|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
On Apr 17, 3:01*am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
"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. Interesting. But the 220 minus age formula is supposed to be subject to 10% variation either way, which at the high end would put it spot on the more complicated formula result. I found that my (calculated) maximum heart rate jumped almost 10% when I switched from 220 minus age to the more complicated formula. Since I regulate my exercise by trying for a work rate over any and all kind of terrain of 80% of maximum respiration, my output also went up 10% -- and I felt so much better for it. I know that's subjective but it shows that, for me anyway, the complicated formula works better. There's a coach Down Under, whose name now escapes me, whose netsite I read a lot when I started taking cycling more seriously. He believes in subjective fulfillment, not heart rate monitors. It looks like my heart monitor proved him right. (Just to repeat -- that is entirely off the subject of the thread, which is not athletes with reasonable judgement of their own limits but determining the MHR of overage and overweight Jane Does.) Andre Jute http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...%20HUMOUR.html |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |