True/False: Heart Rate Formula based on Science...
Josh Steinberg
False. Heart rate formulas, maximum heart rate estimations, and the
cardiac stress testing protocols and exercise protocols that all
followed from the heart rate formula (220-age) are all make-believe,
speculative at best.
The full and fantastic story appeared in the NY Times Science Times
yesterday. They interviewed the originators of the heart rate formula
who chuckled over what has become of their very rough, very imprecise
formula. The article also explains what the surprising consequences
have been: the heart rate formula, based on flimsy science, has been
codified into physiologic fact and then implemented in important ways,
like exercise stress testing for diagnosing heart disease.
I share this article to demonstrate to the group that one must always be
careful of what seems to be "science". The original researchers made up
their famous formula by playing connect the dots on graph paper spur of
the moment on an airplane going to a conference with non-random,
non-cross-sectional, small sample of people. The Times article then
details what inaccuracies have always been recognized in the formula,
ideas to correct it, and ideas to simply supplant the notion that a
formula can describe how everyone's heart responds to exercise.
A great read to make one a little more careful and skeptical, which I
think is always warranted.
-- Josh Steinberg MD, Syracuse
PS Be sure to read the last paragraph of quotes. They're classic!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NY Times Online
April 24, 2001
'Maximum' Heart Rate Theory Is Challenged
By GINA KOLATA
Donald Kirkendall, an exercise physiologist at the University of
North Carolina, will never forget the time he put a heart-rate monitor
on a member of the United States rowing team and asked the man to row as
hard as he could for six minutes.
The standard formula for calculating how fast a human heart can beat
calls for subtracting the person's age from 220. The rower was in his
mid-20's.
Just getting the heart to its actual maximum rate is an immense effort
and holding it there for even a minute is so painful that it is all but
inconceivable for anyone who is not supremely motivated, Dr. Kirkendall
said. But this
rower confounded the predictions.
"His pulse rate hit 200 at 90 seconds into the test," Dr. Kirkendall
said. "And he held it there for the rest of the test." A local
cardiologist was
looking on in astonishment and told Dr. Kirkendall, "You know, there's
not a textbook in the world that says a person could have done that."
But maybe, some physiologists and cardiologists are saying, the
textbooks are wrong.
The question of how to find maximum heart rates is not just of academic
interest, medical experts say. The formula for calculating the maximum
rate
has become a standard in cardiology and in fitness programs, and an
entire industry has grown up around it, with monitors sold to
individuals and built into exercise equipment.
"There is a need, a clinical and societal need, to estimate the maximum
heart rate," said Dr. Douglas Seals, an exercise physiologist at the
University of Colorado.
Doctors use the formula when they test patients for heart disease,
asking them to walk on treadmills while the speed and incline are
gradually increased until their heart rates reach 85 percent of the
predicted
maximums.
The idea is to look for signs, like chest pain or a sudden drop in the
heart rate, indicating that the heart is not getting enough blood. But
if doctors underestimate how fast the person's heart can beat, they may
stop the
test too soon, Dr. Seals noted.
Personal trainers and exercise instructors design fitness programs
around the maximum heart rate, often telling people to wear heart rate
monitors
and then to exercise at 80 to 90 percent of the maximum in brief spurts
to build aerobic capacity and at 65 percent to 75 percent to build
endurance.
Some heart monitors built into exercise machines even shut the machines
down if an exerciser exceeds 90 percent of the predicted maximum. But if
the heart rate formula is wrong, these exercise prescriptions are
misguided.
"If you're trying to improve their aerobic fitness or to train for
certain endurance events, then you want to know with a reasonable
accuracy what intensity you're exercising at," Dr. Seals said. "If your
estimate is 10
or 20 beats too low, then you're pretty far off."
Exercise physiologists say, however, that being pretty far off is more
common than most people expect.
"The more information we have, the more we realize that that formula is
just a very rough consideration," said Dr. Jack H. Wilmore, an exercise
physiologist at Texas A&M.
And while Dr. Seals is now proposing a new formula to use as a general
guide, he and others say it is simplistic to rely on a single formula to
predict the maximum heart rates of individuals.
The common formula was devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell, then a
young physician in the federal Public Health Service and his mentor, Dr.
Samuel Fox, who led the service's program on heart disease. They were
trying to determine how strenuously heart disease patients could
exercise.
In preparation for a medical meeting , Dr. Haskell culled data from
about 10 published studies in which people of different ages had been
tested to find their maximum heart rates.
The subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the
population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at
Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart
disease.
On an airplane traveling to the meeting, Dr. Haskell pulled out his data
and showed them to Dr. Fox. "We drew a line through the points and I
said, `Gee, if you extrapolate that out it looks like at age 20, the
heart
rate maximum is 200 and at age 40 it's 180 and at age 60 it's 160," Dr.
Haskell said.
At that point, Dr. Fox suggested a formula: maximum heart rate equals
220 minus age.
But, exercise physiologists said, these data, like virtually all
exercise data, had limitations. They relied on volunteers who most
likely were not representative of the general population. "It's whoever
came in the
door," Dr. Kirkendall said.
In addition, he and others said, gauging maximum heart rates for people
who are not used to exercising is often difficult because many
prematurely stop the test.
As the treadmill hills get steeper, people who are not used to exercise
will notice that their calves are aching. "They will say they can't go
any further," Dr. Kirkendall said.
In addition, Dr. Wilmore, the exercise physiologist, said it was clear
from the scattered data points that maximum heart rates could vary
widely from the formula. "If it says 150, it could be 180 and it could
be 120,"
Dr. Wilmore said.
But the formula quickly entered the medical literature. Even though it
was almost always presented as an average maximum rate, the absolute
numbers took on an air of received wisdom in part, medical scientists
said, because the time was right.
Doctors urging heart patients to exercise wanted a way to gauge exercise
intensity. At the same time, exercise gurus, promoting aerobic exercise
to
the public, were asking how hard people should push themselves to
improve their cardiovascular fitness. Suddenly, there was a desire for a
simple formula to estimate maximum heart rates.
"You tell people to exercise at a moderate intensity," Dr. Haskell said.
"Well, what's a moderate intensity?"
Soon, there was a worldwide heart-rate monitor industry, led by Polar
Electro Inc, of Oulu, Finland, selling more than 750,000 monitors a year
in the United States and citing the "220 minus your age" formula as a
guide
for training.
The formula became increasingly entrenched, used to make graphs that are
posted on the walls of health clubs and in cardiology treadmill rooms,
prescribed in information for heart patients and inscribed in textbooks.
But some experts never believed it.
Dr. Fritz Hagerman, an exercise physiologist at Ohio University, said he
had learned from more than three decades of studying world class rowers
that the whole idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum
heart rate was ludicrous. Even sillier, he said, is the common notion
that the heart rate is an indication of fitness.
