Lunar Landings: Sea of Tranquility and Other Lunacies
Lunar Landings: Sea of Tranquility and Other Lunacies
This is an anteroom for our Luna-Tics team room. Team members requested an area where links to references, articles and rowing advice could be posted. Anyone can post here - we just ask that you put the topic that you are referencing in the subject heading so that we can scroll through easily!
Interactive Training Calculator
http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/interactive.php
It is an interactive training calculator that will give you workout programs based on data you enter such as your athletic level (scroll down on that page to see the classification definitions);
the number of rowing sessions per week you want to row;
number of weeks to your "race" or goal;
your current best 2000 meter time;
your age;
your resting heart rate;
your maximum heart rate (it can estimate it for you).
You can select a program for increasing your 2000 meter times or for weight loss.
It is an interactive training calculator that will give you workout programs based on data you enter such as your athletic level (scroll down on that page to see the classification definitions);
the number of rowing sessions per week you want to row;
number of weeks to your "race" or goal;
your current best 2000 meter time;
your age;
your resting heart rate;
your maximum heart rate (it can estimate it for you).
You can select a program for increasing your 2000 meter times or for weight loss.
-
Citroen
- SpamTeam
- Posts: 7998
- Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:28 pm
- Location: A small cave in deepest darkest Basingstoke, UK
Why 220-age may be less than useful
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf
This paper gives some insight into how the 220-age formula was derived and why only the maddest lunatic would trust it to give an estimate of their potential.
This paper gives some insight into how the 220-age formula was derived and why only the maddest lunatic would trust it to give an estimate of their potential.
-
DuluthMoose
- 5k Poster
- Posts: 519
- Joined: December 20th, 2007, 10:12 pm
- Location: Duluth, MN
Re: Why 220-age may be less than useful
Seems to me you are throwing out the baby with the wash water with your conclusion. Sure this formula isn't an exact model fit, but if you read your reference, you will note that for fit folks over age 10, it's a close fit. It's not a perfect model, but it is the only formula out there; and I have never seen it as an absolute only as a guideline.Citroen wrote:http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf
This paper gives some insight into how the 220-age formula was derived and why only the maddest lunatic would trust it to give an estimate of their potential.
I've read a lot of scientific papers over the years in other fields and maybe am not accustomed to protocol in the human physiology field. But it seems to me that if you're going to criticize something, you would at least enlighten us with a better accepted formula or guideline.
Heart Rate Myth
Being in the Zone
Being in the zone isn’t just for athletes any longer. Whether it’s in your group exercise class or during personal training, you’ll find more recreational exercisers strapping on their heart rate monitors to stay in the “fat-burning zone” and get the most of their workout.
There’s just one fundamental problem as Fabio Comana, ACE’s Exercise Physiologist, sees it: Max HR calculations aren’t just imperfect, they can actually lead exercisers down the twilight zone.
Max HR = 220 – age
Consider this: The standard formula, which calls for subtracting your age from 220 to calculate a particular value for a training zone can deviate as much as 12 beats.
“For someone whose maximal heart rate is lower than what the actual maximal heart rate is, they may end up overtraining whereas if the maximal heart rate is higher than their actual heart rate, they may be undertraining,” says Comana. “Also, the 220 minus your age calculation tends to overestimate exercise heart rates in younger populations and underestimate exercise heart rate in older populations.”
Max HR = 208 – (age x 0.7)
A better mathematical formula is Dr. Hirofumi Tanaka’s 208 minus 0.7 times your age. At least with the Tanaka formula the standard deviation is less, or 7.4 beats vs. 12 beats for the Haskins and Fox formula. Hence, with a 20-year old client, using Max Heart rate calculation, the actual heart rate may be 212 or 188 vs. 207 or 194 using Tanaka’s formula.
Most clients exercise to achieve cardiovascular fitness combined with weight loss or maintenance. While this overall goal doesn’t seem to change much over the years, the means to get there seem to follow trends in fitness, Comana says.
Going High or Low?
In the last eight to nine years, there has been a reversal from (focusing on) low-intensity, fat-burning classes (such as low-intensity step or aerobics classes) to more high-intensity bouts of exercise (boot camps for instance).
