209 bpm HR

[GrantRH]

If you're 68 years old, that's one blerrie good effort

 

nope... 37!!!

[rouxtjie]

I'd like to hear more about the 'diesel engine' vs 'petrol engine' debate.

My max seems to be around 198. I checked all the past few months Strava segments and compared to my Polar RCX5 stats to see where I maxed out - always around 198 - so I'm quite sure about this number. Thing is I'm 40 next month. Comparing my max HR with others' they run around 170 - 160, few years younger than myself. So, do some of us run on petrol engines and others on diesel and what are the benefits, if any, of a petrol engine?

My polar also spikes from time to time but you'll know when its a faulty reading and if not. Going over 200 bpm - you feel like dying.

PS: got my booking to have the clock checked out so I can keep on beating a few youngsters.

you can rev higher(just like a petrol engine) ito sustaining harder efforts...

['Dale]

 

 

nope... 37!!!

 

I was yanking your chain.

:-D

 

More seriously,

 

What's the highest you've reached?

 

[GrantRH]

I was yanking your chain.

:-D

 

More seriously,

 

What's the highest you've reached?

 

 

a quick look tells me 177.

[Karman de Lange]

I'd like to hear more about the 'diesel engine' vs 'petrol engine' debate.

My max seems to be around 198. I checked all the past few months Strava segments and compared to my Polar RCX5 stats to see where I maxed out - always around 198 - so I'm quite sure about this number. Thing is I'm 40 next month. Comparing my max HR with others' they run around 170 - 160, few years younger than myself. So, do some of us run on petrol engines and others on diesel and what are the benefits, if any, of a petrol engine?

My polar also spikes from time to time but you'll know when its a faulty reading and if not. Going over 200 bpm - you feel like dying.

PS: got my booking to have the clock checked out so I can keep on beating a few youngsters.

 

My brother is 50 odd, peak heart rate still at >190. Mine is on the numbers at 181 for 38.

 

The "formula" have standard deviation of 20 (if I remember correct) .. which means if you get your number it can be up or down by 20 beats and still be a valid statistic.

 

So for age 40 your range can be 160 - 200 for peak heart rate, if you use formula of 220-age.

 

 

 

L:

[Robrider]

I'd like to hear more about the 'diesel engine' vs 'petrol engine' debate.

My max seems to be around 198. I checked all the past few months Strava segments and compared to my Polar RCX5 stats to see where I maxed out - always around 198 - so I'm quite sure about this number. Thing is I'm 40 next month. Comparing my max HR with others' they run around 170 - 160, few years younger than myself. So, do some of us run on petrol engines and others on diesel and what are the benefits, if any, of a petrol engine?

My polar also spikes from time to time but you'll know when its a faulty reading and if not. Going over 200 bpm - you feel like dying.

PS: got my booking to have the clock checked out so I can keep on beating a few youngsters.

 

No benefits, no implications. People are different.

 

There is no point comparing your max heart rate with anyone else and it is in no way an indicator of performance.

[droo]

Hit 210 on the way up Constantia Nek once. Totally justified, I was on the rivet. It was a bit scary though, so I haven't used a HRM since.

 

Like Oscar Wilde once said, "I read about the dangers of drinking, so I gave up reading."

[rouxtjie]

No benefits, no implications. People are different.

 

There is no point comparing your max heart rate with anyone else and it is in no way an indicator of performance.

Disagree with the no-benefits, I also believe its "trainable" instead of people are born with a cadence preference. People often train at very high power but low cadence thinking the harder they push their muscles the better the results for the workout, and to some extent they are correct for strength training...big power, low cadence has its place in the HIT world, but it shouldnt be the staple. Training at a higher cadence will result in the the heart and lungs having to work harder, they also recover quicker than muscles, thus a cyclist spinning at 95rpm and a cyclist spinning at 55rpm exerting the same power(torque and revolutions) will get to the top of the hill at the same time(assuming they weigh exactly the same and have the exact same bike) yet the guy spinning at 95rpm will recover quicker from the effort....this compounds even more so in multi-stage events where recovery is very important.

 

Lets put the fact that he snorted 50kg of EPO a day aside, lance was a good climber because Ferrari taught him to spin when he came back from cancer due to him loosing alot of muscle mass. To maintain the same speed he had to up his cadence.

 

Bottomline...train like a diesel(low rev's, higher torque) and you will perform like one....train like a petrol(higher rev's lower torque) and you will perform like one....which one would you like to be in a race from A to B

 

I do agree with your statement ito comparing max hr's statement

Edited June 4, 2014 by rouxtjie

[blondeonabike]

Hi,sorry to interupt...rouxtjie if I may ask a question...

 

From what you describe I'm a typical diesel, standing on most hills from start to finish and pushing hard gears at a low cadence. This has worked well for me so far, and am really enjoying riding distances up to 45km strongly. My question, will riding like this affect my cycling negatively in the long term and am I setting myself up for joint problems later?

[rouxtjie]

Hi,sorry to interupt...rouxtjie if I may ask a question...

 

From what you describe I'm a typical diesel, standing on most hills from start to finish and pushing hard gears at a low cadence. This has worked well for me so far, and am really enjoying riding distances up to 45km strongly. My question, will riding like this affect my cycling negatively in the long term and am I setting myself up for joint problems later?

Hi Blondie....

 

If you keep to 45km or below as you said, you will rarely get to the stage where you have completely exhausted your muscles...I take it you train also at lower cadence higher torque zones, so your body is used to it. I am not sure about joint problems...I aint no doc, but I suspect it might be better on the joints and ligaments to train at a lower torque and higher cadence. You might run into problems in longer stage race events where you feel good on day 1 and or day 2 of the event with the low cadence high torque approach...but come day 3, your legs will be pipecleaners due to you shattering them....rather let your cardio system work hard, but to do that, you need to train like it as well.

