Differences in Max Heartrate
Wright1234
the method of exercise this morning as described in SERIOUS Training for
Endurance Athletes, a training book by Rob Sleamaker and Ray Browning. I am a
bit confused as to the results of this test though, hopefully someone can help
me understand them better. I also have the results of a max heartrate test
that I performed on the ergometer. The results of my two tests seem to be
consistent. My difficulty in understanding things is in what my max heartrate
is, based on these two tests, and what it should be based on my age. I know
that the 220-age formula is not highly accurate, but according to it my max
should be around 198 bpm. According to the results of the two tests, my max
heartrate is 179 bpm. This seems like a substantial difference between what
the formula says and what it actually is. My teammate performed only the
running test today, he has not done the erg test yet. He is less than 1 year
younger than I, and his max heartrate, as determined by the test is 204 bpm.
He is a bit smaller than I am, no more than 10 lbs, and very close to the same
height. We both completed the mile run which was the test within 1 second of
each other, and our heartrates were over 20 beats apart at the max. His was
actually higher than my max during the entire run. So we came in within on
second of each other, yet our heartrates were substantially different. To add
more confusion to the mix, our 2k erg times are very different, mine is more
than 30 seconds faster than his. I cannot make sense of any of these numbers,
especially as mine relate to his. Does my lower heartrate mean I am in worse
condition, or is it merely a physiological difference unrelated to fitness
levels and training. I know it is a lot to ask of someone to try and decipher
this, but I am very interested in understanding it more. Thanks in advance.
josh
freakshow
The lower erg score you have is in direct correlation to two things:
1) Your substantially lower MHR thus indicating a higher VO2 Max and in turn
your erg score.
2) You may row and use the erg a fair bit, whereas your friend may have
little or no erg experience.
You must remember that the 220-Age example is for UNTRAINED individuals.
I dont think Steve Redgrave for example would have his MHR anywhere near the
220 formula...he would barely break a sweat and hes nearly 40.
Physiologically speaking, the fitter you are the stronger your heart gets as
a result of training (it is a muscle like any other, and when it is stressed
constructively, it grows) and therefore contracts more forcefully each beat,
pumping more blood per beat around the body for the same effect. Thus, the
higher level of fitness you acheive, the lower your MAXHR will be, and also,
your resting pulse
(not uncommon for example to see elite cylcists and rowers recording resting
pulses of sub 30 b.p.m for a few days before world championships) A good
corollary here is the ave, resting heart rate for men is widely accepted to
be about 65 b.p.m...again a significant difference to trained individuals,
showing how the 220 formula is really targeted as well at the majority
rather than the trained.
As for your friend only being a second apart in running...could be a few
things...he might just be a better runner than you are, he might run more
than he rows, he might have better stride than you, he physiologically may
be a better runner than erger. Who knows...
One thing is for sure...to all and sundry, all things being equal if you are
the same age, train the same amount going into these tests and arent that
much different physically, well you are definitely very much fitter in
ROWING than you are in RUNNING, that much is clear....to keep things as
simple as possible, your low MHR is definitely no cause for concern, rather,
one for congratulation. Keep up the good work
Freak.
Wright1234 <wrigh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000423135830...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
freakshow
Im sorry to be so blunt, but to say that training doesnt lower your max hr
is absolutely ridiculous....
please don't talk out of your ass on a fourm where a great many of the
people on it have been guinea pigs in Sports Institute tests and world
championship level competitors...
If you want to talk about physiology...go ahead...but make sure you know
what you're talking about....cause if you dont i will cream you with
literature and science to prove my point.
