Heart rate monitoring whilst cycling

[johnnyb47]

Hi,
I've been cycling aa few years now and have never really been scientific about stats ect. I enjoy looking over my ride on strava to see if my averages have improved but as far as heart rate monitoring I've never gave a it a second thought.
When feeling out of breath or feeling my heart pounding up that long hill i just do the normal thing and ease off.
Just yesterday though i bought a Huawei gt smart watch. Been wanting one for ages now but there's always been a bill in the way to pay so its been a long time coming. Really pleased with it so far and couldn't wait to get out today to try the heart rate function.
I'm a complete novice to all this gadgetry and would be grateful of some advice on my heart rate.
After doing some research (only a small amount) ive learnt that i should deduct my age of 50 from 220 to give me my max heart rate whilst cycling (or there abouts)
My resting heart beat last night and this morning was between 41/60.
This afternoon i went on a 45 mile ride and my heart rate averaged around 145 peaking very briefly at 172 on climbs.
Tonight a few hours after the ride it still around 80/90bpm
Would this be a normal scenario for an oldish wannabe like me.
As I've got nothing to base it on with other cyclists i would be interested to hear from you and compare notes.
All the very best and thanks for any advice

 

[Milkfloat]

A couple of things to burst your bubble. 1. 220 minus your age is poppycock and an approximation at best. Google for some decent tests. 2. A wrist based monitor is very unreliable when cycling, you would be much better off with a chest strap (which may connect to your watch).

 

[PaulSB]

Like @Milkfloat I don't want to burst your bubble but I agree the 220-age thing is only a very rough approximation. Yes, wrist worn HR monitors are not very accurate or reliable. To achieve both you need a chest strap. You can get these with a wrist worn display for +/-£40.

I purchased one from Polar, the same model as the NHS gave me when I was in cardio rehab following a heart attack.

If you use a Garmin or Wahoo many of these will connect to a chest strap.

I have a Garmin vivoactive watch which measures HR and other things. I love it but my HR reading will vary by 10/12 BPM compared to my chest strap.

I can't comment with great knowledge on HR etc but would make the following suggestions. Use the information for comparison purposes. Learn your HR for any given set of circumstances and keep an eye open for variations when exercising.

Secondly I don't think your resting HR can be between 41/61. It isn't a variable figure over such a ride range. When I'm at rest, that is sitting still, legs uncrossed etc, mine is 48-50 and doesn't vary. On two occasions when I was admitted to hospital seriously ill it was below 40 and there was concern until the staff learned I ride 150-200 miles a week. I was though laying very quietly, completely at rest.

One measure which is important is the speed with which your HR drops. During intense exercise when you rest, ease off etc. it should drop by at least 20 BPM, mine is usually 30 BPM.

Comparisons with other riders are difficult because we are all different and conditions vary widely. On a flat ride of 65-70 miles and 15mph avg I would expect my average HR to be 115. Flat would be an elevation gain of 1500 feet or less. Recently I rode a familiar flat route of 76 miles at 17.5avg and my average HR was 130 - I was riding in a group lead by three very fast young riders. One last example on another recent hilly ride of 50 miles, 4000 feet and 12.3avg my HR averaged 134 BUT I was going for it and PBd on four local Cat4 climbs on my winter bike.

None of these figures concern me as they are what I'd expect. So long as I come home within the range I'm anticipating I'm happy. Usually I return an average of 115-120, normally at the lower end. If there was a significant variation without reason over a long period that would concern me.

I'm 65.

 

[screenman]

I improved a lot using a Polar and sticking to Peter Reads training books.

 

[lane]

Your results seem normal. You need to establish your HR "zones" of which Thier is lots of info on the web. Use the 20 Min test to do this don't try to base it off max HR.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Also young man 50 isn't old

 

[lane]

Just to expand a bit more now I using a PC. You can establish your zones using either MAX HR or FTP test*. However if using your MAX HR you need to find out what your MAX HR actually is by riding so hard you actually reach your MAX HR; this is easier said than done and may carry some risks. By basing your zones off a FTP test you don't need to ride so hard as you would need to in order to reach a max HR, and just doing a FTP test is hard enough so I would stick with that. Zones are then a % of either MAX HR or FTP. The % used is lower for MAX HR because the initial figure is higher and conversely lower for FTP. But either way should give you roughly the same actual BPM in the same zone.

