Educate me on Heart rates?
Comments
-
It only goes down against your own max HR, so if I started at 190 and improved fitness it would go down to say 186.
For my HR I use a Polar M450, initially I used a Scosche Rhythm with this but it was pretty useless when I was MTBing so I switched to a Polar chest strap, before that I used a Sigma with a chest strap, but they all come up with the same figures.
Both the Sigma and Polar use the 220 - age if you don't put in your own figures, under this formula my max would be where I have my zone 3 using a 5 zones.Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"0 -
Presupposes sinus rhythm.....FFS! Harden up and grow a pair
0 -
Max heart rate doesn't go down with improved fitness , your average h/r over a set distance and similar intensity will with improved fitness. It does reduce with age as has been pointed out.0
-
The following page is one example that says max HR does go down with improved fitness:Webboo wrote:Max heart rate doesn't go down with improved fitness
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/06/ma ... tness.html0 -
A modest drop in HRmax is not an uncommon response to improved fitness, especially when compared with a relatively untrained or unfit state.Webboo wrote:Max heart rate doesn't go down with improved fitness , your average h/r over a set distance and similar intensity will with improved fitness. It does reduce with age as has been pointed out.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.216 ... 9010-000020 -
As someone who is medically trained, but by no means an expert in hearts, I feel I should point out the following:
As you get fitter, your heart becomes more efficient, it pumps more blood (oxygen) per beat, aka stroke volume.
This value can't be measured in a very straight forward fashion short of a scan, I guess theoretically you can derive it in various ways via FTP and so on...
Max heart rate probably doesn't matter all that much, but as previously mentioned, a speedier recovery is a better indicator for fitness.
So in answer to your original question:
1. If you mean resting heart rate, then almost undoubtedly yes. Most endurance athletes rest at below 60bpm, with irregular rhythms (as they have a high nerve input into slowing the heart down, which messes with rhythm).
2. I've no idea if max HR is "suppose" to increase or decrease as you get fitter, I wouldn't be surprised if it depends on the individual. This is probably one of the arguments for why power is a better training tool than HR, as it is a better measurement of your fitness, which essentially is your oxygen carrying and utilisation capacity as well as your power efficiency.0 -
Yes, cardiac output is a variable that's somewhat more useful than HR, although knowing even that still is of limited value. It's measurable via echocardiogram. Knowing your power isn't going to tell you about SV/cardiac output.Drshoe wrote:As someone who is medically trained, but by no means an expert in hearts, I feel I should point out the following:
As you get fitter, your heart becomes more efficient, it pumps more blood (oxygen) per beat, aka stroke volume.
This value can't be measured in a very straight forward fashion short of a scan, I guess theoretically you can derive it in various ways via FTP and so on...
Max heart rate probably doesn't matter all that much, but as previously mentioned, a speedier recovery is a better indicator for fitness.
So in answer to your original question:
1. If you mean resting heart rate, then almost undoubtedly yes. Most endurance athletes rest at below 60bpm, with irregular rhythms (as they have a high nerve input into slowing the heart down, which messes with rhythm).
2. I've no idea if max HR is "suppose" to increase or decrease as you get fitter, I wouldn't be surprised if it depends on the individual. This is probably one of the arguments for why power is a better training tool than HR, as it is a better measurement of your fitness, which essentially is your oxygen carrying and utilisation capacity as well as your power efficiency.
O2 carrying and utilisation capacity is a measure of cardiovascular fitness, however that's insufficient as a measure of fitness. We know this since VO2max is not a particularly good predictor of cycling performance (beyond being a broad indicator).
Power output (over durations of relevance) is the only measure of fitness that matters.
Sustainable power output is a function and integral expression of:
i. cardiovascular fitness (as measured by VO2max),
ii. gross efficiency (energy delivered to cranks and a proportion of energy metabolised) and
iii. fractional utilsation of VO2max at threshold (be it lactate threshold or any of the various threshold measures it doesn't matter all that much since they are all inter related).
HR does not appear anywhere in the above, for good reason.0 -
As power output seems to be the only measure that matters these days, I'm surprised they don't have pro bike races now where the winner is the rider who produces the highest average power, irrespective of time and speed!Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Power output (over durations of relevance) is the only measure of fitness that matters.0 -
Think about what you just said...ForumNewbie wrote:As power output seems to be the only measure that matters these days, I'm surprised they don't have pro bike races now where the winner is the rider who produces the highest average power, irrespective of time and speed!0 -
My thinking was that the cyclist who wins a bike race is not necessarily the one that produces the highest average power, if he/she has ridden smarter within the bunch or protected by his/her team for most of the race, or has a more aero bike, clothing and/or riding position than others. Is that not the case?Imposter wrote:
Think about what you just said...ForumNewbie wrote:As power output seems to be the only measure that matters these days, I'm surprised they don't have pro bike races now where the winner is the rider who produces the highest average power, irrespective of time and speed!0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:Imposter wrote:
Think about what you just said...ForumNewbie wrote:As power output seems to be the only measure that matters these days, I'm surprised they don't have pro bike races now where the winner is the rider who produces the highest average power, irrespective of time and speed!
My thinking was that the cyclist who wins a bike race is not necessarily the one that produces the highest average power, if he/she has ridden smarter within the bunch or protected by his/her team for most of the race, or has a more aero bike, clothing and/or riding position than others. Is that not the case?
Yes, and of course, just by being lighter would mean he/she could need less power to beat a heavier rider over a hilly course.0 -
I said fitness, not performance.ForumNewbie wrote:
As power output seems to be the only measure that matters these days, I'm surprised they don't have pro bike races now where the winner is the rider who produces the highest average power, irrespective of time and speed!Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Power output (over durations of relevance) is the only measure of fitness that matters.0