I seem to remember you making a fuss not long ago here on rsr about your
heart rate "jumping' to 220 physically when its just a hr monitor problem,
this somewhat destroys your credibility
please dont mis-advise peeople
Freewheeling <talk...@bigfoottail.com> wrote in message
news:n5SM4.182697$_G1.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>Freakshow:
>
>Re: "Thus, the
>higher level of fitness you acheive, the lower your MAXHR will be, and
also,
>your resting pulse
>(not uncommon for example to see elite cylcists and rowers recording
resting
>pulses of sub 30 b.p.m for a few days before world championships)"
>
>You are confusing maximum heart rate with VO2 Max. There is no training
>effect for maximum heart rate. With a new exercise you won't be able to
>reach your highest potential heart rate for awhile, but I think that's a
>matter of muscular coordination in that sport. As a rule maximum heart
rate
>is highly individual and does not change with training, but goes down with
>age. Your VO2 Max, as a percentage of maximum heart rate, *will increase*
>with training, so that you will be able to maintain a particular heart rate
>for a longer duration. I'm not sure what the relationship between maximum
>heart rate and performance is, but we used to figure that a lower resting
>heart rate went with endurance races... and a lower resting heart rate
>(which *is* effected by training within a certain range) may be correlated
>with maximum HR to some extent. Anyway, the difference between Josh and
his
>friend is just a matter of genetic endowment and clearly doesn't correlate
>with performance in those sports. It wouldn't make much difference whether
>Josh trained every day, or ate burgers and sat around at the beach, his
>maximum for each of those sports would stay about the same. He'd just get
>really crappy times. I don't think it's unusual at all for two people the
>same age to have MaxHRs that are 25 beats different. My roommate is 20
>years younger than me, and has a maximum heart rate that's 10 beats lower
>for cycling. I'm faster than he is, but only because he sits around on his
>duff.
>--
>-Scott Talkington
>freewh...@bigfoottail.com
>Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
>
>freakshow <secur...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
>news:3903...@queen.ans.com.au...
Freewheeling
scu...@xtra.co.nz
secur...@zdnetonebox.com wrote on 24/4/00 2:05 PM:
> Are you a complete idiot????
>
> Im sorry to be so blunt, but to say that training doesnt lower your max hr
> is absolutely ridiculous....
>
> please don't talk out of your ass on a fourm where a great many of the
> people on it have been guinea pigs in Sports Institute tests and world
> championship level competitors...
>
> If you want to talk about physiology...go ahead...but make sure you know
> what you're talking about....cause if you dont i will cream you with
> literature and science to prove my point.
>
> I seem to remember you making a fuss not long ago here on rsr about your
> heart rate "jumping' to 220 physically when its just a hr monitor problem,
> this somewhat destroys your credibility
>
> please dont mis-advise peeople
>
>
With out being quite as blunt about it as Mr Freakshow, I can say that there
have been studies that show that in people who have untrained HRmax values
exceeding 180 beats per minute, HRmax might be slightly reduced following
training. Also, highly trained and conditioned endurance athletes tend to
have lower HRmax values than untrained individuals of the same age.
It is thought that when a decrease occurs, it is probably to allow for
optimum stroke volume to maximise cardiac output.
Anu Dudhia
Well, in these matters, I probably am, but it seems that a measure of "fitness"
(in terms of just the heart muscle) ought to be the ratio of max/min heart
rates rather than the max or min in isolation, ie the factor by which your
heart can increase its output from what it takes to keep you alive at rest.
Eg If your MHR is 200 and your resting pulse is 50 (factor 4) I would have
thought that equivalent to someone whose MHR is 160 and resting pulse 40 (also
factor 4), less fit than someone with 200/40 (factor 5) and more fit than
someone with 180/60 (factor 3).
Maarten Heckman
news:3903...@queen.ans.com.au...
> Are you kidding??? you're very lucky
>
> The lower erg score you have is in direct correlation to two things:
> 1) Your substantially lower MHR thus indicating a higher VO2 Max and in
turn
> your erg score.
Max. heartrate becomes slightly lower for a well trained person. There is no
correlation between lower MHR and higher VO2 Max. This is the dummest I ever
read.
> 2) You may row and use the erg a fair bit, whereas your friend may have
> little or no erg experience.
>
> You must remember that the 220-Age example is for UNTRAINED individuals.
True
> I dont think Steve Redgrave for example would have his MHR anywhere near
the
> 220 formula...he would barely break a sweat and hes nearly 40.
>
> Physiologically speaking, the fitter you are the stronger your heart gets
as
> a result of training (it is a muscle like any other, and when it is
stressed
> constructively, it grows) and therefore contracts more forcefully each
beat,
> pumping more blood per beat around the body for the same effect.