Some people get blood to their muscles by pushing out large amounts
every time their hearts contract, he said. Others accomplish the same
thing
by contracting their hearts at fast rates. As a result, Dr. Hagerman
said, he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates
of 220. And he has seen others on the same team and with the same
ability, but
who get blood to their tissues by pumping hard, with maximum rates of
just 160.
"The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing
athletes," Dr. Hagerman said.
Heart rate is an indicator of heart disease, said Dr. Michael Lauer, a
cardiologist and the director of clinical research in cardiology at the
Cleveland Clinic Foundation. But, he added, it is not the maximum that
matters: it
is how quickly the heart rate falls when exercise is stopped.
An average healthy person's heart rate drops about 20 beats in a minute
and the rates of athletes "nose dive by 50 beats in a minute," Dr. Lauer
said.
In three recent studies, Dr. Lauer and his colleagues found that people
whose rates fell less than 12 beats within a minute after they stopped
exercising vigorously had a fourfold increased risk of dying in the next
six years compared with those whose heart rates dropped by 13 or more
beats.
Dr. Lauer pays no attention to the standard formula when he gives
treadmill tests. More than 40 percent of patients, he said, can get
their heart rates to more than 100 percent of their predicted maximum.
"That tells
you that that wasn't their maximum heart rate," Dr. Lauer said.
The danger, he said, is that when doctors use that formula to decide
when to end a treadmill test, they can inadvertently mislead themselves
and their patients. Some patients may be stopping too soon and others
may
seem to have a heart problem because they never can get to what is
supposed to be their maximum rate.
"Some people are being pushed and others are not," Dr. Lauer said. "In
my view, that is unacceptable."
Yet, Dr. Seals said, many doctors want some sort of guide for estimating
maximum heart rates for treadmill tests. And many people who want to
increase their fitness crave a general formula.
So Dr. Seals and his colleagues decided to take another stab at finding
an equation.
In a study published in the March issue of The Journal of the American
College of Cardiology, Dr. Seals and his colleagues devised a new
formula: maximum heart rate equals 208 minus 0.7 times age. They used
published
studies involving 18,712 healthy people and data from 514 healthy
people they recruited. Their formula gives much higher average maximum
heart rates for older people, with the new and old heart rate curves
starting to diverge at age 40.
But raising doubts about the heart rate formula is unlikely to lead
people to abandon it, exercise physiologists say. What would they do
without it?
"I've kind of laughed about it over the years," Dr. Haskell said. The
formula, he said, "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule
people's training." But, he said, "It's so typical of Americans to take
an idea
and extend it beyond what it was originally intended for."
Roger 2k
Josh Steinberg wrote in message <3AE6BEF9...@twcny.rr.com>...
>(as if you didn't know where this was going)
Thanks for all the detail in the post, and I'm glad I'm not the only one
that surprises people with a 200+ reading, or should I say a reading 25-30
points higher than those crazy formulas predict.
Roger
David Forbes
But also glad that measuring how fast your pulse rate recovers is
useful, so I haven't been wasting my time doing that.
Since I have saved $200+ on not buying a HRM, I shall go out and buy
some new shoes.
--
Regards,
Dave
**************************************
I'd love to think that there's an end
just waiting right around the bend,
but every turn's a tunnel.
I descend
I'm the running man...
Edward Ka Spell and kEvin Key,
The Last Man to Fly, 1991
**************************************
Jenn e fir
>From: David Forbes
>At last: proof that I was right in ignoring my heart rate.
>But also glad that measuring how fast your pulse rate recovers is
>useful, so I haven't been wasting my time doing that.
>Since I have saved $200+ on not buying a HRM, I shall go out and buy
>some new shoes.
>
You know that is a good point. In fact, my heart rate max is somewhere around
170 (based on experience + treadmill tests). That's waaaay below where it's
'supposed' to be according to the silly assed formulas and HRM literature.
I've also discovered from experience, that I can maintain 160 per minute for a
long, long time.
Once again, each person is unique. Who'd a thunk it?
Since now we know that runners are unique, and heart rate varies widely,
perhaps now we know that the primary reason to purchase a HRM is love of
gadetry. Because certainly if heart rate varies significantly from individual
to individual then certainly the 'optimum' training heart rate also varies.
--------------
Jennifer - intuititively knew all along that Heart Rate Monitors sucked
JimW
>Jennifer - intuititively knew all along that Heart Rate Monitors sucked
LOL!
David Forbes
Have no idea what my max heart rate is and don't give a ****, but not
opposed to gadgetry. Would like a more accurate measure of my distances
for example, but too cheap to buy a GPS and too lazy to go and walk the
courses. But not too lazy to run them - a curious dichotomy.
--
Jenn e fir
[snip]
>The optimal training speed for some purpose is related to % VO2 max,
>and % VO2max = % of HRR. There is science on that.
That's a recitation that reminds me of quantum physics or perhaps religion.
We know there's a [optimal training speed, God, atomic particle ]; there's [
science, faith, science ] on that point.
So show [the optimal pace, God, an electron] to me! Well, things begin to
break down at that point. A preacher can't point to God, nor the scientist a
single atom, nor the coach an "optimal" training heartrate.
We have no objective clue what any one person's optimal (whatever that means)
training speed, or VO2 max or therefore % of HRR is at a particular moment.
Certainly, your objective piece of equipment (i.e. your HRM) is interesting
but likely irrelevant.
---------------
Jennifer - if it's improvement you seek, you'd be as well off carrying a chain
saw while running.
David Forbes
for all serious runners (along with an instantaneous read out of muscle
and liver glycogen levels). Ever think running is becoming a little too
complicated?
--
Rudiger Schierz
> At last: proof that I was right in ignoring my heart rate.
> But also glad that measuring how fast your pulse rate recovers is
> useful, so I haven't been wasting my time doing that.
I appreciate your postings, but this time, I'm afraid, I have to
disagree. I guess, you haven't got the point.
The point is, that there is _no formular_, to calculate the max HR of
any individual, since everbodies max HR is, uhm, individual and given
by nature. As you've red this forum for a while, you should already
know about this ;-) The point is _not_, that it is right to ignore the
HR. But you may do it, anyway.
While the max HR of everybody is genetically determined, does not
reflect any fitness level, is nearly not influenced by training and
seems to drop a bit with age, it makes totally sense, to measure the
max HR in an appropriate max HR test and to design a HR based training
plan, based on the measured value. Then it's definitaly a good idea,
to use a HR monitor as a gauge, to ensure, that you train at a proper
level.
The next better idea is, to measure the lactid acid level in your
blood and find out your HR at specific threscholds. This is an even
better source of HR information to build up a very personal and
optimized training plan. This is, what leading pack runners may do.
