Grumble

[mdlbear]

(Cross-posted to healthy_fen)

Between the fact that my shins were starting to hurt, and the fact that there was a stupid rock band between me and the Rose Garden, I cut my walk significantly short this morning. The band was thanks to the San Jose Rock & Roll Half-Marathon, which is also responsible for a lot of street closings today. About halfway down to the Rose Garden I came upon a big crowd of people trudging the other way; presumably the actual runners had long passed.

Stats, such as they are: time: 19:55; Avg: 109; Max: 114. Miserable.

Thanks to an email from B., who isn't on LJ and presumably missed the post where I mentioned that anonymous comments had been re-enabled, I have what purports to be a more accurate way of computing my training range:

 Let:
    MHR = (220 - age_in_years) = 160		# maximum heart rate
    RHR = resting_heart_rate  ~= 65
 then:
    TRmin = RHR + .6 * (MHR - RHR) = 122	# minimum training rate
    TRmax = RHR + .9 * (MHR - RHR) = 150.5	# maximum training rate

This compares to "moderate" = 112-128 (70-80% MHR). Measuring resting heart rate is challenging; reaching over to pick up the monitor raised my rate to 72, and it's too dark to see well at 6am, so the best I can say is that my RHR is somewhere between 60 and 65. The whole thing seems slightly specious, since RHR presumably decreases with training, so the formula has the range going lower as you get into better shape. On the other hand, 120-140 is what I've been aiming for. Anyone have any further insights into this?

Comments

Measuring Resting Heart Rate

[andyheninger.livejournal.com]

Here's a way to take your pulse in the dark if there's a clock that makes audible ticks within earshot. (I actually do this)

Find your pulse (in your wrist or wherever) and wait until it exactly coincides with a clock tick. Then count clock ticks (seconds) until they coincide with your again. Divide 60 by the number of seconds, then subtract or add that number to 60, depending on whether your pulse was slower or faster than 60.

I find my resting pulse is often slower just before lunch (assuming I haven't snacked since breakfast) than it is when first waking up. It's been 48-50 lately. When I've been doing more bicycling and weigh a little less (as recently as a year ago), it runs around 42-44.

Eating pushes it up significantly for a few hours.

There's all kinds of stuff written about recommended training ranges and exercise regimens. I'm not sure how much any of it really means - like you say, I suspect much of it is slightly specious. I got a heart rate monitor for use on my bike a few years back - it was kind of fun to watch at first, but it didn't really change anything I was doing and I haven't used it recently. Maybe I'll dig it back out.

The 220-age formula for maximum heart rate is only a rough approximation. Individuals vary all over the place. By the formula, mine would be 162. At the top of Montebello Rd. yesterday afternoon, after getting off my bike and measuring by hand, it was 160. Two years ago, when playing with the heart monitor, it touched 178 while chasing someone up one of the steeper hills. That was the highest I saw it, and was pushing things harder than is probably a good idea.

It's interesting that, when resting, any motion causes immediate change in heart rate, while at the higher end of exercising rates there is a lag of several seconds before increased or decreased effort shows in the heart rate, and then the change is quite gradual.

I think I'll go dust off the monitor. It needs to be moved to my new bike (the handle bar mount for the display and the speedometer pickup)

Then there's the ultimate toy for exercise data junkies
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=160&pID=10885


Heart rate monitor and GPS in one.

Edge 705 automatically measures your speed, distance, time, calories burned, altitude, climb and descent, and records this data for your review¹. For extra-precise climb and descent data, Edge also incorporates a barometric altimeter to pinpoint changes in elevation. It features a high-sensitivity receiver that holds a signal under trees and near tall buildings, and comes with a click stick for easy screen navigation.

For over $500, probably not anytime soon, though.

Re: Measuring Resting Heart Rate

[mdlbear]

All I really need is a pulse transmitter that talks bluetooth. That and the GPS drivers for my OpenMoko phone...

HRM Results

[andyheninger.livejournal.com]

I did dust off my old HRM, and went for one of my standard rides through Los ALtos Hills, with brief touches into the edge of Palo Alto and non-Hills Los Altos.

Google Map of the route 21 mostly hilly miles.

Most for most of the ride my heart rate was in the 115-130 range, with some hills pushing it higher. The exception is the big climb from Moody Rd to Page Mill, where the last half mile averages a 15% grade. Taking it a little faster than usual, my pulse climbed from around 140 at the start of the steep region to 160 little before the top. Sprinting the last few hundred feet, it peaked at 169, followed by the big down hill back towards highway 280.

For me, in my current condition, here's the relationship between heart rate and subjective effort

115-125	Brisk, but not stressful. Non-hilly parts of the ride were mostly in this range, but most of the ride is hilly.
130 ish	Definitely breathing hard, but at a rate that can still be easily maintained.
135-145	About as much effort as can be sustained for an extended period of time.
150-160	Can go at this rate for only 5 - 10 minutes before blowing up.
160+	Sprint. The end better be in sight, the time that this can be maintained is measured in seconds, not minutes, and then I'm going to need to rest.

I think I'm going to put the HRM back in the drawer. It's actually kind of a distraction, I'd rather watch the scenery.

[elimloth.livejournal.com]

That formula is no longer used since it is not accurate in the least. Everyone's heart and rest/max rates is different, so the best way to fin it is to have a stop watch handy by your bedside. The nin the morning when you r first wake up, stay flat and reach for the stop watch. Take your pulse for a full minute. That is your resting heart rate. Next, and this is the tough one, go someplace where you can either run for several minutes at your top speed or find a gym with an exercycle. You want to go to the point were you simply cannnot go any faster. When you rach that point try even harder for about 20 seconds, and then measure your heart rate. That number will be very close to your VO2 max, meaning it the the rate at which maximum oxygen intake is occuring. Caution, if you have medical problems, this stress test ought to be done under supervision by your physician or his/her assigns.

Now with those two numbers, you can then compute your lower and upper aerobic threshold heart rates:

HRmax = maximum measured heart rate
HRlow = resting heart rate
ATlow = HRlow + (HRmax - HRlow) * 0.50
AThigh= HRlow + (HRmax - HRlow) * 0.75 (make this 0.65 if you are not fit)

Full Circle

[andyheninger.livejournal.com]

go someplace where you can either run for several minutes at your top speed or find a gym with an exercycle.

And this brings us back where to the discussion originally started, trying to find some form of aerobic exercise that will get along well with a somewhat creaky body. Running, even once, if possible at all, is not a good idea. For me, due to gimpy hips and ankles and a little too much weight, it's not possible at all. And I can't imagine that I would be able to get close to my maximum heart rate on a bike if I weren't already riding regularly. My legs wouldn't do it.

Maybe the best thing is not to obsess about any of this, and just keep walking regularly at whatever rate works

Re: Full Circle

[mdlbear]

Of course, the thing that started me on this whole exercise kick was a stress EKG, so my HRmax has to be floating around somewhere in my records. Not in the test results I can get at via the web, however.

"Maybe the best thing..." -- you're probably right. The HRM does keep me honest, but I'm not going to worry too much about exactly what the numbers are.