Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
At 01:13 PM 3/21/98 -0500, Dan Volker wrote: >Shine, >If you , as a runner, experienced too much >quadricep fatigue last time you tried high speed cycling, you were riding in >too big a gear, forcing you to spin slowly, powering the bike more with >muscle than with heart rate. Also, if you feel the cycling in your quads, >you are not sitting at the right seat elevation and or front/ back >position ----you should work the gluteal muscles to exhaustion long before >you feel the quads going to jello, and if you don't , you know you will have >to have some one set you up better on the bike. This is a common problem >when people first get a bike---you really need a good pro bike shop to fit >you and set the seat position properly for you. Thanks, I'll give it a try. >Whereas the 220 minus your age formula, could predict that >you as a 45 year old man, would attain a maximum heart rate of 175 beats per >minute, also placing your normal aerobic training zone around 140 beats per >minute----however, many athletes who are 45 years old will have a max HR of >190 or 200, or even higher. I was simply agreeing with you that people who don't train can probably get away with using this formula. Its deficiencies for people who work out regularly as they age are well documented. >As a runner, the only way your legs should give out prior to you reaching a >max HR, would be if your leg muscles were glycogen depleted, from either too >long an event for your conditioning level, chronic overtraining, or >insufficient nutrition since your last run. If your legs are fresh, and if >you have the "heart" of an athlete---the will to take it to the max, you >will hit a max HR in your time trial. I'm not talking about "giving out." I'm talking about not having that extra strength required to push your heart all the way to the max. This is a concept well understood by exercise physiologists who train runners. If you like, I'd be happy to mail you a case study that deals with it. >Max HR's tend to stay the same, slightly declining with advancing >years----what I'm trying to say is that they do not varry over a month or 6 >months. You're right, but what will vary, depending on your training, is your ability to push to that max HR. Your point seems to be that as long as you're working as hard as you can, that you will get to max HR. This isn't so. Reaching max HR requires two elements: a strenuous work load and a sufficient period of time. As a runner, I choose the 5K for this because the distance is short enough that I bust my buns, but long enough for my HR to climb all the way to its max. In shorter distances, the exertion level is greater but there isn't enough time; in longer distances, there's certainly enough time but not enough exertion. Going back to your original test idea, because I only cycle once a week, but have a pretty good aerobic base from running, if I pedaled at a rate slow enough rate to prevent shutdown, my heart would cruise along without having to work hard enough to max out. If I pushed harder into the red zone, my HR would begin to climb toward its max but not reach it because lactate build-up would prevent me from staying at that load for a sufficient period of time. >What will change is the glycogen loading in your legs, I was in a 80 >mile road race once in Western NY, with a huge hill climb we had to do 4 >times. I ran a HR of 180 to 185 throughout most of the course, on the hill I >would get anaerobic, getting HR's as high as 201 on cresting the top, trying >to leave competitors behind, and trying to stay in the pace line with the >faster riders who would always jump here, knowing each time this happened >they would shake off some dead wood. On my last lap, I was so glycogen >depleted, I was having trouble keeping my HR even at 155 on the flats, and >on the hill I completely shut down, HR staying around 155, and no more power >was to be generated by me for this race. This is called "bonking" in >cycling. But it has nothing to do with max HR, and everything to do with >glycogen loading and "pacing out" your energy and your mental ability to hit a 100% exertion---something just too painful for many people. This is almost my point: factors having nothing to do with your HR prevented you from reaching your max. Where I think we disagree is that, from my experience and reading, the factors you listed can be enough to prevent you from reaching max HR even if you don't start going bonkety-bonk -- and this effect becomes more pronounced as you move away from your typical training into something different. You can throw mental discipline into the equation if you want, but, not only is it unquantifiable, it defeats your stated purpose. Are you trying to measure max HR or discipline? One last point: we're only talking about 10-20 beats per minute here. My max HR while running is 187, while cycling on a stationary bike 176, and while swimming 165 (major lactate build-up on that one). These are all within the same ballpark but are definitely different. Your point about triathletes having max HRs within 5 beats of each other in all three events is probably due to the fact they train almost equally in all three. But most people don't do this. Thanks. Shine -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]