New Runner Goal-3.25 mile in 20min



In article <[email protected]>, Mark and Christine wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:17:17 GMT, Mark and Christine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:35:24 GMT, "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Please tell me where on that site I should be looking. I'm not seeing anything that says your MHR
>>>will increase with improved conditioning. Thanks.
>
>
> and one more of many...
>
> While the max HR of most individuals remains stable from month to month, it often drops by 4-8
> beats in people who take up endurance training after a period of inactivity.

Yes, this is correct, but the other guy was saying that MHR *increases* as a result of training.

What actually happens is that you get a transient drop during heavy training. This is not a long
term conditioning effect, it is a reaction to heavy training loads, a fact that the sentence you
quote makes explicit. The fact that this happens in no way supports the (WRONG!) notion that MHR
increases as conditioning improves.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
Mark and Christine <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:17:17 GMT, Mark and Christine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:35:24 GMT, "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Please tell me where on that site I should be looking. I'm not seeing anything that says your MHR
>>>will increase with improved conditioning. Thanks.
>
>
> and one more of many...
>
> While the max HR of most individuals remains stable from month to month, it often drops by 4-8
> beats in people who take up endurance training after a period of inactivity. Conversely, max HR
> can rise by a similar amount in trained athletes who scale back their training regimen or abandon
> it altogether (Zavorsky, Sports Medicine 29: 13-26, 2000).
>
> from
>
> http://faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/heart2.shtml

Right. However, I'm still not seeing anything that says MHR will increase with improved
conditioning.

-Phil
 
Mark and Christine <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:17:17 GMT, Mark and Christine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:35:24 GMT, "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Please tell me where on that site I should be looking. I'm not seeing anything that says your MHR
>>>will increase with improved conditioning. Thanks.
>
>
> and one more of many...
>
> While the max HR of most individuals remains stable from month to month, it often drops by 4-8
> beats in people who take up endurance training after a period of inactivity. Conversely, max HR
> can rise by a similar amount in trained athletes who scale back their training regimen or abandon
> it altogether (Zavorsky, Sports Medicine 29: 13-26, 2000).
>
> from
>
> http://faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/heart2.shtml

Just a reminder, as it seems the original quote that caused this brouhaha has been snipped. Original
quote from Al Kubeluis to follow...

>> What I meant to say is that as you train, you will find that the max hr you see on your hrm will
>> increase since your conditioning improves and you will be able to run harder.

-Phil
 
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message > In article
<[email protected]>, Mark and Christine wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:17:17 GMT, Mark and Christine
<snip>

Donovan, I believe the poster is just trolling for reactions.

Everyone knows MHR is genetically determined and cannot be "trained" to be higher (or lower)!

The "studies" provided show a few oddities about training (I'm not sure if I believe studies with
basic spelling errors, though), although they don't show anything about being able to raise one's
MHR though conditioning.... imagine that. ;)

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org
 
>>> What I meant to say is that as you train, you will find that the max hr you see on your hrm will
>>> increase since your conditioning improves and you will be able to run harder.

I didn't post to defend this statement. I pointed out that if you think that your MHR will never go
up (or down) as someone else stated, then you are wrong. It can go either way, depending on your
training method and fitness level, the page and quote I posted clearly state this.

Since I missed the original post for some reason, why did this person pick 3.25 miles? In the US and
most other countries I have lived and run in, a sub 20 5K is the normal goal for men, and a sub
21:30 5K for women.

Christine
 
Mark and Christine <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>>> What I meant to say is that as you train, you will find that the max hr you see on your hrm
>>>> will increase since your conditioning
improves
>>>> and you will be able to run harder.
>
>
> I didn't post to defend this statement. I pointed out that if you think that your MHR will never
> go up (or down) as someone else stated, then you are wrong. It can go either way, depending on
> your training method and fitness level, the page and quote I posted clearly state this.
>
> Since I missed the original post for some reason, why did this person pick 3.25 miles? In the US
> and most other countries I have lived and run in, a sub 20 5K is the normal goal for men, and a
> sub 21:30 5K for women.

