<p>I got in 6.1 miles on the treadmill this afternoon. I’ve run 70 miles so far in 2014. A good start!</p>
<p>I’ve had a mix of workouts this week. One day, lots of walking. Others at the gym on the treadmill or elliptical machines, and adding in a variety of weight exercises. It’s almost time for S2 to go back to school, so we had lunch out today at his favorite fast food joint: Chipotle. I had a chicken and bean burrito bowl with brown rice that was pretty tasty although fairly salty. </p>
<p>Enjoy NOLA mommusic! And I’m glad to hear you’re okay without the Celebrex, Teri. I took that med for a shoulder problem and was very glad to get off of it because all of the heart health warnings.</p>
<p>I was feeling kind of light-headed today, and not really feeling like running so I decided to just go for a 2-3 mile walk. It’s a beautiful sunny 85 degrees, and I didn’t want to waste such a great day. After the first mile, I felt better, decided to run a little, and ended up with a five mile run. I feel great now.</p>
<p>^^^envious!!!</p>
<p>3 mile run done. Not the easiest run ever but done! It was one of those times when I really wanted to just come home from work and plop but didn’t and though hard, glad I did! Plopping now. :)</p>
<p>5 fast miles on treadmill</p>
<p>Citius. Altius. Fortius!</p>
<p>Dreaded Airdyne intervals. Another go at the 1 mile intervals. Tried to push. Did the three intervals a combined 14 seconds faster than the other day (8:38 total). Second fastest ever for me on this particular workout, just 6 seconds off my best time from a couple years ago. Not bad.</p>
<p>I rang the bell on heart rate, 96% of my max on the second interval. 100% of my max on the third interval. I should frame [this</a> one](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/l83eopd]this”>http://■■■■■■■.com/l83eopd) and hang it on my wall next to my “I Love Burpees” sticker…</p>
<p>IDad, what you are suggesting in a round about way, I think, is that for the person who is seeking just to have basic cardio aerobic fitness, perceived exertion is what counts and it doesn’t really matter what type of scale you use to assign a numerical value to that as long as you are consistent. And with that I would generally agree. For that matter, you could use a “talking test” measure based on easy to talk in complete sentences, difficult to talk in complete sentences and forget about it I’m gasping to get a word out. But for those attempting to use % hr as the metric for the intensity of their workouts, the simple general rule, as compared to Heart Rate Reserve, is really misleading because the percentage you think you are at you really are not at heart ranges below 85-90%. For those that are serious about hr training, it’s important to keep in mind that hr training is really supposed to be a surrogate for percentage of VO2 max. It’s easy to run/cycle around wearing a heart rate monitor,a bit more challenging to do so lugging the equipment needed to monitor oxygen intake and CO2 differentials :). Heart rate reserve provides a % that correlates linearly with % VO2 max while the simple general formula has a steep drop off curve below 85-90%.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, most people need to write down their target zones until they can commit them to memory. So while I agree that calculating them is more time consuming with HRR, if you are going to use hr % to train, why not be accurate. Otherwise, why fuss with numbers and gadgets when perceived exertion and the talk test will work just as well. Just my opinion, but I have been accused of being a workout techno dweeb metrics weenie;).</p>
<p>MKat:</p>
<p>I have found that perceived exertion and heart rate are very different for different types of exercise and very different as my fitness changes.</p>
<p>For example, “bent over panting like a dog” after a set of deadlifts is a much lower heart rate than “bent over panting like a dog” on the Airdyne.</p>
<p>Thanks to ML, blankmind and abasket’s posts I forced myself to the gym. I had my hair done this afternoon and I feel like I resemble the lead singer for a Flock of Seagulls. Not my best look. Took out my frustrations on the treadmill - 6.21 miles. I have to say my hair looks much better now!</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree, but I was talking in the context of aerobic cardio training, not resistance training. If you are running or cycling, or on an Airdyne the perceived exertion/ panting test works well for casual fitness exercisers.</p>
<p>I find that it is VERY hard for me to go as easy as I am supposed to go without a heart rate monitor.This is a common problem for runners/cyclists. A true easy effort is hard to do. I have to monitor the HR constantly or I creep up up up. </p>
<p>4.2 indoors on dreadmill at low HR. VERY slow and boring. Weather is miserable here.</p>
<p>Sabaray - you rock! You are inspiring me.</p>
<p>Just for kicks. I put together a [conversion</a> chart](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/lnqxbm5]conversion”>http://■■■■■■■.com/lnqxbm5) showing my heart rate range (from max to resting) either as a % of Heart Rate Reserve or a % of Absolute Max. Both produce a linear graph. The only difference is the slope of the graph. Either could be used successfully, just with different numeric values. A heart rate of 48 beats per minute for me is called 0% on one scale and called 28% on the other. Either way, it’s still the same heart rate: 48 beats per minute.</p>
<p>The crucial thing is that, if you are following a training scheme from somebody else, you have to know whether their heart rate zones are based on HRR or % Max. As MKAT points out, 70% is going to be very different depending on the scale you are using.</p>
<p>Most of the coaches I follow just use heart rate (for example, recover to 120 bpm). That probably works OK if you are just coaching college kids, but it’s not to useful to a geezer like me whose max heart rate is not the 200+ bpm of a college football player!</p>
<p>If I were starting to use a heart rate monitor today and if I confidently knew my resting heart rate, I would probably start displaying heart rate reserve % on my Garmin as MKAT suggests. Not because I care anything about VO2 max (after 38 years of smoking, I’m just happy to have VO2 period!), but because scientific literature tends to use Heart Rate Reserve. </p>
