Strava KOMs and heart rate

[Tim Kelley]

My guess is that on the short KOMs of 30 seconds to a minute the rider starts out at the bottom of the hill at a resting heart rate and by the time the KOM is over the HR hasn’t caught up yet. That’s where training with a power meter shows more accurate/instantaneous feedback.

For longer KOMs of multiple minutes, it could just be a bad strap or reading.

[americancyclo]

My typical commutes top out around 140. could be the folks in the top spots are in really good shape?

[Certifried]

I have a KOM where it measured my ride down the hill instead. I’ve tried to invalidate it. Could it maybe have been someone going down the hill that strava misinterpreted?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[TwoWheelsDC]

Son of a…see, this is why I shouldn’t hang around the forums. I’m perfectly satisfied with my Garmin 200, which doesn’t have a HRM, then a simple thread like this pops up and I think “hmmm, it would be interesting to know what my HR is…maybe I should upgrade to a 500.” Argh.

Now I just hope there are no upcoming threads about how carbon is soooooo much better than aluminum. That may push me over the edge.

[Tim Kelley]

@TwoWheelsDC 23463 wrote:

Son of a…see, this is why I shouldn’t hang around the forums. I’m perfectly satisfied with my Garmin 200, which doesn’t have a HRM, then a simple thread like this pops up and I think “hmmm, it would be interesting to know what my HR is…maybe I should upgrade to a 500.” Argh.

Now I just hope there are no upcoming threads about how carbon is soooooo much better than aluminum. That may push me over the edge.

Just skip the HR and go straight to a power meter!

[vvill]

I’d guess either it’s erroneous data or yeah, the rider is just really fit. Most of my commutes I top out near my max HR which means yeah, I’m not in that great shape.

@TwoWheelsDC 23463 wrote:

Son of a…see, this is why I shouldn’t hang around the forums. I’m perfectly satisfied with my Garmin 200, which doesn’t have a HRM, then a simple thread like this pops up and I think “hmmm, it would be interesting to know what my HR is…maybe I should upgrade to a 500.” Argh.

Now I just hope there are no upcoming threads about how carbon is soooooo much better than aluminum. That may push me over the edge.

Depends. Is it hydroformed alumnium?

Yeah I got a 500 instead of a 200 for both the HRM and the cadence. And yes, as Tim notes, the ability to add power later, maybe.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@Tim Kelley 23466 wrote:

Just skip the HR and go straight to a power meter!

Jeebus, those things cost more than my bike! In fact, a Garmin 500 would make an even trade for my road bike…score one for craigslist, I guess.

[jabberwocky]

More fit people tend to have lower heart rates. Look at pro cyclists tracks sometime (I know some teams were publishing riders data during the TDF a few years ago). Those guys top out at like 150. I personally hit 180-190 pretty routinely.

[Tim Kelley]

@Certifried 23462 wrote:

I have a KOM where it measured my ride down the hill instead. I’ve tried to invalidate it. Could it maybe have been someone going down the hill that strava misinterpreted?

Are you sure that the segment wasn’t downhill? There are plenty of timed descents!

[vvill]

There are a few pros on Strava who publish their ride data. I follow Laurens ten Dam (he posted his Tour of California and Tour de Suisse ride data) and Joe Dombrowski (although he didn’t have HR data on there for the last ride I looked at).

[SteveTheTech]

@TwoWheelsDC 23463 wrote:

Son of a…see, this is why I shouldn’t hang around the forums. I’m perfectly satisfied with my Garmin 200, which doesn’t have a HRM, then a simple thread like this pops up and I think “hmmm, it would be interesting to know what my HR is…maybe I should upgrade to a 500.” Argh.

Now I just hope there are no upcoming threads about how carbon is soooooo much better than aluminum. That may push me over the edge.

You know if your adding to the wish list why not bump up to the touchscreen with mapping of the 800. I can’t read a cue sheet to save my life…that’s my justification for keeping one in my Amazon shopping cart for a while.

I have a multisport Garmin FR60 watch that does speed/cadence and running sensors and cannot live without it. It doesn’t export Strava compatible files so I’m stuck with just Garmin Connect, but I got it as a bundle for about $100 and it supports many more things than a stand alone bike computer..if your into that kind of thing.

I’m 28 my average HR is 168, peak of about 192 and my cycling cadence hovers around 80 on hills and about 90 on flats with an AMS of 18mph and I’ve got an FTP around 350. But I cannot compete :*(

@Tim Kelley 23466 wrote:

Just skip the HR and go straight to a power meter!