Don't forget that the volume of the heart chambers increases too.
> Thus, the
> higher level of fitness you acheive, the lower your MAXHR will be, and
also,
> your resting pulse
Show me the literature. No disagreement about the lower resting heartrate,
but a significant lowering of the MHR is completely new to me. I never
experienced it myself - and I did experience a resting heartrate of 32. I
never found anything in literature other than "the max. heartrate of a
well-trained athlete stays the same or gets SLIGHTLY lower. And I found
ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE that MHR can be used as an indicator of fitness or VO2
Max, or whatever.
Maarten Heckman
>
> Im sorry to be so blunt, but to say that training doesnt lower your max hr
> is absolutely ridiculous....
Prove it, otherwise you are the idiot.
> please don't talk out of your ass on a fourm where a great many of the
> people on it have been guinea pigs in Sports Institute tests and world
> championship level competitors...
>
> If you want to talk about physiology...go ahead...but make sure you know
> what you're talking about....cause if you dont i will cream you with
> literature and science to prove my point.
Go ahead, please.
> I seem to remember you making a fuss not long ago here on rsr about your
> heart rate "jumping' to 220 physically when its just a hr monitor problem,
> this somewhat destroys your credibility
>
> please dont mis-advise peeople
Yes, but who is mis-advising????
Jeremy Fagan
>
> Im sorry to be so blunt, but to say that training doesnt lower your max hr
> is absolutely ridiculous....
There's a subtle, and yet important difference between bluntness and just
plain rudeness...
>
> If you want to talk about physiology...go ahead...but make sure you know
> what you're talking about....cause if you dont i will cream you with
> literature and science to prove my point.
Please go ahead and 'cream us' with literature and science, rather than just
shouting your views as loudly as you can at us.
> please dont mis-advise peeople
Yes....
Perhaps if we knew your name, we might respect your opinions rather more.
'Freakshow' hardly inspires confidence in your scientific ability.
Jeremy
Jonas Lind
I've been measuring my HR since I started preparing for marathon 2.5 years
ago. My running max was around 205 (I'm 24), and my bicycling max around
195. Although I'm now in far better shape now, than before, my max HR has
neither decreased or increased. And that's a fact. I'm not even close to
elite-level, but I'm in better shape than 90% of the male danish population
between 18-35. And I was probably around 50-60% when I started 2 years ago.
When I'm running with my friend who's an Ironman competitor, and who's
physiology closer resembles a steam-locomotive than a human being, I'm like
25bpm above him, almost all the time. His max is around 180 (age 29), and
has never been above 190 since he started competing on elite-level some 8
years ago.
jonas
freakshow <secur...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:3903...@queen.ans.com.au...
Freewheeling
Well, I'm not an expert on sports medicine so am merely repeating what has
become common wisdom. If maximum heart rate for a particular sport varies
much with training this is the first I've ever heard of it. It's always
possible that there's been new research in this area, and I'm willing to
learn. To be honest I haven't read anything for a few years. There are a
few other aspects of your understanding of the human heart that puzzle me as
well, though I'm pretty sure there's not much about it in the sports
literature. Well, maybe TV wrestling. You've gathered a crowd now, so I
hope you're a showman. Let's see those citations, if you please.
--
-Scott Talkington, Ph.D.
Freewheeling
and I was rather clear that it was probably not a monitor malfunction and
was probably not interference either. I may have misunderstood the
physiology of why this might happen... but that's why I asked the question.
I believe, based on the numerous responses, that it was probably an
inadvertently induced "Valsalva." There was another fellow who had a heart
rate jump to 220, as I recall, but didn't pay as much attention to that
thread as I should have. It was about a month ago. I believe it was
determined that such jumps can be benign.
BTW, I'm sure I could learn a great deal from you... about how to vocalize
through various anatomical orifices without giving any clues as to which one
is behind the noise.
freakshow
some material...
