rbent Forum https://rbentonline.org/YaBB.pl General Category >> Technical >> Wired Magazine Biking advice? https://rbentonline.org/YaBB.pl?num=1485635988 Message started by Dennis on Jan 28th, 2017, 2:39pm

Title: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by Dennis on Jan 28th, 2017, 2:39pm "The bike industry and media glorify long, fast rides that, over 20 years or so, can lead to atrial fibrillation and increased risk of heart attacks.   The 'training zone,' where your hear rate is high but sustainable for a few hours is also the 'death zone.'  Its much healthier to keep a pace you could continue all day." -- Grant Peterson, "How to Ride Again,"  Feb. 2017,  "Wired", p.34. Heck I don't even consider "Wired" to be much of a source of technical knowledge,  let alone bicycling advice.   This bit of bicycling advice seemed like fear mongering.    Really too busy to do anything about it,  but thought it might be curious to see if anyone here was similarly irked or sympathetic.

Title: Re: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by rmillay on Jan 28th, 2017, 3:26pm That "training zone" is common to athletes from marathoners to stock car racers.  I don't see many of those people keeling over from heart attacks.  Mostly, people tire of the intense workouts and retire into lighter and more fun levels of activity--like all-day sustained bicycle rides, perhaps!   [smiley=wink.gif]  Or maybe they just stop all together and get fat.  I think I'd be more wary of that.

Title: Re: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by Phantom Rider on Jan 29th, 2017, 10:25am I recently joined a gym (9Round) and began working out 2-4 days a week.  My thought was I've been riding for a few years and do no other type of exercises so this may be good during the winter to help offset the loss of leg strength and cardio.  Let me say I am not a racer and don't do all day rides anymore, I typically ride 125 miles a week with the long being 50-70 miles at about 18mph pace, average HR is typically 135 and the max will vary from 160-180 depending on the route and Hills.   The first time I did the 9round workout with a HR monitor I thought the trainer was going to die.  Using their scale of which is calculated at 220-age is max and then scaling 10bpm intervals for zones set my max 161 and I was always in the red(90%+).  We had the very same discussion as you mention from the magazine and her theory was the same.  Work at 70-80% 99% of the time to strengthen the muscle rather than taxing the muscle in hope of it becoming adjusted to your new norm.  I am not a medical practitioner and make no claims to any knowledge thereof.  The discussion with her did take me back to my days of marathon training and endurance running.  I recall the same concept being the "rule"back then, unfortunately there were no smart watches or HR monitors for the common working person in those days.   I am buying into this concept and have started working toward it on all my rides and workouts.  I will say if nothing else recovery seems to be much easier, I don't feel any loss of ability since starting it and I'm not as tired after an exercise period.  I will say that at times I struggle to stay in the range because I'm accustomed to pushing hard most all the time. I have found a few different calculators for HR that I like much better than just 220-age.  A simple internet search will reveal them and you can use your own judgement as to which sounds best for you.  My personal issue with 220-age is there no consideration for any historical physical activity that has strengthened the heart over time.  I am a garmin user and noticed in the connect profile there is a question about your current level of physical activity, this is using some type of algorithm to set your Max and zones based on your response.

Title: Re: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by MrWizard on Jan 29th, 2017, 11:31am I can't buy into the 220-age number at all .. since at my age I can reach ~180+ during hard climbs (even hitting 191 last summer) and I'm a long long away from 30 years old.    My (new, young and fairly wet behind the ears) oncologist is a believer on this and claims that I'm overtaxing my system by doing that and has scolded me frequently for exceeding 150. I think that historical fitness plays a huge role in this number. A paper by Londeree and Moeschberger from the University of Missouri-Columbia indicates that the MHR varies mostly with age, but the relationship is not a linear one. They suggest an alternative formula of 206.3 - (0.711 * age). Similarly, Miller et al from Indiana University propose the formula 217- (0.85 * age) as a suitable formula to calculate MHR.      Neither one of those "newer" formulas gets close to my number though they do raise the max per age. There is supporting evidence to this, Biology of Sport, Vol. 24 No2, 2007 http://biolsport.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=890642 published a fairly well researched article on this, but they the age limit they stopped at was much lower than one could have hoped.      I've not found a good study on older athletes ..  Apparently we dont draw in the grant money  >:( Phantom Rider wrote: I recently joined a gym (9Round) and began working out 2-4 days a week.  My thought was I've been riding for a few years and do no other type of exercises so this may be good during the winter to help offset the loss of leg strength and cardio.  Let me say I am not a racer and don't do all day rides anymore, I typically ride 125 miles a week with the long being 50-70 miles at about 18mph pace, average HR is typically 135 and the max will vary from 160-180 depending on the route and Hills.   The first time I did the 9round workout with a HR monitor I thought the trainer was going to die.  Using their scale of which is calculated at 220-age is max and then scaling 10bpm intervals for zones set my max 161 and I was always in the red(90%+).  We had the very same discussion as you mention from the magazine and her theory was the same.  Work at 70-80% 99% of the time to strengthen the muscle rather than taxing the muscle in hope of it becoming adjusted to your new norm.  I am not a medical practitioner and make no claims to any knowledge thereof.  The discussion with her did take me back to my days of marathon training and endurance running.  I recall the same concept being the "rule"back then, unfortunately there were no smart watches or HR monitors for the common working person in those days.   I am buying into this concept and have started working toward it on all my rides and workouts.  I will say if nothing else recovery seems to be much easier, I don't feel any loss of ability since starting it and I'm not as tired after an exercise period.  I will say that at times I struggle to stay in the range because I'm accustomed to pushing hard most all the time. I have found a few different calculators for HR that I like much better than just 220-age.  A simple internet search will reveal them and you can use your own judgement as to which sounds best for you.  My personal issue with 220-age is there no consideration for any historical physical activity that has strengthened the heart over time.  I am a garmin user and noticed in the connect profile there is a question about your current level of physical activity, this is using some type of algorithm to set your Max and zones based on your response.

