Hypertension, anti hypertensives, and rowing performance

[PaulH]

There is no science to HRmax? and yet it is a well documented and well scientifically investigated methodology and you refer to it yourself quite pointedly.

Yes, and that scientific investigation has shown that it's bogus, and that's what I was pointing out.

How then does one gauge how far to push oneself, given most people are amateurs with little scientific apparatus at their disposal.

Well HR is certainly an option. But as Citroen says it has some flaws, and it's not clear to me that it's much better than 'perceived exertion' (which is cheaper than a heart rate monitor). I'm quite sure that basing your HR training off Max HR formulae that are known to be wrong is unlikely to be profitable, however.

If nothing else id like to get the message out three that going for broke is not beneficial and some degree of science is certainly worth applying.

That's fine, but if you're doing it start by being right. Explain how to establish Max HR (not a difficult thing to figure out more accurately than by using a formula) and build on that, rather than using poor science and then getting snippy when people call you on it.

[smutav]

thanks Paul
I used 220 minus age as an EXAMPLE of determining HRmx, as we know there are many.
SO short of doing blood lactate readings by whipping off a blood sample to your local general hospital for analysis,
how do you determine in what zone and at what heart rate range these zones are within?
I dont think 'perception' quite hacks it, certainly scientific but more so in the realm of psychological science:) Ever had a bad day ? everything is hard and everything hurts ?
I think you need to account for BOTH muscle groups in action here, one skeletal and the other cardiac.
You can cause a good degree of skeletal muscle damage (which essentially you are trying to do, at least moderately) and 'get away' with it ie some pain, soreness which will dissipate as it heals.
The other, cardiac is a totally different story. you DO NOT want to damage cardiac muscle...believe me.
The notion from many pundits out there is that 'i can go for broke until my legs and arms or even lungs give out' ie your ' perceived ' notion of fatigue.....little attention is given to the heart and how much it can tolerate.
Read on and see posts from rowers with high blood pressure or CV issues.....should they row by perception? ah....gee my chest feels a bit tight now, maybe i should back off??... or should they apply some science to what they are doing? MR max is NOT bogus based on some just investigations as you quoted....other investigations and many institutions use it religiously.
Sorry mate, perception is NOT good enough nor is it necessarily safe...
snippy? i wouldnt have thought so........
accusing people of being rude, wrong and whatever other accusations u used...blah blah
a mirror might be a useful tool

cheers

[PaulH]

So many things to comment on!

1. I understand that 220-age was an example of calculating it, but a) we *know* it's not accurate, b) it disagrees with other (better) formulae for calculating Max HR, and c) finding your actual max experimentally isn't difficult. So why come out so vehemently against exceeding an arbitrary number? If you're going to make up a number why not just tell everyone not to go above 170bpm? It's almost as valid as 220-age.

2. The Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale is a well established way of accounting for both muscular and cardiac stress. One of its strengths (which it shares with heart rate training) is that it allows for having a bad day - that's generally a signal that you should back off, which training based purely on power, for example, doesn't allow for.

3. I haven't claimed that Max HR is bogus, and I invite you to find a quote where I did. I use heart rate training based on my *actual* maximum heart rate every day. What I called bogus is your method of calculating a max, which is bogus.

4. I said you were being snippy because you said about Citroen "We all cant be as informed as your esteemed self… people such as yourself would call it ?." Now it's possible that you really do hold Citroen in esteem, and by 'people such as yourself' you mean upstanding pillars of the community. But I think everyone here knows that's not what you were implying.

5. So, to substance. Explain to everyone how to do a simple Conconi test, or even find their max HR during a 5k at race pace (which seems to be a decent way of approximating max heart rate on an erg), and then share how to interpret that number. Pay particular attention to the idea of exceeding that number - if someone does that then either a) they're having a cardiac event, which is indeed very serious, or b) (and more likely), the number they worked out for max heart rate wasn't right, and they should use this new number from now on.

[gregsmith01748]

If we can put aside all of the discussion of estimated versus measure MaxHR.

The thing I would like to see some evidence based conclusions about is the assertion that training at or near your MaxHR is somehow damaging to the heart. I understand that training up in the anaerobic zone (>95% of MaxHR) should be applied pretty sparingly. Most plans that I have seen say it should be 10% of training volume or lower. And that it requires greater recovery time than training at lower intensities. However, in most of those sources (Connelly, etc) describe the reason for this is optimization of training effect, not because doing more intense work will kill you as the OP seems to be suggesting.

What evidence is there that training at or near your actual MaxHR is dangerous is the OP has suggested? I haven't seen any, but I haven't looked all that hard.