For me, as a freetime and middle of the back pack runner <g>, I'm
completely satisfied with my training plans based on my _measured_ max
HR and my resting HR (the difference between HRmax - HRrest is my HR
reserve). My training progress and lack of injuries proof, that I am
right, to use my heart rate as a training control device :-)
> Since I have saved $200+ on not buying a HRM, I shall go out and buy
> some new shoes.
Well, if you go out and buy some new shoes, do you measure you shoe
size, aka. try, if the shoes fit or do you calculate the size of the
shoes using a formula? ;-) And when you find out, there is no usefull
formular to calculate shoe sizes, would you then ignore your shoe size
or is it still of interest for wearing shoes? This is just a
paraphrase of your statement :-)
Let's resumee:
- Your feet are unique and individual as your max HR is.
- Training plans based on max HR may be sensible. Then the use of a HR
monitor to control yourself is sensible, too.
- If you want to know your max HR, you have to check it out! No way
around!
- Formulars to calculate max HR of an individual are bull shit!
That's all about, however.
jm2c and cheers,
Rudiger
--
Could I have a drug overdose?
Robert H. Diday, Jr.
Great post! Very funny, too. I've known for over 20 years that the
data couldn't be right because no one I trained with who had a heart
rate monitor had a maxHR at their predicted max. Everyone seemed to be
over it, and most of them were guys in their 30's, 40's, and 50's.
Contrary to what one of the doctors below says, I know NO, as in ZERO,
runners who have a maxHR below their predicted max using the old
formula. Perhaps someone here has such a number, and if so, I'd like
to see it just for its "recreational" value. :)
-Robert
Jenn e fir
[snip]
>While the max HR of everybody is genetically determined, does not
>reflect any fitness level, is nearly not influenced by training and
>seems to drop a bit with age, it makes totally sense, to measure the
>max HR in an appropriate max HR test and to design a HR based training
>plan, based on the measured value.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
"...design a HR based training plan" is techno babble for "I bought a $200
gadget and I say it works."
Max heart rates vary, optimal training rates vary, resting heart rates vary,
rates that glycogen is spent varies, height varies, weight varies, stride
length varies, very many variables vary.
>>Then it's definitaly a good idea,
to use a HR monitor as a gauge, to ensure, that you train at a proper
level.>>
Again with the "optimal" and "proper." Those 2 words are meaningless in this
context. With so very much variability why on earth would you take this hunk
of techno gadetry, strap it to your chest, set a mythical range which somehow
magically IS the GOLDEN OPTIMUM SUPERDUPER HEARTRATE to ACHIEVE RUNNING NERVANA
? Because,you, nor anyone else knows what their "optimal" or "proper"
heartrate is. Remember? Experiment of One? I challenge you to show us ONE
single study that perports to establish a single proper or optimal training
rate based on Max Heart Rate that is applicable to all individuals.
I, for example, seem to be a heartrate freak of nature: max of 170, rate
during a marathon 160-165, resting 58, training 125 - 170. What's the optimal?
I haven't a clue and defy anyone to tell me otherwise.
I mean, isn't it reasonable to accept that your Max HR is unique at say 200
(and knowable) and your optimal training pulse rate is simply unknowable
because of the many variables?
And if the optimal is unknowable why buy the techno-gadget ? There's one
answer. It's a cool techno-gadet with buttons, and read-outs, and LED...bells,
whistles...
But back to the point, the Great coaches set out training schedules with many
variation: Fast, slow, long, short, hills, sprints, strides. Training at high
HR, 80% MHR, 50% MHR....They knew and know that there's no optimal heartrate,
no optimal training speed. It's the variation and lots of it makes the great
runners.
>My training progress and lack of injuries [proves], that I am
>right, to use my heart rate as a training control device :-)
No it doesn't prove dooley. I'm calling the Syllogism (or sillygism) police on
this one. Look, your proof is no more accurate than if I stated that I wore
white socks while running and because I only wear white socks I have no
injuries and I've progressed.
----------------
Jennifer - Next after HRMs...Shoes that go BOING and Who are They Kidding?!
David Forbes
You are quite correct - I do not get the point of spending US$200+ on a
fancy HRM that comes with recommendations to exercise within limits that
are based on rubbish.
I quite agree that if I was prepared to (and had the opportunity) to get
my max heart rate measured, and was prepared to do that frequently
enough to take into account changes in my conditioning and age, and then
was prepared to train according to someone else's recommendations of
what I should be doing in relation to my max HR, then it would be "to
the point."
But since I am not prepared to do all that, and since I have gone from a
200+ lb, unable to run 100m without gasping for air to being able to run
a 1hr 32 half marathon and a sub 43 min 10K in about a year, all without
a HRM, then I am glad that I ignored my HR and saved the money. Of
course, you could argue that if I had bought a HRM then I would be
running sub 40min 10K's etc. But I doubt it.
As to going out and measuring lactic acid build up - you leave me
speechless. Actually I am just about to go out and buy a portable VO2
metering device which I will tow around the track after me as I run
intervals - or should I take it on my next long run?
I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to the shoes. I
guess I should have put an emoticon after my comment to indicate that I
was in jest.
Thanks for your input and response, Rudiger.
--
Swanger
Jenn e fir wrote in message
<20010425152007...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
The proof is in wearing the HR. and observing your own heart rate while
in training situations and racing. What's the optimal? That's for you to
decide. All the factors you mentioned which contribute to non-standard
variables will eventually show up on your heart rate. Do you know what your
maximum heart rate is outside of a marathon? Do a warm up then observe
after a couple of outer body gut busting 800's uphill. Once you have an
idea of your Max HR you will know a little better at what pace is 50% or 70%
etc. All variables you mentioned will show up right in front of you on your
wrist. If you are use to running 8 minute miles during a moderate 10 mile
run you will be able to observe what percentage you are of maximum heart
rate and whether or not you could speed up or slow down. You are able to
instantly observe a pattern and whether or not you are above it or below it.
On hammer days you can quickly check to see if you are indeed hammering hard
enough. Your maximum does not excessively change, however, the variables
you mentioned do change and therefore your HR. will let you know if these
variables are influencing you physically. You take one variable that pretty
much stays stable and compare it over time with your actual heart rate
exertion that is observable on your wrist. But first you need to find you
own maximum heart rate. The Tec-gadget paranoia eventually wears off and
you become less self-conscience of it. No different than calculators, PAC's
or cell phones.
Sincerely,
Rick Swanger
Jenn e fir
>The article was just saying that the formula to calculate HRmax was
>void. It did in no way argue against training based on a persons REAL
>HRmax.
[snipped]
Fair enough, but let's take it the next step. The remainder of your post that
I've snipped says that you ran a marathon with a heartrate of approximately 79%
of Max.
