and HR Zones etc. ?

Yes use 193. Thats the max that you have seen.

My theoretical max is 182. But I have hit 202 ( over 18mths ago and I fainted after it - not kidding). I would regularly hit 187 and sometimes go to 192. FWIW, even though I have hit a max of 202, I dont use this as my max - as I never want to go back there again. Instead I use 192

Beasty

Inquitus wrote: »

Is your max actually the highest rate you have ever recorded/sustained over a minute? The 220-Age puts me at 186, I had seen myself up to 188 on the bike, but over the last 400m of a recent 5km run it was sustained at 192/3 for a minute or so.

Should I use 192/3 now in any calcs around HR Max and HR Zones etc. ?

It's the highest you are capable of reaching, with no minimum time period that I'm aware of

I would guess that most of us have never actually reached it, although I would equally guess that we wouldn't know if we did. Even formal testing can only provide an estimate

I've hit 186, but suspect it could go higher. As I get older however I would expect my maximum to decrease (by approximately 1 bpm for every year of age)

blorg

My max is the highest HR I have hit (it was at the end of a race.) You should use the highest value you have hit excluding any obvious errors from your HR monitor. The HR you can sustain for a minute will almost certainly be lower than your max.

Morrisseeee

so I imagine the only true way to find my max HR is to undergo one of those proper test thingies

........but would this give you a 'true' max??, or just a snapshot in time, ie. at your current condition/weight. If I'm now at 12st and then go up to 15st then won't my HR increase to cope with work-load, or if I go up to 20st, etc ?! Actually what is the max HR that anyone has recorded ? (without spikes in software!).

Inquitus

blorg wrote: »

My max is the highest HR I have hit (it was at the end of a race.) You should use the highest value you have hit excluding any obvious errors from your HR monitor. The HR you can sustain for a minute will almost certainly be lower than your max.

Indeed but I assume the HR at any given point in time on the Garmin is measured as 60/(Time beat current beat in seconds - Time previous beat in seconds) this would allow it to register a max HR based merely on 2 beats of data no, which may not accurately reflect Max HR?

TheBlaaMan

FWIW, I recently did a cardiac stress test (treadmill with increasing ramp) in a private clinic (chi-ching €160) and it proved my HRmax to be 184. I'd regularly seen 196 on cheapo HRM, so its fair a way off accurate at this top-end - not so sure about the minimums it indicates, and I'd expect the Garmin kit to be closer to the real figures (hopefully... Garmin 500 on the way).

The 'formula' gives me a theoretical HRmax of 175. Hitting 104% of my theoretical HRmax, I was then unable to push it higher (HRrate plateaued and wasn't increasing after 16 minutes of testing) and it was legs that eventually called 'time'. Testing protocol used was this one

seamus

Morrisseeee wrote: »

........but would this give you a 'true' max??, or just a snapshot in time, ie. at your current condition/weight. If I'm now at 12st and then go up to 15st then won't my HR increase to cope with work-load, or if I go up to 20st, etc ?! Actually what is the max HR that anyone has recorded ? (without spikes in software!).

Max HR is the physical upper limit of your heart through intense exercise. So by definition it is your "true" Max HR, provided that the test is conducted correctly (and even then it's only an accurate estimate). Obviously this rate can be exceeded in exceptional circumstances which don't involve exercise, almost all of which precede cardiac arrest.

Your max HR naturally decreases over time, presumably the heart muscle is simply incapable of achieving the higher rates as it ages.

Changes in workload and fitness improvements generally cause your body to become more efficient at processing oxygen supply, or your heart to pump more blood on each beat, or both. So if your weight increases, your resting HR will likely increase. But your max HR will stay the same, so you will not be able to perform as well at MaxHR as you did when you were 10 stone.

Armstrong and Indurain, for example, have famously low resting HRs (around 30), which indicates that their hearts are capable of pumping a lot of blood on each cycle, and that their bodies are ultra-efficient at processing the oxygen supplied on each beat.

Inquitus

seamus wrote: »

Armstrong and Indurain, for example, have famously low resting HRs (around 30), which indicates that their hearts are capable of pumping a lot of blood on each cycle, and that their bodies are ultra-efficient at processing the oxygen supplied on each beat.

Thickness of the blood due to ridiculously high Hematocrit will also reduce your resting HR......

doozerie

For an area that seems to be subjected to a lot of scientific research, there are widely varying views and opinions on heart rate. As one example this site claims that you can't increase your Max HR with training, that your Max HR doesn't decrease with age, etc. Some of that seems logical to me, some of it flies in the face of what I've read for years, which suggests that either that site is providing rubbish information or some of the rules of thumb that have been knocking around for a long time are rubbish. Or possibly a bit of both. Certainly the formula of 220 less your age has never been an accurate measure for my max heart rate at any age over the last 20 years - my max always seemed to be significantly higher than that "formula" suggests. (It was already mentioned, and it's my understanding too, that that "formula" was only ever meant to be an extremely rough guide, but people seem to have tried to turn it into something accurate/scientific over time, leading to it being incorrectly interpreted as being somehow reliable).