Of course this does not include folks who have been diagnosed with cardiac conditions or have received specific restrictions from a health care professional.

[Citroen]

If we can put aside all of the discussion of estimated versus measure MaxHR.

The thing I would like to see some evidence based conclusions about is the assertion that training at or near your MaxHR is somehow damaging to the heart. I understand that training up in the anaerobic zone (>95% of MaxHR) should be applied pretty sparingly. Most plans that I have seen say it should be 10% of training volume or lower. And that it recovers greater recovery time than training at lower intensities. However, in most of those sources (Connelly, etc) describe the reason for this is optimization of training effect, not because doing more intense work will kill you as the OP seems to be suggesting.

What evidence is there that training at or near your actual MaxHR is dangerous is the OP has suggested? I haven't seen any, but I haven't looked all that hard.

Of course this does not include folks who have been diagnosed with cardiac conditions or have received specific restrictions from a health care professional.

Thanks for putting into words the second reason for my calling out our Australian poster for "uninformed nonsense". The training is done by pushing harder than you'd like for longer than you want to (without dying). It's very easy and lazy (as I know only too well) to always opt for the easiest sessions and never get any proper training effect.

[smutav]

So many things to comment on!

1. I understand that 220-age was an example of calculating it, but a) we *know* it's not accurate, b) it disagrees with other (better) formulae for calculating Max HR, and c) finding your actual max experimentally isn't difficult. So why come out so vehemently against exceeding an arbitrary number? If you're going to make up a number why not just tell everyone not to go above 170bpm? It's almost as valid as 220-age.


seems ive achieved an objective then. make up a nos? i used a simple example for simplicity sake. would it have been better to used one of a myriad of other more complex examples? judgement call but u are assuming then that everyone has the scientific knowledge you might have.

2. The Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale is a well established way of accounting for both muscular and cardiac stress. One of its strengths (which it shares with heart rate training) is that it allows for having a bad day - that's generally a signal that you should back off, which training based purely on power, for example, doesn't allow for.


OK , thanks for that....another bonus of this thread.

3. I haven't claimed that Max HR is bogus, and I invite you to find a quote where I did. I use heart rate training based on my *actual* maximum heart rate every day. What I called bogus is your method of calculating a max, which is bogus.


ok, whatever, i dont want to get into claim counter claim nor re read etc....lets move on

4. I said you were being snippy because you said about Citroen "We all cant be as informed as your esteemed self… people such as yourself would call it ?." Now it's possible that you really do hold Citroen in esteem, and by 'people such as yourself' you mean upstanding pillars of the community. But I think everyone here knows that's not what you were implying.

ah..my mate citroen, judging by his comments,i think he looks more at the origin of the poster than the content....probably one those empire rule brittania guys...let him be.

5. So, to substance. Explain to everyone how to do a simple Conconi test, or even find their max HR during a 5k at race pace (which seems to be a decent way of approximating max heart rate on an erg), and then share how to interpret that number. Pay particular attention to the idea of exceeding that number - if someone does that then either a) they're having a cardiac event, which is indeed very serious, or b) (and more likely), the number they worked out for max heart rate wasn't right, and they should use this new number from now on.

dont know about conconi test but will look it up...again thanks for that....we ARE making progress
and you havent commented on cardiac vs skeletal and your perception technique of training.

My over riding point is, heart disease being the nos one killer in the western world, probably most concept 2 owners being western worlders, all having some degree of atheroma.....be very careful guys, doing serious training of any sorts can be very dangerous unless its monitored. Perception of fitness and degree of intensity is a fools notion......put science to your rowing especially if intense you could just otherwise be doing yourself some serious damage.

cheers

[PaulH]

What evidence is there that training at or near your actual MaxHR is dangerous is the OP has suggested? I haven't seen any, but I haven't looked all that hard.

I recall reading an article explaining that your heart is incredibly good at resisting exercise-induced damage; unless there's already something wrong with it, it won't let itself suffer harm from being pushed too hard. A couple of caveats. First, most people won't know that there's something wrong with their heart until it fails, which is generally too late. Second, I'm just some bloke on the internet talking about some article he claims to have read, which should help you understand exactly what this advice is worth

you havent commented on cardiac vs skeletal and your perception technique of training.

a) I don't need to comment - you raised the idea, now justify your opinion so that we can all learn. b) It's not 'my' perception technique of training, but here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=borg+perceived+rat ... tion+scale

heart disease being the nos one killer in the western world

People in the western world are fortunate enough to have relatively long lives, so it's not surprising that many of them die from diseases of old age such as cardiovascular problems. Caution may well be advisable, but demonstrate to us why that is rather than just asserting it. Otherwise the next guy along can claim "heart disease being the nos one killer in the western world, it's vital that you do serious training such as Tabata intervals to protect you against CV disease", and we're no further forward in our understanding.