Have a look at the British Cycling website for a better explanation.

For comparison my HR for a flat easy paced ride would be 120-130. A faster tempo ride would be 140-150. Making an effort going uphill I can be a high as 170. But comparisons with other riders are meaningless.

Edit: I am 57

* 20 min test

 

[si_c]

I wouldn't worry about it too much until you've got a good baseline for yourself, so just see what the numbers do for you over the next couple of weeks to get an idea of where you stand.

A wrist based HRM gets you most of the way there in terms of monitoring but is less accurate than a chest strap. You can improve the performance of them by cinching the strap an extra notch or so to ensure you keep a good skin-sensor interface.

I'm 39 and my max HR when cycling is around 170 and I very rarely reach that - I tend to top out around 165 most of the time. To get a good idea of what yours is likely to be, find a steep, fairly long hill and ride as hard and as far as you can up it. That should get you close. Running will get your HR up more than cycling will.

 

[itboffin]

I'm nearly 50 and most of my life my resting HR has been about 90, at the moment it's 61 but my max is still 204, I'm not overweight and I cycle between 6-8000 miles a year, if I ride solo at my own pace my avg will be 165 when riding with my club it can be 175-180 for 3 hours.

The point is we're all different, unique perhaps but getting to know your norm is key.

Don't panic carry on 😋

 

[johnnyb47]

Thanks for all the great posts and replies.
As stated in this thread it looks like wrist heart rate monitoring is not the most accurate way to go.
Whilst its a shame i still really like the smart watch and find it fascinating to be able to track my HR with it.
Yesterday's ride i max out on a climb at just over 170 bpm which is somewhere in the ball park for my age. Average resting bpm was around 65 today.
I will take the watch as a guidance rather than the absolute and enjoy it for what it is.
Its been interesting and have learnt a lot from the posts.
Many thanks to you all👍👍

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Are you hoping to achieve anything from the HR monitoring?

I use mine outdoors to ensure I don’t push it too high during long rides. On long rides perceived exertion changes for a given effort as you fatigue. So isn’t a reliable indicator of what’s going on inside, other than you’re getting tired!. But combined with HR can indicate if you’re under fuelling or heading towards the bonk.

Once you know your HR zones. It also allows you do those very low intensity rides which stay in fat burning mode. I’ve done 12 hours rides without the need to take a break or to eat. But only by keeping my HR at low intensity even on hills.

A good way to find your max HR on a bike (it varies by sport) is to have a moderately steep hill say 10% and then try and get to the top first with riders both fitter and less fit than yourself. The competition does wonders for how hard you work to catch or keep ahead of others.

Some people also have hamster hearts, some have ox hearts. Some can also have dynamic hearts, so their HR shoots up and down like a yo-yo whilst others their HR is more steady but the contractions and volume of each stroke increases.

So get to know what normal is for yourself and don’t worry what others hearts are doing.

 

[stephec]

As has already been said, ignore 220 minus age, just before my 50th birthday I set a pb in a 10k running race with an average of 169bpm.

Even now two years later I can record peaks of 180.

 

[confusedcyclist]

HR is 'good enough' for us mere mortals, and you can use it just like power training, the pro's did before tech to measure power came around. The major difference between the two is that external variables are not as well catered for, e.g. temperature, hydration, time of day etc. Our heart rate can be a little slow to react to changes in output effort too, whereas power is instantaneous, but not so far out that it's useless. As for the accuracy, what does it actually matter if you're a few beats out from actual, so long as the measurements don't drop out entirely, which is a problem, it's still way more accurate and safer than you can achieve by taking your pulse with only one hand on the bars, and doesn't require a strap which I've found uncomfortable and often forgot to put on.

HR zone training is a great way to get into interval training, and moderate effort on easy rides. Enjoy your new watch. I just dropped £95 on a galaxy watch active which has nearly halved in price since last year as it's no longer the latest and greatest. Cheaper than most of my quartz watches, which is crazy when you think about how much tech is in it.

I doubt it will, but I'm rather hoping it will hook up with my Bosch Kiox and give me heart rate data on the head unit.

 

[johnnyb47]

Thanks for the great post @confusedcyclist.
I thought the novelty of it would of worn off by now but am finding it really useful and fascinating to see my stats on the app, as the data mounts up 👍👍

 

[confusedcyclist]

My pleasure. Which app are you tracking rides with?