What therefore can we conclude for structuring future HRM workouts?
a) nothing
b) future long runs should be at 79% max
c) future long runs should be [insert random number here]
d) "a"
Seriously, how can the answer be anything but "a"? There are no studies, no
proof, just some jokers out there advocating training ranges and selling junk.
And, if the answer is that no one knows what the optimal training range is, why
then is a HRM useful except as an interesting toy ?
-----------------
Jennifer - and if 'a' is not your answer you are the weakest link...good-bye
[there, it's only a matter of time before that phrase gets worn out ]
David Forbes
most of the posts on HRm's and it seems to me that they are not a
critical piece of gear. If you have the cash and like to tinker with
toys, great. I would rather spend my money on something I "know" is
essential - good shoes.
If you can't tell that you are hammering except by looking at a HRM then
you need to go and run some more until you can.
Swanger wrote:
>
>snip
>
> The proof is in wearing the HR. and observing your own heart rate while
> in training situations and racing. What's the optimal? That's for you to
> decide. All the factors you mentioned which contribute to non-standard
> variables will eventually show up on your heart rate. Do you know what your
> maximum heart rate is outside of a marathon? Do a warm up then observe
> after a couple of outer body gut busting 800's uphill. Once you have an
> idea of your Max HR you will know a little better at what pace is 50% or 70%
> etc. All variables you mentioned will show up right in front of you on your
> wrist. If you are use to running 8 minute miles during a moderate 10 mile
> run you will be able to observe what percentage you are of maximum heart
> rate and whether or not you could speed up or slow down. You are able to
> instantly observe a pattern and whether or not you are above it or below it.
> On hammer days you can quickly check to see if you are indeed hammering hard
> enough. Your maximum does not excessively change, however, the variables
> you mentioned do change and therefore your HR. will let you know if these
> variables are influencing you physically. You take one variable that pretty
> much stays stable and compare it over time with your actual heart rate
> exertion that is observable on your wrist. But first you need to find you
> own maximum heart rate. The Tec-gadget paranoia eventually wears off and
> you become less self-conscience of it. No different than calculators, PAC's
> or cell phones.
>
> Sincerely,
> Rick Swanger
--
Swanger
David Forbes wrote in message <3AE7438A...@tamu.edu>...
>One can do all of that with training and using a watch.
A watch can not tell you what your heart rate is.
I have read
>most of the posts on HRm's and it seems to me that they are not a
>critical piece of gear. If you have the cash and like to tinker with
>toys, great. I would rather spend my money on something I "know" is
>essential - good shoes.
My first choice would also be towards good shoes. However, HRm's can be
bought for as little as 49 dollars and last a lot longer than shoes.
>If you can't tell that you are hammering except by looking at a HRM then
>you need to go and run some more until you can.
Pain is not always an accurate indicator of maximum effort. If you
regularly used a HR monitor you would be aware of this. The HRM does not
have to tell you anything. You use it as a guideline and make your on
conclusions.
Rick Swanger
Charles
rate. I've used several methods to find my max heart rate and it is real close
to the predicted (it's about 195) I've only been using my heart rate monitor
for a year so I can't vouch for the decreasing with age thing. I can tell you
that almost all competitive bike riders use HRMs with great success. My heart
rate monitior even told you how to find your max heart rate both running and on
bike. I've done both. I can tell you that I love training with my HRM. It
helps me slow down on my easy days, and It helps me keep a good pace. I do a
lot more than just run so overtraining is a big problem.
Also if you don't like HRMs thats great, but your idiodic rants against them
are just as bad as the 220-age magic formula. If you understand how they work
they are a great training aid, just like blood pressure and body fat levels.
By the way scientist can point to things a lot smaller than a single atom so
the person that wrote they can't needs to learn about a thing called research
instead of just babbling off at the mouth.
have good running everyone
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
George Beinhorn
scientifically speaking, garbage.
--
George Beinhorn
"How to Run Your First 50-Miler"
http://www.oceansofenergy.com
George Beinhorn
Parker, Jr.'s <Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot>. As for the
naysayers, they seem to be people of powerful...opinions.
George Beinhorn
Alt-M
Alt-S
;-)
Roger 2k
Jenn e fir wrote in message
>And, if the answer is that no one knows what the optimal training range is,
why
>then is a HRM useful except as an interesting toy ?
"Interesting toy?" I know that my 1970 Hemi Orange 'Cuda was sure an
"interesting toy" and if I'd kept that car it would have been worth a small
fortune now. I was always too afraid of someone stealing it with a tow
truck so I sold it.
When I owned that "interesting toy" it sure was a lot of fun. Sometimes it
could shift into third without squawking the tires.
Roger - God, I miss that "interesting toy." -
Jenn e fir
Ok Charles, don't take it personal but I'm thinking you've invested in a few
buck in these HRM thingies.
[snip]
<< I can tell you that I love training with my HRM. It
helps me slow down on my easy days, and It helps me keep a good pace. >>
Perhaps slowing down isn't the answer if you're doing it because a machine
tells you to.
<< Also if you don't like HRMs thats great, but your idiodic rants against them
are just as bad as the 220-age magic formula. >>
Then tell me where rants are wrong rather than wimply uh...simply, calling my
rants idiodic.
What science, or studies show that training within these mythical zones
improves the HRMed runner over the un-HRMed runner. At best, it seems an HRM
is a crutch at worst it's snake oil. Somehow, I'm unpersuaded by your "it good
because I say so" argument.
<< If you understand how they work
they are a great training aid, just like blood pressure and body fat levels.
>>
Ok, let's hypothesize that your blood pressure is 120/80 and you're 12% body
fat and your Max heart rate is 180. How's that HRM gonna help you ?
Answer: it'll tell you with reasonable accuracy how fast your heart is
beating. Now what? If it's faster than 80% of Max is that bad? Will you
ultimately race slower. If slower, is that bad? Based on whose science? And
which studies ? Find them. I can't.
Here's my numbers: 110/50-60, MHR of 170. How's that little Polar HRM thingie
gonna help me?
Mine are reasonable questions. My hypothesis is that all claims are made by
HRM manufacturers and thereby biased. My hypothesis is that the training
percentages (80% MHR, 50% MHR...) are wild ass guesses with little or no
clinical study support.
<< By the way scientist can point to things a lot smaller than a single atom >>
They can point in their general directions and measure where they've been but
can't see them. But certainly there's more science to the study of atomic
particles than to heart rate zone training (where generally there seems to be
NONE)
-------------
Jennifer - ...why just the other day I was dusting this pile of quarks off my
desk when, son of a gun, is that a proton?
Todd
insistance that there is no benefit to them. I thought I'd look up what
Jack Daniels, PhD says about them in his book "Daniels' Running Formula".