The place where he runs is a 3.25 mile loop. Here's the OP's original post...

> I'm starting a running program. My goal is to run around the local park (3.25 miles) in less than
> twenty minutes. I'm a twenty four year old male (six feet tall about 150lbs). I haven't done any
> running in a couple of years though I have practiced a mix of strength training and yoga. So I'm
> not completely out of shape but my cardio capacity is very down.
>
> I have a couple questions. Is this a reasonable goal? What kind of time frame is realistic for
> achieving this goal? Three months? Also, I just ordered a heart rate monitor to help me out. What
> would be some good ways to use the monitor to achieve my goal of 3.25 miles in less than twenty
> minutes? Thanks. -Paul
 
"paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm starting a running program. My goal is to run around the local park (3.25 miles) in less than
> twenty minutes. I'm a twenty four year old male (six feet tall about 150lbs). I haven't done any
> running in a couple of years though I have practiced a mix of strength training and yoga. So I'm
> not completely out of shape but my cardio capacity is very down.
>
> I have a couple questions. Is this a reasonable goal? What kind of time frame is realistic for
> achieving this goal? Three months? Also, I just ordered a heart rate monitor to help me out. What
> would be some good ways to use the monitor to achieve my goal of 3.25 miles in less than twenty
> minutes? Thanks. -Paul

You might want to check some 5K training regimens, such as those in the "Competitive Runner's
Handbook" by Glover and then scale up from 5K/3.1 mile to 3.25 mile.

Skilled coaching could cut down the training time needed to reach this goal, perhaps, the sort of
coaching you might find in a local running club, or, even online. If you do make contact, ask about
training for the 5K.
 
"Mark and Christine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>> > As you train, you will find that your max hr increases since your conditioning improves.
> >>>
> >>> Not quite. Your resting HR will decrease, but your max HR will NEVER increase.
> >>>
> >>> -Phil
> >
> >I'm sorry, but that's not correct. If you actually ever see a MHR get
>
>
> Wrong again
>
> http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm
>
> Maybe fitness doesn't change it much, but does have a measurable affect, at least in the lab
>
> Christine

Endurance training will typically cause a reduction in HRmax (Zavorsky has reviewed the published
scientific literature in an issue of the journal Sports Medicine a few years back). The reduction
has its roots in increased stroke volume along with sympathetic and parasympathetic pathways being
altered with endurance training. Anecdotally, I have seen athletes whom I have tested in a lab using
the same protocol (same room temp, humidity as well) have a several beat reduction from the test
coming off a "down time" and when they are peaking. One of the benefits of a taper to me is that
HRmax may rebound which can be beneficial since stroke volume remains elevated. Yet another good
reason to taper.

Also, there are folks for whom increased fitness does not mean a great reduction in resting HR
(although those are the exceptions).
 
"Mark and Christine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:35:24 GMT, "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Please tell me where on that site I should be looking. I'm not seeing anything that says your MHR
> >will increase with improved conditioning. Thanks.
>
>
> Londeree and Moeschberger also looked at other variables to see if

> make any difference but they did find that the MHR was effected by the activity and levels of
> fitness.
>
> Third paragraph down
>
> Christine

However, they were comparing one group to another not the change in an individual's HRmax over time.
It is well established that if a person gets fitter his/her HRmax is likely to decline. If that
person becomes less fit (or tapers), HRmax will rise again maybe back to the level of where it was
before depending on the length of the taper or detraining. I point to Zavorksy in Sports Medicine in
2000 I think.
 
Londeree and colleague are well published in the literature. Not sure the website spelled their
names correctly.

