I've never used a heart rate monitor before, so I'm a bit confused about the numbers I'm getting and perceived exertion. I do cardio on an exercise bike and do intervals at about 1:1 ratio for 20 min. According to the Internet, my "average maximum heart rate" is 185. When my heart rate is at 80-85%, 150-157, I can breath normally and my legs feel fine. I thought I would be huffing and puffing, but to get to that level I have to be at least in the 90% range. I try to keep an even pace/RPM at the higher intensity and during the rest period. During the rest period my heart rate drops to around 140. But during the "intensity" period my heart rate increases but breathing stays about the same. The perceived exertion is quite low. Is this normal? I thought training at 85% would be harder. Is it because of the "average maximum heart rate"? Could it be that my maximum heart rate is higher than average and so 150-160 is more like 75-80%?
185 is very likely not your maximum heart rate. Basically, none of the formulas for estimating max HR are very good. The wikipedia page on Heart Rate has some good information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate Relevant section:
If I had to guess, it could be that your lactate threshold is higher than average, so that you're not accumulating much lactate during the workout, and therefore not breathing as hard, or feeling the same fatigue. Perceived intensity really starts to increase once you cross the lactate threshold. In a fit person, you'd typically expect maximum heart rate to be lower than average, since a larger stroke volume (Ie. more blood pumped per heart beat) means fewer beats per minute. That doesn't mean it isn't possible that you have a higher than average maximum heart rate, though.
Those internet heart rate guidelines are bs... Get on a treadmill and keep upping the speed and incline until you feel like your going to die. Look at the number on your watch. I also like running a 5k and going flat out in the last mile to get a good idea. Not the most scientific way but that's what seems to get me redlining.
If someone is interested in maximal intensity testing for cardio, I'd suggest doing some kind of progressive test to exhaustion. Basically, incrementally increasing the intensity every 1-2 minutes, until complete exhaustion. Ideally, complete exhaustion would occur between 10-12 minutes. Not only would you get a good idea of your maximum heart rate, but if it's a modality where you can measure output accurately, then you can get a good estimate of your VO2max. If you track your HR throughout the process, you can also estimate your lactate threshold.
I feel like I would push myself and end up throwing up or passing out. Or just get really really dizzy. How safe is this? The beep test isnt too taxing though
You graph your heart rate against intensity. At some point, it should look like heart rate is increasing less per increment of intensity - this is because more energy is coming from the lactic acid energy system, rather than the aerobic energy system. This is called heart rate deflection. You can find this point by drawing two lines of best fit on the graph, with their intersection being the lactate threshold. There's some other stuff going on, but this is an example, watts being a measure of intensity. You can ignore the math.
This is what I wanted to know as well. Thanks Tosa and everyone else, Jaunty in particular for destroying the idea of "average max heart rate" having any usefulness. It's pretty amazing that people doing the same sport on the same team can have such huge variation in their max heart rate. I thought the standard deviation would be quite narrow, like =/- 10bpm. Back to me now. I thought my max heart rate would be higher than average simply because at what was supposed to be "85%" I was cruising along like it was 75%, it felt very easy - no heavy breathing or tiredness. As my heart rate was 157bpm I figured the max had to be higher. 157/185 = ~85% 157/195 = 80% 157/205 = ~75% Apparently that sort of logic does not apply.
It's usually HR at max sustainable speed over an increment of time. Cooper's test is probably pretty decent approximation. Only way to know for sure is getting pricked.