Yes, heart rates are in part genetically different and thus varied, but is
anyone truly suggesting that serious training does not:
1) Increase the muscularity of the heart (in particular the left ventricle)
2) Which in turn = more forceful contractions
3) Has the effect of pumping MORE oxygenated blood around the body per beat
4) And thus, decreasing your MAXIMUM heart rate due to the lower relative
'stress'
I'm sure I can dig up some results from Australian INstitute of Sport
Physiologists which indicate this over VO2 Max tests and AT tests over the
period of a season.
The point of what I'm getting across is that the body is making a
physiological adaptation to stress by increasing the 'power' of the heart,
and further along the chain, increases its effectiveness by reducing its
maximum.
I got frustrated because it seemed that Scott was saying that training hard
will not produce any cardiovascular adaptation, which is just plain wrong.
Present a stimulus, and the body responds. Simple as that.
Anyone claim to refute that?
I never said MHR was an indication of your fitness per se, I believe VO2
covers that quite nicely. All i was disputing was the above point.
Sorry if I sounded rude...in hindsight it was probably a little harsh, but
then again my army of ex-pat East German coaches usually give us such
tirades, so I tend to pass them off on to others
My apologies if I caused offence.
Will get the techie physiology articles (or publish links where possible)
ASAP for you all.
Maarten Heckman <m.he...@nospam.worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:8e1288$37c$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
>freakshow <secur...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
>news:3903...@queen.ans.com.au...
>> Are you kidding??? you're very lucky
>>
>> The lower erg score you have is in direct correlation to two things:
>> 1) Your substantially lower MHR thus indicating a higher VO2 Max and in
>turn
>> your erg score.
>
>Max. heartrate becomes slightly lower for a well trained person. There is
no
>correlation between lower MHR and higher VO2 Max. This is the dummest I
ever
>read.
>
>> 2) You may row and use the erg a fair bit, whereas your friend may have
>> little or no erg experience.
>>
>> You must remember that the 220-Age example is for UNTRAINED individuals.
>
>True
>
>> I dont think Steve Redgrave for example would have his MHR anywhere near
>the
>> 220 formula...he would barely break a sweat and hes nearly 40.
>>
>> Physiologically speaking, the fitter you are the stronger your heart gets
>as
>> a result of training (it is a muscle like any other, and when it is
>stressed
>> constructively, it grows) and therefore contracts more forcefully each
>beat,
>> pumping more blood per beat around the body for the same effect.
>
>Don't forget that the volume of the heart chambers increases too.
>
>> Thus, the
>> higher level of fitness you acheive, the lower your MAXHR will be, and
>also,
>> your resting pulse
>
>Show me the literature. No disagreement about the lower resting heartrate,
>but a significant lowering of the MHR is completely new to me. I never
>experienced it myself - and I did experience a resting heartrate of 32. I
>never found anything in literature other than "the max. heartrate of a
>well-trained athlete stays the same or gets SLIGHTLY lower. And I found
>ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE that MHR can be used as an indicator of fitness or VO2
>Max, or whatever.
>
Maarten Heckman
> OK folks...give me a day to check my references and I'll come back with
> some material...
>
> Yes, heart rates are in part genetically different and thus varied, but is
> anyone truly suggesting that serious training does not:
>
> 1) Increase the muscularity of the heart (in particular the left
ventricle)
> 2) Which in turn = more forceful contractions
> 3) Has the effect of pumping MORE oxygenated blood around the body per
beat
> 4) And thus, decreasing your MAXIMUM heart rate due to the lower relative
> 'stress'
It is 4) And thus..... where you suggest logic, but I cannot find any.
Maximum heartrate is about coping with maximum stress. The only thing I can
imagine is that a heavier heartmuscle and bigger stroke volume, make it
harder to reach the same maximum frequency as a lighter heart. But then
again, I never experienced or read about a significant reduction of the max
heartrate as a result of training.
So I am very curious as to what you come up with. Always nice to learn new
things.
> I'm sure I can dig up some results from Australian INstitute of Sport
> Physiologists which indicate this over VO2 Max tests and AT tests over the
> period of a season.
>
> The point of what I'm getting across is that the body is making a
> physiological adaptation to stress by increasing the 'power' of the
heart,
> and further along the chain, increases its effectiveness by reducing its
> maximum.
>
> I got frustrated because it seemed that Scott was saying that training
hard
> will not produce any cardiovascular adaptation, which is just plain wrong.