[smutav]

your life, go for it bro
you might want to read an interesting recent article

no pretend, no reference to AN article/s that might support your notions
just plain old reality


http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/f ... 2orpw.html

[smutav]

ill try the BORG preception 'see how i feeeel' technique this weekend
what allowance should i make for the hangover? ..........and the left over cold?
you cant be serious ?
heart disease is increasingly becoming a 'younger' disease, its not exclusively an old age problem nor just that we are living longer
we are for the first time in humanity, on the verge whereby an 'older' generation may well outlive a 'younger' generation, mostly to do with the fat epidemic and the implications this has for ones health, mostly notably Coronary vascular disease.....yes, heart disease which i repeat is the number one killer in the western world. sorry if you dont like that fact.
i can continue to refer to my pet references and you can refute with yours, such is the cse with various areas within the medical (and other) sciences but my bottom line, the take home message, the warning to all and sundry is..........do not think you can go out and flog yourself to your legs, arms or lungs give or rely on how you might be feeling because your heart might well give out well before then in which case reference to the BORG perception technique becomes a very mute point indeed.
cheers

[PaulH]

ill try the BORG preception 'see how i feeeel' technique this weekend

It's Borg, named after a man, not an acronym

what allowance should i make for the hangover? ..........and the left over cold?
you cant be serious ?

An excellent point. I don't believe you should make any allowance for it under the Borg system. That's because you'll find an effort harder if you're unwell or hungover, so under Borg-guided training you won't work as hard, giving your body time to recover. Basically the same thing happens with heart rate training - if you're unwell your heart rate will be higher for a given level of effort, so if you stick to your heart rate targets you'll have an easier workout while your body recovers. So both training methods lead to the same thing, but you think that one of them is a joke?

i can continue to refer to my pet references and you can refute with yours

You can't continue doing this, because you haven't yet posted a single reference that says you shouldn't exceed an arbitrarily calculated heart rate limit. Certainly the article from SMH didn't say anything about exceeding any heart rate value, let alone one calculated by a formula already proven to be of no value. But I welcome a reference from you that proves your point - in fact that's exactly what I'm asking for, so that readers of the forum in the future can learn from science, rather than having to rely on somebody's opinion.

...the BORG perception technique becomes a very mute point indeed.

Actually it would be a moot point. English is a tricky language, but in my opinion one well worth mastering.

[hjs]

heart disease is increasingly becoming a 'younger' disease, its not exclusively an old age problem nor just that we are living longer

Its a age related but lifestyle related. And lifestyle is obvious, people know if they are living, mostly eating wrong.

[jamesg]

There are many max HR formulae...the most basic being 220 - age...ie.if 50 yo DO NOT for an extended period of time - anytime for that matter !...push your HR over 170 bpm, this will do more harm than good, you WILL cause damage to your body.

That formula gives an average, which implies that some people have a lower MHR than the calculated number. So that damage is maybe sudden death, in their cases? See fig 1 here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9700010548

I'm 72 (and 220-72=148) but sometimes see over 160. However your point that we should not exceed the 220-Age calculated value, to limit risk, is I think a good one. Certainly better than treating it as a real maximum. I can keep fit without going over 148, the sweat is more than enough.

The problem with the formulae is that they give a single value, while actual measurements show a range or spread of values. This makes the formulae not incorrect, but useless for HR training, where the bands are narrower than the spread of HR values found in the population.

In reality I guess we all use a combination of perception, HR, rate of change of HR, sweat, desperation and Watts or pace and then decide what to do next stroke. In math terms they all have some likelihood of being correct, so then we unconsciously apply Bayesian probability theory. No one has told us he died on the erg from heart failure, so maybe it's a good method.

[Bob S.]

No one has told us he died on the erg from heart failure, so maybe it's a good method.

Love it! That's the best statement I have seen on this wacky thread so far.

Note to the OP: The main problem on this thread is your mention of the 220-age formula in that first post. Of all the formulae that have been put out, that is the one that has been the most thoroughly discredited, even by the man who first published it. He had not intended it for the purposes for which it had been used. This has been known and discussed for a long time, especially on this forum. As a result, quoting that formula immediately raises a red flag to many of the forum members (including the monitors). And as jamesg pointed out, any formula can only give you an average. The only scientific way to know your own HRmax is to have it measured by qualified experts in stress testing.