Both approaches are counterproductive, especially for unconditioned, sedentary persons wanting to lose weight. A sedentary, healthy person who keeps working out in Zone 1 (50 to 60 percent of Max HR) is unlikely to burn enough calories to achieve the desired weight loss.
Neither will performing high-intensity exercise bouts where people burn predominantly carbohydrates. Considering that the normal carbohydrate intake for average Americans is about 50 percent to 55 percent of their daily diet, adding a hard cardio workout trains muscles to store more carbohydrates. This increases the glycogen storage capacity, which is desirable for endurance athletes who want to carbo-load, but not for recreational exercisers. The added water (2.4 grams to 2.7 grams) per grams of glycogen may lead to increased weight gain, which will leave you with a very unhappy client.
Focus on the Middle – Caloric Quality and Quantity
“The key is to teach clients to burn fat efficiently,” Comana says. The best way to do this is by focusing on quality first, and teaching the body how to burn fat. Then it’s time to focus on caloric quantity. For trainers and clients who want to work with heart rate zones, Comana suggests performing an appropriate sub-maximal heart rate test, such as the One Mile Walk Test or a Step Test to estimate maximum heart rate. This way, trainers have a better platform for figuring out proper exercise zones for their clients.
Talk Threshold Test
If Comana had his way, more trainers would rely on the talk test to assess clients’ exercise intensity.
University researchers, such as Drs. Asker Jeukendrup and Carl Foster have supported the idea that using ventilation threshold One (VT1) may be just as effective as heart-rate monitoring for differing training zones. Clients who speak in complete sentences are in the aerobic zone, which corresponds to less than 80 percent of maximum heart rate. When clients can speak only in short bursts, they have moved into the threshold zone, which is effective for increasing endurance, but can only be sustained for short periods.
Comana’s recommendation for training clients: Create a two-zone model with zone 1 being the fat-burning zone approaching the ventilation threshold (VT1) when breathlessness develops; and zone 2, being a 10-beat zone above VT1.
Clients initially will spend most of their exercising time in zone 1, so they can learn how to burn fat more efficiently. After about three to six training sessions, depending on your client’s fitness level and progress, incorporate aerobic intervals on a 1:1 ratio. For instance, have a client exercise a bit harder (between zone 1 and 2) for five minutes, back off the intensity for five minutes, and then repeat the cycle. After a few weeks of training, retest the ventilatory threshold of the same client and recreate appropriate exercise zones. This allows trainers to increase clients’ fat-burning capacity slowly and safely while using appropriate training zones to help them gain a higher fitness level and wanted weight loss.
The problem with the five Max HR zones—Zone 1 (50 percent to 60 percent of Max HR); Zone 2 (60 percent to 70 percent of Max HR); Zone 3 (70 percent to 80 percent of Max HR); Zone 4 (80 percent to 90 percent of Max HR); and Zone 5 (90 percent to 100 percent of Max HR Vo2 Max)—isn’t that they aren’t useful, Comana says. Finding the correct zone to train in can be tough to calculate.
However, in terms of how many calories you burn in each zone, researchers have learned a lot: In Zone 1, which is the lowest level and beginner-friendly, you’ll burn between three to five calories a minute. Training in Zone 2, where people will start seeing additional health benefits, burns seven to nine calories a minute. Training in Zone 3, or the cardiovascular fitness zone, will burn about 10 to 12 calories a minute. Most recreational exercisers may never want to cross into the anaerobic zone (Zone 4, which burns 13 to 15 calories a minute); but only the fittest clients should cross into Zone 5, which burns 16 or more calories a minute.
Since most Americans in weight-loss mode ultimately rely on the number they’ll see looking down standing on their bathroom scale, trainers may be well served to develop an exercise program that doesn’t enslave their clients to technology, but rather teaches them to pay closer attention to their breathing, and learn how their bodies react to exercise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Webb is the managing editor for the American Council on Exercise and an ACE-certified Personal Trainer. For specific fitness-related story ideas or comments, please email her directly at marion.webb@acefitness.org.