> Present a stimulus, and the body responds. Simple as that.
>
> Anyone claim to refute that?
>
> I never said MHR was an indication of your fitness per se, I believe VO2
> covers that quite nicely. All i was disputing was the above point.
You wrote in your first posting:
> 1) Your substantially lower MHR thus indicating a higher VO2 Max and
> in turn your erg score.
Contradiction?!
> Sorry if I sounded rude...in hindsight it was probably a little harsh, but
> then again my army of ex-pat East German coaches usually give us such
> tirades, so I tend to pass them off on to others
>
> My apologies if I caused offence.
>
> Will get the techie physiology articles (or publish links where possible)
> ASAP for you all.
Is it posible that other result improving methods of some of the ex-pat East
German coaches influence the heartrate ;) ?
Maarten
Freewheeling
Re: "I got frustrated because it seemed that Scott was saying that training
hard
will not produce any cardiovascular adaptation, which is just plain wrong."
What I'm disputing, for the sake of argument, is that the cardiovascular
adaptation takes the form of reduced maximum heart rate. It certainly
hasn't in my case, and I can probably beat you in a 100 mile bike race.
There are some indeterminacies when it comes to maximum heart rate, and I've
always thought that there was a hint of dogma about the notion that it can
vary from sport to sport, but not over time (other than the age
correlation). Perhaps they're breaking down the dogma. But, I still need
to see some real empirical verification. After all, I don't see why maximum
heart rate is necessarily correlated with capacity, as your analogy
suggests. The increase pumping capacity takes the form of increased VO2
max. The pump is more efficient. As a counter argument, why would a more
efficient pump need make any change in it's maximum rpm? Why wouldn't it
just keep the same maximum, or even increase it?
Does maximum heart rate go up as you increase muscle mass? Or, is it just a
function of the percentage of muscle mass involved in a particular exercise?
In my experience a new form of exercise seems to result in a very low heart
rate and difficulty in getting the rate up to expected levels. As the
muscles become more coordinated, and probably also increase in mass, the
ability to get the heart rate up seems to increase rather dramatically for
awhile. I don't know the literature on this, but have seen this effect time
after time as people transition from regular upright to recumbent bikes. It
usually takes about three months to get to heart rates that are more
"normal." This seems to be related to muscle mass in some way, but I don't
really know how. And, of course, it's going in the *opposite* direction
from your conjectures. As people become more adept their ability to achieve
a higher heart rate goes up, but eventually plateaus at about the same level
they achieve in similar activities.
I still maintain that a MHR difference of 25 or 30 beats for people of the
same age and in the same condition is not remarkable.
--
-Scott Talkington
freewh...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
freakshow <secur...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:3904...@queen.ans.com.au...
> OK folks...give me a day to check my references and I'll come back with
> some material...
>
> Yes, heart rates are in part genetically different and thus varied, but is
> anyone truly suggesting that serious training does not:
>
> 1) Increase the muscularity of the heart (in particular the left
ventricle)
> 2) Which in turn = more forceful contractions
> 3) Has the effect of pumping MORE oxygenated blood around the body per
beat
> 4) And thus, decreasing your MAXIMUM heart rate due to the lower relative
> 'stress'
>
> I'm sure I can dig up some results from Australian INstitute of Sport
> Physiologists which indicate this over VO2 Max tests and AT tests over the
> period of a season.
>
> The point of what I'm getting across is that the body is making a
> physiological adaptation to stress by increasing the 'power' of the
heart,
> and further along the chain, increases its effectiveness by reducing its
> maximum.
>
> I got frustrated because it seemed that Scott was saying that training
hard
> will not produce any cardiovascular adaptation, which is just plain wrong.
> Present a stimulus, and the body responds. Simple as that.
>
> Anyone claim to refute that?
>
> I never said MHR was an indication of your fitness per se, I believe VO2
> covers that quite nicely. All i was disputing was the above point.
>
> Sorry if I sounded rude...in hindsight it was probably a little harsh, but
> then again my army of ex-pat East German coaches usually give us such
> tirades, so I tend to pass them off on to others
>
> My apologies if I caused offence.