Note to jamesg: Actually I know of one rower who had a cardiac arrest right at the end of a race. Having been in the same eight in that race, I can vouch for that. With immediate CPR, followed by the full scale paddle treatment, he survived that incident, but with no memory of the race or the previous day or so. He lived for another 3 years, but did not survive the next attack, which occurred at the end of a training session in a 4-. In his case, there was plenty of advanced warning, but rowing was a big part of his life and he was determined to stick with it regardless of possible consequences. I was about 10 years older than him and had developed aortic valve stenosis at that time, so after that incident, my fellow rowing club members were reluctant to have me as a team mate. I had a strong suspicion that they were concerned that a similar fate would befall me.

Bob S.

[smutav]

yep maybe the 220 minus age was a bad example as some people have seized upon that as the definitive of my original post. I chose it merely as the most simple EXAMPLE for simplicity sake.some cant see the forest from the trees nor do they appreciate the inherent message from the SMH article i posted which describes a clear trend, especially for the MAMIL species (could it be due to advanced heart disease in many of these people Paul? How were these people 'feeeling' before they dropped dead? Do you think they went well past, and for a prolonged period, their calculated HR max? Forgot to apply the Borg P? ).
Those who pay little attention to the strain they put on their heart (for my discussion i am emphasising the heart) put themselves in real danger of instant extinction. I think someone posted on the notion that the heart looks after itself, you can flog it but it will 'self protect'.....well....to put it bluntly....NO !
I await Paul to discern between the strain (and deliberate damage) we submit skeletal muscle to (which is very much a part of training) and the very same process which i think people expect of cardiac muscle which of course has the added risk of being the one and only muscle of its type keeping us alive ! Of course associated with the strain subjected to cardiac tissue is the issue of coronary vascular disease which i dare say each and every one of us have to some extent (fatty streaks developing within the first decade of life for the average westerner). Do i not account for the effects on my heart when subjecting my lungs and legs to excessive strain which the latter in general can 'absorb' ?
I find the argument of some so pedantic as to be ridiculous in the face of the greater message i am trying to highlight......which is
BE CAREFUL OF OVER STRAINING YOUR HEART.
Even my english is being ridiculed by some of the brittania brigade...sorry for the typos but im still learning touchT and no i dont tend to reread and correct, i just type away coz i know for the less pedantic the message is there....and if u insist P its Borg not BORG....sheesh.

[PaulH]

no i dont tend to reread and correct, i just type away coz i know for the less pedantic the message is there

The message may be there, but think about how much credibility readers will assign to advice rendered so sloppily. And if you don't care what value they assign to what you say, why are you saying anything?

(could it be due to advanced heart disease in many of these people Paul? How were these people 'feeeling' before they dropped dead? Do you think they went well past, and for a prolonged period, their calculated HR max? Forgot to apply the Borg P? ).

I imagine most of them weren't using the Borg method at all. It's just as likely that they were wearing heart rate monitors, but didn't act on what it was telling them. The point is that *if* you want to use a system to control your training, and if you use it correctly, the Borg method is as good as using an HRM together with a max heart rate number derived from a nonsense formula, but is cheaper.

I await Paul to discern between the strain (and deliberate damage) we submit skeletal muscle to (which is very much a part of training) and the very same process which i think people expect of cardiac muscle which of course has the added risk of being the one and only muscle of its type keeping us alive ! Of course associated with the strain subjected to cardiac tissue is the issue of coronary vascular disease which i dare say each and every one of us have to some extent (fatty streaks developing within the first decade of life for the average westerner). Do i not account for the effects on my heart when subjecting my lungs and legs to excessive strain which the latter in general can 'absorb' ?

Absolutely you should account for the effects on your heart. That's quite tricky - it's pretty easy to pull a muscle within seconds by doing an ill-advised lift, harder to exercise yourself into an instant heart attack, so I think most people are more inclined to think about protecting their muscles than protecting their heart. Similarly muscle ache the day after a too-heavy session is a more obvious signal of overtraining than cardiac scarring that can't be seen outside of an MRI. So we'd be well advised to follow a system that will tell us when we're overtraining, even if we might feel just fine.

You could have said that. Perhaps you even *meant* that. But what you've done instead is say "Here's a number based on your age, but unrelated to your fitness, medical history, gender, height, weight, diet, sport, or racial origin. Despite this extreme level of arbitrariness, you must never let your heart rate exceed this number by even a single digit or YOU MIGHT DIE!!!"

I don't think that's helpful.