HRmax & VO2Max

[Guest]

You can't improve your max heart rate by training as this is pretty much set by genetics, you may occationaly see higher heart rates during training but this would be because you:

• Can push yourself harder.
• Are more motivated therefore working harder.
• Dehydrated.
• Performing a different exercise and therefore using more muscle mass or muscle in a different way.

Actually, training usualy cause the max heart rate to fall a number of beats per minute from untrained levels. This is because the heart volume (stroke volume) increases and it takes slightly longer for the heart to contract and fill with blood again (so less beats can fit into a minute).

Max heart rate also decreases with age, but this decrease is not linear at 1 beat per minute per year. This helps to explain why predicting your heart rate with 220 minus your age is not very accurate!

Max heart rate has no implications for performance at all, its all individual! Instead 'cardiac output', the amount of blood pumped by the heart is important. It is 'cardiac output' that increases with training!

As for reaching your max heart rate, this is the maximum heart rate that you can acheive during a particular mode of exercise. When your heart rate reaches a maximum (and so your cardiac output reaches a maximum) you are close to acheiving your VO2 max! People in wheelchairs don't acheive the VO2 max results or maximum heart rates of cyclists because there is a smaller muscle mass used (arms) during and therefore a smaller cardiac output required!

 

[Guest]

2Lap-

Exactly how is stroke volume increased with training? I have read that efforts involving the need for large quantities of blood (i.e. sprinting, a maximal lift in weight lifting) resulted in strengthening of the left ventricle. But won't stroke volume be dependent on the sheer chamber size of the ventricle?

 

[Guest]

Its a similar training effect, however the volume of the left ventricle increases. There are changes to the aorta etc. that alow the blood to flow more readily around the body.

 

[crankin]

I have been professionally tested for my AT and MHR. This is the sole basis on which
my training program is developed and I'll be damned if I have't been ripping legs off more and more
this season. My max is 194 ( I am 30 yrs old) and my AT is 175. One thing to note is that Anaerobic threshold is just a factor, I typically time trial at about 10 beats over AT...BUT, once you hit MHR for too long, you risk hitting the wall. I would say that the Own index on the polar might be accurate but only to a point. Mine reads above "elite" and personally, i ain't there yet I was told that it uses the pause between the "ba" and the "dump" on the heartbeat to measure the index. I have a very slow strong resting pulse...42-44 bpm.
(yep...almost dead

 

[Guest]

Thanks crankin, thats really interesting! Training around your lactate threshold will increase the lactate threshold and therefore improve your endurance performance, as you have suggested.

You note that your TT heart rate is about 10 beats above your lactate threshold and while this is not too much of a shock, it is interesting.

Remember that lactate threshold describes the intensity (during a ramp test) at which blood lactic accumulates.

During steady state exercise (e.g. constant load) however, blood lactic rises initialy (because of the transition from rest to exercise) and then (1) decreases again, (2) remains constant or (3) keeps increaseing.

During (1) the athlete recovers from the initial effort and begins to recover, during this condition the athlete could work harder.

During (2) the athlete works at an intensity where blood lactic is resynthesised as quickly as it is produced.

During (3) the athlete is working at an intensity that causes further increases in blood lactic and this constant increase in lactic acid causes fatigue.

The exercising state described by (2) is the maximum work rate that can be maintained by the athlete for any length of time. This point is described as Maximal lactate Steady State (as blood lactic does not rise or fall). This point occurs at both a higher power output and heart rate than the lactic threshold measured during a ramp test. Therefore you CAN work harder (HR and power) than lactic threshold as measured in a ramp test.

MLSS may be a new term to you and it isn't particularly discussed outside sport science circles. However...

Maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) is difficult to measure as it requires a number of visits to a sports science lab to determine its exact intensity.
MLSS is a relativly new and unstudied physiological marker. MLSS increases with lactic threshold and therefore similar training is required to improve both.

Hope this helps to explain why you can TT at 10 beats above your lactic threshold.

 

[Guest]

I read in an earlier post in this thread where someone stated that their max hr was different for cycling, running, and rowing. I think that person meant that their vo2max was different for those activities. From what I understand, your maxhr is hardwired and only decreases with age. I had my max hr along with my vo2max clinically tested about a month ago. The max hr was what I predicted from what I had seen in racing. I'm 35, weigh a buck 35 and have a max hr of 191. So in my case the 220 is off by 6 bpm. My vo2 max is 62.9. The way it was explained to me is that if I had done the treadmill test instead of the bike, my vo2 max would have been higher as I would have used more muscle groups to complete the test.