This article came to me from my professional certification publication..I thought you might find it interesting..as I did.We all here tend to work on our heart rates at some level and it looks like we are getting more data all the time to help us find the right number.
Pat
TimbukTOO
Being in the Zone
Being in the zone isn’t just for athletes any longer. Whether it’s in your group exercise class or during personal training, you’ll find more recreational exercisers strapping on their heart rate monitors to stay in the “fat-burning zone” and get the most of their workout.
There’s just one fundamental problem as Fabio Comana, ACE’s Exercise Physiologist, sees it: Max HR calculations aren’t just imperfect, they can actually lead exercisers down the twilight zone.
Max HR = 220 – age
Consider this: The standard formula, which calls for subtracting your age from 220 to calculate a particular value for a training zone can deviate as much as 12 beats.
“For someone whose maximal heart rate is lower than what the actual maximal heart rate is, they may end up overtraining whereas if the maximal heart rate is higher than their actual heart rate, they may be undertraining,” says Comana. “Also, the 220 minus your age calculation tends to overestimate exercise heart rates in younger populations and underestimate exercise heart rate in older populations.”
Max HR = 208 – (age x 0.7)
A better mathematical formula is Dr. Hirofumi Tanaka’s 208 minus 0.7 times your age. At least with the Tanaka formula the standard deviation is less, or 7.4 beats vs. 12 beats for the Haskins and Fox formula. Hence, with a 20-year old client, using Max Heart rate calculation, the actual heart rate may be 212 or 188 vs. 207 or 194 using Tanaka’s formula.
Most clients exercise to achieve cardiovascular fitness combined with weight loss or maintenance. While this overall goal doesn’t seem to change much over the years, the means to get there seem to follow trends in fitness, Comana says.
Going High or Low?
In the last eight to nine years, there has been a reversal from (focusing on) low-intensity, fat-burning classes (such as low-intensity step or aerobics classes) to more high-intensity bouts of exercise (boot camps for instance).
Both approaches are counterproductive, especially for unconditioned, sedentary persons wanting to lose weight. A sedentary, healthy person who keeps working out in Zone 1 (50 to 60 percent of Max HR) is unlikely to burn enough calories to achieve the desired weight loss.
Neither will performing high-intensity exercise bouts where people burn predominantly carbohydrates. Considering that the normal carbohydrate intake for average Americans is about 50 percent to 55 percent of their daily diet, adding a hard cardio workout trains muscles to store more carbohydrates. This increases the glycogen storage capacity, which is desirable for endurance athletes who want to carbo-load, but not for recreational exercisers. The added water (2.4 grams to 2.7 grams) per grams of glycogen may lead to increased weight gain, which will leave you with a very unhappy client.
Focus on the Middle – Caloric Quality and Quantity
“The key is to teach clients to burn fat efficiently,” Comana says. The best way to do this is by focusing on quality first, and teaching the body how to burn fat. Then it’s time to focus on caloric quantity. For trainers and clients who want to work with heart rate zones, Comana suggests performing an appropriate sub-maximal heart rate test, such as the One Mile Walk Test or a Step Test to estimate maximum heart rate. This way, trainers have a better platform for figuring out proper exercise zones for their clients.
Talk Threshold Test
If Comana had his way, more trainers would rely on the talk test to assess clients’ exercise intensity.
University researchers, such as Drs. Asker Jeukendrup and Carl Foster have supported the idea that using ventilation threshold One (VT1) may be just as effective as heart-rate monitoring for differing training zones. Clients who speak in complete sentences are in the aerobic zone, which corresponds to less than 80 percent of maximum heart rate. When clients can speak only in short bursts, they have moved into the threshold zone, which is effective for increasing endurance, but can only be sustained for short periods.
Comana’s recommendation for training clients: Create a two-zone model with zone 1 being the fat-burning zone approaching the ventilation threshold (VT1) when breathlessness develops; and zone 2, being a 10-beat zone above VT1.