 

My post was just to highlight the perceived diesel vs petrol phenomenon that I hear people talk about. Like I said in an earlier post people tend to do all their training in these lower cadence / higher torque zones with the nett effect that they perform like that in races and or rides. I also suspect the reason why most people train like this is because its easier...hitting higher cadence rpm's whilst still putting out X watts forces you to concentrate on your pedals stroke(easier to smooth a low cadence pedal stroke) and form(bopping on the bike). Its also uncomfortable to hit higher cadence numbers cause you are out of breath / bleeding through your eyes / sweating like a pig. But it has huge gains for the people willing to endure it. You recover quicker short and longer term that is if you go harder ito cadence..and not torque

 

I would rather throw my HR monitor away before my cadence sensor...if you think about it...it has a prime spot on most vehicle's dashboards...it shouldn't be different for you.

 

These are just my opinion by the way

[Robrider]

Disagree with the no-benefits, I also believe its "trainable" instead of people are born with a cadence preference. People often train at very high power but low cadence thinking the harder they push their muscles the better the results for the workout, and to some extent they are correct for strength training...big power, low cadence has its place in the HIT world, but it shouldnt be the staple. Training at a higher cadence will result in the the heart and lungs having to work harder, they also recover quicker than muscles, thus a cyclist spinning at 95rpm and a cyclist spinning at 55rpm exerting the same power(torque and revolutions) will get to the top of the hill at the same time(assuming they weigh exactly the same and have the exact same bike) yet the guy spinning at 95rpm will recover quicker from the effort....this compounds even more so in multi-stage events where recovery is very important.

 

Lets put the fact that he snorted 50kg of EPO a day aside, lance was a good climber because Ferrari taught him to spin when he came back from cancer due to him loosing alot of muscle mass. To maintain the same speed he had to up his cadence.

 

Bottomline...train like a diesel(low rev's, higher torque) and you will perform like one....train like a petrol(higher rev's lower torque) and you will perform like one....which one would you like to be in a race from A to B

 

I do agree with your statement ito comparing max hr's statement

 

I will try and find the research. As far as I know it is pretty commonly held view. For example if you take a look at the pros their max HR range between 175 and 195 BPM. So you are saying the ones with higher MHR produce more power? That the ones with lower MHR should train their hearts? um, sorry, but not true.

 

Unless we are talking past each other, max HR is not an indicator of performance in any way.

 

Edit to add. This is about HR, not cadence.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Robrider

[Robrider]

 

 

I just read your post again. Fast Forward was only talking about HR and not cadence (I thought), and my reply was only about HR.

 

I am in full agreement of an efficient cadence. We on the same page there.

[rouxtjie]

I will try and find the research. As far as I know it is pretty commonly held view. For example if you take a look at the pros their max HR range between 175 and 195 BPM. So you are saying the ones with higher MHR produce more power? That the ones with lower MHR should train their hearts? um, sorry, but not true.

 

Unless we are talking past each other, max HR is not an indicator of performance in any way.

 

Edit to add. This is about HR, not cadence.

no no no....hold on, I think we are indeed talking past each other....

 

My comment was aimed at there being benefit to training at a higher cadence(lets call it petrol training) vs lower cadence(diesel). If the staple of your training is strength, you will indeed perform like a diesel.

 

MHR doesn't mean jack to me.

[rouxtjie]

I just read your post again. Fast Forward was only talking about HR and not cadence (I thought), and my reply was only about HR.

 

I am in full agreement of an efficient cadence. We on the same page there.

hahahaha see my above comment....

[blondeonabike]

Hi Blondie....

 

If you keep to 45km or below as you said, you will rarely get to the stage where you have completely exhausted your muscles...I take it you train also at lower cadence higher torque zones, so your body is used to it. I am not sure about joint problems...I aint no doc, but I suspect it might be better on the joints and ligaments to train at a lower torque and higher cadence. You might run into problems in longer stage race events where you feel good on day 1 and or day 2 of the event with the low cadence high torque approach...but come day 3, your legs will be pipecleaners due to you shattering them....rather let your cardio system work hard, but to do that, you need to train like it as well.

 

My post was just to highlight the perceived diesel vs petrol phenomenon that I hear people talk about. Like I said in an earlier post people tend to do all their training in these lower cadence / higher torque zones with the nett effect that they perform like that in races and or rides. I also suspect the reason why most people train like this is because its easier...hitting higher cadence rpm's whilst still putting out X watts forces you to concentrate on your pedals stroke(easier to smooth a low cadence pedal stroke) and form(bopping on the bike). Its also uncomfortable to hit higher cadence numbers cause you are out of breath / bleeding through your eyes / sweating like a pig. But it has huge gains for the people willing to endure it. You recover quicker short and longer term that is if you go harder ito cadence..and not torque

 

I would rather throw my HR monitor away before my cadence sensor...if you think about it...it has a prime spot on most vehicle's dashboards...it shouldn't be different for you.

 

These are just my opinion by the way

Thank you so much...I have only been riding six months, this has really helped. I wont be doing any stage races soon, because of kids and the costs, so the recovery issue is not too serious for me at the moment. I think I'll maybe try a bit of both and ride my usual way on the trails and focus on high cadence work on the stationary bike. ( The indoor bike is boring and the high cadence burns like hell, but I'm going to give it a go!) My husband will thank you for your advice, because he keeps telling me "If you keep riding like that your legs are going to bulk up like the german track team"

[ChunkyMonkey]

Count the beats....

Every beat now...

Is one beat less.... Later....