Heart Rate @ Lactate Threshold - Page 5

What the F are you WPs talking about. I need to get some ALs to understand the OPs & SPs Ps.

You want to get that thing with the CPU and the RAM and the HDD and the DVD-RW and the CD-ROM and the FDD and the TFT and try and make more sense and stop going on about LTGs and FRU and AMT.

The time it takes to write LT as lactate threshold may be saved by you but you may as well save all your time and not type anything because I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who has to look all these terms up and subsequently not bother reading on.

Remember its rude to whisper!! (Or speak in a foreign language)

Well yes and no.

Max HR, in the case you are describing, is max HR obtain during these incremental tests.

In this context, my LT is probably at ~ 91% of max HR (~186), but at ~ 86% of Max HR data I gathered over the course of last year (195, while being out of shape).

This is what I hate about establishing zones based on max HR. The burden of the proof isn't easy.

In triathlon training context, I prefer to use HR at VO2Max, as a base for establishing training zones (Swim Bike Run), but (maybe mistakenly) never really considered it as being absolute max HR one can acheive.

Which raises the question, "Why does a serious cyclist need to know his max HR?" IMO, the same can be said of lactate threshold (or the complete blood lactate/power curve for that matter). I can honestly say that I could care less about either of these two pieces of data for myself. If you offered to tell me what my MHR and LT are, guaranteed to be accurate to +/- .001%, I would say, "Save your breath. I don't know what I would do with that data anyway." Now, OTOH, if you told me you could put me in the most aerodynamic position on a TT bike optimized for minimum drag, guaranteed to be accurate to +/- .001%, I'd be at your doorstep tomorrow.

As I indicated, maximum heart rate tends to be lower when fit vs. unfit, so it's not surprising that you saw a higher value of 195 when by your own assessment you were out of shape. However, that's not the same as saying that measurement of maximum heart rate is protocol-dependent, as in fact it isn't, or at least not vastly so (just like VO2max isn't really protocol-dependent, although use of an inappropriate protocol may certainly prevent you from reaching VO2max).

In a study aimed at establishing max hr, protocol can include the fact of not training for 14 days, before doing the test. Values obtained during the test based ont that protocol, could be different than performing the exact same test while being fit.

In my own non-scientific words, that is how Max Hr is protocol-dependant.

But I am not arguing with you here. This is a non issue anyway. I buy your approach 100%, as it makes much more sense to consider HR at VO2Max, as simply being max HR.

Any type of relative training zones require *some* point as a basis from which the others are measured. If you use point A are your baseline, then it'd naturally be somewhat unnecessary to know point B to a high degree of accuracy. The answer to your question above is "Because that individual uses that point as the basis of his training schema."

Different strokes for different folks.

I agree with you guys. Altough, I am a data freak. So even if power is the way to go, for training prescription and analysis, I like gathering RPE, HR, everything that could possibly get logged.

But in most situation, HR data is kinda worthless. I now know it, because of everything I learn on this amazing forum.

Thank you very much to everyone.

I've following this (interesting) discussion and just thought about a couple of things that may be relevant for the discussion (particularly the one between Quadsweep and acoccan arguing about HR uphill due to use of muscle mass).

I don't know about muscle mass, but I can think of two other reasons why HR would be higher uphill than on the flats:

(1) Lower speeds means less cooling which (might) mean cardiac drift. How many bpm could this mean on a warm day? 5? 10?

(2) Have you ever noticed that if you're in the drops on your stationary bike and then sit up (making your upper part of your body vertical), your HR will increase with about 4-6bpm within half a minute even if you're sustaing exactly the same power (at least this happens consistently with me, and I know many others as well). I've always been wondering why that is? I read an interesting article by a guy named Stephen Seiler (with a PhD i exercise physiology from the University of Texas). He explained that cardiac output is a function of HR and stroke volume (which is well known by many of the users on this forum as well also). When in an upright position you will experience decreased venous return of blood to the heart (probably due to gravity(?)), which will cause less ventricular filling of the heart. To keep cardiac output constant, the HR will increase to compensate for the lower stroke volume.

I'm no expert on this at all, but I would easily accept that HR uphill would be greater than on the flats even when producing the same power.

Any thoughts on this?

_________
CycleFast

Agreed - I was just interpreting the word "protocol" in a narrower sense, i.e., how you go about performing the actual measurement, not what took place during the minutes/hours/days before.

But again Andy, I kind of learned to refine my approach on training zone establishement, by reading your comments and answers throughout this great thread. Many thanks.

The burden of assessing the highest possible HR one can theoratically get, is useless.

Bravo! Now, how about LT?

If you're saying that there are limitations to it's use then I'd agree, but there is data that is *less* useful (and even ways of training without *any* data), so HR data itself is not 'worthless'.

Let's not make this a case of the 'haves' vs. the 'have nots'. If HR (or RPE, or avg speed, etc.) is the best you have, then use it and understand the conditions in which it is limited. If you can get something better, then use that instead.

Agree in that if your reference point is somewhat variable, there's not a lot of value in determining a truly accurate value for that point under one specific set of conditions. I'd take my best stab at it and move on.

Only important for individuals using that point as a basis for their training program, or are interested in seeing how their body has adapted to training over time.

There are many published training plans out there that recommend exercising just above/around LT as a way of improving sustainable performance -- that should come as no surprise. Now, for people that just have an HRM maybe it'd be useful to know what they should see on their wrist when they're doing that. Having been one of those people up until this year, I can understand a desire to be tested rather than having to estimate based on some percent from MHR, which is what many articles recommend.

Okay, so here's a question for you. Let's say that you no longer have a power meter (yeah, I know, fat chance -- but bear with me). And, I tell you, "frenchy, this is your lactate threshold as measured by my proprietary, super-precise "Buck Rogers" measurement methodology, guaranteed to be accurate to within .001%, and this is your HR at your lactate threshold." Now, what are you going to do with that info as it relates to training, measuring progress or racing?