<p>On the other hand, it would have really messed me up during that first year when I was just learning to correlate perceived exertion to heart rate and seeing big changes in my fitness. My Resting Heart Rate fell from somewhere around 60 to 48 BPM, so i would have been constantly changing what I saw on my watch for 120 bpm.</p>
<p>The single most eye opening moment using a heart rate monitor for me was the day I first used it walking up the quarter mile hill from the millhouse at the river and saw a heart rate of 95% of my max. That’s when I realized why I was sweating like a pig and bent over panting like a dog! The last time I walked it, a couple years later, my max HR was 81% of absolute max on the same hill.</p>
<p>MOWC, I know just what you mean. Active recovery is torture, lol. Has your son seen the new Wahoo Kickr indoor cycling trainer? If not, he should scope it out. It’s a rear drop out mounted trainer (you take the wheel off the bike), computer controlled magnetic resistance, strain gauge actual wattage and -(drum roll) - it’s controlled by an IPhone or iPad using open code software that is being picked up by all sorts of performance tracking software companies. In addition, you can down load rides from a Garmin GPS and then let the file replicate the ride on the trainer, download ride training videos of actual rides/races and ride the video, with the resistance being computer controlled to match the ride profile for hills, headwinds etc. if your son can’t find one to play with in any of the shops he normally frequents, Keswick Cycles in Glenside has them (and they are flying out the door) or if he’s really interested, have him contact me (I’ll send you my contact info in a PM) and I’d be glad to have him come to my house with his bike on a weekend to try it. (Yes, I had an episode and picked one up.)</p>
<p>That looks fantastic.</p>
<p>I’ve got a little more affordable Wahoo product on my Airdyne.</p>
<p>[Wahoo</a> Fitness - Speed and Cadence Sensor](<a href=“http://www.wahoofitness.com/devices/wahoo-cycling-speed-cadence-sensor.html]Wahoo”>http://www.wahoofitness.com/devices/wahoo-cycling-speed-cadence-sensor.html)</p>
<p>Half of it reads the front wheel for distance. Half of it reads a magnet mounted to the crank for pedal RPM. Both bits transmit to the Garmin watch (and/or my computer).</p>
<p>Just to illustrate the drop off curve I mentioned, heart rate reserve % has a 1:1 correlation to % VO2. In contrast, % max HR: 35%=30% VO2 Max, 60%=50%VO2 Max, 80%=75%, 90%=84%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, but those are still just numbers that are equivalent expressions of the same thing. Suppose my (formerly) fat clone and I get on identical Airdynes with identical Garmin heart rate monitors. My clone has his Garmin set to display % of heart rate reserve and is going to pedal with a target of a sustained 50% of his HRR. I am going to pedal to a target on my Garmin of 60% of my max HR. We are both going to end up pedaling at the same speed with same actual heart rate and, therefore, working at the same percentage of VO2max. </p>
<p>It’s a bit like two of us measuring distance, one in miles, one in kilometers. The distance we travel is still the same! </p>
<p>A lot of exercise guidelines I’ve seen give the target zones on both scales, so someone displaying %HRR and someone displaying %HRMax can both target the same physiological zone. </p>
<p>If you are interested in directly translating your HR to your %VO2, then using heart rate reserve will surely make for a more direct translation! This would be of most interest to endurance athletes, since so much of the endurance running and cycling literature is focused on VO2Max. There’s debate about whether VO2 max correlates with on-field performance/stamina in sports, even in running intensive sports like soccer. I’ll have to check, but I don’t believe that Mike Boyle (strength coach for the US Women’s Olympic Hockey Team) cares about VO2 max. I don’t think he even wants them distance running. I’m positive he doesn’t care about the VO2max of his other team (the Boston Red Sox)!</p>
<p>Thanks, Michael. I emailed him to ask him if he’s seen this. Not that he needs anything else…</p>
<p>MTA- uh oh. He said he has checked into it. Very cool. Main concerns are accuracy of the power meter. He’s very obsessed with the power meter.</p>
<p>IDad, agree with everything you are saying. But the differences between HRR and simple hr % are significant not just for those who are engaged in very structured specificity of training but also for those who are just trying to maintain fitness with a variety of base endurance and interval work outs. Let’s say you have a max hr of 185 and want to run at 60% of your max. Simple hr = 111. For me, HRR=133. 70% is 129 vs 146. 80% is 148 vs 159. 90% is 166 vs 172. These are big differences in heart rate and therefore intensity depending on the system used to calculate the %. The significance of this is that all cardio training is based on the metabolic process of oxygen utilization within the range of a person’s VO2 capacity. We do cardio training to become stronger and more efficient in our use of oxygen in our bodies. If you use a heart rate based system that doesn’t correlate well with % VO2 max, you really don’t know how the exercise you are doing relates to your use of oxygen. You can end up exercising with much less intensity than you think you are. Again, for general fitness and health, perceived effort and the “talk test” are fine. Once someone decides to use heart rate as a metric, if you are going to rely on target heart rate zones, I am simply suggesting using a method that correlates with the oxygen intake and utilization process. You end up with a much more accurate picture of the training process that is occurring.</p>
<p>As to your comments about the sports teams and increasing VO2 max, again, I agree. In reality, intensive training can not effect VO2 max all that much. What I think these teams shoot for are things such as raising LT and AT thresholds, increasing anaerobic capacity, all of which can be raised significantly through training, so that the athletes become much more efficient at high intensity work loads and energy production and can maintain those levels for longer periods of time.</p>
<p>BTW, I really enjoy these discussions with you. You are so damn knowledgable that you really challenge me to justify many of my comments :).</p>
<p>MOWC, is it ever a question of “need”? Lol</p>