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark and
Christine wrote:
>
> > Londeree and Moeschberger also looked at other variables to see if

> > make any difference but they did find that the MHR was effected by the activity and levels of
> > fitness.
> >
> > Third paragraph down
>
> I think the author meant "affected". They don't say how MHR was
"effected", but
> I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't know what a regression line is to interpret the literature. I
> couldn't find those authors on pubmed btw.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
David, another poster cited the paper I was referring to that shows that HRmax does change with
endurance training status (although not in all people). So training does affect HRmax. Also, someone
else pointed out that motivation can be factor. If one switches to cycling and does a test to
determine HRmax, the number is likely to be lower because 1) it is not really a weight bearing
activity and 2) your legs are likely to give out long before your heart is ready to pack it in.
Also, as one gets more fit and "tougher" he/she might be willing to suffer for a few more minutes to
get a couple more heart beats out.

Regardless, the Zavorksy review is excellent reading.

"SwStudio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message > In article
> <[email protected]>, Mark and Christine wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:17:17 GMT, Mark and Christine
> <snip>
>
>
> Donovan, I believe the poster is just trolling for reactions.
>
> Everyone knows MHR is genetically determined and cannot be "trained" to be higher (or lower)!
>
> The "studies" provided show a few oddities about training (I'm not sure if I believe studies with
> basic spelling errors, though), although they don't show anything about being able to raise one's
> MHR though conditioning.... imagine that. ;)
>
>
> cheers,
> --
> David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org
 
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, amh wrote:
> > A few tips to know you're headed in the right direction. The nex time you run you should be able
> > to run a mile without too much effort. Not that it should be fast. You should be able to
> > complete it without thinking about stopping. If you can do that you should be able to run 3
> > miles in one shot in 4 weeks of making your runs gradually longer.
>
> > For what is worth a HRM is a tool that runners use to train smart. If you manage to get up to 3
> > miles in 1 month you won't be training smart to achieve your goal.
>
> First of all you're suggesting he should be able to run 3 miles in 4 weeks, then you say running 3
> miles in 1 month is not smart?
>
> Paul

That is a bit unclear. IF the OP is able to get up to running 3 miles in 4 weeks then the subsequent
training he will be doing for the 3.25 mile race will be overtraining. He will need to run faster
than he really should to train to achieve his goal. And he will only have a short period of time in
which to do it.

Andy
 
"Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> David, another poster cited the paper I was referring to that shows that HRmax does change with
> endurance training status (although not in all people). So training does affect HRmax.

I believe that this is true - but the point being made was that you can raise your MHR through
training stimulus, and I think all these studies point out is that MHR may fluctuate a little for
reasons I don't know, but genetically, the MHR you were born with doesn't change.

What I'm trying to say is that the "real" MHR never changes, although it may appear to fluctuate a
small amount for reasons I won't pretent to understand.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org
 
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:02:49 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mark and Christine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >>> > As you train, you will find that your max hr increases since your conditioning improves.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not quite. Your resting HR will decrease, but your max HR will NEVER increase.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Phil
>> >
>> >I'm sorry, but that's not correct. If you actually ever see a MHR get
>>
>>
>> Wrong again
>>
>> http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm
>>
>> Maybe fitness doesn't change it much, but does have a measurable affect, at least in the lab
>>
>> Christine
>
>Endurance training will typically cause a reduction in HRmax (Zavorsky has reviewed the published
>scientific literature in an issue of the journal Sports Medicine a few years back). The reduction
>has its roots in increased stroke volume along with sympathetic and parasympathetic pathways being
>altered with endurance training. Anecdotally, I have seen athletes whom I have tested in a lab
>using the same protocol (same room temp, humidity as well) have a several beat reduction from the
>test coming off a "down time" and when they are peaking. One of the benefits of a taper to me is
>that HRmax may rebound which can be beneficial since stroke volume remains elevated. Yet another
>good reason to taper.
>
>Also, there are folks for whom increased fitness does not mean a great reduction in resting HR
>(although those are the exceptions).
>
>

I have a problem with the whole MaxHR mentality. Simply stated MaxHR isn't truely MAxHR at
all, simply MaxHR while running or while biking or swimming, sitting etc. Seems to me that
if one were to remove the heart from the body and "destructive test" it that it would far
and away be capable of beating faster than anyones current MaxHR running. I would just be
surprised if an organ as vital as the heart is pushing mechanical limits everytime we want
to finish up a race REALLY hard. Seems that every organ, system etc in the body has backups,
safety measures and or "overdesigned" for the job it's meant to perform. Why would a vital
organ not? Just my ponderings.

