Little hub study related to heart rates

[Pulse]

I think you should take your max HR after a proper warm up .Mine can shoot up to 220 if there is a cold fast start in a race and then come down to 170 .With a 30 min warm up my max is 170

Look on the net, or even here on the hub for protocols to assess max HR. There are relatively standardised protocols for this

[Shebeen]

heart rates...not a clue!

[Smurfy]

I think you should take your max HR after a proper warm up .Mine can shoot up to 220 if there is a cold fast start in a race and then come down to 170 .With a 30 min warm up my max is 170 

Hi, I have had mine at 208 already. One the first 110km of the Baviaans it was around the 170ish. Once the climbing started it maxed around 155, and stayed there till the end. I generally run high, on our training rides my mates all have atleast a 20-25 lower heart rate. That said they are only 6 years younger, shorter and weigh about 12-15kg heavier. Been cycling for about 4.5 years now, always have had a very high HR. Went to the doc and he did his bit and said that all is well. I do try and ride on around 160-165 on the endurance rides.

Andy forgot to add our weight stats. 90kg  1.8m and Bald  

[andydude]

Hi, I have had mine at 208 already. One the first 110km of the Baviaans it was around the 170ish. Once the climbing started it maxed around 155, and stayed there till the end. I generally run high, on our training rides my mates all have atleast a 20-25 lower heart rate. That said they are only 6 years younger, shorter and weigh about 12-15kg heavier. Been cycling for about 4.5 years now, always have had a very high HR. Went to the doc and he did his bit and said that all is well. I do try and ride on around 160-165 on the endurance rides.

Andy forgot to add our weight stats. 90kg  1.8m and Bald  

 

I wanted to add weight and height, but thought maybe that would be too personal 

[andydude]

I tried to update the spreadsheet with all the missing data and we now have n = 103 (link to spreadsheet on my original post).

 

Time to read that study Pete sent 

[RockCoach]

I wanted to add weight and height, but thought maybe that would be too personal 

 

Why? All of us big guys stated our height and weight in the biggest loser thread long ago.

[Pure Savage]

Is everyone on the thread over 30  

 

What is the last column? 

[andydude]

Some more reaserch based findings:

 

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1126908 (Journal of the American College of Cardiology)

 

 

Meta-analytic study

Figure 1 illustrates the decline in HRmax in men and women included in the meta-analysis. Maximal heart rate was strongly and inversely related to age in both men and women (r = −0.90). The rate of decline and the y intercepts were not different between men and women nor among sedentary (211 − 0.8 × age), active (207 − 0.7 × age) and endurance-trained (206 − 0.7 × age) subjects. The regression equation, when all the subjects were combined, was 208 − 0.7 × age. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that age alone explained ∼80% of the individual variance in HRmax.

Pete, I have finally made some time to read that study - very inyeresting, thanks for sharing!

 

My questions/comments:

 

- Meta-analysis shows r = -0.90 for both male and female. But it's slightly lower for their laboratory study with r = -0.79 male and -0.73 female. Still much higher negative correlation than our -0.32. I think it might have something to do with our sample not having enough > 50 year olds and the ones we do have are higher max. hr outliers. Otherwise could be our sample just too small and/or max. hr not scientifically measured, etc.

 

- The big problem, and talked about in "The Myth Of Max HR ..." paper I linked one or two pages back (which references your Tanaka study), seems to be that the standard deviation is just too big to use for training for the general population? In the paper you linked they also talk of standard deviations ranging from 7 to 11 bpm which means your value (especially for older people) could be out by up to 20 bpm.

 

- The 220 - age formula seems to overestimate max. for younger people and underestimate for older people, but even having said that, the standard deviation is still large enough to not use this or other formulae? For example, miscalculating your max. hr could negatively influence your training if based on hr?

 

- Do you think it might improve the regression formula if it's split into smaller age catrgories? Or rather doing a curved regression line? But I think we would still sit with the standard deviation problem looking at the scatter plot graphs.

 

- Off the study, can somebody please send me the link to Discovery's method of using hr for Vitality members?

[andydude]

Is everyone on the thread over 30 [emoji14]

 

What is the last column?

Not quite! In our sample there are 11 out of 103 that are below 30. I guess us oldies have more time to chat.

 

Regarding the last column, you referring to "Londeree"? It's just another study's regression formula to calculate the maximum heart rate.

[Edition 507]

Is there any correlation between the number of posts and the resting HR? I hypothesize that there is such a correlation as the okes with a high post count are spending way too much time on the Hub and not enough time on the bike!

[andydude]

Is there any correlation between the number of posts and the resting HR? I hypothesize that there is such a correlation as the okes with a high post count are spending way too much time on the Hub and not enough time on the bike!

The correlation is 0.01 meaning there is absolutely no correlation!

 

Quick analysis shows that post count has no impact on resting heart rate [emoji109]

 

[Thermophage]

So...someone sorted the data and now the correlation might have been lost between columns ... Or at least that's how it appears when I went to go fill stuff in now.

[andydude]

So...someone sorted the data and now the correlation might have been lost between columns ... Or at least that's how it appears when I went to go fill stuff in now.

Shoot, sorry that was me! Added many more people that were missing. But I didn't see the correlation calculations? Was it at the bottom or where was it?

[Thermophage]

Shoot, sorry that was me! Added many more people that were missing. But I didn't see the correlation calculations? Was it at the bottom or where was it?

Weren't any calculations, but if you sorted the data without maintaining the relationship between all the columns then it's much harder to get anything from it.

Because it looks like the Resting Heart Rate column heading is now all the way at the bottom which indicates that may be the case

Maybe it was just column 1 and 2 ?

[andydude]

Weren't any calculations, but if you sorted the data without maintaining the relationship between all the columns then it's much harder to get anything from it.

Because it looks like the Resting Heart Rate column heading is now all the way at the bottom which indicates that may be the case

Maybe it was just column 1 and 2 ?

I checked and see what you mean. Just to be safe I recopied everything from my excel file to the google file and also included a correlation table [emoji106]

[Barend de Arend]

The correlation is 0.01 meaning there is absolutely no correlation!

 

Quick analysis shows that post count has no impact on resting heart rate [emoji109]

 

 

It does on Fridays