heart rate

[G-dub]

Ahh yes Citroen, your point must have gotten lost within the style of your posting. I suppose that it is worth repeating over and over, as you do, that 220-age doesn't mean anything- especially since books and articles still mention it and others try to make up variations on the formula and they put it on fitness machines and etc.

[Bob S.]

I just thought we were having fun showing that there is no rhyme or reason to the 220 - age formula. I don't care what people's heart rates are and never thought of it as a predictor of performance. It's amazing how riled up people get over some of this stuff.

That's exactly what I was getting at. It's not just 220-age that's 100% wrong, all of those formulae have no value for science or training. If you want to find a maxHR go and do the four minute step test until it hurts.

Yes - they were agreeing with you all along, but you didn't see it that way. Lighten up!

[Rowan McSheen]

Age 55
Resting hr - low 40s

Since we're on about heart rate, maybe someone smarter than me can answer this: is max hr max hr regardless, and if so does that mean that aerobic/anaerobic threshold is the same regardless? Or are they sport-specific?

The highest hr I've seen on the erg is 165 but I've seen 175 when running. So which should I use for calculating hr bands for rowing? Is Vo2max what it is regardless of activity? I wonder how others' max hrs for the two disciplines vary, if at all.

I've always thought that you'll get the highest value from running because it's impact, against gravity and using the biggest limbs. But maybe erging is equal from engaging the trunk and arms more?

[G-dub]

Age 55
Resting hr - low 40s

Since we're on about heart rate, maybe someone smarter than me can answer this: is max hr max hr regardless, and if so does that mean that aerobic/anaerobic threshold is the same regardless? Or are they sport-specific?

The highest hr I've seen on the erg is 165 but I've seen 175 when running. So which should I use for calculating hr bands for rowing? Is Vo2max what it is regardless of activity? I wonder how others' max hrs for the two disciplines vary, if at all.

I've always thought that you'll get the highest value from running because it's impact, against gravity and using the biggest limbs. But maybe erging is equal from engaging the trunk and arms more?

I have always read that it is sport specific and that is my experience too.

[sekitori]

What really shows fitness is VO2 max.

I think we've stablished a couple of things in this discussion. The first is that one's maximum heart rate is meaningless. The second is that your VO2 max is supposedly the gold standard when determining physical condition. However, it may not be all that accurate.

The Concept 2 formula for VO2 max considers body weight, sex, training level, and best 2K time--that's all. Take for example two rowers, A and B. A is a 30 year old male who weighs 160 pounds and has a best 2K time of 7:30. Since he is not an elite rower, he is considered to be "Not highly trained". His estimated VO2 max, according to C2's calculations, is 54.11.That's considered to be "Good" and close to "Excellent" on most of the charts. Rower B happens to be 85 years old with the same numbers as rower A, except his best time 2K time is 2 1/2 minutes slower, 10:00. Based on C'2's formula, his VO2 max is 23.29. On some charts I've seen, his age adjusted score is considered to be below average. In fact, the highest age group shown on many of these charts is "60+". I assume they figure than when people get much older than that, their VO2 max doesn't really matter that much.

However, the 85 year old can also continue to steadily pull 2K's at a pace about a minute slower than his best for well over an hour and show no ill effects whatsoever. That seems kind of impressive to me but despite that fact, is his physical condition based on VO2 still considered to be only average or even a little below?

And where does heart recovery rate after exercise come in when determining physical condition? Physically fit people are known to have faster recovery rates than those who are not fit. The so-called formula is taking your pulse based on your heart rate at the end of exercise, resting for one minute, and taking it again. Your recovery rate is supposedly the difference between the two heart rates divided by ten. It's four if your exercise heart rate is 120 and your recovery heart rate is 80. Your physical condition is outstanding if your recovery rate number is above six, excellent if the number is between four and six, good if the number is three to four, fair if the number is two to three, and poor if the number is less than two.