~Matt
 
<MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I have a problem with the whole MaxHR mentality. Simply stated MaxHR isn't truely MAxHR at all,
> simply MaxHR while running or while biking or swimming, sitting etc. Seems to me that if one were
> to remove the heart from the body and "destructive test" it that it would far and away be capable
> of beating faster than anyones current MaxHR running.

Right, but it's not often people take their heart outside their body and do some sort of
'destructive' test on it, so that's why it was decided that since "in-body" MHR was probably the
maximum you'll ever see, they stuck with it.

> I would just be surprised if an organ as vital as the heart is pushing mechanical limits everytime
> we want to finish up a race REALLY hard. Seems that every organ, system etc in the body has
> backups, safety measures and or "overdesigned" for the job it's meant to perform. Why would a
> vital organ not? Just my ponderings.

Again, you are no doubt correct, but facing reality means we use the accepted method.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org
 
<MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:02:49 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mark and Christine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >>> > As you train, you will find that your max hr increases since your conditioning improves.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Not quite. Your resting HR will decrease, but your max HR will
NEVER
> >> >>> increase.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Phil
> >> >
> >> >I'm sorry, but that's not correct. If you actually ever see a MHR get
> >>
> >>
> >> Wrong again
> >>
> >> http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm
> >>
> >> Maybe fitness doesn't change it much, but does have a measurable affect, at least in the lab
> >>
> >> Christine
> >
> >Endurance training will typically cause a reduction in HRmax (Zavorsky
has
> >reviewed the published scientific literature in an issue of the journal Sports Medicine a few
> >years back). The reduction has its roots in
increased
> >stroke volume along with sympathetic and parasympathetic pathways being altered with endurance
> >training. Anecdotally, I have seen athletes whom
I
> >have tested in a lab using the same protocol (same room temp, humidity as well) have a several
> >beat reduction from the test coming off a "down
time"
> >and when they are peaking. One of the benefits of a taper to me is that HRmax may rebound which
> >can be beneficial since stroke volume remains elevated. Yet another good reason to taper.
> >
> >Also, there are folks for whom increased fitness does not mean a great reduction in resting HR
> >(although those are the exceptions).
> >
> >
>
> I have a problem with the whole MaxHR mentality. Simply stated MaxHR isn't truely MAxHR at all,
> simply MaxHR while running or while biking or swimming, sitting etc. Seems to me that if one were
> to remove the heart from the body and "destructive test" it that it would far and away be capable
> of beating faster than anyones current MaxHR running. I would just be surprised if an organ as
> vital as the heart is pushing mechanical limits everytime we want to finish up a race REALLY hard.
> Seems that every organ, system etc in the body has backups, safety measures and or "overdesigned"
> for the job it's meant to perform. Why would a vital organ not? Just my ponderings.
>

Heck one can stop by an emergency room and find people in severe tachycardia with HR over 200
just sitting there. Means nothing in terms of exercise. Actually if you damage the heart's
S-V node the heart will beat along at about 60bpm. That is the intrinsic heart rate. We do
things to make the heart rate meet our demands.

From a practical standpoint in terms of training, the HRmax is the maximal heart rate that can be
attained in exercise (using the mode of choice). Basing intensity on %HR makes some sense because HR
and oxygen uptake in a steady and controlled environment are very linear (even better if one using
HR reserve and VO2reserve!).

Your last thought makes me think that you have been reading Tim Noakes and his lame idea behind his
Central Governor nonsense (as Ben Levine calls it).

> ~Matt
 
I take one's real HRmax as that determined during a test of maximal effort; one could inject a drug
in the body and get a much higher HR, but would that really matter?

