What can HR monitors really measure ?? (Suunto T6)

[LJWagner]

Back on the subject of the Suunto T6.

I hope I am now finished with cardiac events, and get back into actually getting into solid training again, though not at the hours many here put in.

Just stay with increasing capability at moderate heart rate (60-70%) about a year, then sneak up to slightly higher HR workouts ? Should I get a Suunto T6 ? My doctor has ok'd 70% effort. Another doctor friend gave me the idea of a year at 60-70% prior to anything harder.

It is so tedious to do the rehab over and over again.

[johnlvs2run]

Definition of VO2max is simply maximum amount of oxygen consumed each minute of maximal exercise. HR and VO2max have, generally, a linear relationship.

Vo2 is a measure of inefficiency.

You are trying to relate inefficiency to performance but they are not the same thing.

HR and VO2max have, generally, a linear relationship.

So generally they do but specifically they don't eh.

Whether they do, or not, still doesn't have much to do with performance.

[hkp2ksk]

and then there is the (probably apocryphal) comment about Lance Armstrong: before he achieved world class fame, his max VO2 was in the low 70's; after he achieved it, it was in the low to mid 70's. Ya either got it or you ain't and no friggin $400 watch is gonna give it to you.

Want an inexpensive way to determine overtraining? Find the cheapest stop watch you can get. Wake up and take your pulse. record or remember it. Rest 5' while lying down. Sit up and take your pulse again. Record that value. If it's 10-15bpm while sitting up compared with the value while lying down, then your previous day's workout was too much and you need to drink Guinness for your workout on that day

tony

[sledgehammer]

Ernie:

Search "heart rate variability" on Google, and you'll get more abstracts and information than you can read in half a lifetime....

-- Mark

Many thanks Mark. Very helpful. Best, Ernie

[Bob S.]

I think that I might have posted this in the wrong thread, so I will give it another shot here.

Just what does heart rate mean? I'll be 82 this Wednesday, so my "max" is supposedly 138bpm. In the last three weeks, I have been doing a series of UT1 pieces with pace goal of 2:10 or under and have been mostly under the goal. My heart beat was consistently in the 140s for all the pieces. Today, I did my first UT2 piece, 40' with a goal of 2:14 or under. I averaged 2:13.6 with generally negative splits across the board - but - my heart rate was in the 150s from early on in the piece! Why the hell should it be higher at a significantly slower pace?

I think I know the reason. This is a rather arid area and we spent quite a bit of time at a local outdoor music festival over the weekend. I was making an effort to drink plenty of water, but my weight was down this morning and I think that it was because I just didn’t drink enough.

It was just about a month ago when I had my first ambulance ride – getting getting my ass hauled off to the ER for problems derived from not drinking enough water. It didn’t have anything to do with making weight or erging (?), but maybe I’ll report on it in a message to the forum one of these days.

Bob S.

[mpukita]

C2 / Bill :

I'd like to ask that you have the post on this topic from John Rupp (Posted: Sep 18, 2006 6:19 pm) deleted. He's taken my words, changed them, and fraudulently attributed them to me. I would ask that you do this as soon as possible.

Thank you.

-- Mark Pukita

PS - And no, I am not just kidding.

[mpukita]

Just what does heart rate mean? I'll be 82 this Wednesday, so my "max" is supposedly 138bpm. In the last three weeks, I have been doing a series of UT1 pieces with pace goal of 2:10 or under and have been mostly under the goal. My heart beat was consistently in the 140s for all the pieces. Today, I did my first UT2 piece, 40' with a goal of 2:14 or under. I averaged 2:13.6 with generally negative splits across the board - but - my heart rate was in the 150s from early on in the piece! Why the hell should it be higher at a significantly slower pace?

Bob:

Not sure this is an answer, but numerous sources, including a face-to-face with my Doc yesterday for my annual physical, all say that MAX HR is a genetic thing. Sure it changes with age, and some believe level of activity, but the fact that yours is so high for your age is likely just a genetic characteristic. You're a freak!



In a good way of course!

The sources, including my Doc, also confirm that it's not "good" or "bad" to have a lower or higher max HR ... it just is what it is.

