|Are there advantages to having a higher max heart rate?||surf|
Jan 23, 2002 8:03 AM
|Are there advantages to having a higher max heart rate? What does a high or low max rate tell you. Also, what does a low resting heart rate tell you beyond the obvious. I'm 28 with a max about 185 (give or take a few, I have only measured it 1 time) and a resting at 42. I thought the max was a bit low, thanks for any insight.|
|Real basic Cardio notions. Get to know yourself...||tempeteKerouak|
Jan 23, 2002 8:28 AM
|Your low heart rate will be your measure of form. Taken with regularity, it will inform you when you need more rest. Consider it your personnal form indicator. It will take many months, if not a year or two to "know" how it goes... Having a rest HR of 42 is really good, in theory... But some athlete do well with much higer rest HR. There's no norm on this. It's nice to keep track of how long it takes for your heart to go back to "normal" after effort.
The maximum heart rate is a measure of effort. By training your heart to repeatedly work at lenght at this difficult rate, your heart will get used to it. You eventually can measure the time you can spend at effort and increase it, or control it. It helps you "dose" the effort.
There is no advantage what so ever in the numbers themselves. You have to get to know yourself by giving those number SOME attention. But it's not all... I've trained some athletes who where basically using the HR as an excuse not to "do more" and a mental excuse to avoid pain... Some international athletes train without this equipment.
In short, it's the time spent between your rest HR and the max HR that counts. How long do you need to warm up before an event? How do you train so you maximise air intake, energy combustion and speed (aérobie)? How hard can you go for intensity resistance training (80% of the max) all the while avoiding falling into oxygen debt? How hard and how long do you push it before blowing up... That's what happens between the low hr and the max hr.
Your MAX HR is not "low" but is it really your max, or a simple pain limit? The nuance is very pale, but there is one. Regular and adapted training will probably increase your capacity (that's what it's for!!!) Anyway, that "give or take a few" can go all the way to 200, I tell you.
Do you have goals? Get the info, get a HR monitor, read on it. Get some supervision?
Or just enjoy riding.
All bikes are equal.
Some have a better engine.
|In swimming we never concentrated on max or resting HR.||Alex-in-Evanston|
Jan 23, 2002 9:13 AM
|We measured our HR often (with our fingers and a clock), but mostly to determine recovery time.
We did what was called the lactic acid test. 8x100 on the 8 minute, race pace. After each sprint we would measure how long it took to return to a base HR, which was measured as your HR after an easy 2000yd warm up. If I recall correctly, my base was around 90.
We charted our decrease in speed from 1-8, and our increase in recovery time. I would imagine this type of recovery-based training would be important for road or track racing. A 40 lap points race has about 15 max sprints.
I suppose I'm really wondering if highest max HR and lowest resting HR are more important indicators of racing success than recovery time between a max HR and a tempo pace.
Anyway, just an idea.
|Dude...you are full of crap||Ted the Horseman|
Jan 23, 2002 9:16 AM
"The maximum heart rate is a measure of effort. By training your heart to repeatedly work at lenght at this difficult rate, your heart will get used to it. You eventually can measure the time you can spend at effort and increase it, or control it. It helps you "dose" the effort."
What is this supposed to mean? You NEVER train at MHR! It is a measure of the max your heart can beat. You train at a percentage of this. Less for endurance training and higher for intervals. Also you give the impression you want to train at high HR all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth. You want to do about 80% of your time in endurance zone--maybe 65-80% of max. Intervals should only be done after you build a good aerobic base or you will get hurt or burned out. The only thing intervals work on is increasing your anerobic/lactic threshold so you can get closer to redline without blowing.
|Ever heard of sprint training?||Tig|
Jan 23, 2002 10:10 AM
|In sprint training you give 100% effort and may hit or approach max HR. There are many different combinations of sprint time vs recovery times, and gearing choices. Sure, this is something a non-racer wouldn't need to include in their training program, but a crit, road, or track racer should if they want to build up their sprint power and not blow up so easily. LT intervals alone won't do it!|
|Dude? Keep reading. You'll get better at it.||tempeteKerouak|
Jan 23, 2002 10:19 AM
|Look, sorry for the imprecision, but I did write these were basic infos. Not precise guidance for training.