On page 74 of my copy of his book he says, "Heart rate monitoring can be of
benefit if the user understand its limitations and trains accordingly." He
then describes why under certain conditions, a heart rate monitor can be of
benefit, and then describes what he thinks is better than a heart rate
monitor, namely the concept of "perceived exertion scale". He concludes
that the best device you have is with you at all times, your head.
Contrary to what Jennifer says, I believe that Jack Daniels has done
considerable research on exercise physiology, and although he doesn't
completely endorse the use of a HRM, he also does not dismiss it as readily
as she does.
For those that rely heavily on a heart rate monitor for training, I think it
might be a good idea to look at what he has to say about them and the better
alternatives to an HRM.
My own conclusion is that an HRM can be a good interim training aid when
trying to learn about your own "perceived exertion scale".
Todd
Denny Anderson
-------------snip--------re: training w/HRM..........
>>My training progress and lack of injuries [proves], that I am
>>right, to use my heart rate as a training control device :-)
>
>No it doesn't prove dooley. I'm calling the Syllogism (or sillygism) police on
>this one. Look, your proof is no more accurate than if I stated that I wore
>white socks while running and because I only wear white socks I have no
>injuries and I've progressed.
>
>----------------
>Jennifer - Next after HRMs...Shoes that go BOING and Who are They Kidding?!
Who? The incredibly gullible?
I abandoned the HRM about 18 mos. ago. Now I (believe) am much more in
tune with reading what my body is telling me about effort. Tempo run -
nail it just by the breathing cycle required. 2% HR below LT -
marathon pace. Etc. I never take my pulse and I don't even care what
my max HR is anymore. Irrelevant.
Jenn -are you saying gadgets have a tendency to cut the user out of
the feedback loop, replacing biofeedback with a slavish devotion to
formulas of dubious worth. Well maybe not *exactly* that...but, you
know what I mean. Anyway, that's what I'm saying.
Kind of like people having trouble figgerin' a 15% tip w/out a
calculator. The atrophied "math corner of the brain" syndrome.
Denny - just run. IndyR would be proud of his convert.
Sanjay
Key Points
The heart-rate monitor changed training.
Over-reliance on heart rate is counterproductive.
Use LT to set training zones.
....., great benefits were possible. We learned how to improve recovery by
using the monitor to slow us down. It also taught us that more intense
workouts were area possible. The ' monitor not only allowed us to accurately
determine intensity, but also provided a way of measuring progress and
gauging effort in a long race such as the Ironman. At first the heart-rate
monitor was a "gee whiz" toy. It was fun to see what happened to heart rate
under varying conditions, but the numbers didn't really mean much. By the
late 1980s, some coaches and athletes were starting to get a handle on
effective ways of employing heart rate in training. Today nearly all multi
sport athletes have heart-rate monitors, and most are fairly sophisticated
in their use. As previously mentioned, the problem now is that heart
rate-based training has become so pervasive that athletes too often believe
that heart rate is the determining factor in how they train and race. Too
many have become slaves to their heart-rate monitors, and other skills for
measuring intensity are fading. Heart rate is but one window through which
we can peek into the exercising body. Relying on it to the exclusion of all
other measures of intensity can be as detrimental to your training as not
having any gauge of effort at all. On the other hand, when used
intelligently the heart-rate monitor can improve fitness and race
performance. Sometimes low motivation, high enthusiasm, competition, loss of
focus and poor judgment get in the way of smart training. At times like
these the heart-rate monitor is like having a coach along for the workout.
With a good working knowledge of heart rate and skill in using other
intensity measures, mixed with a little common sense resulting from
experience, a monitor can help determine if you're working too hard or not
hard enough, if recovery is complete and how fitness is progressing. Later
chapters will address these issues in detail. Just as with the other
measures of intensity discussed above, heart-rate training zones are best
tied to the standard of lactate threshold. Often maximum heart rate is used
for this, but that presents some problems. Attempting to achieve the highest
heart rate possible in a workout requires extremely high motivation - as in
a gun to the head. In addition, for some individuals, exercising at such an
intensity may not be safe. LT is also a better indicator of what the body is
experiencing, and is highly variable between athletes. For example, your LT
heart rate (LTHR) may occur at 85 percent of maximum heart rate while
another athlete's may happen at 92 percent. If both of you train at 90
percent of maximum, one is deeply anaerobic and working quite hard, but the
other is cruising along mostly aerobically. Percentages of maximum heart
rate just aren't as precise as basing zones on LTHR.
IanB
>
> I, for example, seem to be a heartrate freak of nature: max of 170, rate
> during a marathon 160-165, resting 58, training 125 - 170. What's the optimal?
> I haven't a clue and defy anyone to tell me otherwise.
>
May I ask how you know your heart rate hits 160-165 during a marathon?
And do you have any experience that says beyond 165 your pace becomes
unsustainable? Because I would have said that was pretty valuable
information. You could never bonk again.
IanB - said the Englishman to the American.
Doug Freese
Jenn e fir wrote:
> Jennifer - intuititively knew all along that Heart Rate Monitors sucked
If Indy was only here.....well not really. I'm surprised he
didn't try to find you at Beantown. He ran about 3:27 - just a hair
under the 8 minute pace where as we were all reminded,
you suck if you can't run under 8 min/mile. I guess
he will have to run still another marathon to re-qualify.
And all his 20 mile training runs were at the wee
7 minute pace. There is a great deal of sarcasm
weaved above. You would have to experience him...
--
Caveat Lector
Doug Freese
dfr...@hvc.rr.com
Jenn e fir
>May I ask how you know your heart rate hits 160-165 during a marathon?
Why with a Heartrate monitor!
I tried the HRM techniques for almost 6 months and concluded that the HRM was
(1) useless and (2) annoying. I concluded this after frustrating runs where
according to "IT" I was either too fast or too slow and I also ran 2 marathons
while wearing one. As I recall, during the 26.2 mile jog, my heartrate steadily
rose and maxed out somewhere toward 20 miles in the mid 160s.
>And do you have any experience that says beyond 165 your pace becomes
>unsustainable?
Several treadmill tests (4) have shown my Max heartrate at 170 while
registering a 61 vo2 max. From 165 to 170 is a very slow rise in HR. My
conclusions of this data are that I'm not very fast (leg speed) but am pretty
efficient.
----------------
Jennifer - a fitting epitaph: "she wasn't fast but was pretty efficient."
Mike Tennent
>(as if you didn't know where this was going)
>
>False. Heart rate formulas, maximum heart rate estimations, and the
>cardiac stress testing protocols and exercise protocols that all
>followed from the heart rate formula (220-age) are all make-believe,
>speculative at best.
No kidding. This is news? I thought we'd pretty well hashed that out
last year.