 

[crankin]

2LAP
Thanks for the info. I do know a bit about MLSS, onlly because my test was done by a post
Ph.d in exercise physiology I wasn't questioning the TT HR, only mentioning it. I know that if I am not
at least at 180 while TT-ing, I am not working hard enough.
I also am a lactate monster so to speak. Whereas my dailiy training AT
is 175, (the first spot it levels) my test actually drops and then ramps back up at 183 at that point it
levels. When racing I rarely see above 175...except the occasional CAT 1 climb! but because of the moment of fatigue that I feel and need to work through, I try to keep my HR lower. It is too difficult in a road race to keep it over 180 because the courses and effort flucuates so much.

Got to run!

 

[Guest]

Good news, I checked my Own index this AM and despite not having been on a bike in 3 weeks it has not gone down. still 53. I attribute this to the other little exercises I do, runnin up/down the stairs when I use them, water skiing (ok only once) and general round the house work.

 

[2LAP]

Another interesting old thread given recent posts on aerobic training.

 

[Glasgow United]

This is for Guest who can't get a high enough MHR.
Take your RHR and if this is lower than 75BPM then the typical formula of 220-age will not work this is because you are fitter than the average person, just add the difference from 75-your BPM at rest, to 220-age. So if you are 55 and have a RHR of 60BPM then 220-55=165 then add the 15 from 75-60 which equalls 180. We use this in my gymnasium to train fitter seniors for triathlons.
Cheers

 

[2LAP]

Welcome to the forum.

And where did that equation come from? Also if you are in a gym why not do a ramp test?

 

[Glasgow United]

Alright 2lap, the formula of 220-age is just the simplest and safest way to estimate the maximum amount of strain(beats p/m) your heart can take, if someone is fitter then their heart is stronger and can therefore handle a larger number of beats per minute. Similarly the 220-age formula is designed assuming that all peoples bodies age and deteriorate at the same rate. This is not the case as often a person several years older can have a better conditioned body. In the gym, we only use this adapted formula to give a very rough estimate of what older people may safely increase their heart rate to. I am not familiar with what you mean by a ramp test.

 

[Blackie]

Originally posted by Glasgow United
Alright 2lap, the formula of 220-age is just the simplest and safest way to estimate the maximum amount of strain(beats p/m) your heart can take, if someone is fitter then their heart is stronger and can therefore handle a larger number of beats per minute. Similarly the 220-age formula is designed assuming that all peoples bodies age and deteriorate at the same rate. This is not the case as often a person several years older can have a better conditioned body. In the gym, we only use this adapted formula to give a very rough estimate of what older people may safely increase their heart rate to. I am not familiar with what you mean by a ramp test.

Glasgow, at what point does someone have to be old enough for the formula to apply? I don't think its wise to base any training programme on a simple formula given the wide variation in bpm in Max HR in different individuals of any age. My own data of age 30, max HR 178bpm (in field test and close to that seen racing) and resting HR of 42bpm are pretty out of line with that. I'm unsure of the decline in max HR per year with age, but I don't believe mine would be predicted with that formula.

All this important as you know, as to misprescribe the training range in bpm someone should train at is pretty bad for them. I do understand that with older people you should be more careful with do max HR field tests, but I have seen that a close approximation can be done using submaximal tests ie lactic threshold testing, which would be safer.

I also disagree with your point that if someone is fitter than their age that their heart can handle a higher number of beats - max HR is genetic and independent largely of fitness (indeed it falls a little in the season as athletes get stronger). With fitness, the heart can function at the same level with fewer bpm, pushing more blood with a stronger beat.

 

[2LAP]

Originally posted by Glasgow United
Alright 2lap, the formula of 220-age is just the simplest and safest way to estimate the maximum amount of strain(beats p/m) your heart can take, if someone is fitter then their heart is stronger and can therefore handle a larger number of beats per minute. Similarly the 220-age formula is designed assuming that all peoples bodies age and deteriorate at the same rate. This is not the case as often a person several years older can have a better conditioned body. In the gym, we only use this adapted formula to give a very rough estimate of what older people may safely increase their heart rate to. I am not familiar with what you mean by a ramp test.

Ramp test, also called a max test, where intensity is increased until the exercisers capacity is reached. This would be far more accurate and quite safe as the people you are working with are already active (i.e. 'fitter seniors').

You might find this interesting Link. Its about the validity of 220 - age.