I personnaly train for long distance events: (I have 15+ competing years experience in cross-country ski, triathlon, road and mountain biking) using three "zones"; 55-65% of max, 80% and 90-100%)
I tend to start my intervalles (say, 6 minutes effort, 3 minutes rest X 4 per block) at 60% of my max HR (132) and raise up to 175 with a push towards the 185 in the last minutes If it can go once to 190, the better). So yes, I train at max effort; sometimes. Yes I also train at Long Slow Distance rate at 60% blablabla.
On the other hand, what you say is true and I think mostly the same. You actually complete well the information I did post. Yes, I agree the high HR intervalles are there exactly for increasing the lactic threshold, and incidentally may increase the max effort measured.
No, I don't think it is relevent for a beginner to get into these details of "lactic acid", and optimum HR % to train. Basic knowledge.
Say for example that you do a season of base training, then you measure your max HR. So then you set your intervalle training to 90% of your max. Is it really? If you never go to you max, you never realised the limit has been pushed and you are now training at 80%. You train like a wimp.
Sorry I jump at your insults like that, but i don't see the least bit of "crap" in my answer.
Be a gentleman Ted.
|learn to write coherently||Ted the Horseman|
Jan 23, 2002 12:59 PM
|Frankly I still don't know what you are talking about. All I'm saying is you NEVER train AT your MHR...you can probably last 4-5 seconds there if it's your true MHR. no need to train that hard. Do some reading. Joe Friel's Cyclist's bible...pretty much anything states that 80+% of your training is in endurance. Maybe 1-2 times hard intervals a week max if you're a racer with lots of recovery. The "no pain no gain" thing went out of style in the 80s. Train smarter not harder. That isn't to say training should be easy, but killing yourself everyday will only hurt you.|
Jan 24, 2002 1:20 AM
|Frankly, Ted, in your haste to diss the poster, you did no more than display your own superficial knowledge. So you read a bit of Friel - well done!!
First premise tho, is that the training pyramid has an apex - your MHR for that particular discipline. And yes, you DO train AT MHR, but in proportion to time spent in the rest of your zones. At no time reading the previous poster did I get the impression he was advocating 'no pain no gain'.
Oh, and don't forget - the FASTEST AVERAGE SPEED for Paris-Roubaix was set by Peter Post in 1965 in a race that had hail, rain, mud and more cobbles than the parcourse today -long before all this indispensible latter-day HR nonsense and right about in the middle of what you suppose was the 'no pain no gain' era. Do you, for one, think it was only after the 'discovery' of HR training in the 80's that cyclists managed to perform?
|Read Burke's Precision Heart Rate Training||ColnagoFE|
Jan 23, 2002 9:04 AM
|Get a good book. Should show you all you need to know. How did you measure your MHR? Anything other than a drs office is just a good guess in my opinion. 185 is not all that high for a 28 year old--neither is 42 all that low. Max HR is mainly genetic and doesn't really tell you much about your potential. More telling is your heart rate reserve--or the diff betweeen max and resting. As you get more fit your resting HR should get a bit lower.|
|Read Burke's Precision Heart Rate Training||surf|
Jan 23, 2002 9:18 AM
|That's what I'm saying, I thought the max was LOW. Not a big deal, i just training for local comps, no pro aspirations obviously. It was measured in a Doc's office during a vo2-max test (free with my job). So it should be reasonably accurate but afterwards i thought i could go a bit harder if I had eaten (couldn't eat for 12 hours leading up to the blood work portion). Anyways, it's just a curiosity question, i only have about 6-10 hours a week to train. |
|Jury says "no"||grzy|
Jan 23, 2002 9:30 AM
|Your HR characteristics are as individual as the rest of your body. Just b/c some ones maximum is at 205 and another is at 150 doesn't mean that one is in better shape. Some people's motors rev higher and some rev lower and there isn't much you can do to change it. As conditioning improves you get faster/stronger for your given parameters. What you can work on is getting you resting HR down and how quickly you can bring your HR up and back down. |
Realize that what you are calling maximum probably isn't the true "max". What you need to know is your ultimate HR and then work off of percentages of your ultimate - be it 90%, 80% or whatever your plan you're following. The 220 minus your age is just a very rough rule of thumb - it's best to determine your ultimate via a stress test done by a doc. Using the formula my ultimate should be at 180 with 85% at 153. In reality I typically run a sustained 175 to 180. The el cheapo alternative is to set a treadmill for 5 or 6 minute miles with random hills (or something similarly unsustainable) and run your buns off until you blow. This isn't as scientific and it is not without some risk nor is it really advised. Having a low resting HR is typically a good thing, but if it gets to low you can also have trouble (had a buddy witha 36 HR who used to pass out at his desk from time to time).
