Conference noted::bicycle

    
    Just a note ; your maximum heart rate should be 220 minus your age,
    anything over that is probably not doing you any good.
    
    ...Simon

    
    Mike,
    
    You should be looking at a max of 190ish (the 220-minues age is only a
    rough guide of your max, but shouldn't be too far off the mark). But
    note, this isn't a heart rate that you will be able to keep for any
    period of time. If you let it drop back to 130 before going again, you
    won't hit it the 2nd time. Also, only an athlete at the top of his
    powers can achieve that max. The rest of us aren't fit enough to make
    that sort of demand on the heart, something else cries out 'enough'
    before it happens...
    
    Graham.

     True... and don't worry about that max or statistics arrived at
    based on the average human male. As fitness comes to you (or any-
    one) these things become very personalized.
    
     I volunteered for a full blown (all season) study at Fitchburg
    State College last year. I was 39 years old. The study covered
    pre-season * peak-season * post season analysis. I was strapped
    onto every known piece of equipment (except the rack) and fitness
    was tracked. Vo2, hear rate, lung capacity, leg strength, fat %'s,
    aerobic, Wingate anaerobic, peak power, average power (watts/kg),
    fatigue indices, etc... The best part? All FREE!!!
    
     Anyway, at one point I banged out a 196 toward peak season. My pre-
    season max came in at 188 (actual). By the formula touted, I should
    be dead... I can only credit Ti toxicity for continued survival :-).
    
     They are only benchmarks/averages... If you develop a disciplined
    program using the monitor, you'll know yourself and gauge accordingly.
    
     Chip

Mike,

I suspect that your heart rate is probably soemwhat higher than what the HR1000
is telling you. I bought one this winter and gave my old Nissei 801 to my wife
and the HR1000 seems to not be able to track quick intervals very well. 

On my rollers over the winter I would try an all out effort for 30 secs and get
the Nissei up to 180 bpm, I could never get the HR1000 over 165.

-tom

    Hi Mike,
    
    I've had my heart rate monitor for over a year now, and I have to
    admit it has improved my workouts 100%.  I've found the best
    way to use a heart rate/m is to hit a different heart rate zone each
    time you ride (or run or swim, etc..). If you constantly go out 
    and hit the same zone each day you'll stagnate.  If you're presently 
    riding three days a week I'd suggest you ride one long endurance ride 
    (below 80% max); one hard day (anything over 80% of your max); and one 
    easy day (below 75%).  By hiting these three areas every week you WILL
    improve. 
    
    There have been many studies on interval training any many have 
    concluded whether you ride at 85% of your max or 95% your getting 
    the SAME benefits - so, you might want to keep that in mind before
    you go out there and kill yourself :*)  Remember, speed is nothing 
    unless you can maintain good form.
    
    If your 32 years old your aerobic range is 120-150.  Your anaerobic
    threshold is from 150-160 - anything over that is pure anaerobic. Keep 
    the easy ride below 135; the endurance below 150; and alternate the hard
    day with a anaerobic threshold day with "pure" anaerobic day.
    
    Jeff

    Mike,
    
         Since your heartrate is a reflection of the effort you are
    expending, you should pay attention to pedaling cadence as well as
    gearing.  It sounds like your heartrate is either very low ( hi,
    Superman ) or you need to train your heartrate to a higher level.
         Once you start intervals what you should see is that your 
    rate before you want to explode will rise ( that's if you are 
    not superman in disguise, if so, then - hi Superman - I hope I never face
    you in a bicycle race ).
       
         Abe;
                                             

    Great feedback.   I notice that when I get into the 150's I start to
    hurt everywhere (lungs and legs) so I know that is pushing it.  I was
    thinking that I needed to get into the high 50's/low 60's and keep it
    there for a while (1/2 hour or so) but I can't do that at this time.
    I am comfortable up to 146 bpm or so.  
    
    I do try to work for leg speed.  I don't have a cadence monitor but I
    have a pretty good idea.  
    
    I was wondering, does anyone else have a comment on the HR1000?   I
    noticed in the 1989 note about monitors that they cost $150 + for a
    monitor and I paid $75 for the Vetta.  I read an article that was
    positive.  Has anyone else heard of it not being quite accurate?  As
    in, when I put in my best effort (either cresting a hill or a interval
    sprint) am I really putting out more than the HR1000 indicates?   Even
    if it is off a bit, it is better than nothing...especially since I have
    to ride alone many times.  It gives me a kick in the pants when I need
    it.
    
    thanx again,
    mike  

    Hi Mike,
    
    146 is perfect for your areobic pace.  You might notice after a while
    that it will be tougher to reach 146, because you're improving, so you
    might want to do some extensive intervals - alternate 3-5 minutes
    between, say 125 and 145.  Most people areobic intervals are
    unnecessary, but they will increase your areobic conditioning.
    
