When do you start to worry about HR?
Comments
-
Imposter wrote:diy wrote:The reason for asking, is that if you have a high resting HR and slow recovery, then you will maintain a higher avg - simple maths.
Not aware of anything which supports that assertion at all, unless you can clarify.
my bold.
Imagine data points every 10s for 2 minute ramped warm up.
subject 1 : RHR 70 MHR 170, subject 2: RHR 40 MHR 170
both subject start from their normal HR.. Subject 1 will be laying data points from at least 70+ up to the max, subject 2 will be laying data points from at least 40 up to their max. If subject 1 has a slower recovery rate they will also be laying more data points with higher numbers than subject 2. At no point will subject 1 lay data points below 70. that is what I meant by simple maths. Subject 2 would have to sustain a work out at a higher level to achieve the same avg as subject 1.
I'm not arguing that people with lower resting HR are some how fitter than people who don't. As its not relevant. However, it would appear to be a fact: http://heart.bmj.com/content/99/12/882. ... 8f95c5b36b0 -
diy wrote:Imposter wrote:diy wrote:The reason for asking, is that if you have a high resting HR and slow recovery, then you will maintain a higher avg - simple maths.
Not aware of anything which supports that assertion at all, unless you can clarify.
my bold.
Imagine data points every 10s for 2 minute ramped warm up.
subject 1 : RHR 70 MHR 170, subject 2: RHR 40 MHR 170
both subject start from their normal HR.. Subject 1 will be laying data points from at least 70+ up to the max, subject 2 will be laying data points from at least 40 up to their max. If subject 1 has a slower recovery rate they will also be laying more data points with higher numbers than subject 2. At no point will subject 1 lay data points below 70. that is what I meant by simple maths. Subject 2 would have to sustain a work out at a higher level to achieve the same avg as subject 1.
I'm not arguing that people with lower resting HR are some how fitter than people who don't. As its not relevant. However, it would appear to be a fact: http://heart.bmj.com/content/99/12/882. ... 8f95c5b36b
Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the logical fallacy of RHR being relevant, when it really isn't. I don't know of any training regime which requires riders to begin their session from a resting state. Assuming you have warmed up on the bike first (and if not, why not), then RHR is utterly meaningless - in fact it becomes utterly meaningless from the moment you get out of bed and start to walk around.
It already goes without saying that if you are better trained, your HR will recover better/quicker. It is also reasonable that lower RHR may be indicative of a trained CV system. But the way you keep trying to incorporate RHR into some 'simple maths' training example shows that you don't really understand the issue.0 -
I agree RHR is not relevant, nor is starting HR. What is likely to be important is your ability to perform at a lower HR to give you a low average. So someone with a low RHR who immediately rises to 120+ when he starts to pedal is likely to have a higher average than someone who takes several minutes to reach the same HR.
Looking at it mathematically.
The graph of my HR over an hour shows that it quickly increases during warm up and will plateau when the effort is fairly constant. There will be blips during any HI Intervals. At the end the recovery is fairly quick.
So I spend a very short time at a low HR (but higher than RHR) to start, a long time (with blips) at a (much) higher HR during the session then a short time whilst my HR drops towards RHR.
The biggest influence on average is the length of the session and your ability to keep a lower HR during the sustained effort.0