Clients initially will spend most of their exercising time in zone 1, so they can learn how to burn fat more efficiently. After about three to six training sessions, depending on your client’s fitness level and progress, incorporate aerobic intervals on a 1:1 ratio. For instance, have a client exercise a bit harder (between zone 1 and 2) for five minutes, back off the intensity for five minutes, and then repeat the cycle. After a few weeks of training, retest the ventilatory threshold of the same client and recreate appropriate exercise zones. This allows trainers to increase clients’ fat-burning capacity slowly and safely while using appropriate training zones to help them gain a higher fitness level and wanted weight loss.
The problem with the five Max HR zones—Zone 1 (50 percent to 60 percent of Max HR); Zone 2 (60 percent to 70 percent of Max HR); Zone 3 (70 percent to 80 percent of Max HR); Zone 4 (80 percent to 90 percent of Max HR); and Zone 5 (90 percent to 100 percent of Max HR Vo2 Max)—isn’t that they aren’t useful, Comana says. Finding the correct zone to train in can be tough to calculate.
However, in terms of how many calories you burn in each zone, researchers have learned a lot: In Zone 1, which is the lowest level and beginner-friendly, you’ll burn between three to five calories a minute. Training in Zone 2, where people will start seeing additional health benefits, burns seven to nine calories a minute. Training in Zone 3, or the cardiovascular fitness zone, will burn about 10 to 12 calories a minute. Most recreational exercisers may never want to cross into the anaerobic zone (Zone 4, which burns 13 to 15 calories a minute); but only the fittest clients should cross into Zone 5, which burns 16 or more calories a minute.
Since most Americans in weight-loss mode ultimately rely on the number they’ll see looking down standing on their bathroom scale, trainers may be well served to develop an exercise program that doesn’t enslave their clients to technology, but rather teaches them to pay closer attention to their breathing, and learn how their bodies react to exercise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Webb is the managing editor for the American Council on Exercise and an ACE-certified Personal Trainer. For specific fitness-related story ideas or comments, please email her directly at marion.webb@acefitness.org.
This article came to me from my professional certification publication..I thought you might find it interesting..as I did.We all here tend to work on our heart rates at some level and it looks like we are getting more data all the time to help us find the right number.
Pat
TimbukTOO
[img]http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k195/lockaroundmyheart/Not%20Real%20Pictures/Animations/diddle-1.gif[/img]
Most of this article is excellent, but these numbers are still a long way off as far as I am concerned. At 83, I find that I get up to the high 150s and even over 160 on the long pieces, well over one standard deviation over by either formula. I have no idea what my max is, but obviously it must be over 160, since I can work at 158-159 as a steady state.PJM wrote:
Max HR = 220 – age
Consider this: The standard formula, which calls for subtracting your age from 220 to calculate a particular value for a training zone can deviate as much as 12 beats.
“For someone whose maximal heart rate is lower than what the actual maximal heart rate is, they may end up overtraining whereas if the maximal heart rate is higher than their actual heart rate, they may be undertraining,” says Comana. “Also, the 220 minus your age calculation tends to overestimate exercise heart rates in younger populations and underestimate exercise heart rate in older populations.”
Max HR = 208 – (age x 0.7)
A better mathematical formula is Dr. Hirofumi Tanaka’s 208 minus 0.7 times your age. At least with the Tanaka formula the standard deviation is less, or 7.4 beats vs. 12 beats for the Haskins and Fox formula. Hence, with a 20-year old client, using Max Heart rate calculation, the actual heart rate may be 212 or 188 vs. 207 or 194 using Tanaka’s formula.
I was also puzzled by the zones. I have been told by health professionals that 80-90% for 30 minutes a day was necessary for improvement in cardiovascular condition. According to that article, this would be zone 4 which is supposedly the anaerobic zone and zone 3 is the cardiovascular fitness zone.
Bob S.
Re: Why 220-age may be less than useful
Did you read that article? If so you must have missed a lot of it. "Only formula out there??" How did you come to that conclusion? It went into a lot of detail about other, more accurate formulae. Why did you ignore those?DuluthMoose wrote:
Seems to me you are throwing out the baby with the wash water with your conclusion. Sure this formula isn't an exact model fit, but if you read your reference, you will note that for fit folks over age 10, it's a close fit. It's not a perfect model, but it is the only formula out there; and I have never seen it as an absolute only as a guideline.
