Be still my speeding heart

On 2008-04-17, wrote:
On Apr 17, 5:43*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I used a sample of 3 and purposefully omitted myself as my big dogs
were sure to wreck the equation!

Do you all have such small feet? I wonder how you mange a stiff wind?

Well, I'm all of 5'9", 160 lbs (1.75 m, 72.7 kg), so I think my feet are
rather proportional to my frame. In fact, they're actually a bit wide,
which makes shoe shopping a true pain. Keen are about the only shoes
that I can quite literally wear out of the box without going up a full
size -- I only have to go up 1/2 size instead!

As for wind, I manage just fine on the drops; I was about 10° leaned over
yesterday due to crosswind, but I managed to stay on the road.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

On Apr 17, 4:17*am, Dan O wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:29 am, "

wrote:

I ride easy...
... moderately hard...
... Just hard enough...
... as hard as I can...
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* me you're talking to out there! ;-)

I don't see why one needs one's head down to the HRM. I have mine
trained like a good dog to make a discreet beep at the fransitions
between zones. My HRM is set up a fraction low, so that when I'm
rolling along at 80% of MHR, it beeps every few seconds as I cross the
line up or down, and I hardly hear it any more, I just pedal harder or
slower to keep it on 80%. It works brilliantly with my Cyber Nexus
automatic gearbub, which changes up and down to keep the same pedaling
effort on all road-inclinations. In fact, it is such a complementary
combination that I am surprised Shimano didn't build a heart rate
monitor into the Cyber Nexus Flight Deck (which is their pompous name
for the controller and bike computer that comes with the Cyber Nexus).
Of course they didn't do it, because their paradigm for constant
output is cadence and big and little toothed wheels, an obsolete
concept with the "Smover" type of bike.

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

On Apr 17, 12:56*pm, wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:16 pm, Mike wrote:

In article , says...

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.

Regardless of the respective pros and cons of utilising heart-rate monitors to maximise the benefits of excercise, this
is just wrong. It is only over the last decade that heart-rate monitors have become readily available for the general
population (and not that much longer for the elite athelete). But prior to this, successful excercise regimes were
devised and used. And for the average 'weekend' sportsperson (and for almost any sport), it is still usually sufficient
to just choose a sensible mixture of resistance, endurance, and sprint training without measuring, monitoring or even
considering MHR. Common sense, and a little advice from a trainer if you really think you need it, is usually enough
for most of us. Heartrate-shmeartrate...

Mike

The latest Cycle Sport has an interview with Remy DiGregorio, from the
Francaise de Jeux pro team, who says that he almost never races or
trains with a heart monitor or computer. *If you don't need to know
your heart rate to solo off the front wire to wire in a Dauphine
stage, you certainly don't need it to ride around the block.

One thing wrong with this rose-tinted picture. You aren't Remy
DiGregorio, and you will never be: you'll never "solo off the front
wire to wire in a Dauphine stage". -- AJ

On Apr 17, 7:03*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 17, 4:17*am, Dan O wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:29 am, "

wrote:

I ride easy...
... moderately hard...
... Just hard enough...
... as hard as I can...
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* me you're talking to out there! ;-)

I don't see why one needs one's head down to the HRM. I have mine
trained like a good dog to make a discreet beep at the fransitions
between zones. My HRM is set up a fraction low, so that when I'm
rolling along at 80% of MHR, it beeps every few seconds as I cross the
line up or down, and I hardly hear it any more, I just pedal harder or
slower to keep it on 80%. It works brilliantly with my Cyber Nexus
automatic gearbub, which changes up and down to keep the same pedaling
effort on all road-inclinations. In fact, it is such a complementary
combination that I am surprised Shimano didn't build a heart rate
monitor into the Cyber Nexus Flight Deck (which is their pompous name
for the controller and bike computer that comes with the Cyber Nexus).
Of course they didn't do it, because their paradigm for constant
output is cadence and big and little toothed wheels, an obsolete
concept with the "Smover" type of bike.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html

It is clear your are a gadget freak, and live harmoniously with your
gizmos (I mean that in a good way!). I'm sure you get quite a bit of
enjoyment and utility out of them, and just because I don't like HRM's
doesn't mean I think others should dislike them as well.

For me, riding with a HRM is akin to saying "don't think about an
elephant." It is an additional layer of distraction which I find to be
not so much irritating, but detracting from the enjoyment of my ride.
And as it provides no real advantage in my case, this makes it more
than pointless.

I think your attachment to the automagic shifting is quite similar to
my attachment to fixed gear riding. Both require less mental attention
than traditional geared riding, but go about it in decidedly different
ways. You putter along fast enough to keep the beeps at bay, and the
bike does the figuring, and I putter along just fast enough to keep my
legs moving at a comfortable cadence, and the hills do the figuring!

Joseph

PS: I am humble. As a matter of fact I'm the most humble person I
know. I'm so humble that... Well you get the picture ;-)

On Apr 17, 12:18 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:07 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.

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.

I can understand why you're "Unforgiven" and very probably
unforgivable. You just don't pay attention when people speak. If the
hypothesis is, "The mean (more likely median) heart rate of Everyman
differs by gender and by age brackets." then the correct scientific
method is to investigate a sample from the universe, divided
proportionately to each sub-universe by gender and age. No "inference"
is required because the answer is directly to the point of the
question. If someone else has done the work, and it is statistically
sound, who do it again? It is childish to point out the tautological
truth that tests might be on "a potentially unrelated sample group" --
do you really think that I didn't enquire closely into the sample
group? (More pointedly, that you behave like an idiot is no reason for
assuming the rest of us do.) If the sample group is determined to be
the right one, than the dumb debater's "potential" sampling error is
just that, a numbingly dumb debating trick. Even electrical engineers
are smarter than to try such kindergarten tricks when there are adults
around .Beyond these jerk-up stupidities in the single paragraph
above, you offer no facts, no argument, nothing, just your McCarthyite
suspicion of "potential" sampling error. You're wasting my time.