In that case, let's refer to rowers A and B again. They both reach 150 beats per minute after exercise. One minute later, 30 year old A's pulse rate is 105, a drop of 45 beats per minute. That's considered to be in the excellent range. But after one minute, 85 year old B's rate has dropped to just below 90, over 60 beats lower, and that's considered to be outstanding, no matter what one's age is. But because his VO2 max is not very high, is he still considered to be in only average or slightly below average shape?

In other words, I don't believe fitness can be determined by only one criterion. It consists of several elements. If anyone knows how all these elements are interrelated, I am very interested in knowing more. Personal opinions and conjecture can be perfectly okay but they don't take the place of receiving facts from well-informed individuals. If someone is knowledgeable about exercise physiology, I would like to hear from him or her about this subject.

[Carl Watts]

In that case, let's refer to rowers A and B again. They both reach 150 beats per minute after exercise. One minute later, 30 year old A's pulse rate is 105, a drop of 45 beats per minute. That's considered to be in the excellent range. But after one minute, 85 year old B's rate has dropped to just below 90, over 60 beats lower, and that's considered to be outstanding, no matter what one's age is. But because his VO2 max is not very high, is he still considered to be in only average or slightly below average shape?

Yep but what pace is the 30 year old vs the 85 year old to achieve 150 bpm ?

My Girlfriend's heartrate pretty much tracks mine during a 30 minute row and her recovery is even similar, problem is I'm going 1:58 r18 and she is going 2:30 r23 to get a similar heartrate, so again heartrate is pretty specific to you and you only. When you start doing any form of analysis you use your own heartrate right ? no point looking at other peoples. If you train hard its going to change over time to the best you can be.

[Tim K.]

Ahh yes Citroen, your point must have gotten lost within the style of your posting. I suppose that it is worth repeating over and over, as you do, that 220-age doesn't mean anything- especially since books and articles still mention it and others try to make up variations on the formula and they put it on fitness machines and etc.

Please be careful with your criticisms. It appears that there is a pretty fine line you dont want to cross or your posts get removed and threatened with a lifetime ban.

[Citroen]

Please be careful with your criticisms. It appears that there is a pretty fine line you dont want to cross or your posts get removed and threatened with a lifetime ban.

Only if you call people trolls. Because that's plainly rude.

[hjs]

Please be careful with your criticisms. It appears that there is a pretty fine line you dont want to cross or your posts get removed and threatened with a lifetime ban.

Only if you call people trolls. Because that's plainly rude.

Nay, Doug is sometimes tough, but you have to be really messing things up before you get a ban.

If you use arguments in a way, you can say almost anything, and so it should be.

[Tim K.]

Please be careful with your criticisms. It appears that there is a pretty fine line you dont want to cross or your posts get removed and threatened with a lifetime ban.

Only if you call people trolls. Because that's plainly rude.

I never called you or anyone a troll.

I asked you what you got out of littering a threads with post after post in threads you feel are dumb or unnecessary. These threads could be valuable to some to demonstrate in a real world tangible way to some existing and new members but once they are discouraged from posting by being called braggarts and full of trash posts the whole thread become worthless. Go back and look at the "rowpro down" thread. you kept telling people to stop "bleating on here and call them". Its a forum. Thats what its for. Just because you have the world figured out doesnt mean the rest of us do and it would be nice to for the rest of us dummys to have a chance to discuss it, thats why we are here. Not to get berated and insulted.

I then included a link, completely separate from anything else, to the urban dictionaries definition of troll. If you thought I was completely off base you would have beat me to death on the forum so it must have struck a cord.

Throw my post back up and let the community judge, if I was wrong and crossed the line you have my sincere apologies but based on the amount of push back you get from a lot of posts I have seen in one week registered here I doubt there are too many who will disagree.

[gregsmith01748]

Please be careful with your criticisms. It appears that there is a pretty fine line you dont want to cross or your posts get removed and threatened with a lifetime ban.

Only if you call people trolls. Because that's plainly rude.

But calling people braggers and w***ers, that's plainly acceptable.