I've read a lot of scientific papers over the years in other fields and maybe am not accustomed to protocol in the human physiology field. But it seems to me that if you're going to criticize something, you would at least enlighten us with a better accepted formula or guideline.
I agree with Citroen that the 220-age is crap and not based on any real research. It is unfortunate that it has become so widely quoted that it is used by people who should know better to warn against doing proper exercise.
There is a sure way to properly determine true max and that is to exercise at a gradually increasing intensity until complete exhaustion. At that point the heart monitor reading would be showing the max. Of necessity, this has to be done slowly and gradually, taking several minutes, since it takes a while for the heart rate to respond. For some, it could be as much as 20 minutes. I have never tried this for myself. It would require more effort than I care to put out and the idea is more than a bit scary. I am not sure that my porcine mosaic replacement aortic valve would be too happy about my doing that.
Bob S.
In response to this..just in my own personal opinion..many of us who have been rowing for a long period of time have become quite fit.We have very low resting heart rates as we have exercised the heart muscle as we have exercised all of our muscles.We are toned and heart fit.No matter what age.Rowing has allowed all ages to work to peak performance.So as we have lower resting heart rates we have to work much harder to reach the maximum heart rates for our given ages.So each of us has to know our bodies and know what we need to do to keep the heart rate in it's zone.As for the zones mentioned in this article..I have nothing to do with what has been written.I just know that when we work in a high heart rate it is usually a shorter more energized period and tends to be anerobic..but as we work out longer and our heart rate is not as accelerated..we tend to burn fat more efficiently instead of burning out our glycogen reserves.I have found that in these areas of concerns there are as many opinions and theories as there are experts who try to tell us what is right and wrong.Listen to your body..know its limits for you.That is what is real in my opinion.
When I was studying fitness to achieve my certification I was taught that maximum heart rate was pretty simple...a newborn's maximum heart rate is 220 and we subtract a year for every year we age to determine what our maximum heart rate is.No rocket science where I stand..
They want us to be cautious surrounding this ..because if we exceed beyond our maximum that is where we can experience shortness of breath or perhaps feel "weird" and suffer heart irregularites.But this doesn't happen to everyone.
Just be aware..know what you can do and do it safely..bottom line.If you can exceed your maximum and feel well..maybe your maximum is not accurate.
These are just my opinions and not here to dispute anyone's input as I find all out input valuable and very inspiring!!
Be your own health advocate and keep on learning!!
Pat
When I was studying fitness to achieve my certification I was taught that maximum heart rate was pretty simple...a newborn's maximum heart rate is 220 and we subtract a year for every year we age to determine what our maximum heart rate is.No rocket science where I stand..
They want us to be cautious surrounding this ..because if we exceed beyond our maximum that is where we can experience shortness of breath or perhaps feel "weird" and suffer heart irregularites.But this doesn't happen to everyone.
Just be aware..know what you can do and do it safely..bottom line.If you can exceed your maximum and feel well..maybe your maximum is not accurate.
These are just my opinions and not here to dispute anyone's input as I find all out input valuable and very inspiring!!
Be your own health advocate and keep on learning!!
Pat
[img]http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k195/lockaroundmyheart/Not%20Real%20Pictures/Animations/diddle-1.gif[/img]
How to create best times image
http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/
This is a link to show how to create the personal best image linking your times to the different distances.
This is a link to show how to create the personal best image linking your times to the different distances.
New Grip gloves
A few months ago (how time rows by), we had some discussions around gloves. Pat M of TimbukToo fame and fortune suggested New Grip gloves, which many of us have gone on to use:
They have a web site www.newgrip.com
They have a section for indoor rowers..Concept2 is mentioned there.
They are fairly inexpensive..and free S&H
Pat
They have a web site www.newgrip.com
They have a section for indoor rowers..Concept2 is mentioned there.
