The Two Types of Training

[hjs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate

A 2002 study[2] of 43 different formulae for HRmax (including the one above) concluded the following:

1) No "acceptable" formula currently existed, (they used the term "acceptable" to mean acceptable for both prediction of , and prescription of exercise training HR ranges)
2) The formula deemed least objectionable was:
HRmax = 205.8 − (0.685 × age)
This was found to have a standard deviation that, although large (6.4 bpm), was still considered to be acceptable for the use of prescribing exercise training HR ranges.
Other often cited formulae are:

HRmax = 206.3 − (0.711 × age)
(Often attributed to "Londeree and Moeschberger from the University of Missouri")
HRmax = 217 − (0.85 × age)
(Often attributed to "Miller et al. from Indiana University")
HRmax = 208 − (0.7 × age)
(Another "tweak" to the traditional formula is known as the Tanaka method. Based on a study of literally thousands of individuals, a new formula was devised which is believed to be more accurate [3])
In 2007, researchers at the Oakland University analysed maximum heart rates of 132 individuals recorded yearly over 25 years, and produced a linear equation very similar to the Tanaka formula—HRmax = 206.9 − (0.67 × age)—and a nonlinear equation—HRmax = 191.5 − (0.007 × age2). The linear equation had a confidence interval of ±5-8 bpm and the nonlinear equation had a tighter range of ±2-5 bpm. [4]


These figures are very much averages, and depend greatly on individual physiology and fitness. For example an endurance runner's rates will typically be lower due to the increased size of the heart required to support the exercise, while a sprinter's rates will be higher due to the improved response time and short duration., etc. may each have predicted heart rates of 180 (= 220-Age), but these two people could have actual Max HR 20 beats apart (e.g. 170-190).

Further, note that individuals of the same age, the same training, in the same sport, on the same team, can have actual Max HR 60 bpm apart (160 to 220):[1] the range is extremely broad, and some say "The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing athletes

[hjs]

http://www.bodyresults.com/E2maxheartrate.asp

'Maximum' Heart Rate Theory Is Challenged

The formula became increasingly entrenched, used to make graphs that are posted on the walls of health clubs and in cardiology treadmill rooms, prescribed in information for heart patients and inscribed in textbooks. But some experts never believed it.

Dr. Fritz Hagerman, an exercise physiologist at Ohio University, said he had learned from more than three decades of studying world class rowers that the whole idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate was ludicrous. Even sillier, he said, is the common notion that the heart rate is an indication of fitness.

Some people get blood to their muscles by pushing out large amounts every time their hearts contract, he said. Others accomplish the same thing by contracting their hearts at fast rates. As a result, Dr. Hagerman said, he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220. And he has seen others on the same team and with the same ability, but who get blood to their tissues by pumping hard, with maximum rates of just 160.

"The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing athletes," Dr. Hagerman said.

Heart rate is an indicator of heart disease, said Dr. Michael Lauer, a cardiologist and the director of clinical research in cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. But, he added, it is not the maximum that matters: it is how quickly the heart rate falls when exercise is stopped.

An average healthy person's heart rate drops about 20 beats in a minute and the rates of athletes "nose dive by 50 beats in a minute," Dr. Lauer said.

In three recent studies, Dr. Lauer and his colleagues found that people whose rates fell less than 12 beats within a minute after they stopped exercising vigorously had a fourfold increased risk of dying in the next six years compared with those whose heart rates dropped by 13 or more beats.

Dr. Lauer pays no attention to the standard formula when he gives treadmill tests. More than 40 percent of patients, he said, can get their heart rates to more than 100 percent of their predicted maximum. "That tells you that that wasn't their maximum heart rate," Dr. Lauer said.

The danger, he said, is that when doctors use that formula to decide when to end a treadmill test, they can inadvertently mislead themselves and their patients. Some patients may be stopping too soon and others may seem to have a heart problem because they never can get to what is supposed to be their maximum rate. "Some people are being pushed and others are not," Dr. Lauer said. "In my view, that is unacceptable."

Yet, Dr. Seals said, many doctors want some sort of guide for estimating maximum heart rates for treadmill tests. And many people who want to increase their fitness crave a general formula. So Dr. Seals and his colleagues decided to take another stab at finding an equation.

In a study published in the March issue of The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Seals and his colleagues devised a new formula: maximum heart rate equals 208 minus 0.7 times age. They used published studies involving 18,712 healthy people and data from 514 healthy people they recruited. Their formula gives much higher average maximum heart rates for older people, with the new and old heart rate curves starting to diverge at age 40.

But raising doubts about the heart rate formula is unlikely to lead people to abandon it, exercise physiologists say. What would they do without it?

"I've kind of laughed about it over the years," Dr. Haskell said. The formula, he said, "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule people's training." But, he said, "It's so typical of Americans to take an idea and extend it beyond what it was originally intended for."

[mikvan52]

do you think I should be worried about low HR?

Yep.

Unless you can rate up, you won't win the HOCR.

You need to rate 30 spm, not 24-26 spm.

I need to cross the finish line first

I've abundantly demonstrated that I can rate it up: Witness last weekend's victory at 2k OTW at the San Diego Crew Classic. Base Pace 35 spm starts and sprints faster...
(Pardon me for repeating this... but since you like ignoring data......)

Funny,.... didn't see you there
Sorry: I'm ignoring your family's loss.... But what have you done otherwise?? since your great and unprecedented 6:41.x on an exercise machine?

[ranger]

I've abundantly demonstrated that I can rate it up

An eight is not a single.

Of course you can rate it up in an eight.

Duh.

Do a 2K in your single at 36 spm, with the start and finish at 40 spm.

Different matter.

This issue isn't mechanical, skeletal-motor.

The issue is physiological, cardiovascular, aerobic.

HR, air.

Gasp.

ranger

[ranger]

With this 12 SPI stroke, if I can rate 30 spm for 5K, I'll hit my 5K target: 1:39.

30 spm is a standard 5K rate.

Most of the better singles at the HOCR rate 30 spm.

ranger

P.S. 5K @ 1:39 predicts 6K @ 1:40, that is, for me, 3 x WR 2K (no rest).

ranger

[mikvan52]

do you think I should be worried about low HR?

Yep.

Unless you can rate up, you won't win the HOCR.

You need to rate 30 spm, not 24-26 spm.

ranger

Great reply!

Concise... but not accurate.

I can rate it up. I have rated it up. I choose to row at lower rates and I win all the major competitions.

Last weekend at San Diego I came off the line in the low 40's, lengthened to the mid thirties and sprinted higher...
There's a video. I don't have yet.

Need I post it here when I get it, Rich...? Or would that be better confined to the backwater of OTW forums?

What do you rate at 5k OTW? Please frame your answer with the associated times...

[mikvan52]

I "rated it up" at the Textile Regatta and won... last fall... Beating Jim Dietz on raw and corrected time if memory serves....

[snowleopard]

I've abundantly demonstrated that I can rate it up

An eight is not a single.

Of course you can rate it up in an eight.

Duh.

Do a 2K in your single at 36 spm, with the start and finish at 40 spm.

Different matter.

This issue isn't mechanical, skeletal-motor.

The issue is physiological, cardiovascular, aerobic.

HR, air.

Gasp.

ranger

Based on your extensive experience of sweep rowing, can you explain why it is that rating up in an eight makes no cardiovascular demands on the rower?

[NavigationHazard]

Most of the better singles at the HOCR rate 30 spm. ranger

You know this how? The regatta does not track rating. How could it?

Snowleopard -- on Rangerpond an eight makes zero cardiovascular demands. A four makes twice as many. And a pair 0^3 demands. The logical progression is the 1+ (coxed single-oar sweep boat), which makes 0^4 cardiovascular demands and is also the fastest thing on the water due to its mahoosive spi.

[mrfit]

Ranger's Ranking Countdown

31 days

[ranger]

Based on your extensive experience of sweep rowing, can you explain why it is that rating up in an eight makes no cardiovascular demands on the rower?

The faster the boat, the lighter the water--and so the higher the rate.

An eight feels like 90 df.; a single feels like 190 df.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

"Heavy water" is deuterium oxide (D2O). Anyone have a clue as to what the "lighter water" in Rangerpond might be? Possibly dihydrogen monoxide (hydric acid)?

Apparently it has the property of making heavy things light, and light things heavy. This explains why an viii rowing on it has a DF of 90, while a 1x has a DF of 190.

[snowleopard]

An eight feels like 90 df.; a single feels like 190 df.

You really are clueless.

Incidentally, Xeno ergs at about 160 since it most closely replicates the feel of his 1x. Mind you, how the fcuk would he know?

And let me get this right: low drag erging makes no cardiovascular demands on the erger. It's important that we all understand that I think.

[rjw]

I am now pulling a relaxed 1:44 @ 26 spm (12 SPI) in my everyday UT1 distance rowing, tucked under my anaerobic threshold at 172 bpm.

That's right on my target for 60min.

I am sure you do but without the parameter of time this is a meaningless statement. There is a reason that people "race" their training. You will find this out, as well, in 31 days.

[mikvan52]

Based on your extensive experience of sweep rowing, can you explain why it is that rating up in an eight makes no cardiovascular demands on the rower?

The faster the boat, the lighter the water--and so the higher the rate.

An eight feels like 90 df.; a single feels like 190 df.

ranger

Rich: Just for fun: Tell us about your fictitious experiences sweep rowing. You know, where you developed your "feels like".
or...Perhaps you got it from Rupp by the process known as internetal rectal osmosis? ie: Where truth falls before cyber-blab.

You have now proven w/o a doubt that you don't know squat about rowing (OTW)

BTW:
Based on your estimation of 190 df feel while sculling:
Invitation now rescinded to Masters Nationals 2x partnership....
You clearly have no feel of a boat and are, therefore, a hopeless case OTW.
(readers following these sorry exchanges should remember: ranger has advertised that he has rowed many many more meters in a single than I have! And--- he comes up with this.. about feel?
I'll take him on his word.. So: In this case, he's DOA at any start line for the rest of his life... Sad but true.)

I've had it with this moronic exchange (my own included!)
(this should provide fodder for the ranger posting behemoth)

Sayonara!
I'm no longer interested in hearing lies and predictions w/o real training being discussed.

Since Rich only races when he thinks he can win, he will never race on the water ("race" means against competitors, BTW, not "the clock" / by himself).
Perhaps in two years I'll face him at CRASH-B... but I doubt it as he doesn't show there anymore.(Last 5 years =ing 0 for 5!)