I guess it's time to re-post my "consensus" post on HRM's from a while
back. After the last "HRM War," I offered the following general
guidelines:
*** Start re-post***
For runners seeking to improve their performance:
1) Slavish devotion to them is stupid. Any program that advocates
slavish devotion to them is stupid. Anyone that slavishly obeys them
is stupid. Stupid training is stupid.
2) If you allow a HRM to limit your workouts, you will not improve
beyond a certain level, if at all. Hard work is the key to improving,
not attention to HR.
3) Before trying to monitor your workouts with them, you must know
what your actual MHR is, not work from a formula in a book.
4) New runners should keep them in the closet until they have gained a
"feel" for running and exertion levels.
5) Possible ways "intermediate" runners can use them:
a) To objectively gauge the intensity of workout levels and how that
correlates to the "feel" of the workout;
b) to objectively differentiate between levels of exertion;
c) To ensure their recovery runs are sufficiently easy
6) Possible ways experienced runners can use them:
a) To ensure their recovery runs are sufficiently easy;
b) To monitor threshold and other intense workouts to maintain
intensity.
The above points assume a desire to improve as a runner. If someone is
simply running for general fitness, weight loss, or zen buddhism, then
they aren't really applicable. For that group, I think you could
probably follow the programs provided with the things and make out OK.
** End re-post ***
A HRM doesn't do anything but tell you your heart rate at a given
point. What you do with that information, if anything, is up to you.
Don't blame the hammer if you hit your finger.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Ironman Canada '98
Great Floridian '99, '00
David Loaiza
True that the Max HR varies from person to person, and no runner should use the 220-age formula. This formula is empirical. Consequently, all runners should do a stress test before using the HRM. The stress test will give you your true Max HR. For example, my true Max HR is 203, but according to the formula it should be 190. Knowing your individual Max HR will allow you to calculate your different training zones (60%-70% for long runs, 80%-85% for tempo and so on).
Many people do not believe in training with a HRM, because they think they should run by pace/effort. I am not arguing that point, but you should keep on mind that running by pace is difficult since most course are not measured.
I have been training with a HRM for about 3 years. I live at high altitude, so there is no way I could train by pace. My body would just break down if I had to run my tempo runs at (5:50-6:00) pace, but by training with a HRM at my tempo zone allows me to accomplish the same thing.
My times have improve nicely. I ran my first marathon in 1997 in 3:45. Last year I ran the marathon in 2:48 and the half-marathon in 1:16. In my opinion, HRM can be a valuable tool if used appropriately.
DavidL.
Jenn e fir wrote:
You know that is a good point. In fact, my heart rate max is somewhere around
170 (based on experience + treadmill tests). That's waaaay below where it's
'supposed' to be according to the silly assed formulas and HRM literature.
I've also discovered from experience, that I can maintain 160 per minute for a
long, long time.
Once again, each person is unique. Who'd a thunk it?
Since now we know that runners are unique, and heart rate varies widely,
perhaps now we know that the primary reason to purchase a HRM is love of
gadetry. Because certainly if heart rate varies significantly from individual
to individual then certainly the 'optimum' training heart rate also varies.
--------------
Daniel Pierre-Antoine
What I get from this has more to do with life philosophy than any hard
reality. And if that's the case, then it's pointless to debate it. You
just can't debate with different paradigms (worldviews, Weltenshauung,
etc.) 'cause you're operating from completely different standpoints.
I must say that I think MHR and zones *do* matter and the HRM useful at
least initially to get a sense of how each HR feels (perceived exertion,
etc.). As for the idea that it's theoretical, I'm sorry but I don't
accept that. I know full well the limits of statistical analyses and
other measurements (heck, even the solid rocket boosters of the space
shuttle are based on error: theoretical gas expansion after combustion
is based on "the perfect gas law"--not sure if this is the English
phrase for it anyway--which does not apply in the real world, and yet it
takes off and does ok. BTW the accident in the '80s had nothing to do
with that law). But, really, I have *never ever* gone past 191bpm since
I've been running. Not even when I was dying out there on the road or
the track however hard I tried to push. To me, that's not theoretical.
Now it might change over time, hence the reason to test it regularly.
Re: the determination of MHR, most of the discussion, it seems, has been
about the 220-minus-age very general guideline (and variations thereof)
VS. the MHR as determined empirically for each individual.
In terms of individual empirical determination of MHR, there have been
some non-lab methods suggested to determine it (running up a hill, laps
on track, etc.)
Finally, there's the formal stress test performed in a lab.
MY QUESTION: has anyone here done both the on-the-road (or on-the-track)
test AND the lab stress test? If so, was there a difference in the
figure reached in the two settings? What was it?
Many thanks,
Daniel
--
===========================
Daniel Pierre-Antoine
Dept. of Political Science
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6
dpan...@ccs.carleton.ca
===========================
Daniel Pierre-Antoine
What I get from this has more to do with life philosophy than any hard
Many thanks,
Daniel
--
Denny Anderson
>
>
>Jenn e fir wrote:
>
>> Jennifer - intuititively knew all along that Heart Rate Monitors sucked
>
>If Indy was only here.....well not really. I'm surprised he
>didn't try to find you at Beantown. He ran about 3:27 - just a hair
>under the 8 minute pace where as we were all reminded,
>you suck if you can't run under 8 min/mile. I guess
Remember it was hot, then hilly and windy. Everyone suffered. He
probably could have broken 3:22 [what's the penalty for using an
emoticon?].
>he will have to run still another marathon to re-qualify.
>And all his 20 mile training runs were at the wee
>7 minute pace. There is a great deal of sarcasm
>weaved above. You would have to experience him...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Done that. Pass on a repeat.
Denny
Denny Anderson
'Preciate the re-post. Could save a few thou' posts to this thread.
Denny
Mike Tennent <wbru...@gate.net> wrote:
........JS wrote.............
Sam
you can start to figure out training intensities.
"Jenn e fir" <jenn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010425111439...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: True/False: Heart Rate Formula based on Science...
> >From: David Forbes
>
> >At last: proof that I was right in ignoring my heart rate.
> >But also glad that measuring how fast your pulse rate recovers is
> >useful, so I haven't been wasting my time doing that.
> >Since I have saved $200+ on not buying a HRM, I shall go out and buy
> >some new shoes.
> >
>
> You know that is a good point. In fact, my heart rate max is somewhere
around
> 170 (based on experience + treadmill tests). That's waaaay below where
it's
> 'supposed' to be according to the silly assed formulas and HRM literature.
> I've also discovered from experience, that I can maintain 160 per minute
for a
> long, long time.
>
> Once again, each person is unique. Who'd a thunk it?