They are fairly inexpensive..and free S&H
Pat
I still use these, swear by these and highly recommend them.I saw on the UK Concept 2 site that Concept2 there have rowing pads that remind me of these New Grips minus the wrist straps.It would be great if Concept2 would bring these to the US..may be they have and I am unaware.
These grips had allowed me to continue to row despite past hand injuries due to too many meters in a short amount of time.Shortened healing time and have been a great preventative tool.
Pat
These grips had allowed me to continue to row despite past hand injuries due to too many meters in a short amount of time.Shortened healing time and have been a great preventative tool.
Pat
[img]http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k195/lockaroundmyheart/Not%20Real%20Pictures/Animations/diddle-1.gif[/img]
Luna-Tic Team History
Meter History for Luna-Tics:
Recap of past team history:
Keep in mind that a person's meters will "follow" them if they change teams, so if someone was on the LUNA-TICS team in 2003 and they changed teams after that, their picture and meters do not still show up in the LUNA-TICS stats for 2003. Likewise, if a person was recording meters in their logbook in any year, and they only recently joined the LUNA-TICS, their profile and meters will be showing up as a LUNA-TICS team member for each year that they have logged meters, even if they did not belong to any team in those years. So these stats are only partially reflective of the actual team mates, numbers and meters for each year.
2003 - Virtual Teams instituted by C2. Matt Forsbacka, being slightly influenced by his work for NASA founds the LUNA-TICS year-round team. His goal? To row to the moon. Calling all hands...Calling all hands...
The year end stats show 7 team mates, and the team placing #72 out of 1437 teams that year. Total team meters: 3,874,123.
2004 - The year end stats show 11 team mates and the team placing #94 out of 1233 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 4,500,044.
2005 - The year end stats show 15 team mates and the team placing #71 out of 1211 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 8,321,188.
2006 - The year end stats show 19 team mates and the team placing #72 out of 1066 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 8,507,331.
2007 - Formation of the LUNA-TICS challenge team by Kristine Strasburger. The year end stats show 25 team mates and the team placing #47 out of 1137 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 14,265,122.
2008 - Challenge team captain discovers the C2 forum, and begins team recruiting efforts for the Holliday Challenge. LUNA-TICS Team Room on the forum established. The year end stats show 59 team mates and the team placing #11 out of 1234 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 48,110,121.
Recap of past team history:
Keep in mind that a person's meters will "follow" them if they change teams, so if someone was on the LUNA-TICS team in 2003 and they changed teams after that, their picture and meters do not still show up in the LUNA-TICS stats for 2003. Likewise, if a person was recording meters in their logbook in any year, and they only recently joined the LUNA-TICS, their profile and meters will be showing up as a LUNA-TICS team member for each year that they have logged meters, even if they did not belong to any team in those years. So these stats are only partially reflective of the actual team mates, numbers and meters for each year.
2003 - Virtual Teams instituted by C2. Matt Forsbacka, being slightly influenced by his work for NASA founds the LUNA-TICS year-round team. His goal? To row to the moon. Calling all hands...Calling all hands...
The year end stats show 7 team mates, and the team placing #72 out of 1437 teams that year. Total team meters: 3,874,123.
2004 - The year end stats show 11 team mates and the team placing #94 out of 1233 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 4,500,044.
2005 - The year end stats show 15 team mates and the team placing #71 out of 1211 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 8,321,188.
2006 - The year end stats show 19 team mates and the team placing #72 out of 1066 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 8,507,331.
2007 - Formation of the LUNA-TICS challenge team by Kristine Strasburger. The year end stats show 25 team mates and the team placing #47 out of 1137 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 14,265,122.
2008 - Challenge team captain discovers the C2 forum, and begins team recruiting efforts for the Holliday Challenge. LUNA-TICS Team Room on the forum established. The year end stats show 59 team mates and the team placing #11 out of 1234 teams in existence that year. Total team meters: 48,110,121.
Pat,PJM wrote: I have nothing to do with what has been written.