Heart rate is not just tied to pace ... it's tied to pace (speed), rate (which corresponds to intensity based on pace), and duration (length). You did not tell us how long the UT1 pieces were, or even if the UT1 workout was in interval format.

I regularly have a higher average HR during a long, continuous row (1 hour +), than over a series of intervals (including rest time). It's the 40' of uninterrupted work that took your HR up for the UT2 piece. If you looked at a graph, it would just increase nice and easy through the first 4 to 8 minutes, and keep increasing (but much more slowly) the longer you rowed (heart rate drift). The more fit you are, at a specific rate/pace combination, the longer you can row at a steady-state HR before the drift starts to lick in.

As well, the difference between your two paces is not that great. If you took the UT2 row, and did it at the same rate but 2:20.0 pace, I bet you'd get a radically different result.

-- Mark

PS - An early Happy Birthday, as I may forget tomorrow! And I would like to hear about the ambulance ride ... the information you share might help people here avoid a similar trip!

[mpukita]

and then there is the (probably apocryphal) comment about Lance Armstrong: before he achieved world class fame, his max VO2 was in the low 70's; after he achieved it, it was in the low to mid 70's. Ya either got it or you ain't and no friggin $400 watch is gonna give it to you.

Want an inexpensive way to determine overtraining? Find the cheapest stop watch you can get. Wake up and take your pulse. record or remember it. Rest 5' while lying down. Sit up and take your pulse again. Record that value. If it's 10-15bpm while sitting up compared with the value while lying down, then your previous day's workout was too much and you need to drink Guinness for your workout on that day

tony

Tony:

Genetics do play a major role in differentiating top athletes from the rest of the pack. I think what we're speaking of here is making the most of what you've been blessed with.

While your measure, rest, measure approach is certainly one way to do it, I'd classify it as potentially less accurate approach than one where you measure activity, at the training level, over time ... and can compare these results against similar activity. Both work, but with different levels of accuracy for the specific objective at hand. Looking at HRV can give one an indication of fatigue long before one would see the difference in HRs you mention.

I'd liken it to checking the oil in your car. One way to do it is to check it every day, and when you notice it's low, add some more. The other way is to wait until the warning light goes on, and then add oil.

-- Mark

[johnlvs2run]

C2 / Bill,

Would you please remove Mark Pukita's messages from this thread.

He's being a silly bugger.

[Bob S.]

Bob:
Heart rate is not just tied to pace ... it's tied to pace (speed), rate (which corresponds to intensity based on pace), and duration (length). You did not tell us how long the UT1 pieces were, or even if the UT1 workout was in interval format.

As well, the difference between your two paces is not that great. If you took the UT2 row, and did it at the same rate but 2:20.0 pace, I bet you'd get a radically different result.

Mark

There were 8 UT1 days with varying specifications, 1x18', 1x18', 2x10', 2x12', 1x20', 2x13', 2x14', and 2x15'. They were all done at 24spm and after a 10-15 minute warmup. The early ones were done at a slow pace based on recent 2k times (from the interactive program(me) chart). Those paces seemed too easy, so I gradually increased the speed until I settled on a pace of 2:10.

I think that the best UT1 for comparison in this case was the 20' piece on 9/08/06:

20'@24spm. 4609m ave. pace 2:10.1. Data recorded at every 2'.
2:09.8/2:12.1/2:11.0/2:11.0/2:11.2/2:11.0/2:11.0/2:11.0/2:08.7/2:06.5

Ave. HR 140. Every 2': 129/134/138/140/140/141/142/144/147/149

For the UT2 on 9/18/06:

40'@20spm. 8980m ave. pace 2:13.6. Data recorded at every 8'.
2:16.2/2:13.6/2:12.8/2:12.9/2:12.5

Ave. HR 152. Every 8': 148/150/152/154/156

The recorded data doesn't tell the full story. Even before that first 8 minutes was up, the monitor was showing occasional pulse rates over 150bpm.

I was actually feeling pretty good that morning. I had done my thrice a week set of pushups and managed to crank out 85 - the highest I have ever done in the last couple of decades. I never use the heart monitor for those since the duration of the exercise, around a minute or so, is too short for the heart to respond.