>
> Since now we know that runners are unique, and heart rate varies widely,
> perhaps now we know that the primary reason to purchase a HRM is love of
> gadetry. Because certainly if heart rate varies significantly from
individual
> to individual then certainly the 'optimum' training heart rate also
varies.
>
> --------------
Josh Steinberg
> A lot of very knowledgeable people have pointed out that the NY Times was,
> scientifically speaking, garbage.
What knowledgeable people? Which science was garbage? The NY Times piece
was not science, it was actually journalism telling a story about society,
flimsy ideas, and how society embraced flimsy ideas and ran with them.
There's little science in the article, except the parts about what is and
isn't really reconciled about heart rate science. What really predominates
in the article is history -- the story of how a very weakly scientific
observation got misappropriated into both cardiac diagnostic stress testing
and the exercise industry.
Please clarify your assertions.
-- Josh Steinberg MD, Syracuse
Sam
not take much time.
"David Forbes" <dfo...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE6F1B7...@tamu.edu...
> Women's intuition - what a wonderful thing :) :)
> Have no idea what my max heart rate is and don't give a ****, but not
> opposed to gadgetry. Would like a more accurate measure of my distances
> for example, but too cheap to buy a GPS and too lazy to go and walk the
> courses. But not too lazy to run them - a curious dichotomy.
Sam
relationship becomes less linear.
Using Heart rate reserve gives an even more direct relationship so that 70%
VO2max = 70% HRR. You could read the scientific literature or even get a
treadmill test done where your oxygen consumption is measured along with HR
and see for yourself.
The trick is figuring out what workout to do to optimize a given energy
system or neuromuscular reaction.
So you think that you cannot determine a person's speed or HRR at any given
point or VO2? This is not the Heisenberg principle at work. Those are all
discrete measures that do not change with observation, as in the Heisenberg
situation.
"Jenn e fir" <jenn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010425131428...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: True/False: Heart Rate Formula based on Science...
> >From: po...@home.terminal.dk (Povl H. Pedersen)
>
> [snip]
>
> >The optimal training speed for some purpose is related to % VO2 max,
> >and % VO2max = % of HRR. There is science on that.
>
> That's a recitation that reminds me of quantum physics or perhaps
religion.
>
> We know there's a [optimal training speed, God, atomic particle ]; there's
[
> science, faith, science ] on that point.
>
> So show [the optimal pace, God, an electron] to me! Well, things begin to
> break down at that point. A preacher can't point to God, nor the
scientist a
> single atom, nor the coach an "optimal" training heartrate.
>
> We have no objective clue what any one person's optimal (whatever that
means)
> training speed, or VO2 max or therefore % of HRR is at a particular
moment.
> Certainly, your objective piece of equipment (i.e. your HRM) is
interesting
> but likely irrelevant.
>
> ---------------
> Jennifer - if it's improvement you seek, you'd be as well off carrying a
chain
> saw while running.
>
Sam
"Povl H. Pedersen" <po...@home.terminal.dk> wrote in message
news:slrn9eebo...@home.terminal.dk...
> On 25 Apr 2001 17:14:28 GMT,
> Jenn e fir <jenn...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: True/False: Heart Rate Formula based on Science...
> >>From: po...@home.terminal.dk (Povl H. Pedersen)
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>The optimal training speed for some purpose is related to % VO2 max,
> >>and % VO2max = % of HRR. There is science on that.
> >
> >That's a recitation that reminds me of quantum physics or perhaps
religion.
> >
> >We know there's a [optimal training speed, God, atomic particle ];
there's [
> >science, faith, science ] on that point.
> >
> >So show [the optimal pace, God, an electron] to me! Well, things begin
to
> >break down at that point. A preacher can't point to God, nor the
scientist a
> >single atom, nor the coach an "optimal" training heartrate.
> >
> >We have no objective clue what any one person's optimal (whatever that
means)
> >training speed, or VO2 max or therefore % of HRR is at a particular
moment.
> >Certainly, your objective piece of equipment (i.e. your HRM) is
interesting
> >but likely irrelevant.
>
> void. It did in no way argue against training based on a persons REAL
> HRmax.
>
> based on the max I have seen + a little. That means that for me, 1% of
> HRR = (195 - 40) / 100 = 155/100 = 1.55.
>
> Looking in the books, it seems that for most athletes there are some
> VO2 max percentges that have different benefits, and there if you look
> at the %VO2max that is sustainable it is say 73-77% for a 4 hour
> marathon. I did my only marathon with a HR around 163 most of the time
> (didn't look at HR during run), and this equals 79% of my HRR.
>
> So I have found out, that either I am not following the relationship
> between %HRR and %VO2max that good, or there is something wrong with
> my HRR calculation. It is some months, and many miles where my speed
> and endurance has improved, since I checked my resting HR, so it might
> have changed, influencing the data.
>
> I am now also able to run at heart rates that I couldn't run at before.
> So my lactic treshold has been moved up. Maybe my VO2max (which is
> geneticly determined and can only be moved 5-10%) has been improved. I
> think so, as lost weight in form of fat will give you fewer kg's
> to distribute the O2 on.
>
One can improve VO2max by upwards of 50% depending on where one
starts. A well-trained person can probably get maybe 5%. The Aussies have
done some testing with national team cyclists and found an improvement of
3-5% in VO2max over the course of a training season. Of course this is
barely outside biological and machine differences.
> My HR recovery rate has improved a lot. My 2 min recovery usually brings
> the HR down to 85-90 bpm, no matter if it was 150 or 180 when I stopped,
> and I usually have it below 100 in 60 secs.
>
> --
> Povl H. Pedersen - Please send unsolicited advertising to
ab...@whitehouse.gov
> Position: N 56 09 37 - E 010 12 29
Sam
so while cycling and have run innumerable road races, I can speak for this
one: my maxHR in the lab was just a couple of beats lower than my
competition peak HR. This is pretty normal;; I also have conducted
hundreds of VO2max tests on athletes of all abilities and they report the
same sort of finding. Every now and then I get someone who says they have
never seen his/her HR as high in competition as in the lab, but this could
be that when you are in the heat of competition one does not check HR (I
have used downloadable HRMs to avoid this issue).
"Daniel Pierre-Antoine" <dpan...@ccs.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:3AE84486...@ccs.carleton.ca...
Sam
"Jenn e fir" <jenn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010425152007...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: True/False: Heart Rate Formula based on Science...
>
> [snip]
>
> >While the max HR of everybody is genetically determined, does not
> >reflect any fitness level, is nearly not influenced by training and
> >seems to drop a bit with age, it makes totally sense, to measure the
> >max HR in an appropriate max HR test and to design a HR based training
> >plan, based on the measured value.
>
> It makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> "...design a HR based training plan" is techno babble for "I bought a $200
> gadget and I say it works."
