Heart rate test questions.

Well, you stepped on a land mine - of sorts.

My suggestion is concentrate on the word threshold. By that I mean, a threshold is a range. It is an estimated range of effort that determines the demarkation point between being able to continue at the current intensity level and when you will not.

This is what is important.

The idea of Aerobic or Lactic are simply terms that define the gray area of being aerobic (capable of maintaining the level of effort) and Lactic (not capable of maintaining the level of effort) Threshold.

Don't get hung up on terminology... if you do, you'll soon find that there are many different interpretation of what those terms mean. And, it doesn't have any pratical application unless your into Exercise Physiology.

But,... OK... that being said, if you want to know what I consider the more universially acceptable term for this Threshold area.... well, I think the term OBLA is the best (Onset of Blood Lactic Accumlation) range (not a threshold).

And, (as a sidenote) don't even try and determine your MHR... if you truely achieve this, you'll not feel very good and in fact may get sick attempting to achieve this number. And, IF you find it... well, it's not likely to do you that much good.

From a practical standpoint, the best thing to do is find your aerobic range of effort... find at what point that this aerobic range becomes less aerobic and more anaerobic. Then incorporate that range into your training program. As soon as you have done this, then you'll mostly likely see that this range is not constant. In fact, because of physiological and environmental changes you will see this range can change significantly. Whether or not this significant change will affect you is dependent upon a lot of factors... among which is genetics.

The ultimate goal is to increase the aerobic range (and, some believe you will see a more significant gain in resting HR decreases). Basically, what you want to do is have a high and/or broad aerobic HR range with a low resting HR. The bigger the difference between your Maxium point within the range of OBLA to Resting HR, then the better level of fitness you have optained.

Finally, as I mentioned... don't get too hooked on the terminology... if you do, you'll get really confused. Simply find one training method that uses a specific terminology and use their definitions and applications. They are all very simular and will not significantly impact an average AG'ers performance if they are not specific or clinically defined (or determined).

FWIW

Joe Moya

Edited by Joe M 2005-05-30 11:42 PM

That is just it, I was planning on getting them clinically defined.  I wanted to understand what was what, in the clinical deffinition, and then I will need to know how to take that information and use it for defining my training zones.

Well, if you plan on getting tested... you might as well do it right. Since LT is only one part of the training equation, you might as well do other tests as well. This will give you the best overall picture regarding your current level of fitness. And, this will definately be the most useful information that can be applied for training purposes.

Here is a site that provides the information you are requesting.

http://ccc.ops.uic.edu/rec/HPLHOMEPAGE.html

That being said, once you have done the test(s)... the real return on the "training effect" will come with how you use the information. It takes coaching experience to know how to apply the testing information in a useful and meaningful fashion. And, the tests will need to be repeated at various intervals. So, be prepared to shell out some money over an extended period of time in order to get the full benefit of lab testing.

But, as I said earlier... for most athletes, simply doing field type tests using PE and/or HR are sufficient. The only exception being if you are an athlete whose performance is within a few minutes (or few seconds) away from qualifing for the Olympics (or winning an IM). The incremental gain from testing may be worth the cost if you are at that level of athletic performance.

But, if your just curious (as I would be)... then go for it... get the tests done. Check in your area for providers.

FWIW Joe Moya

I agree with the previous post that how you use the data is important, but I disagree that perceived exertion is the optimal way to monitor intensity for beginning and intermedite athletes. For an experienced athlete who knows what optimal training intensities feel liike, perceived exertion is the single most important way to monitor intensity, but this has to be learned. Almost every athlete trains a little too hard when training by intuition ... harder is better, right ... ironically this puts them at the LEAST effective intensities. If laboratory testing is available and affordable, there is no question that this is the best option. I offer testing in Washington DC http://www.fitness-concepts.com/voxmax.htmand have conducted over 6,700 tests. Adam Zucco of Multisport Madness tests in Chicago, Doug Bush in New York, Brian Hoskinson of Blue Dolphin Coaching tests in Sarasota, Florida. If laboratory testing is not available in your region, then do field testing yourself to get estimates. Field testing with just you and your heart rate monitor will provide better estimates that training by feel. Every athlete needs some objective measures of intensity in order to train their sense of perceived exertion. More about training intensity is available in my book The Triathlete's Guide to Run Training, available at www.Fitness-Concepts.com Ken

I generally agree with most of your response except the part I quoted below.  Yes, determining your HR max is uncomfortable...you're pushing your physical limits.  And yes, you very well could toss your lunch if you've really pushed hard enough...but that won't kill you.  Back in high school track walking behind the bleachers and having a good barf after the race was a regular part of my 400/800m routine...and I knew I gave it all I had.  And I certainly don't agree that determining your HR max won't do you much good.  Are you better off having the clinical tests done if you can afford it...probably, but IMHO feild testing your HR max is the next best thing.  I'm not a big fan of PE...especially for folks that are new to competitive running/biking...because it takes experience to get a good feel for just how hard you're going.  I still don't think I could do it very well and I've been running for 15+ years.  I like the analytic capability of my HRM telling me exactly how hard my body is working.  Of course to be effective you need to have either an accurate HR max or LT measure.

I want to thank everyone for their input.  I am going to get AT and MHR tested at Breakaway Bike in Philly.  Joe Wentzell is the coach at the shop, and is willing to run the test in the shop for the bike.  He also has access to a gym to do the tests on a treadmill for the running numbers.  I know that testing starts at $75, but might go up getting it for both disciplines.

Edited by egent 2005-05-31 1:17 PM

At and LT are two different methods of measuring the same phenomenon. AT is tested by measuring carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption. LT is measured by testing blood lactate. A third testing method is ventilatory threshold, which also occurs at the same intensity, is tested by measuring expired ventilation and oxygen consumption. Consider these terms interchangable.

Your training heart rates are very likely to be different for each exercise mode. Almost every athlete's heart rates are highest running and lowest swimming.

More information about optimal training intensity is available in my book, The Triathlete's Guie to Run Training - www.Fitness-Concepts.com Good luck, Ken

"...perceived exertion is the optimal way to monitor intensity for beginning and intermedite athletes."

Just for the record, I don't think I posted that PE was the optimal way... I simply noted it was one method. The preferred method (preferred in the sense of easiest and simplist method) is using a HRM.

The optimal (if there is such a thing when it comes to finding the a threshold) is doing blood tests (or some prefer VO2). On that issue, I agree but lacks some practical applications for most.

I think the key is using this information in a meaningful fashion... there in lies the biggest hurdle toward improving performance.

FWIW Joe Moya