See now that’s a trap. For those who think HR training is addictive watts is so much worse. I don’t have that (yet…shhh don’t tell the mrs) but I’ve computrained before and watching peak output and training to improve ftp really takes riding (for training and fitness) to another level. I know I dream of adding a Quarq to my next frame. (http://www.quarq.com/store#sram_compact), because after all if your going to invest that much why not go to the crank it is the most accurate. You can get a Quarq Red setup for just a little less than you can get an entire Red groupo on some sites, and it is ANT+ compatible.

@TwoWheelsDC 23470 wrote:

Jeebus, those things cost more than my bike! In fact, a Garmin 500 would make an even trade for my road bike…score one for craigslist, I guess.

I’m glad to see I’m in good company.

Now the delima is…do you dump $$$ into a cheap frame or buy a better frame and wait longer… and at what point are you taking the hobby too far?

I really like the carbon/aluminum debate, they both have strong pros, and a few cons. Carbons light, but twitch (sometimes) but it can make a seriously aero (and pretty) frame.Aluminum can be more resilient and stable but can be harder to climb and heavier with and less efficient if using aerobars. The Canondale CAAD line is what I’m looking at for Aluminum, and the Tarmac from Specialized is my pick for Carbon. They have fair price points for a full bike and decent supply in this area. Although IMO Litespeed makes a downright sexy frame.

Personnally I think there isn’t a too far…my accountant wife on the other hand does not share my same…enthusiasm.

Be careful, someone told me that there are a rash of 500 + models on ebay that do not read in english. It sucks that used they are not really loosing any value (relative to what you would expect for something like a bike computer).

[Tim Kelley]

@SteveTheTech 23667 wrote:

I’m 28 my average HR is 168, peak of about 192 and my cycling cadence hovers around 80 on hills and about 90 on flats with an AMS of 18mph and I’ve got an FTP around 350. But I cannot compete :*(

With an FTP of 350w, I’d expect you can move a little faster than 18mph. Whats your weight?

[TwoWheelsDC]

@SteveTheTech 23667 wrote:

Now the delima is…do you dump $$$ into a cheap frame or buy a better frame and wait longer… and at what point are you taking the hobby too far?

I really like the carbon/aluminum debate, they both have strong pros, and a few cons. Carbons light, but twitch (sometimes) but it can make a seriously aero (and pretty) frame.Aluminum can be more resilient and stable but can be harder to climb and heavier with and less efficient if using aerobars. The Canondale CAAD line is what I’m looking at for Aluminum, and the Tarmac from Specialized is my pick for Carbon. They have fair price points for a full bike and decent supply in this area. Although IMO Litespeed makes a downright sexy frame.

The used bike I bought is an older aluminum CAAD. I actually like it a lot…rides super smooth, pretty light, and climbs well, particularly compared to my steel CX commuter. My commuter is a 50/39/30 with a 12-30 cassette, but I can climb way better on the CAAD with a 52/42/30 and a 12-25. Most importantly, I feel like, at this point, it’s a bike that’s well suited to my skill level. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I’m not looking to upgrade though 😎

[SteveTheTech]

@Tim Kelley 23668 wrote:

With an FTP of 350w, I’d expect you can move a little faster than 18mph. Whats your weight?

I know it drives me nuts. I’m right around 180 right now and cannot loose anymore to save my rear, despite my best efforts to eat more. I’m currently running a compact cassette which I think combined with about 10 extra lbs on me is doing nothing for my AMS. I can manage a slightly more than 30mph sprint on a flat and >40 on an decent but my Garmin averages are almost always in the high teens. I can usually hang with the front of the A group on my weekly group ride on climbs and very rarely leave the 50 ring, still with a stock 12-24 rear.

@TwoWheelsDC 23677 wrote:

The used bike I bought is an older aluminum CAAD. I actually like it a lot…rides super smooth, pretty light, and climbs well, particularly compared to my steel CX commuter. My commuter is a 50/39/30 with a 12-30 cassette, but I can climb way better on the CAAD with a 52/42/30 and a 12-25. Most importantly, I feel like, at this point, it’s a bike that’s well suited to my skill level. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I’m not looking to upgrade though 😎

I like Canondale offers the same frame with different gear sets to everyone from a Tiagra through a full Red setup depending on your budget and needs.

So it looks like mechanically you are in good shape…might as well go back shopping for a new computer

[Author]

Posts