>
> Max heart rates vary, optimal training rates vary, resting heart rates
vary,
> rates that glycogen is spent varies, height varies, weight varies, stride
> length varies, very many variables vary.
>
> >>Then it's definitaly a good idea,
> to use a HR monitor as a gauge, to ensure, that you train at a proper
> level.>>
>
> Again with the "optimal" and "proper." Those 2 words are meaningless in
this
> context. With so very much variability why on earth would you take this
hunk
> of techno gadetry, strap it to your chest, set a mythical range which
somehow
> magically IS the GOLDEN OPTIMUM SUPERDUPER HEARTRATE to ACHIEVE RUNNING
NERVANA
> ? Because,you, nor anyone else knows what their "optimal" or "proper"
> heartrate is. Remember? Experiment of One? I challenge you to show us
ONE
> single study that perports to establish a single proper or optimal
training
> rate based on Max Heart Rate that is applicable to all individuals.
>
> I, for example, seem to be a heartrate freak of nature: max of 170, rate
> during a marathon 160-165, resting 58, training 125 - 170. What's the
optimal?
> I haven't a clue and defy anyone to tell me otherwise.
>
with cardiac drift, who knows.
> I mean, isn't it reasonable to accept that your Max HR is unique at say
200
> (and knowable) and your optimal training pulse rate is simply unknowable
> because of the many variables?
>
> And if the optimal is unknowable why buy the techno-gadget ? There's one
> answer. It's a cool techno-gadet with buttons, and read-outs, and
LED...bells,
> whistles...
>
> But back to the point, the Great coaches set out training schedules with
many
> variation: Fast, slow, long, short, hills, sprints, strides. Training at
high
> HR, 80% MHR, 50% MHR....They knew and know that there's no optimal
heartrate,
> no optimal training speed. It's the variation and lots of it makes the
great
> runners.
>
You seem to have shot yourself in the foot here by noting that great
coaches use HR. I have yet to see anyone say that a person should train at
ONE HR. On the contrary, you train at different intensities and HR is a way
to measure intensity.
Sam
more since measuring it on a bike is within his means.
"Jenn e fir" <jenn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010425224627...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
IanB
>
> I tried the HRM techniques for almost 6 months and concluded that the HRM was
> (1) useless and (2) annoying.
May I suggest that it was the way you were using it that was useless and
annoying.
> according to "IT" I was either too fast or too slow
I have yet to see a HRM that displays velocity. You run at whatever pace
you desire, the HRM tells you how fast your heart has to beat to keep
you alive.
> As I recall, during the 26.2 mile jog, my heartrate steadily
> rose and maxed out somewhere toward 20 miles in the mid 160s.
I say again, knowing that a heartrate above 165 is unsustainable is
surely a valuable piece of knowledge. Especially during the first 20
miles of a marathon.
> Several treadmill tests (4) have shown my Max heartrate at 170 while
> registering a 61 vo2 max. From 165 to 170 is a very slow rise in HR. My
> conclusions of this data are that I'm not very fast (leg speed) but am pretty
> efficient.
I too have a very low heartrate compared to those I train with and many
in this group. I know from empirical evidence that low 170s is
sustainable, high 170s is a struggle and the few occasions I've seen 180
it has signalled the beginning of the end. Regardless of my true MHR or
any %ages there of, this information at least lets me know if I am
feeling crap for a reason.
IanB - usually feeling crap because I'm too slow.
Robert H. Diday, Jr.
that runners connected to digital devices, like "a patient etherized
upon a table", implies. Perhaps Jen enjoys the Zen-like aspects of
running more than the measurements A type personalities desire. (I'm
certainly guilty of being the latter.)
Frankly, I'd like to be able to separate myself from the
self-absorption inherent in time, distance, maxHRM, etc., but am an
utterly helpless victim of my lifelong vices. This is where Ozzie
should enter stage left to some transcendental music and offer some
folk wisdom, or is that magic? :)
-Robert
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:38:54 -0600, "Sam" <marat...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Daniel Pierre-Antoine
couldn't reach the same level, simply because I can run as fast on a
treadmill as on the road. I've tried running fast on a treadmill but I
fall down! I guess increasing the grade to x% would do the thing without
the leg speed that cuases me to lose balance.
Sam
Statistically speaking just as many people should be below as above when one
takes a large enough population sample.
"Robert H. Diday, Jr." <rdi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:h08eet8oa9vj7o4q0...@4ax.com...
> Josh:
>
> Great post! Very funny, too. I've known for over 20 years that the
> data couldn't be right because no one I trained with who had a heart
> rate monitor had a maxHR at their predicted max. Everyone seemed to be
> over it, and most of them were guys in their 30's, 40's, and 50's.
> Contrary to what one of the doctors below says, I know NO, as in ZERO,
> runners who have a maxHR below their predicted max using the old
> formula. Perhaps someone here has such a number, and if so, I'd like
> to see it just for its "recreational" value. :)
>
> -Robert
>
Sam
that leg speed and danger become an issue.
"Daniel Pierre-Antoine" <dpan...@ccs.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:3AE9AD38...@ccs.carleton.ca...
Robert H. Diday, Jr.
Are you saying that is the case using the old formula? (220-age) I
thought we agreed that formula isn't accurate inasmuch as the test
subjects were mostly basket cases. :)
Can you name one top runner with a low maxHR using the old formula?
How did you find these people with lower than predicted maxHRs? What
formula are you saying accurately predicts maxHR and has a population
study to support it?
Fascinating subject and I thoroughly enjoyed your explication of % of
HRR and % of VO2Reserve.
Best Regards,
Robert
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:37:57 -0600, "Sam" <marat...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Sam
> Sam:
> Are you saying that is the case using the old formula? (220-age) I
> thought we agreed that formula isn't accurate inasmuch as the test
> subjects were mostly basket cases. :)
>
> Can you name one top runner with a low maxHR using the old formula?
>
No. I stated that I had seen very fit (my definition would be >60
ml/kg/min) with a lower than predicted MaxHR.
> How did you find these people with lower than predicted maxHRs? What
> formula are you saying accurately predicts maxHR and has a population
> study to support it?
>
I did not "find" these people. They came to the lab I worked in
during grad school where we did VO2max and stress testing. In the case of
VO2max testing, there are several criteria for "max" and sometimes the
person would hit them all except predicted MaxHR (based on the flawed
220-age).
I do not think any formula can accurately predict much of anything
for an individual. ACSM publishes formulae to predict oxygen consumption at
a given velocity and grade; however, very fit or elite runners who are more
economical actually expend less oxygen at a given intensity. The formulae
can be useful in estimating energy expenditure but without knowing how much
oxygen a person actually consumes by testing that person, you cannot
absolutely say that runner X uses X ml/kg/min while running at a given
intensity.