Mobile 155

I have used one for years as well. But it is also true that no one can say what your heart rate should be.

There is a formula they give you for what your heart rate should be. The problem is that formula must be for non active people.

wnl256

There are several formulas with varying amounts of accuracy. The most common one is 220 - age which of course is the least reliable one. But all the formulas are based on averages, and individuals aren't average. It's just best to know your own personal maximum, and you can get pretty close to that just by monitoring your heart rate during regular exercise.

JanMM

I used a basic Polar HRM for a couple of years, until the 'watch' battery died. Good/interesting to know what my averages and maximums were but haven't felt compelled to replace the battery or get a new HRM.

az_cyclist

I have been wearing an HR strap paired with my Garmin (500, now a 520) for over a year. With the 520 I have had for a month it will give me stats on the amount of time in the ride in zone 1, zone 2, etc. With the 500 I could get info on my average for the ride, and my max. It is information I dont have to have during a ride but is nice to know. Before I bought the strap I had an idea that I would need a certain amount of historical data. I have not been told by a doctor to limit my exercise. For a fast club ride I will have an ave near 120 - 130. For example, last Saturday's club ride was 66.5 miles with 1818 ft of elevation gain,and an ave rolling speed of 17.9 mph. Most of the gain was a 20 mile gradual climb. my ave HR was 123, with a max of 152.

Miele Man

I sometimes use one. I like it because it lets me know if I'm putting too much effort into the ride. A lot of times I think the effort is too great but the heart rate is okay on the monitor. turns out it's my breathing that's the big limiter for effort.

Cheers

TimothyH

Observed max is likely to be several beats less than tested max. Max really isn't important anyway. Max heart rate does not change when you get more fit.

What is important is lactic threshold. Lactic threshold is highly trainable and changes as you get fit. Zones for cycling should be created as a percetage of lactic threshold, not max.

-Tim-

DaveQ24

I used to, but it became relatively pointless, since I rarely went above my Zone 3, except on really big hills or during extreme sprints.

Terex

I wore a Polar recording HRM for years while working out and a Garmin riding for a number of years. I got to the point where I was so aware of my HR that wearing a monitor was superfluous. My "ride all day if I wanted to push it" (lactic threshold) rate was 154 and red line was 164'ish. When I would occasionally strap on the monitor those points were always the same over about a five year period in my late 50's.

Same thing with RPM. Between cycling and spinning I could pretty much set an exact 80 or 90 or 110.

In my opinion, monitoring this stuff is great if you're using it to train your biofeedback loop. If you're using it to define your rides, well, your brain is wired differently than mine.

OldTryGuy

AND thus the differences in individuals. Some people NEED TO KNOW, some people just WANT TO KNOW and others COULDN'T CARE LESS.

I wear it because I LIKE (want) TO KNOW for a given ride and how I feel/felt during the ride. I do not train but do ride hard at times. Evaluating the speed, weather conditions and terrain of the ride in relationship to my heart rate while riding the given route is interesting for me.

zonatandem

Age 83 and over 300-thousand miles on single bikes and tandems.
Never used a monitor. Still riding 6 days a week.
Pedal on!
Rudy/zonatandem

khutch

I've used one for the last six years or so. A Polar at first, now a Garmin. There are a number of tests you can run to measure or estimate your max HR. I'm 64 and mine is 190. You don't die if you hit your max HR, not unless you have a medical issue that would have eventually killed you anyway. If you try to keep exercising past your max your body will just slow down and your heart rate will slow down. Sorry coach, there is no such thing as giving 110%! But I am not suggesting that you ignore your doctor's personal warnings either. If you have heart trouble you must follow medical advice, not comments from random people on the internet. If your age qualifies you for membership in this forum and you have not been exercising regularly then you most definitely should consult with your doctor before starting vigorous exercise again. And work up to high levels of exertion gradually. Stop at the first sign of trouble and get it checked out.

I can roll along for several hours at 150 to 160. If I push up towards 170 I know my dwell time at those rates is limited. Try to go too long at that level and I will be slowing down below 130 for a while to recover. One of my riding buddies doesn't have much time to train and I know that when I am riding with him I had better stay in the 120 to 130 range or I will wear him out. If I'm not sick I can go forever at that HR. I know that if I am cruising along at 140 and start to feel beat then something is wrong. I'm sick, I've burned up all my glycogen, something. As the others have said from experience with the readings you start to be able to get some useful information from the numbers. Not critical, but useful. The thing is I am an engineer, I love gadgets, especially gadgets that measure and record data, so I am going to love to use a HR monitor even if it has no practical value at all!

mpath

^+1. I'm also a gear, data, carbon-junkie.

As an aside, Garmin Connect can do year-over-year comparisons from a wide range of metrics.

Viking55803

You bet I use a heart monitor! After two heart attacks more than 20 years ago and quad bypass 4 years ago, nothing has served me better than my heart monitor. The most recent payoff was a followup with my cardiologist because of an adverse finding in an echocardiogram. His conclusion: keep doing exactly what you are doing. I was able to show him my heart rate during interval training, my heart recovery rate, average heart rate for a number of recent long rides. He was impressed and believes that my heart is behaving differently when I exercise, and that makes it appear problematic at rest. My pulse during the echocardiogram was 51. I'm 68 and feel great.

