|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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! ;-) |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding shoes!
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding shoes!
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Be still my speeding heart
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 |
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 |