>
> Will get the techie physiology articles (or publish links where possible)
> ASAP for you all.
>
> Maarten Heckman <m.he...@nospam.worldonline.nl> wrote in message
> news:8e1288$37c$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
> >freakshow <secur...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
> >news:3903...@queen.ans.com.au...
> >> Are you kidding??? you're very lucky
> >>
> >> The lower erg score you have is in direct correlation to two things:
> >> 1) Your substantially lower MHR thus indicating a higher VO2 Max and in
> >turn
> >> your erg score.
> >
Freewheeling
"I got frustrated because it seemed that Scott was saying that training hard
will not produce any cardiovascular adaptation, which is just plain wrong."
I guess the natural question is, how did they control for selection bias? A
panel study would be more convincing. Anyway, I don't suppose that the
magnitude of the adjustment is anywhere near 30 beats is it? Still, it's
comforting to think that I can now blame a reduction in MHR on the fact that
I'm so well conditioned, rather than the fact that I'm growing hair in my
ears.
--
-Scott Talkington
freewh...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
<scu...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:B52A5CE9.2C8E%scu...@xtra.co.nz...
> in article 3903...@queen.ans.com.au, freakshow at
> secur...@zdnetonebox.com wrote on 24/4/00 2:05 PM:
>
> > Are you a complete idiot????
> >
> > Im sorry to be so blunt, but to say that training doesnt lower your max
hr
> > is absolutely ridiculous....
> >
> > please don't talk out of your ass on a fourm where a great many of the
> > people on it have been guinea pigs in Sports Institute tests and world
> > championship level competitors...
> >
> > If you want to talk about physiology...go ahead...but make sure you know
> > what you're talking about....cause if you dont i will cream you with
> > literature and science to prove my point.
> >
> > I seem to remember you making a fuss not long ago here on rsr about your
> > heart rate "jumping' to 220 physically when its just a hr monitor
problem,
> > this somewhat destroys your credibility
> >
> > please dont mis-advise peeople
> >
> >
>
Freewheeling
"Also, highly trained and conditioned endurance athletes tend to
have lower HRmax values than untrained individuals of the same age."
--
-Scott Talkington
freewh...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
<scu...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:B52A5CE9.2C8E%scu...@xtra.co.nz...
> in article 3903...@queen.ans.com.au, freakshow at
> secur...@zdnetonebox.com wrote on 24/4/00 2:05 PM:
>
> > Are you a complete idiot????
> >
> > Im sorry to be so blunt, but to say that training doesnt lower your max
hr
> > is absolutely ridiculous....
> >
> > please don't talk out of your ass on a fourm where a great many of the
> > people on it have been guinea pigs in Sports Institute tests and world
> > championship level competitors...
> >
> > If you want to talk about physiology...go ahead...but make sure you know
> > what you're talking about....cause if you dont i will cream you with
> > literature and science to prove my point.
> >
> > I seem to remember you making a fuss not long ago here on rsr about your
> > heart rate "jumping' to 220 physically when its just a hr monitor
problem,
> > this somewhat destroys your credibility
> >
> > please dont mis-advise peeople
> >
> >
>
John Mulholland
Doing an endurance test on a Concept II (equivalent to a beep test) his peak
speed was only a little off mine (1:45 vs. 1:35) but his anaerobic threshold
(AT) was some way off (2:15 vs. 1:50). His heart rate was over 180 (age
53), mine was 168 (age 47). This indicates that I have better aerobic
fitness but need some strength training (my muscles could not pull any
harder). Even after he had passed his AT, he still had reserves of muscle
strength to draw on.
John Mulholland
Hexham Rowing Club
Andy and Abbe Lynch
four. Personally, everything I've read and been taught has said that max
heartrate does not significantly change with fitness, other than a slight
decrease in max, which seems to jibe with the understanding of most of the
others posting in this thread. But I try to be open minded. Please enlighten
me. And if you can't find what you were looking for or if you do and realize
you read it wrong, please be gracious enough to admit it.
Andy
freakshow <secur...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:3904...@queen.ans.com.au...
> OK folks...give me a day to check my references and I'll come back with
> some material...