    I've heard mixed reviews about the Vetta.  True, having a H/R monitor
    that is a "little" off is better than nothing, but if your H/R monitor
    is off 5 beats, it could make a big difference in your workout.  Polar
    guarantees their H/R monitors to be within once beat accuracy.  That's
    a guarantee that I feel is worth paying for.
    
    j

    This is all good stuff, thanks.  I am playing with an HRM right now and 
    it is a really great help in `knowing myself'.  It is also a new toy to 
    play with - doing an hour and a half on the flat at a fixed point in my
    aerboic band gets b o r i n g.
    
    A question though, why does the accuracy of the machine matter so
    long as it registers the same value from day to day ?  In my use of the
    machine I know what I should be able to do *according to what it
    reads*.
    
    So I know I can do an hour (no more) at *its* measurement of X
    two hours at it's measurement of X-5 and pretty much infinite time at
    it's measurement of X-15.
    
    Another question, does anybody else notice that just doing what you did
    before you had the monitor and watching shows how you work `too hard'
    on the hills and never hard enough on the flats ?  Also does anybody
    notice how much more you need to *eat* if you are doing a relatively
    long run (2 hours) at a relatively high rate (say 85% calculated max)

    
>    A question though, why does the accuracy of the machine matter so
>    long as it registers the same value from day to day ?  In my use of the
>    machine I know what I should be able to do *according to what it
>    reads*.
    
	As long as you measured your body on it, then none. If you measured
    your body on either a more accurate or even less accurate monitor, then
    you don't know what you really are riding at. For example, if you
    discover that your anaerobic threshold is 200bpm and your monitor reads
    15bpm low, then your training at 15bpm into your anaerobic range rather
    than the limit of an aerobic exercise.
    
    	My concern is that usually something that is this inaccurate is so
    because the manufacturer is cutting costs somewhere. Without trying to
    rubbish anyone in here's equipment, a good example is the Vetta cycle
    computer/heart monitor. You get it over here for about �90. A good
    heart rate monitor (Polar) starts at about �70 and the computer at �30.
    Even without taking into consideration how much harder it is to produce
    the 2-in-1, it is already �10 cheaper. If it is inaccurate because it
    is slightly cheaper, then chances are it isn't an consistent inaccuracy...
    
	But, maybe I'm just being snobbish...  :*)
    
    Graham.

    With mine (a Performance HR20 +/- 3%), I "calibrated" its reading to my
    anaerobic threshold and set that point at 85%. Accuracy is as
    misleading as the "charts". If you are perfectly average (heart rate
    for your age) then a more "accurate" monitor would help. The whole idea
    is to know your threshold and train using that point. Although my
    threshold hasn't changed during the past few years, my resting heart 
    rate has gone down and its takes more effort to raise my heart rate 
    (either to aerobic or anaerobic levels).
    
    another .02
    
    Paul

	Re .10 - a Vetta HR 1000 for �90 is a royal (forgive me) rip-off.
	The usual rule of thumb is what costs 1$ in the USA = �1 in the
	UK.  I have seen this unit as low as 75$ in USA mail order catalogs.

	I've been pricing HRMs and am left wondering why Polars are so 
	expensive.  I need one for cross contry skiing as well as 
	biking so the Vetta unit is not what I want.  (Although
	it was suggested that I put the speed sensor on one leg and
	the magnet on the other...  :-) )

	Happy trails, Tom

    
    
    I just can't get enough time cycling every week, and would 
    like to get the most out if the time that I have. On the 
    average, I cycle about 3-4 times per week, 6 hours. I was thinking
    that a heart rate monitor might be able to help me maximize workouts. 
    The other two heart rate monitor notes were pretty old (circa 1989). 
    I have three basic questions: 1) Will a heart rate monitor help me
    improve much, given that I can only cycle 6 hours per week?
    2) What features are really necessary? I was thinking about something 
    simple like the Polar Favor (heart rate display only) or the model 
    above it (heart rate display with alarms for a range). 3) I'd like to
    hear any opinions about the Polar monitors. 
    
    
    All opinions are welcome,
    
    doug

    	Rich,
    
    	I've had a Polar Pacer for a couple of years. No problems
    	and it seems to work fine.
    
    	I started this year is the usual bad condition. BICYCLING
    	had an article earlier in the year that contained a training
    	program. I began using it the last week of January. So far,
    	I ridden more hours (on rollers) than I've ever ridden before,
    	and I'm in better shape.
    
    	Of course, it's easier to maintain a given heart rate when you're
    	not dealing with wind, terrain, etc. But, for early-season prep,
    	I think the BICYCLING program (which requires the use of a HRM)
    	works well for me. You mileage may vary.
    
    	Scott

    
    
    
    
    I went and had a look at the BICYCLING article. Many interviews that 
    BICYCLING does with racers, doctors, fitness "experts", etc. all seem
    to indicate that an HRM is an objective indicator of how hard a person
    is truly working. For myself, I've noticed that I really can't tell 
    how hard I am going. Some days I go really hard and don't end up with 
    times that are any better than if I had taken it easy. Other days, 
    I don't go quite as hard and end up with fairly good times. 
    I ordered a Polar Pacer yesterday. I'll do a few cycle's similar to
    what BICYCLING suggested and see how it goes. 
    
    
    
    doug