"SwStudio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > David, another poster cited the paper I was referring to that shows that HRmax does change with
> > endurance training status (although not in all people). So training does affect HRmax.
>
>
> I believe that this is true - but the point being made was that you can raise your MHR through
> training stimulus, and I think all these studies point out is that MHR may fluctuate a little for
> reasons I don't know, but genetically, the MHR you were born with doesn't change.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that the "real" MHR never changes, although it may appear to fluctuate a
> small amount for reasons I won't pretent to understand.
>
> cheers,
> --
> David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org
 
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:24:05 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:02:49 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mark and Christine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>> > As you train, you will find that your max hr increases since your conditioning improves.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Not quite. Your resting HR will decrease, but your max HR will
>NEVER
>> >> >>> increase.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -Phil
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm sorry, but that's not correct. If you actually ever see a MHR get
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Wrong again
>> >>
>> >> http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm
>> >>
>> >> Maybe fitness doesn't change it much, but does have a measurable affect, at least in the lab
>> >>
>> >> Christine
>> >
>> >Endurance training will typically cause a reduction in HRmax (Zavorsky
>has
>> >reviewed the published scientific literature in an issue of the journal Sports Medicine a few
>> >years back). The reduction has its roots in
>increased
>> >stroke volume along with sympathetic and parasympathetic pathways being altered with endurance
>> >training. Anecdotally, I have seen athletes whom
>I
>> >have tested in a lab using the same protocol (same room temp, humidity as well) have a several
>> >beat reduction from the test coming off a "down
>time"
>> >and when they are peaking. One of the benefits of a taper to me is that HRmax may rebound which
>> >can be beneficial since stroke volume remains elevated. Yet another good reason to taper.
>> >
>> >Also, there are folks for whom increased fitness does not mean a great reduction in resting HR
>> >(although those are the exceptions).
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I have a problem with the whole MaxHR mentality. Simply stated MaxHR isn't truely MAxHR at all,
>> simply MaxHR while running or while biking or swimming, sitting etc. Seems to me that if one were
>> to remove the heart from the body and "destructive test" it that it would far and away be capable
>> of beating faster than anyones current MaxHR running. I would just be surprised if an organ as
>> vital as the heart is pushing mechanical limits everytime we want to finish up a race REALLY
>> hard. Seems that every organ, system etc in the body has backups, safety measures and or
>> "overdesigned" for the job it's meant to perform. Why would a vital organ not? Just my
>> ponderings.
>>
>
> Heck one can stop by an emergency room and find people in severe tachycardia with HR over
> 200 just sitting there. Means nothing in terms of exercise. Actually if you damage the
> heart's S-V node the heart will beat along at about 60bpm. That is the intrinsic heart rate.
> We do things to make the heart rate meet our demands.
>
>From a practical standpoint in terms of training, the HRmax is the maximal heart rate that can be
>attained in exercise (using the mode of choice). Basing intensity on %HR makes some sense because
>HR and oxygen uptake in a steady and controlled environment are very linear (even better if one
>using HR reserve and VO2reserve!).

From a practical point I agree. Matter of fact there are several pratical methods of
training. I've just seen so many arguments about MHR that are based on the idea that it's
some sort of universal constant, which, IMO it is not. It is a function of excertion and
excercise, not a limitation of the heart itself.

>
>Your last thought makes me think that you have been reading Tim Noakes and his lame idea behind his
>Central Governor nonsense (as Ben Levine calls it).

Although I have read some of Noake's stuff, my last thought comes from my
enginneering/design background. Every vital system has either redundancy, failsafes or
"overdesign". Just from my limited knowledge of the human body seems that most systems in
the human body follow the same "design parameters". It would be odd that a vital organ such
as the heart would not. Since we don't have another heart it's not redundancy. Since if the
heart stops, we don't have much of anything to start it up again it's not a failsafe. So the
only option left is "overdesign". IOW I suspect if we could come up with a machine that
would somehow excercise every muscle in the body at maximum muscle effort that the heart
would hit a much higher MaxHR and still keep on ticking. Just my opinion.

~Matt

~Matt

>
>
>> ~Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back