From what I have read recently on this forum about the blood thickening as we lose water plus the fact that it was after a very dry weekend, it seems very likely that differing levels of hydration were a major factor in the conflicting results of those two workouts.

Tomorrow the plan calls for 2x7'AT. The AT pace that corresponds to the 2:10 UT1 pace is 2:02. This is over 4 seconds faster than my most recent 2k time here at altitude and over 2 seconds faster than my very best 2k time here. As a result, I doubt very much that I will be up to it. Either I am far off the mark on selecting 2:10 as the proper UT1 pace or this Interactive Program(me) that I got from the UK forum is all screwed up.

Incidentally, the 2:14 goal for the UT2 is from that same chart

Bob S.

[johnlvs2run]

In my opinion a good warmup should begin with at least 10 minutes of rowing as follows:

HR at < 50 percent of heart rate reserve
easy and relaxed
a moving stroke rate
the same mps used in a competitive 2k

For me this is a 2:24 pace at 8 meters per stoke, with HR in the range of 103-107 bpm.

Prior to my 5k PB I had already been rowing for 90 minutes to warm up before that. There are 1440 minutes in a day, so 10 of these can surely be invested in the health of one's heart.

It's just not a good idea to hop into a hard session without an adequate warm up, and is dangerous. Also at the minimum I'd include a 5 minute easy warmdown, in the same manner as the warm up.

[whaskell]

Tomorrow the plan calls for 2x7'AT. The AT pace that corresponds to the 2:10 UT1 pace is 2:02. This is over 4 seconds faster than my most recent 2k time here at altitude and over 2 seconds faster than my very best 2k time here. As a result, I doubt very much that I will be up to it. Either I am far off the mark on selecting 2:10 as the proper UT1 pace or this Interactive Program(me) that I got from the UK forum is all screwed up.

Hi Bob, My understanding of the IP pacing is that the pace listed in the table is the maximum pace. Your specific pace for the AT sessions can be anywhere inbetween the AT pace and the pace to the left in the table (in this case the UT1 pace). I had difficulty with this concept when I started using the IP program, but George D. straightened me out.

[Bob S.]

Hi Bob, My understanding of the IP pacing is that the pace listed in the table is the maximum pace. Your specific pace for the AT sessions can be anywhere inbetween the AT pace and the pace to the left in the table (in this case the UT1 pace). I had difficulty with this concept when I started using the IP program, but George D. straightened me out.

Thanks, Will. The pace guide is very confusing on this point. The second sentence says "The figures indicated are at the top end of each band." That says to me 2:10 in the UT1 column means I should be at a pace less than or equal to that value, in other words that fast or faster. The next sentence contradicts that, saying that the bands can be identified as lying between the figure in the training band column and the figure to the left- just as you reported above. Then it goes on back to the reverse in a discussion of the TR band. "Training in the TR band should be equal to or less than the TR pace, but not less than the figure in the AN column. Now the "equal to or less than" could be interpreted to refer to the speed rather than the pace figure, but the AN column is to the right, not the left and "figure" in this phrase is clearly refering to the pace.

Another source of confusion is the use of the less than or equal to symbols in the TR column and the greater than or equal to symbols used in the AN column. I had not paid any attention to those before, since I won't be scheduled for any TR stuff until the 8th week and no AN until the 26th week. I just noticed them now as I was looking over the table in order to write this response. Perhaps the U.K. usage differs from the way we use these symbols in the U.S. - like the reversal of commas and periods in numbers and decimals.

Bob S.

[toonraider]

Mark, Eddie or whomever that might be able to answer this:

Mark, I read your comments regarding RR indicating fatique with interest, as I have mostly used the epoc/vo2 measurements of my T6.
I tried to compare the graphs of the workouts you posted, with graphs from my workouts, and I noticed that my lows in the RR graphs, were considerably lower than yours (very often 350, sometimes as low as 300).

Is this noticeable (should i worry about it), or should I only worry about comparing my own graphs from comparable sessions, as an indicator of fatique?

Best regards
Michael

M-29,

[Eddie Fletcher]

Michael

See my PM