Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "
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 formulae than
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 Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

Be still my speeding heart
 

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "
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 formulae than
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 Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

It doesn't matter which method is used, it will not fit with the
majority of people. Statistically, max HR is normally distributed with a
mean and a standard deviation for each age group. 95% of the population
will be in the range of plus or minus 2 standard deviations from the
mean.

Phil H

Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 16, 2:26*am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...



On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "
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 formulae than
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 Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

Make up your mind, Phil.

Do you disagree with the physicians I spoke to:

It doesn't matter which method is used, it will not fit with the
majority of people.

Or do you agree with them:

Statistically, max HR is normally distributed with a
mean and a standard deviation for each age group. 95% of the population
will be in the range of plus or minus 2 standard deviations from the
mean.

You can't have it both ways.

Phil H

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...%20HUMOUR.html

Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 16, 2:26*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "

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 formulae than
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

People afraid of blowing a gasket are doing more harm to themselves
worrying about overdoing it than they ever would by actually overdoing
it. So what if in every HRM manual, and every magazine articel about
exercise it says to consult a doctor before starting an exercise
program? It also says "HOT: use extreme caution" on McDonalds coffee
lids.

Encouraging people to use their bodies as billions have done before
them without fear is harldy reckless. What is perhaps reckless is
scaring people into thinking they are fragile entities on the verge of
death who need affirmation from a doctor before they do anything.

Sure the formula you cite works well sometimes, but it is still just
an estimation. Probably good enough, and a fine starting place, and
perhaps even correct! But like I say, you can come up with a formula
to determine shoe size from head circumfrence that will probably be
just as accurate, but it won't work for everyone. So if you really
want to get shoes that fit, measure your feet, not your head. Same
goes for HR.

Measuring max HR isn't any harder than riding up a hill as hard as you
can until you have to ease off, then looking at the HRM. Hardly
dramatic or reckless.

Joseph

Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 16, 4:23 am, "
wrote:

People afraid of blowing a gasket are doing more harm to themselves
worrying about overdoing it than they ever would by actually overdoing
it. So what if in every HRM manual, and every magazine articel about
exercise it says to consult a doctor before starting an exercise
program? It also says "HOT: use extreme caution" on McDonalds coffee
lids.

I thought it was the other way around - consult a doctor before
consuming coffee, and use extreme caution with a heart rate monitor.

R

Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "

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 formulae than
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. Anyone who actually
needs to know their max heart rate is most likely an outlier in one
direction or another.

Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 16, 1:38*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Apr 16, 4:23 am, "

wrote:

People afraid of blowing a gasket are doing more harm to themselves
worrying about overdoing it than they ever would by actually overdoing
it. So what if in every HRM manual, and every magazine articel about
exercise it says to consult a doctor before starting an exercise
program? It also says "HOT: use extreme caution" on McDonalds coffee
lids.

I thought it was the other way around - consult a doctor before
consuming coffee, and use extreme caution with a heart rate monitor.

R

I thought coffee was rehabilitated, full of goodies. (Free radicals?
What has it to do with politics?) -- Andre Jute

Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 16, 2:05*pm, wrote:
On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute wrote:



On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "

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 formulae than
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.

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 Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

Be still my speeding heart
 

the revised equation is:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4 ????

or minus .11*weight in kg skip the 4
is equal to to ur future contract with CSC

Be still my speeding heart
 

On Apr 16, 3:58*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:05*pm, wrote:



On Apr 15, 8:26 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "

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 formulae than
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.

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

I don't feel that qualification is necessary, but I see your point.
Obvioulsy some people are in horrible shape and on the verge, but I
think way more people who in actuality are fine think they are on the
verge. I think that is a problem for many people who are afraid to
start exercising, or at least use that as an excuse to themselves to
put it off.

As for my famous shoe size formula:

(((Head circumfrence in cm) + 4) / 2) / .67 = euro shoe size

All subjects please report accuracy!

Joseph