Pat
I realize that those were the author's comments not yours. However, the author certainly seems to be someone of authority and I assume that the zones were properly defined. The conflicting advice that I have heard (i.e. about zones) was about a research report that it was necessary to put in at least 30' a day at 80-90% of max to get any cardiovascular improvement. Since then I have heard a rumor that further research established that 60' was even better. I heard about the initial report in the fall of 2003 and, at that time, was referred to as a recent study. This information was from physicians who were not cardiologists.
Earlier that year, a cardiologist that I had been seeing about an increasing stenosis of my aortic valve did an angiogram and told me that I had a 90% blockage of a cardiac artery and he wanted me to have a bypass done immediately. Having just closed escrow on a new home out in the sticks 250 miles away, I was reluctant to rush into such a thing. Against his advice, I spent the next month moving with all the necessary heavy work involved. In the meantime, I arranged to get a second opinion from another cardiologist. This one, an accomplished rower, suggested that perhaps it could be taken care of by a long-lasting stent, which had just been developed at that time. However, he first had me undergo an additional echocardiogram. This one was different from those that I had had previously in that he conducted it in conjunction with a stress test. The other cardiologist was reluctant to use stress tests. As it turned out, I failed the test completely. The cardiologist conducted the test himself, taking my blood pressure at intervals throughout the test. After 6 minutes (i.e. at the time of the second increase in intensity) I could easily see from his face that I had failed it. He announced that he was stopping the test and informed me that I would probably have passed out soon if we had continued.
He told me that he was not all that concerned about the blockage. Because of my history of exercise, my arteries were large enough that a 90% blockage still gave me as much blood flow as a more sedentary person with only 60%. It was the valve that was not performing well and he said that the valve definitely had to be replaced. What happened was that as my pulse got up over 120, my blood pressure dropped. The valve flaps were too stiff to keep up at the faster beat and there was too much reflux back into the heart chamber to maintain the pressure.
It was a couple of months before I could get the operation scheduled, but it was done and over by the end of July. Although the two differed on the main reason for getting the job done, they were in agreement that an operation was necessary and that both valve replacement and bypass(es) should be done. There was some disagreement on how many bypasses would be needed, but that was something for the surgeon to decide once he had the heart exposed. It ended up as 3.
It was a couple of months later, on seeing another physician (not a cardiologist) that I heard about the 30’ in the 80-90% zone. In this backwoods area, there is no semblance of cardio-post-op support, so I was more or less on my own. I had been taking longer and longer walks as a form of cardio rehab, but this guy brushed off walking as being inadequate. I started wearing my Polar monitor on my walks, wearing heavy boots, carrying a pack and picking routes that had some measure of elevation gain. This way I could make sure I go in that 30’ “in the zone.” I also got back to using my old model B ergometer and made occasional trips to a local fitness center to use one of their treadmills. I now realize the zone that I was shooting for was rather nebulous, since it was based on the phony 220—age formula. I don’t think that it mattered all that much. I seem to have gotten back to where I was long before that valve got so bad. I had my first post-op erg competition exactly 18 months after the operation and was a C-B qualifier. A year later, I became the first octogenarian to crack 8 minutes for the 2k.
My main problem now is that the only cardiologists I see are from a firm 220 miles away that has about 18 on their staff. Once a week, one of the staff flies down to take care of heart patients in this area. They rotate that chore around, so I have seen about a half dozen different heart specialists in the last 4 1/2 years. One of them flatly stated that she didn’t think that I should ever spend much time at a pulse rate over 140 (about the max on that phony formula). She was into athletic activities herself, so I wasn’t encountering the problem that some had had with physicians who see no point in heavy exercise. I assume that it was just caution on her part. Another one of the staff said that the number really didn’t matter; that I was not in any trouble as long as I felt O.K. and did not have chest pains or shortness of breath.
I like that last advice and it is certainly in agreement with what you said in your own message. The concept of listening to you body is the one that makes the most sense. It is tricky sometimes, because a temporary illness can make you think that you are overdoing it. Well, you are for that particular time, but that doesn’t mean that you have to cut back for good. After recovery, you have to experiment around a bit to find the proper level and hope that it is not lower than before the illness.
I ramble on too much. Time to shut this off.
Bob S.