So, as with most things, when it comes to heart rate measurements take a critical look at what you read and hear. It's very subjective and the application of heart rate to training doesn't often lend itself to black and white statements. A heart rate monitor in itself won't suddenly turn your training into something super efficient, and it won't make you super fit. It can certainly help, but only when you invest time and effort yourself into understanding what it is measuring and how you can use that information to help you train better. Basically, a HRM is a tool, not a solution.

As for cadence, that seems to be a less controversial area but still not without its disputes either. I've seen various figures/ranges quoted for "optimal" riding (choose your own definition of optimal!). Personally I aim to stay within the range of 80 to 100 rpm. Below that range for any length of time and my knees suffer, above that range and my energy fades fast.

Beasty

Heart rate recovery is one useful indicator of fitness - basically it's the amount by which your HR drops in the minute after finishing intense physical activity. IIRC, a drop of 30bpm is considered a good sign, and generally the higher the drop the fitter you are (although other factors such as dehydration may affect the results)

It's not something that is particularly easy to check there and then though, as it may take a few seconds to check your HR and time. If you allow your HR monitor to keep recording though you can probably get a pretty good idea of the recovery rate by a subsequent review of the data.

NeedMoreGears

FWIW my theoretical max is somewhere between 172 (220-age/Haskell) to 169 (206.3-0.77age/Londeree) or even 182 (214-0.5age +0.11weight / Barry). So take your pick as to what formula you like best! It appears that these estimation methods have a standard deviation of around 10-12 for say a 40 year old.

Generally I have found that I average around 145 for an hour (working as hard as I can) - this would usually give me an average flat speed of 30kph. 162 is typical five minutes max having warmed up beforehand. The highest I have ever seen it was 168. Resting 46.

When I am running all those rates tend to be a bit higher, except for the max. It seems max is max regardless of the physical activity for me.

I typcially try to keep an eye on heart rate during a sportive or similar and aim not get above 140 or so unless I'm climbing (then it's a question of just getting up the hill). This type of average rate seems to be a good mix of effort and endurance for me.

Cadence - typically 90 or so, less on steeper hills

TinyExplosions

The max I've seen is 201, when being chased by a dog on the Virginia 300 -afaic that's my max (till I hit higher!)

doozerie

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The max I've seen is 201, when being chased by a dog on the Virginia 300 -afaic that's my max (till I hit higher!)

...till you meet a bigger dog!

macnab

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The max I've seen is 201, when being chased by a dog on the Virginia 300 -afaic that's my max (till I hit higher!)

I dont think that counts as a scientific result:D but next time let him catch you and that might put you closer to a true value:eek:

TinyExplosions

doozerie wrote: »

...till you meet a bigger dog!

macnab wrote: »

I dont think that counts as a scientific result:D but next time let him catch you and that might put you closer to a true value:eek:

The bastard came out when I was going up a hill, and not feeling particularly speedy -gave me quite a startle! (it must have if the boards kipure TT didn't push my heart rate higher!

smacl

Inquitus wrote: »

Indeed but I assume the HR at any given point in time on the Garmin is measured as 60/(Time beat current beat in seconds - Time previous beat in seconds) this would allow it to register a max HR based merely on 2 beats of data no, which may not accurately reflect Max HR?

You'd need to write to Garmin to confirm this assumption. My guess is that newer kit will take measurements averaged over more than two beats, to remove the necessity to detect the precise mid-point of the beat, and reject spurious readings on the fly to cover for measurement / sensor errors. Using a moving window averaging the last 3-5 beats seems more sensible.

It may depend a fair bit on the equipment. I use an older Timex HRM, and the data is full of spikes and bum readings. The HRMs on the machines I use at the gym seem to provide far more consistent results.

Inquitus

smacl wrote: »

You'd need to write to Garmin to confirm this assumption. My guess is that newer kit will take measurements averaged over more than two beats, to remove the necessity to detect the precise mid-point of the beat, and reject spurious readings on the fly to cover for measurement / sensor errors. Using a moving window averaging the last 3-5 beats seems more sensible.

Good point.

doozerie

Inquitus wrote:

Good point.

It's only a single point though. We'll need a few more points which we can then average to determine whether the goodness of this point was an anomaly or not.

...or maybe I'm thinking about this too much.

Inquitus

doozerie wrote: »

It's only a single point though. We'll need a few more points which we can then average to determine whether the goodness of this point was an anomaly or not.

...or maybe I'm thinking about this too much.

I had a look at the xml in the .tcx file, and Garmin just writes a HR every second when it logs its trackpoints, so it's not possible to discern the underlying calculation. I presume Smacl is right in his assertion that its an algorithm that uses at least 5 odd datapoints to avoid anomalies being reported