 

[Glasgow United]

Cheers 2lap, interesting stuff. I will put up a link with the name of the formula we sometimes use. I see you what you mean on the ramp test, thanks. we do use a similar type test with HR monitors.

 

[the brother]

I read in an earlier post in this thread where someone stated that their max hr was different for cycling, running, and rowing. I think that person meant that their vo2max was different for those activities. From what I understand, your maxhr is hardwired and only decreases with age. I had my max hr along with my vo2max clinically tested about a month ago. The max hr was what I predicted from what I had seen in racing. I'm 35, weigh a buck 35 and have a max hr of 191. So in my case the 220 is off by 6 bpm. My vo2 max is 62.9. The way it was explained to me is that if I had done the treadmill test instead of the bike, my vo2 max would have been higher as I would have used more muscle groups to complete the test.

Max HR is sport specific. If you train regularly in running, cycling and rowing then it is likely that you can obtain a higher HR when running than rowing and rowing than cycling. Running is weight bearing so requires more power for movement than non weight bearing sports like the other two.
Both running and rowing will probably elicit a higher max HR than cycling as they use a larger muscle mass.
If you only ever train on the bike though it is probable that you would obtain a higher max in cycling than any other sport as that is the sport that your system is most highly trained for.

As for VO2 max, it is generally expected that you obtain a value about 10% lower on the bike than running due to less muscle mass but, again, if you are much better trained cycling then it is possible that you can have a higher VO2 max cycling. It is probable also that genetics has something to do with it.

for example my VO2 max measured while running on a treadmill was 72.6ml/kg/min whereas my VO2 max while cycling was 76.8ml/kg/min.
Higher cycling than running!

Not everyone fits into the equations given by sports physiologists!

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Max HR is sport specific. If you train regularly in running, cycling and rowing then it is likely that you can obtain a higher HR when running than rowing and rowing than cycling. Running is weight bearing so requires more power for movement than non weight bearing sports like the other two.
Both running and rowing will probably elicit a higher max HR than cycling as they use a larger muscle mass.
If you only ever train on the bike though it is probable that you would obtain a higher max in cycling than any other sport as that is the sport that your system is most highly trained for.

As for VO2 max, it is generally expected that you obtain a value about 10% lower on the bike than running due to less muscle mass but, again, if you are much better trained cycling then it is possible that you can have a higher VO2 max cycling. It is probable also that genetics has something to do with it.

for example my VO2 max measured while running on a treadmill was 72.6ml/kg/min whereas my VO2 max while cycling was 76.8ml/kg/min.
Higher cycling than running!

Not everyone fits into the equations given by sports physiologists!

the general rule of thumb is cycling VO2max, is 100 - 110% of running VO2max in trained cyclists

ric

 

[the brother]

the general rule of thumb is cycling VO2max, is 100 - 110% of running VO2max in trained cyclists

ric

Does that hold true for those athletes that are equally trained in cycling and running?

I was under the impression that the fact running is weight bearing and you were using greater muscle mass while running, that it tended to be higher in running if you were equally trained in the two.
Obviously if you don't do much run training then this wouldn't apply.

 

[dingodog]

A sure fire way of determining if you're fitter is to time trial the route. Select a day early in the week, when you're well rested and recovered, and ride the route as fast as you can. Take note of the conditions of the day, and try and ride the route keeping all the variables as close as possible i.e. same day of the week, same time of day etc. on all your runs.
You can then compare HR graphs and determine from that whether your training is adequate or not.
The only problem I find with training the same route, the same way over and over, is that you 'mentally' get used to it. You know where to push yourself and where to take it easy. Boredom soon creeps in. I try and alternate and change my routes whenever I can. Instead of going this way around, I'll go that way around, stuff like that. Obviously at some stage you run out of ideas, but I continually search for roads in my area that offer me alternatives.

Archangel, your input in this forum is well appreciated. I for one as many in my club rides have benefitted from your input, keep up the good work!

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Does that hold true for those athletes that are equally trained in cycling and running?

I was under the impression that the fact running is weight bearing and you were using greater muscle mass while running, that it tended to be higher in running if you were equally trained in the two.
Obviously if you don't do much run training then this wouldn't apply.

it's not to do with greater muscle mass being activated by running, because, when you add extra activities - such as hand cycling - to normal cycling VO2max fails to increase any further. If you aren't well trained at cycling you tend to fatigue earlier than in running, reaching VO2peak instead of VO2max.


ric