>
> Yes, heart rates are in part genetically different and thus varied, but is
> anyone truly suggesting that serious training does not:
>
> 1) Increase the muscularity of the heart (in particular the left
ventricle)
> 2) Which in turn = more forceful contractions
> 3) Has the effect of pumping MORE oxygenated blood around the body per
beat
> 4) And thus, decreasing your MAXIMUM heart rate due to the lower relative
> 'stress'
>
> I'm sure I can dig up some results from Australian INstitute of Sport
> Physiologists which indicate this over VO2 Max tests and AT tests over the
> period of a season.
>
> The point of what I'm getting across is that the body is making a
> physiological adaptation to stress by increasing the 'power' of the
heart,
> and further along the chain, increases its effectiveness by reducing its
> maximum.
>
> I got frustrated because it seemed that Scott was saying that training
hard
> will not produce any cardiovascular adaptation, which is just plain wrong.
Kenneth Burres
Perhaps it is the terminology...
You can increase your max HR with training, your VO2 max is so-called genetic
and can only be increased 10 - 15% with training. VO2 max and max HR have some
similarities but are different for sure
--
Ken Burres MD
CEO
FitCentric Technology, Inc
Developers of UltraCOACH and Cardiodrome Software
ke...@interfit-tech.com
http://www.interfit-tech.com
Interactive Software for Fitness Machines,
heart rate monitors, and training.
Free downloads at the website!
Freewheeling
Huh? Now Max HR goes *up* with training? I guess what we need is a guru.
I think the concept that Max HR is more or less fixed for a particular sport
is accurate, although I gather that it can drop by a few percent. I'm
willing to accept your figures about VO2 Max, but argue that this would not
be a minor change. There are cyclists with VO2 Max that's 95% of their
maximum heart rate and I'm pretty sure that's not where they started. Most
people start at around 80% of Max so I guess increasing that to 95% of max
(which would be a 19% increase, or 15/80) is a whopping change! Those guys
train 'til their noses bleed. The payoff is to be able to cycle 100 miles
at an average pace over rolling terrain on an unfaired bicycle at 30+ mph,
which is almost superhuman. Not only that, but they do it almost every day
for three weeks!
I'm willing to defer to anyone who can show me literature that indicates the
possibility of altering Max HR very much (up or down), but from everything
I've read so far a large change would be in the same category as reversing
the aging process. Well, we should at least decide which direction this
change is going. Are there any sports gurus out there?
--
-Scott Talkington
freewh...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
Kenneth Burres <k...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:390A3EEB...@ix.netcom.com...
Silver Fox
which ultimately brings on latic acid in the muscles which in turn
interferes with the muscles which then prevent max heart rate being
achieved. In other words its better to find another test to measure
fitness such as AT point and monitor it over a period of training.
The anomaly you see is simply latic acid interfering with the results.
Silver Fox
Adriaan Koster
Andy and Abbe Lynch <anal...@erols.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
8ed2qe$1qi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Alright freak, where's your literature? You asked for a day and it been
> four.
Shall we lynch him? Shall we??
A3aan.
R.P.Collings
> news:3904...@queen.ans.com.au...
> > OK folks...give me a day to check my references and I'll come back with
> > some material...
> >
> > Yes, heart rates are in part genetically different and thus varied, but is
> > anyone truly suggesting that serious training does not:
> >
> > 1) Increase the muscularity of the heart (in particular the left
> ventricle)
> > 2) Which in turn = more forceful contractions
> > 3) Has the effect of pumping MORE oxygenated blood around the body per
> beat
> > 4) And thus, decreasing your MAXIMUM heart rate due to the lower relative
> > 'stress'
> >
Or, your heart can keep pumping just as quick and get more clood around
the body - not overly useful aerobically, but anaerobically (like
anywhere near MHR) it is a benefit. Your cardiac output drops when you
approach MHR anyway, since the heart is doing incomplete compressions.
Rob.
PS You've had over a week now...
Maier's
working at a slower rate than your friends,yet you have the same speed
or org score, you're heart is working more efficiently. I don't know
why your max heart rate is low. But it seems to me you have a more
efficeint system than your friend.
Nathan