Mobile 155

More or less true. But to set the zones you need to know resting HR and Max HR. All the formulas put my max HR at about 160. when I asked my doctor for a stress test to get my Max HR she wanted to know what I thought it was. I said 183. She asked how I got that number and I said it was because on a uphill sprint 183 is about where I have to stop and throw up. But I have a friend that never gets over 150 and he is 10 years younger than me. But as they say few of us are average.

graemesmith

My reason for riding is cardio exercise. Spinning at the gym doesn't do it for me - out on the road for the view and variety does. Rollers with the garage door open if I really can't get out.

Aged 56 I "target" a combination of an average cadence of 80rpm and HR of 140bpm. I'm supposedly in the 85% MaxHR zone for my age most of the time. I shift to stay in that zone. If I stand up for a hill - I hit about 160bpm while still hitting 80 on the cadence. Speed can be all over the place as a result - usually to do with wind direction. But I ultimately average between 17.5 and 18.25mph on a 30 mile loop using this strategy.

YMMV

EastOfMidnight

No, but occasionally I take my pulse just to make sure my heart is still beating.

TimothyH

Zones should be set up as a percentage of lactic threshold, not max heart rate. Max heart rate is in fact, a very poor way to set up zones.

Lactic threshold changes with fitness and so zones can adjust when fitness increases or decreases. Max does not change, or changes very little over time and so zones based on max heart rate can be very inaccurate as fitness increases or declines.


-Tim-

gregf83 

I think that's incorrect. Setting zones based on LT is fine but it doesn't change with fitness once you've been cycling for a while. Power will increase at LT with training but the actual HR doesn't really change.

One of the few advantages of training with HR vs power is that you don't need to adjust your zones with increasing fitness. With power you should need to increase your target power levels as your threshold power goes up.

Max HR is more difficult to measure than HR at LT.

TimothyH

LT is highly trainable. This is fact.

People on this thread are talking about creating training zones based on HRmax. The point of my post was that zones should be based off LT and not HRmax.

My post had nothing to do with power which is a different topic.


-Tim-

Mobile 155

Maybe, but I haven't found Joe's method to be more than 4 or 5 beats a minute different than the British Cycling federation"s Minimum maximum zones. If I were racing and needed that 4 beats that might be different. Joe Freil's method got me a lower zones than BCF and Zoladz. Though Freil's method is closer than what my Cardiologist suggests my zones should be based on my Treadmill and stress test.

But I credit my HR monitor with early detection of a heart blockage. I noticed that any effort over Freil's LTHR zone 4 caused a shortness of breath. It resulted in bypass surgery and the long road to recovery. But I will more than likely always use a HR monitor and the Lower zones.

Carbonfiberboy 

I've also always thought that LTHR doesn't change with fitness, except that mine will drop when I've been training a lot and am tired. But recently I've been doing a lot of VT1 training and not much intensity. I've noticed that my LTHR seems to be going up at least on short climbs, so I took a look around on the web and found that some seeming authorities are saying that lots of VT1 training increases fat burning, which thus decreases carb burning, which thus reduces lactate production throughout the power range. Which would then have the effect of raising LTHR:

How Proper Training Affects Lactate Threshold Heart Rate | TrainingPeaks
Does Lactate Threshold Speed Change in the Offseason? | ACTIVE

Whether an increased LTHR will accompany an increased FTP is another question. One would expect that it would, except that there is also the issue of lactate clearance, which VT1 training does not address.

Carbonfiberboy 

4-5 beats is a huge difference. LTHR is one number. If one is trying to pace onesself up a long hard climb, one will either underperform or blow up if one is 4-5 beats off true LTHR. One doesn't have to be a racer to want to know The Number, just someone who wants to ride well.

More info on your blockage detection? The top of zone 4 is pretty much defined as the start of panting, i.e. VT2. Was your shortness of breath different in some way from the usual panting?

Mobile 155

Oh yes, it "seemed" like sucking air through a filter that was restricted. the deeper into zone four the more restricted it felt. Angiogram showed some blockage and an abrasion. Think a bit like asthma.

Carbonfiberboy 

Thank you. For the past couple of years, I've been having an odd sensation near the beginning of a ride, while I'm working my way up into zone 2. My chest feels restricted and there's a bit of a painful sensation when I inhale. I also have EIA and this isn't that, I know what asthma feels like. The sensation goes away completely once my lungs have "opened up" and it doesn't return again during the ride, no matter how hard I go. I've always assumed it was just blood vessels in my aged lungs becoming more flexible from the nitric oxide released during exercise. Does any of this sound familair? I'm emailing my doctor now.

gregf83 

Agreed. LT is defined as a function of intensity (power). Increasing lactate threshold means you are increasing the power for a given lactate level. Doesn't have anything to do with HR though.

People use Power, RPE and HR to estimate their LT. I prefer to RPE or power to HR but you can use whatever works.

The actual HR where LT occurs can vary depending on numerous factors including hydration, temperature, race jitters etc so trying to precisely determine HR at LT is not really necessary or possible.