Andre Jute
Deeply disappointed



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

If the mean is the hypothesis. If the question is maximum heart rate
for an individual, you either test it or you make up excuses not to.

On Apr 17, 1:06 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:56 pm, wrote:



On Apr 16, 6:16 pm, Mike wrote:

In article , says...

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.

Regardless of the respective pros and cons of utilising heart-rate monitors to maximise the benefits of excercise, this
is just wrong. It is only over the last decade that heart-rate monitors have become readily available for the general
population (and not that much longer for the elite athelete). But prior to this, successful excercise regimes were
devised and used. And for the average 'weekend' sportsperson (and for almost any sport), it is still usually sufficient
to just choose a sensible mixture of resistance, endurance, and sprint training without measuring, monitoring or even
considering MHR. Common sense, and a little advice from a trainer if you really think you need it, is usually enough
for most of us. Heartrate-shmeartrate...

Mike

The latest Cycle Sport has an interview with Remy DiGregorio, from the
Francaise de Jeux pro team, who says that he almost never races or
trains with a heart monitor or computer. If you don't need to know
your heart rate to solo off the front wire to wire in a Dauphine
stage, you certainly don't need it to ride around the block.

One thing wrong with this rose-tinted picture. You aren't Remy
DiGregorio, and you will never be: you'll never "solo off the front
wire to wire in a Dauphine stage". -- AJ

Perhaps not, but I will ride around the block. And I won't do it with
my eyes glued to my heart rate monitor listening intently for it to
beep telling me to slow down. Somehow, I might even enjoy the
experience of being on the bike.

In article
,
" wrote:

[..]

I think your attachment to the automagic shifting is quite similar to
my attachment to fixed gear riding. Both require less mental attention
than traditional geared riding, but go about it in decidedly different
ways. You putter along fast enough to keep the beeps at bay, and the
bike does the figuring, and I putter along just fast enough to keep my
legs moving at a comfortable cadence, and the hills do the figuring!

PS: I am humble. As a matter of fact I'm the most humble person I
know. I'm so humble that... Well you get the picture ;-)

Yes, you are more humble than I;
but I have much more to be humble about.

--
Michael Press

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:08:54 -0700, Colin Campbell
wrote:

[---]

I've recently resumed training with an HRM. On at least half of my
rides where I've worn the strap, I've gotten some kooky max like 218,
233, even 253. I keep thinking these are because some other rider was
wearing a sending unit, and walked too close to my bike while I was also
near it.

In my experience, those kind of crazy peaks are due to the electrodes
suddenly moving slightly (belt not sufficiently tightened) or bad
contact through insufficient sweat.

On Apr 17, 2:41 pm, Andrew Price wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:08:54 -0700, Colin Campbell

wrote:

[---]

I've recently resumed training with an HRM. On at least half of my
rides where I've worn the strap, I've gotten some kooky max like 218,
233, even 253. I keep thinking these are because some other rider was
wearing a sending unit, and walked too close to my bike while I was also
near it.

In my experience, those kind of crazy peaks are due to the electrodes
suddenly moving slightly (belt not sufficiently tightened) or bad
contact through insufficient sweat.

Some monitors also spike because of interference near power
transmission lines and railroad tracks.

On Apr 17, 6:16*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:03*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



On Apr 17, 4:17*am, Dan O wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:29 am, "

wrote:

I ride easy...
... moderately hard...
... Just hard enough...
... as hard as I can...
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* me you're talking to out there! ;-)

I don't see why one needs one's head down to the HRM. I have mine
trained like a good dog to make a discreet beep at the fransitions
between zones. My HRM is set up a fraction low, so that when I'm
rolling along at 80% of MHR, it beeps every few seconds as I cross the
line up or down, and I hardly hear it any more, I just pedal harder or
slower to keep it on 80%. It works brilliantly with my Cyber Nexus
automatic gearbub, which changes up and down to keep the same pedaling
effort on all road-inclinations. In fact, it is such a complementary
combination that I am surprised Shimano didn't build a heart rate
monitor into the Cyber Nexus Flight Deck (which is their pompous name
for the controller and bike computer that comes with the Cyber Nexus).
Of course they didn't do it, because their paradigm for constant
output is cadence and big and little toothed wheels, an obsolete
concept with the "Smover" type of bike.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html

It is clear your are a gadget freak, and live harmoniously with your
gizmos (I mean that in a good way!). I'm sure you get quite a bit of
enjoyment and utility out of them, and just because I don't like HRM's
doesn't mean I think others should dislike them as well.

For me, riding with a HRM is akin to saying "don't think about an
elephant." It is an additional layer of distraction which I find to be
not so much irritating, but detracting from the enjoyment of my ride.
And as it provides no real advantage in my case, this makes it more
than pointless.

I think your attachment to the automagic shifting is quite similar to
my attachment to fixed gear riding. Both require less mental attention
than traditional geared riding, but go about it in decidedly different
ways. You putter along fast enough to keep the beeps at bay, and the
bike does the figuring, and I putter along just fast enough to keep my
legs moving at a comfortable cadence, and the hills do the figuring!

Very nicely put, Joseph. I believe in live and let live, for all those
who don't put themselves in my face.

Joseph

PS: I am humble. As a matter of fact I'm the most humble person I
know. I'm so humble that... Well you get the picture ;-)

Consider my talents, I'm very humble indeed, so I know what you mean,
even if I can never hope to compete with your humility. Girl I knew
studied the Hopi, whose form of competition is to come last in any
race -- now that's humility, or at least until everyone starts doing
it, then it is hubris.

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