Another Hill Climb? Cruagh - March 30th

Beasty

The maximum I have ever recorded was 186 a couple of months ago, and the best average was 167 (over 45 mins). You are supposed to drop about 1 from your maximum a year, so I am using age as my excuse!

DirkVoodoo

Hmmm, I think I am definitely in the pussywillow category then. My average seemed to be high 170s, possibly 180. Unfortunately I left my computer on and all that standing around after the finish sent my recorded average to 161 bpm. My max was a pretty low 186 (I still don't know my max, I think the highest I saw was one day on the Sally Gap it was at 198). Could I have gone harder? Probably not, I'm not one for the pain cave and I'm not great at pushing myself. I was definitely feeling it yesterday and there were many times I wanted to get off the bike. It seems time trialling is a lot more mental than I first thought.

I think like Tonto says it is all very individual and personal, it's not something you can compare on a chart between people. As long as you train correctly within your known limits and see improvement, that is about as much as you can take from HR.

bbosco

I hit an all-time high 228 on Kellystown Road about 7 years ago when I started cycling. Took me half an hour sitting on the side of the road to recover. Wasn't right for a couple of days afterwards.
I frequently get to the high 190's towards the end of tough climbs and my avg HR after a normal spin is usually about 165-170. My problem is always in my legs. They just run out of steam - even on descents, towards the end of a long spin. I think I need to HTFU

blorg

You can't compare heart rate between different people. It means nothing. Someone can have a low max and still be faster. You could have a bigger heart that pumps more blood per beat for example.

All you can do is find your own maximum/threshold and key your zones off that- so comparing %MHR is slightly more relevant as a measure of intensity.

But the actual BPM numbers mean nothing.

madrichie

blorg wrote: »

You can't compare heart rate between different people. It means nothing. Someone can have a low max and still be faster. You could have a bigger heart that pumps more blood per beat for example.

All you can do is find your own maximum/threshold and key your zones off that- so comparing %MHR is slightly more relevant as a measure of intensity.

But the actual BPM numbers mean nothing.

Agreed - it can lead to a lot of confusion doing side-by-side comparisons. My average HR for last night was something like 157 with a max of 165 (I'm 38 tho so no spring chicken). Have not exceeded 170 in years.

blorg

niceonetom wrote: »

ROK - I'm the same as you with regards to the legs thing. Mine almost never feel that painful, they just get heavier and heavier and eventually cramp (that is painful), it's my heart and lungs that really beg for mercy... it may not be sensible but 'shut up heart' is precisely the approach I take. Unless you actually have a heart condition I think it's wuite hard to kill yourself from pure exertion... right? right?

Scienticians - any theories as to why some of us feel it in the legs and others in the chest? Physiology? Training?

I am generally the same and feel in in the chest before the legs. Heart and breathing. Certainly for short intense efforts, my chest would feel like it is about to explode. However doing the Gorey last weekend the legs tired and just couldn't get the heart rate up after the first day. I was probably a bit sick though too. There were moments when the heart was fine but when I looked to the legs there was just nothing there.

Diarmuid

niceonetom wrote: »

Afterwards I felt quite nauseous, and I spent all evening afterwards coughing and wheezing.

I knew we should have gone for the average of two runs

Russman

I've just come back from the route ye climbed (live not too far away from it but hadn't actually been up there in years) and to all who raced up it all I can say is "respect", regardless of time - thats a seriously tough hill climb IMO.

I just had to post that !

cdaly_

el tonto wrote: »

Lumen wrote:

So what's next then?

The general consensus last night was a 10 mile TT.

So um, how long would a 10 mile TT take then?

Raam

20 to 30 minutes.

Nietzschean

To break it down a bit cause i was curious
48km/hr -> 20.15 mins
43km/hr -> 22.5 mins
40km/hr -> 24.15 mins
35km/hr -> 27.6 mins
30km/hr -> 32.2 mins

Beasty

Raam wrote: »

20 to 30 minutes.

20mph = 30min
30mph = 20min

If we're doing 10 miles we should stick to imperial:p

cdaly_

Ah, so my typical commute average speed of 25km/hr would translate into about 38.4 min. I wonder would I do any better on the day?...

Beasty

cdaly_ wrote: »

Ah, so my typical commute average speed of 25km/hr would translate into about 38.4 min. I wonder would I do any better on the day?...

Clearly depends on the course and weather. A slight incline and head-wind, possibly not, but if conditions are similar to your commute the "competitive element", and the fact there should be no stopping and starting at junctions/lights, should push you to a faster time

blorg

I always go substantially faster in time trials than in hard training never mind my commute. I've only done four I think.