Be still my speeding heart

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! ;-)

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.

On Apr 16, 4:44*pm, Kristian M Zoerhoff
wrote:
On 2008-04-16, wrote:



As for my famous shoe size formula:

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

All subjects please report accuracy!

Euro size: * * * * * * *42/43 (I have wide feet)
Santaniello Size(TM): * 45 * *(44.7, but who's counting?)

Not quite 7% error? Not bad, mathematically speaking, but
I somehow doubt my feet care about the math.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff


Almost everyone will find that the "Joseph Essss Foot in Mouth
Formula" gives two sizes over reality. That's because Joseph worked
with a sample of one, his own head and feet. We may conclude that
Joseph is a real humble guy, which is a good thing as there are
already enough swollen heads on RBT.

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

On Apr 16, 5:05*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.

I've every word of your post, feller, and you offer no argument or
rationale for taking your word instead of the specialists I consulted,
quite the opposite: your mode of argument makes me wonder if you
aren't mentally handicapped. Several of your statements further on are
simply stupid. I show just one:
you have no conscious control over over your heart rate
Huh? You control your heartrate by exercising harder or slower or
stopping. That's a conscious decision, duh? If you want to give me
attitude, sonny, do try not be stupid. The rest of your post, with
further offensive examples of your silliness, is below. -- Andre Jute

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

On Apr 17, 5:43*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 16, 4:44*pm, Kristian M Zoerhoff
wrote:



On 2008-04-16, wrote:

As for my famous shoe size formula:

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

All subjects please report accuracy!

Euro size: * * * * * * *42/43 (I have wide feet)
Santaniello Size(TM): * 45 * *(44.7, but who's counting?)

Not quite 7% error? Not bad, mathematically speaking, but
I somehow doubt my feet care about the math.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff


Almost everyone will find that the "Joseph Essss Foot in Mouth
Formula" gives two sizes over reality. That's because Joseph worked
with a sample of one, his own head and feet. We may conclude that
Joseph is a real humble guy, which is a good thing as there are
already enough swollen heads on RBT.

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

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?

Perhaps we need to plot some data points and somebody who knows how to
do math can derive an equation.

Joseph

On Apr 16, 5:05*pm, wrote:
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.

Of course you do, and so do I. I never had a heart rate monitor until
less than a handful of years ago. But, then again, you might argue
that I spent much of my youth being run up and down a 45 degree
incline until I lay face down in own breakfast -- under the
supervision of some of the world's leading practitioners of sports
medicines. It is how rugby players were trained -- and made vicious
too. So it might be said that some knowledge rubbed off even if I
paid no attention at the time.

This argument isn't about whether the knowledgeable, or the presumed
knowledgeable, or those with opportunity and the prior motivation to
knowledge, can get along without a heart rate monitor. They manifestly
can. This entire thread is about a pinhead point: Joseph telling
probably old and very likely already over the edge johnny come
latelies to exercise -- never mind athleticism! -- that they can just
run until they drop, and that is their maximum heartrate. That is all
I'm arguing. The argument you're making here is miles beyond that
point.

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

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

On Apr 17, 6:02*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 16, 5:05*pm, wrote:



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.

Of course you do, and so do I. I never had a heart rate monitor until
less than a handful of years ago. But, then again, you might argue
that I spent much of my youth being run up and down a 45 degree
incline until I lay face down in own breakfast -- under the
supervision of some of the world's leading practitioners of sports
medicines. It is how rugby players were trained -- and made vicious
too. So it might be said that some knowledge *rubbed off even if I
paid no attention at the time.

This argument isn't about whether the knowledgeable, or the presumed
knowledgeable, or those with opportunity and the prior motivation to
knowledge, can get along without a heart rate monitor. They manifestly
can. This entire thread is about a pinhead point: Joseph telling
probably old and very likely already over the edge johnny come
latelies to exercise -- never mind athleticism! -- that they can just
run until they drop, and that is their maximum heartrate. That is all
I'm arguing. The argument you're making here is miles beyond that
point.

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

I realize you are using humorous hyperbole, but I never advocated
determining max HR by telling folks to "run until they drop."

Reaching max HR is not as dramatic as you make it out to be. No
recycled breakfasts need make appearances.

Joseph

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

On Apr 16, 11:16*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

Nah, I'm talking about a overage, overweight exercise-newbies, who
need a heart rate monitor or a specialist standing by when maximum
exercise rates are determined. You're talking about athletes -- and
there I agree with you. -- AJ