|Jury says "no"||OldEdScott|
Jan 23, 2002 10:55 AM
|And if you choke on a pretzel with a very low heart rate, you can pass out too.|
|re: Are there advantages to having a higher max heart rate?||theBreeze|
Jan 23, 2002 12:29 PM
|Max HR is determined mostly by age and genetics. You can't train to increase your max HR any more than you can train to be taller. Performance is a function of lactic threshold and recovery time. In other words; How much work can you put out before you crack into that anaerobic zone? And then how quickly can you recover from a high or max effort? Training CAN increase your lactic threshold by making your cardiovascular and muscular systems more efficient at delivering and taking up O2 and fuel, and dumping metabolic waste. That is why good training programs stress a solid aerobic base. Interval training then works to raise the lactic threshold. By the way, interval training can be 100%, maximum effort, or slightly lower. The higher the effort level, the longer rest times you need between efforts, that's all.
|Mmmm, yes, but. isn't there some subjectivity...||tempeteKerouak|
Jan 23, 2002 1:46 PM
|"increasing" the max HR (or the impossibility of) is highly suggestive. The measure itself, is.
Here is what I find on Google:http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm
Calculation of Maximum Heart Rate
«The easiest and best known method to calculate your maximum heart rate (MHR) is to use the formula 220-age. A paper by Londeree and Moeschberger from the University of Missouri-Columbia indicates that the MHR varies mostly with age, but the relationship is not a linear one. They suggest an alternative formula of 206.3 - (0.711 * age). Similarly, Miller et al from Indiana University propose the formula 217- (0.85 * age) as a suitable formula to calculate MHR.
Londeree and Moeschberger also looked at other variables to see if they had any effect on the MHR. They found that neither sex or race make any difference but *******they did find that the MHR was effected by the activity and levels of fitness.******
Studies have shown that MHR on a treadmill is consistently 5-6 beats higher than on a bicycle ergometer and 2-3 beats higher on a rowing ergometer. Heart rates while swimming are significantly lower, around 14 bpm, than for treadmill running. Elite endurance athletes and moderately trained individuals will have a MHR 3 or 4 beats slower than a sedentary individual. It was also found that well trained over 50s are likely to have a higher MHR than that which is average for their age.»
See what I mean? Max HR can change. It does with age and fitness. The same individual can ameliorate the fitness level and DECREASE the rest-hr/AMELIORATE fitness and make the heart stronger, thus able to beat at a higher rate.
In my case, after a long period off training, I started building my base, made a measure (180 maxhr) that I now, months after, can regularily override. I get to 190. Max HR has increased. (I use a Polar)
|read subjective in the message... (nm)||tempeteKerouak|
Jan 23, 2002 1:48 PM
|sport specific||Ted the Horseman|
Jan 23, 2002 2:20 PM
|MHR can be somewhat sport specific. Runners will generally be able to generate a higher heart rate than cyclists as more muscles are recruited. Still there is a true MHR...if you reached 190 but thought it was 180 then you were wrong about it being 180--it was really 190 (or maybe more) and you just didn't work hard enough to get it there. 220-age is crap. usually is way off from true MHR. It is based on sedentary individuals. if you're active there's no reason why your MHR should drop a beat a year. It does decrease with age--just not that much if you stay active.|| |