|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:26:25 -0700 (PDT), 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). Feh. In the absence of heart disease or other defect, pegging that particular gauge runs you up against a built-in governor and there is no harm done beyond the expected exertion. A fair number of us geezers race and whether the HRM is mounted or not, do max out the heart rate from time to time. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
On Apr 16, 9:58*am, 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - you post a bunch of garbage andre; you took a test with some geeks in a lab- you think their word is an absolute ? I guarentee you it is not, especially compared to the sheer number of atheletes who post here regularily- many of who have read much about cardiovascular fitness, and consulted with cardiologists and other physicians, and have differing opinions on the subject. You sound like one of these guys who says the earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says it is. It is important to always question, observe and use your own mind- And your statement "No exercise regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and those are all defined as percentages of MHR." ranks right up there with thoughtless posts- to anyone reading this I say, this guy is full of it. You don't need a mhr or hr zones- what the f*** for ? A training regime can consist of anything- because you have no conscious control over over your heart rate you don't need a hr monitor to train for ANYTHING- the results of the activity speak for themselves, there is no such thing as a heart rate race |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote: As for my famous shoe size formula: (((Head circumfrence in cm) + 4) / 2) / .67 = euro shoe size All subjects please report accuracy! Joseph Ah, the flaw in this formula is trying to derive one measurement for two feet from one head. I have odd feet. The formula comes out as too big for either of them. I do however have a large head (63cm). It's a b*gger buying h*lm*ts. (which is a secondary reason for not wearing them any more). pete |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
On Apr 16, 6:05*pm, wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:58*am, 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-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - you post a bunch of garbage andre; you took a test with some geeks in a lab- you think their word is an absolute ? I guarentee you it is not, especially compared to the sheer number of atheletes who post here regularily- many of who have read much about cardiovascular fitness, and consulted with cardiologists and other physicians, and have differing opinions on the subject. You sound like one of these guys who says the earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says it is. It is important to always question, observe and use your own mind- *And your statement "No exercise regime can be devised without consideration of heart rate zones, and those are all defined as percentages of MHR." ranks right up there with thoughtless posts- to anyone reading this I say, this guy is full of it. You don't need a mhr or hr zones- what the f*** for ? A training regime can consist of anything- because you have no conscious control over over your heart rate you don't need a hr monitor to train for ANYTHING- the results of the activity speak for themselves, there is no such thing as a heart rate race That's why I don't use an HRM for any of my training. This whole business with zones is so arbitrary and fuzzily defined as to be essentially meaningless, IMO. I use an HRM for pacing in time trial races, but I don't use just one value. I calibrate myself based on conditions, etc, and use it more for helping maintain an even pace, not so much for establishing what that pace should be. I ride easy rides where I try to keep slow enough that I can breath through my nose (just) for 80% of my "training", and then the remaining 20% is divided between moderately hard rides where I try to go fast without going too hard. Just hard enough that I have to concentrate on keeping the pace up, and interval sessions where I ride 2.5 minutes as hard as I can, followed by 5 minutes of rest, repeated 10 times. Perhaps these fall into certain HR zones, but so what? Why keep my eyes glued to some tiny screen when the great outdoors is rushing past? That is of course my opinion, and the way I like to do it. Some people enjoy the information they get from an HRM, and I don't mean to say they are wasting their time, just that it is an unnecessary gadget. Joseph |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
On Apr 16, 6:18*pm, Peter Grange wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: As for my famous shoe size formula: (((Head circumfrence in cm) + 4) / 2) / .67 = euro shoe size All subjects please report accuracy! Joseph Ah, the flaw in this formula is trying to derive one measurement for two feet from one head. I have odd feet. The formula comes out as too big for either of them. I do however have a large head (63cm). It's a b*gger buying h*lm*ts. (which is a secondary reason for not wearing them any more). pete Didn't you learn in school you are supposed to SHOW YOUR WORK! The formula doesn't work for me either. I have a moderately big head (61cm) and bigger feet (Euro 50). Joseph |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
On Apr 16, 9:58 am, 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. And here I thought that the scientific method had something to do with actually testing a hypothesis rather than trying to infer the answer from someone else's tests on a potentially unrelated sample group. 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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ... 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 Statistics means never having to say you're certain :-) Using the 210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4 formula, my max should be 176. Using 220 - age = 162. FWIW, the 162 is pretty darned close but I would estimate I'm at least a couple of standard deviations below the mean for my age. Go figure. Phil H |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stopped for speeding? | [email protected] | UK | 1 | April 12th 07 02:01 PM |
How does a heart rate monitor pickup my heart beat and transmits? | [email protected] | UK | 1 | February 14th 06 05:02 PM |
How does a heart rate monitor pickup the heart bear and transmit? | [email protected] | UK | 1 | February 14th 06 04:41 PM |
Another speeding idiot | Zog The Undeniable | UK | 23 | January 3rd 05 07:25 PM |
Caught speeding | DRS | Australia | 23 | February 19th 04 04:57 AM |