View Single Post
  #18  
Old December 14th 16, 11:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 2016-12-14 14:25, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-12 16:24, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:21:20 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-12-11 00:50, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:22:19 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-12-05 09:21,
wrote:
I am seldom riding with the local old folks group because they have a
habit of racing all the time. Then 3/4ths of the way into a ride they
get really tired and are dragging up the final hills.

I don't like climbing as fast as possible nor trying to keep up on
the flats to people 5 years older than me that are maintaining heart
rates at 90%. And this is directly out of the box with not one minute
of warm-up.

Now I like to exercise at elevated rates so riding with the "easy"
groups is out. But I don't riding with people whose objective is to
beat someone else to the top of the hill as if this proves them
superior. And this soon degenerates into not waiting for the slower
members.

Unfortunately, these acts of proving one's self better than others
can significantly shorten the live's of those over 55.

If you are one of those that must prove yourself on every ride there
is a target rate on
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Health...1_Article.jsp#

If you regularly ride above these rates you are a heart attack
waiting to happen. Not to mention that often you are pulling the
entire group above their safe zones.

Let's ride as smart as well as fast.


What is a good way to gauge the heart rate if the bike is not equipped
with a whole smorgasbord of medical devices such as pulse meters? Taking
one hand off the bar and counting wrist pulses isn't very safe in most
places around here.

I sometimes get carried away on long boring stretches and find myself
riding full tilt. Whatever "the engine" can deliver goes into the
pedals. But I usually don't become tired after an hour. Or two. Or four.
Is that a good enough indicator to be in the healthy zone?

Actual heart rate varies considerably between individuals and even
among rating systems. The calculation for "max heart rate" depends, to
an extent, on what system you are using. Most people, if they are
athletic at all can produce a heart rate that is higher than the
calculated maximum heart rate.

Heart rate is usually used as a part of a training schedule, i.e., 30
minutes at 100% followed ...


Wow. I thought that long at redline would be damaging to the heart
muscles. But I am not an expert, all I did so far is design electronics
for cardiac diagnostics.

I thought it was obvious that the example you quoted was an example
not an exact recommendation :-)

The "maximum heart rate" as usually used in training is just a
formula. The basic formula is 220 - age = maximum heart rate, or maybe
208 - (0.7 x age in years), or maybe 206.9-(0.67*Age), or maybe one of
calculation that various studies have developed. These various
calculations apply to individuals only in a general way.

Then we have the formula to calculate level of effort: "
Target Heart Rate = ((max HR x resting HR) в %100) + resting HR.


... by 10 minutes at 20%", or whatever, and is a
method of determining the intensity of the exercise.


Sounds like what cyclists call intervall training.

It is. If you add in the long rides. For example, Monday 1 min at 90%
followed by 1 min walk (continue until you vomit); Tuesday 1 hour at
race intensity, Wednesday rest, and so on. The long days can be
thought of single intervals.


I think it's different, more like what Lee said. Where a sprint maxes
out the muscles. I don't max out mine much, meaning I could hammer up a
hill faster but then I'd be pooped for many minutes and the ride would
no longer be an enjoyable one.


Back in the primitive days people used do essentially the same thing
by training by distance, i.e., a quarter as hard as you can go
followed by a quarter at a walk, and so on.

As for your full tilt for hours, you really aren't doing that. What
you are doing is riding at an energy output that you can maintain for
some period. If you really were to exert 100% you might get a quarter
of a mile before you collapsed.


Yes, that is what I think as well. My limitation is more the breathing
and I don't enjoy being totally out of breath for a long time. I was
always an endurance kind of guy, never a good sprinter.

Yes, endurance is generally determined by oxygen intake. Yes, runners
and bicycle sprinters can perform at higher intensities but only for
short times. A "miler" will run three laps at about maximum oxygen
intake and the last lap he will accelerate and go into oxygen
deficiency.


Seen it but I was never good at that. Even in the army my better times
were long-haul. 5km on the sports field, xx kilometer on "hikes" in full
gear. With cycling it is similar. Yesterday was 43mi or 69km, to pick up
a $1.75 item in the valley that I urgently need. About 30% of that ride
was extra and just for fun. However, after this discussion I tried some
muscle max-out phases and paid for that the last 10mi which are almost
all uphill.


Running out of TP always sucks


I didn't need any toilet paper :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home