Title: Re: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by rmillay on Jan 29th, 2017, 7:18pm My info has come in dribs and drabs, but one significant bit was an article on stock car racing, that stated the racers maintain a heart rate over 190 during the race.  That includes the 50-year old stars.  Those guys do it for a living, and maintaining that capacity is their livelihood.  The rule of thumb is for couch potatoes.

Title: Re: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by CruzbikeChris on Jan 30th, 2017, 8:38pm Phantom Rider wrote: I recently joined a gym (9Round) and began working out 2-4 days a week.  My thought was I've been riding for a few years and do no other type of exercises so this may be good during the winter to help offset the loss of leg strength and cardio.  Let me say I am not a racer and don't do all day rides anymore, I typically ride 125 miles a week with the long being 50-70 miles at about 18mph pace, average HR is typically 135 and the max will vary from 160-180 depending on the route and Hills.   The first time I did the 9round workout with a HR monitor I thought the trainer was going to die.  Using their scale of which is calculated at 220-age is max and then scaling 10bpm intervals for zones set my max 161 and I was always in the red(90%+).  We had the very same discussion as you mention from the magazine and her theory was the same.  Work at 70-80% 99% of the time to strengthen the muscle rather than taxing the muscle in hope of it becoming adjusted to your new norm.  I am not a medical practitioner and make no claims to any knowledge thereof.  The discussion with her did take me back to my days of marathon training and endurance running.  I recall the same concept being the "rule"back then, unfortunately there were no smart watches or HR monitors for the common working person in those days.   I am buying into this concept and have started working toward it on all my rides and workouts.  I will say if nothing else recovery seems to be much easier, I don't feel any loss of ability since starting it and I'm not as tired after an exercise period.  I will say that at times I struggle to stay in the range because I'm accustomed to pushing hard most all the time. I have found a few different calculators for HR that I like much better than just 220-age.  A simple internet search will reveal them and you can use your own judgement as to which sounds best for you.  My personal issue with 220-age is there no consideration for any historical physical activity that has strengthened the heart over time.  I am a garmin user and noticed in the connect profile there is a question about your current level of physical activity, this is using some type of algorithm to set your Max and zones based on your response. As for me Joe, I'm just gonna post this link below and let you read what I have been trying to do for the past 6 months or so. I think it makes the most sense for general health, recovery, and fitness. It may seem extremely slow and boring at first but keep it up and you will see, at the same HR you will be faster, and feel better after every ride and the next day. And the nice benefit is it's cheaper. I know it doesn't seem like it but I can pretty much ride so far 2 hours 45 minutes (On a trainer mind you) fasted for 12 hours before on nothing but water. And then I skip my breakfast and hold off eating, as I'm really not hungry at all like I used to be, until at least 2 hours after my ride. What a surprise compared to when I first started this type riding for sure. Got to watch the heart like an eagle or you can damage it for good! https://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

Title: Re: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by reever on Jan 31st, 2017, 10:48am I can't believe these high heart rates on recumbents! On a good ride I may average 120 with a high of 130. I can't get my heart rate that high on a recumbent. On a DF--that's another story. I shoot up to the 160's and stay there until my quick demise. I am completely out of upright shape! Another thing that wired may not understand is the ease at which riders work their way out of oxygen debt on bicycles. Sure, you may go into the red going uphill, but unlike running we can really cut back on our energy output going downhill while really screaming at a super-fast speed. Oxygen debt is an on-again-off-again thing in cycling--especially recumbent cycling because the heart doesn't have to pump our blood up to our heads and up from our toes to our hearts again. It's over to both in our world. Heart rate is the best raw indicator of whether effort is aerobic or anaerobic, since lactic acid that is dumped into the bloodstream really triggers a rapid heart rate. We just live in a more aerobic world than runners or DF riders.

Title: Re: Wired Magazine Biking advice? Post by Bud_Bent on Feb 1st, 2017, 8:34pm It's best to skip those calculators, and establish your own real max heat rate. There are plenty of online pages that will explain how to do it.

rbent Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.1! YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved.