Does Aerobic Capacity Differ For Different Sports?

[old] gaffano · Post by **[old] gaffano** » December 8th, 2004, 12:26 am

For the last few years my aerobic excercise was pretty much just road biking. I felt I had built up a fairly good aerobic capacity. I can ride at 85% of my MHR for hours. I consider myself in decent shape. However, I recently started to cross train with the rower and some running. I am finding that I can not maintain 85% MHR for very long. Am I wrong in assuming that if you can workout at a certain heart rate in one sport, you should bve able to do the same at another?

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » December 8th, 2004, 1:58 am

Your MHR is different in Rowing/cycling/running/etc. You will probably still be able to train at 85% but have to use a different MHR for each sport. Therefore you training HR will be different. Usually MHR for rowing is lower than for running and cycling.

[old] Xeno · Post by **[old] Xeno** » December 8th, 2004, 3:32 pm

Hi By using the lactate pro you can figure out whether your body is in the right zone. The blood lactate levels is what determines which heart rate to hold for different training intensities. Xeno www.gorow.com

[old] Coach Gus · Post by **[old] Coach Gus** » December 8th, 2004, 4:07 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (holm188 @ Dec 7 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Your MHR is different in Rowing/cycling/running/etc.  </td></tr></table> This doesn't make sense to me. MHR is maximum HR. You only have one maximum. Reaching it or a certain percentage may be harder for you in one sport versus another, but your maximum isn't going to change. Hence, your HR training zones should be the same in each of them, right?

[old] jkeehan · Post by **[old] jkeehan** » December 8th, 2004, 5:06 pm

I started indoor rowing in March '04 and like member 676 I was previously using a road bicycle for my primary CV workouts. Because I have a small child, my opportunities to cycle were limited, so I tended to ride very hard for short periods. (My primary training was a 5mile/2,000 foot climb that I typically did 35-40 minutes w/ hr averages as high as 181.) When I started rowing, I noticed that my hr averages were about 40bpm below what I could hold on the bike for a similar period. But over the summer/fall I began rowing more and more and rarely bicycling. By fall, I noticed a reversal--I could now hold a ave hr on the Concept2 that was about 35 bpm higher that that of the bike. I was chagrined to discover this; I had somehow hoped that my productive training on the Concept2 would carry over to the bike. But I don't believe that I was really cross training as the riding had become too infrequent to maintain any kind of form. So, while I'm certainly no exercise physiologist, my experience leads me to believe that one needs do a pursuit often enough in order to keep activity specific muscles capable of operating at one's anabolic threshold.

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » December 8th, 2004, 6:18 pm

From: <a href='http://home.hia.no/~stephens/lacthres.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/~stephens/lacthres.htm</a> Specificity of the Lactate Threshold It is important to know that the lactate threshold is highly specific to the exercise task. So if this cyclist tries to get on his brand new, previously unused, rowing machine and row at a heart rate of 158, he will quickly become fatigued. Rowing employs different muscles and neuromuscular patterns. Since these muscles are less trained, the cyclist's rowing LT will be considerably lower. This specificity is an important concept to understand when using heart rate as a guide in "cross training activities", as well as for the multi-event athlete.

[old] Almostflipped · Post by **[old] Almostflipped** » December 8th, 2004, 7:17 pm

MHR is a motion/sport specific and is a function of the % of total muscle mass used. I don't remember the specifics but if you do a google search you can quickly find out details on this. General rule of thumb is that your running HR will be higher than your rowing, which will be higher than your biking. Now having said that, your particular skill level and training background will affect how high you can go in each sport. Given a sufficient level of training, the HR's will begin to converge but I'm not sure they will ever really be the same. A pretty good section was written on this by Ray Brown in SERIOUS Training. I'm not into cross training much myself, but he and his co-author have won numerous ironman triathlons, so they speak with authority. Coach Gus, you are getting to specific with the concept of MHR. Certaintly yes, there ultimately only one true MHR. However what percent of that MHR you can obtain in each sport will change and as such your training zones will also change. Basically if you want to cross train, you either need to do some form of lactate testing in each activity you intend on doing, do some form of max hr test in each activity you intend on doing, or just throw the dumb hr monitor out the window and go on RPE (much better idea unless you are looking at elite level). Most studies show that RPE (rate of perceived exertion) for a reasonably experienced athlete will serve you fine.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 8th, 2004, 9:04 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Coach Gus @ Dec 9 2004, 09:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (holm188 @ Dec 7 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Your MHR is different in Rowing/cycling/running/etc.  </td></tr></table> This doesn't make sense to me. MHR is maximum HR. You only have one maximum. Reaching it or a certain percentage may be harder for you in one sport versus another, but your maximum isn't going to change. Hence, your HR training zones should be the same in each of them, right?  </td></tr></table> Gus, just gone thru about 6 books on HR training, many by Triathletes and they all stress the fact that they work to different attainable HR's for each discipline hence the 'zones' are different. Between running high and a low in swimming this may be as high as 15bpm for a top triathlete. - George

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » December 8th, 2004, 9:18 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Coach Gus @ Dec 8 2004, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (holm188 @ Dec 7 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Your MHR is different in Rowing/cycling/running/etc.  </td></tr></table> This doesn't make sense to me. MHR is maximum HR. You only have one maximum. Reaching it or a certain percentage may be harder for you in one sport versus another, but your maximum isn't going to change. Hence, your HR training zones should be the same in each of them, right?  </td></tr></table> The highest HR your heart is able to beat at is probably a unique number that varies with age. You can probably reach it when running. You will never be able to reach that HR when rowing, whatever training plan you follow or how hard you workout. The max HR used for defining your training zone is sport specific. You might know your MHR on the erg, then try to run an 800m or 1500m and you will find out that you reach a much higher HR (10 beats or more higher). This has to do with your position during the effort (vertical vs. sitting vs. horizontal) and aslo the effort pattern (rowing is a succession of effort and rest phases, running, cycling, swimming are more continuous) and muscle mass used, etc. If you use your HR zones from running, you might have a hard time consistantly progress in rowing and vice-versa.

[old] gaffano · Post by **[old] gaffano** » December 8th, 2004, 9:32 pm

OK on this thought of sport specific MHR... So if you can maintain 85% MHR on a bike for 1 hour, but row at 65% for 1 hour, are you better off in terms of CV benefits on the bike??? thanks for the feedback,,,past and future...very helpful.

[old] Almostflipped · Post by **[old] Almostflipped** » December 8th, 2004, 10:27 pm

Would tend to think you are training different energy systems with such different HRs. Its not so much that one is better than the other as they are simply different. 65% HR will be training the low utilization system which is focused on improving mitochondrial density, capilirization, aerobic enzymes, slow twitch muscles, and a bunch of other things that don't matter right now. 85% HR makes me think AT (perhaps not though), which puts the focus on the bodies ability to buffer lactic acid and potentially moving into the transport system which means you are effecting the heart directly (high level explanation is its like lifting weights for the heart, but there is more involved). So short answer, neither is better. They are probably two entirely seperate types of workouts and it really depends on what you are targeting. However, I have no experience with biking so maybe the zones work out a little different. If the zones do work out the same though, then the question is what are you looking to do? If its lose weight/stay in shape, possibly biking (assuming you can recover quickly from that pace). If its row faster then the answer is erging.

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 8th, 2004, 10:56 pm

The MHR at LT is dependent on the sport and the training you've done. As you spend more time running and rowing, your MHR at LT in those sports will increase. Personally, I have the reverse situation: my MHR at LT is only around 140 bpm on the bike, while it is around 165 in rowing and 175 in running. It is even higher when running on a treadmill vs outside! In swimming it is around 150 (I am training for triathlons). I think you should keep biking (possibly on a trainer) until your MHR at LT on the rower and in running get closer to 85% of your MHR; otherwise you will loose some CV capability. Francois Audet

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » December 9th, 2004, 5:11 am

gaffano, <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So if you can maintain 85% MHR on a bike for 1 hour, but row at 65% for 1 hour, are you better off in terms of CV benefits on the bike??? </td></tr></table> [Edited below a sentence for clarity from: "From wich activity will you become the best runner, cycling or erging?"] I think it depends on what you mean by CV benefits. An example: From wich activity will you become the best runner? -From cycling or erging? Probably from cycling. But rowing will make you a better canoer or having an easier time carrying your grossaries from the store. The difference nature of the CV capacity is nothing without a task at hand. However, it is easier to get a high VO2max from cycling than rowing and if this is all you mean by CV then cycling is better. There is little point, though, in having a high value of something that has no impact on your practical reality. Is there not a saying: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". I'd rather have a million to spend than ten million I'll never access. It's up to one and all to decide for themselves which sport has the most value for them. The sport which gives high VO2max easiest is crosscountry skiing and therefore this is the most popular cross training where available. Tufte uses this, and he won olympic gold in the 1x. You can't make many misstakes (if any) to reach that. So there is point in getting those unaccessible 9 million, if you can make them accessible later, which means giving them a real value (and as I said, that value depends on and is determined by oneself) . Olympic golds have been won without cross training as well, though, suggesting you can't make the extra millions available. Summary: You may be better off on the bike, depending on how you value the characteristics of the CV benefits achieved, since these will differ between biking and rowing. Doing this evaluation, you should also look at what activity you find the most fun, and where you find it most socially enjoyable in your area (whether it is a geographical decision, or just beween the bikemachine corner and erg corner in the gym).

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » December 9th, 2004, 12:06 pm

Carl, can't agree with you on this. Oarsmen have, in average, the highest absolute VO2 max values registered, and, along with x-country skiing, the highest relative values. Although you are seated and row just about 20-40 times/minute, the amount and intensity of muscle mass used while rowing explains this. On the other hand, if we compare rowing with running, higher VO2 with lower heart beats just means that rower's hearts must pump more blood for each stroke. Finally, I think it's very hard to make comparisons between rowing, cycling and running, through "practical" examples: rowers are heavy, big or, at least, strong, all-body muscled guys, while runners and bikers are not! So, if you run, you will have to carry and feed a lot of muscle you won't be needing for a run... AM

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » December 9th, 2004, 12:29 pm

The thing about the difference between rowing and cycling is that they both use different muscles. While you might just use your arms to pedulum the bike while climbing or sprinting, in rowing you use your arms constantly, you also use different leg muscles and those in your back and abs. Of course you are going to experience different lactate/HR values based upon the different training states of those muscles. It makes sense if you think of it - training different muscles gives specific results. Doing squats is not going to make your biceps stronger. Now, that said, being a cyclist you do bring a high level of fitness to the table, and you have that CV conditioning, but right now you can't use it. You can't put it 100% to use until your muscles adapt to the new motion. I'm pretty confident that you will see your times dropping pretty soon.

Concept2 Forum

Does Aerobic Capacity Differ For Different Sports?

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness