Heartrate discussion

So I bought a Polar F6 so I can pinpoint the calories spent on exercise and hopefully accelerate my weight loss. Calorie King was overestimating my calories burned by about 20 percent! Does this mean my body is more efficient than it should be?

That's not really my question.

My wonderings are about max heart rate. The HRM has a program you can go through to determine your heart rate zones, and max HR. I haven't done it, so it's using the standard calculation, 220-age. It is proving to be pretty accurate, for when I reach what it says is my max heart rate, I'm soooo ready to quit whatever I'm doing.

Usually I reach my max HR when I'm doing something very vigorous, like squat thrusts. Today it was sprinting across the gym. On the bike, it's when I do short, steep hills.

Here's what I don't like about reaching max HR. Maybe I can describe it well enough to get some insight about it.

Let's take squat thrusts. We usually do 20. I'm fine up to about 17, then we do the last three. At the end, my HR has shot up there to the max. But we're done, yet my HR is way up there and I'm feeling like crap--chest pounding and out of breath. It's a feeling I really hate to experience. Dread it.

Back when I was really out of shape, 6 or 7 years ago, I could get this way after climbing a flight of stairs under certain conditions. It used to alarm me. I'm reaching max in a matter of seconds, and that can't be good.

Sprints in the gym today. Sprinted 5 times across the gym (it's about 60 feet), then there were 4 more minutes of running. I had to walk a few laps to get my HR down so I could function again.

It seems to me that my HR can shoot up there to the max pretty quickly (I hate it, so I avoid it as much as possible--it's what holds me back on climbing hills on the bike). I had an EKG once where the doctor said I had a "juvenile" pattern (I was 35). I don't know if this is good, bad, indifferent, or if this is common or unique, or does this suite me to a particular kind of sport or what?

Can the max HR be raised? (I think there's a thread about this somewhere.) Can I develop the ability to do things faster without reaching my max HR so quickly?

Any thoughts? All appreciated.

Karen

It's my understanding that workouts should fall between 60% and 80% of the max heartrate, not 100%. In my spinning class, the only place I use a HRM currently, I keep it in that range. When I approach 90%, I back off.

I'm sure others know alot more than this, but voilÃ* my thoughts.

Here's my personal experience and maybe I'm a genetic anomaly.

My max HR is 192 - I've seen it a few times on HRM monitor and when I was tested that's about what they projected.

But I can ride for hours in the 160 - 175 range. My average HR on Saturday for the first 86 miles was 164. I don't know what it was after that because my monitor refused to go above 120.

164 is about 85% of my max. My personal experience says that you can train yourself to sustain a higher heart rate. When I climb Diablo, I'm usually up above 175 for a good chunk of the 10 mile climb. That's about 91% of my max.

Like I said, this is all anecdotal and I may be odd. Well, I know I'm odd, but you know what I mean. :D

V.

My knowledge is also limited. Judging by how you feel, you are probably hitting or getting very close to your max HR. My understanding is that max HR does not actually change, however, with training, the amount of effort you can exert without hitting your max is what increases. By backing off before your reach max, and by specifically training to more like 85% a lot, you should find that efforts that once caused you to max will eventually not.

The time it takes for your HR to come back down to normal is the recovery time. Apparently, interval training is the best way to train your heart to recover faster.

I haven't worn my HRM for the types of exercises that you are indicating, but I have found that spinning on the trainer, my best recovery happens with lighter faster spinning, not by stopping.

Tonight I'll be doing a test to find my lactic balance point - the point where I produce lactic acid and remove it at the same rate. After I know this, I'll train 80% of the time at or below that rate and 20% of the time above it. I'm hoping this will take some of the mystery out of my heart rate!

Hugs and butterflies,
~T~

That's my gut feeling also - that max HR is sort of genetically determined and doesn't get higher. (I will look into that more and ask the folks we work with at Endurance PTC and see what they say).

What you CAN raise with work, are your lactate thresholds. (For truly useful analysis, there are 2 lactate or ventilation thresholds: (1) VT1, the lactate threshold in which lactate begins to accumulate in the blood (which leads to a transition to steady state metabolism, the endurance training zone) and (2) VT2, the point at which steady state metabolism can no longer be maintained (the transition from heavy to extreme exercise).) You can also raise your power outputs (i.e. how much power are you putting out for a given HR).

It seems to me that V has raised her VT1 level with training. This is her moderate/endurance zone. My VT1 level was fairly close to this at the beginning of last year (156 - 173). Not sure what it is now (probably 120! :D). Power outputs at these levels is key also. How much power can you put out at a given HR? I'm hoping mine improved from last year, but with this time off the bike I'll be lucky to stay at the same level.

so for Tuckervill's question, I think for sprints, you are going to be going above the VT2 level, close to max regardless. I have some questions about how this max type work fits into your overall training plan, though. How often are you doing these max type efforts? How much emphasis is on interval and endurance pace training?

I have nothing to add about max HR, but I did want to point you to this thread since you mention calories. If the F6 is using the same algorithms, you need to know this info.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showt...=polar+calorie

I don't think your max changes much with time (other than slowly being reduced) but I wouldn't be surprised if it changed from your point of view. Here's what I mean:

The formula doesn't work for me. I am 30 and my max (the max HR I can sustain for one minute) is actually more like 202. I know it's been much over that when I was a teenager because vigorous jazzexercise workouts would clock me above 200, and that was not even my hardest. I'd just stop counting because I was afraid the trainer would be worried about me. I found those numbers appearing on my HRM when I started cycling, when I would power up hills and stuff like that. A cardiologist friend of mine told me not to worry about it as we were hiking up a good slope and my HRM stayed at 194 for an hour. Having a BIG heart that beats slowly can be more of an issue, as we've sadly seen with Ryan Shay's death at the Olympic trials.

When I started running (two years after starting cycling), no matter what I did, I could not reach 200 on the run. I felt exhausted, I wanted to quit and sometimes to puke, but there's no way I would get to 200. 190 or 194 was my "max" on the run. Then I started training more seriously for running and doing hill reps, and now I can consistently hit 200 if I want to, but it's really hard, and I am really on the verge of spilling my last lunch when I do. Don't try this alone. If you get really dizzy (I never did, but who knows) you'll be happy you have someone there.

NOW ABOUT YOUR QUESTION: While I don't think your max HR can be raised (what others said about genetics etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if you explored higher numbers as you get fitter. HOWEVER, based strictly on my experience, I would not encourage you to spend a lot of your training time at that level. Why don't you try, for a workout or two, to measure your perceived rate of exhaustion/effort (PRE)? That's a number out of ten. You can always hide your HRM in your back pocket and have a look after the workout if you don't want your assessment of your PRE to be influenced by your exact HR. For each period of time you spend at 9 or 10/10, there should be a lot of recovery at more a pedestrian 6 and 7/10. YES that will mean seriously slowing down most of the time. But you'll improve faster and feel better about yourself if you allow yourself to recover.

Another trick is to try to climb your favourite steep hill while keeping your HR as low as possible (you can set a predetermined value; for me it's 160 or 165) instead of letting it shoot up. You'll get to the top slower than usual, but not that slower, and you'll feel more empowered. I don't know why, but it worked for a lot of women I know.

What is for sure is that, as you train, you'll increase the intensity of the exercise you can perform at a given heart rate. Just for kicks I did a chart of my average heart rate and average speed on the bike (based on Bikejournal) for my first two years of cycling, and although my speed was fairly constant (my rides were on more hilly terrain I think) my average HR went down with time. Now I only wear my HRM for specific workouts so I don't have much data, but I'm sure the trend is still there. However, my HR remains high compared to the person next to me: it will stay at well above 180 for the entire duration of a half-marathon. That's just the way it is.

Ok that's a long rambling message. This topic always enflames me for some reason!! Sorry about that. Hope it helped a little bit.

p.s. I re-read your original message and it leaves me wondering if the HR data from anaerobic exercises (lifting weights, doing squats, running 100m, etc.) should be interpreted differently than that of aerobic exercise (cycling and running at "normal" pace). We need an exercise physiologist here!

And, by the way, if you doc told you "you have the heart of an old woman" at age 35 THAT would be a problem. I'll take a juvenile heart any day. :D

As I recall from hearing Sally Edwards speak eons ago, max HR is sport specific. She has lots of free articles which may have more info.

http://www.heartzones.com/resources/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grog

p.s. I re-read your original message and it leaves me wondering if the HR data from anaerobic exercises (lifting weights, doing squats, running 100m, etc.) should be interpreted differently than that of aerobic exercise (cycling and running at "normal" pace).

---

I was thinking that. I don't think the squats translate in any way to cycling. (ETA by this I mean the HR during the squats or any sort of weight lifting wouldn't translate to cycling HR.) The sprints on the other hand may. HR is definitely sport specific. And you can become very efficient at the sports you focus on.

This is all very interesting.

*Polar off by 33%! (per the other thread quoted) Oy vay. It has worked for me to lower the calories I logged from Calorie King figures to the Polar figure. I've lost 2 pounds in two weeks, which is better than I've been doing. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that I'm burning 450-500 calories for an hour's work out. Since I have nothing else to base it on, and CK was clearly high, I'm going to stick with this. (Maybe Polar's HRM's got better, too.)

*I have hit my max heart rate according to the formula 220-age, at least twice during this class that I can remember. Once was this morning. The other was last week doing squat thrusts.

*The "boot camp" that I take is very laid back. Everyone goes at their own pace. I was pushing it hard during the sprints. (I haven't run fast in a long time and I was having fun.) If I wanted to stop the squat thrusts before I maxed out, I could.

*I can go a long time in the 60-80% range, and I'm happy with that. Climbing hills on the bike, though--that really cranks it up and it ticks me off. That's not even standing! I already climb slow, so slowing down more does not appeal to me!

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how to manage that meteoric rise to max HR that occurs in those situations, without just refusing to do it. I'm concerned that it's not safe, either--after a minute of squat thrusts I'm at my max? A sprint of maybe a 10th of a mile? Can this be healthy?

Karen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maillotpois

I don't think the squats translate in any way to cycling.

---

:confused: Just curious why you say that.

See Emma Colson's article on pages 30-31.
http://www.sma.org.au/publications/s...nt1-9final.pdf

On page 31:

Lower limb
The gluteals are important for cycling. They can contribute to up to 30 per
cent of the power of the pedal stroke. If the gluts are not functioning, the vastus lateralis and even the gastrocnemius on that side will do extra work. Leg press work, ensuring the gluteals are switched on at the top of each push, is relevant. Weighted squats can be a useful strength and power exercise for the cyclist. Care must be given with technique, in particular switching on the TA prior to loading (not bearing down), activating the
gluteals and the vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) and then being smooth with the push. Care must be taken to assess the level of fatigue when doing very low reps; say, three repetitions maximum.

Fred and Ed recommend them as part of early season prep:
http://www.roadbikerider.com/DCtips.htm

And Chris --
http://outside.away.com/outside/body...-strength.html

What's your source for your opinion?

Grog, you're post gave me lots to think about. I'm going to digest it.

As for sports-specific HR...I can tell what things will spike my heart rate and what won't, before I do them. I do try to avoid doing those things. This gives me a mental block against hills. I haven't got to ride yet with my HRM, but I'm going go out and do some experimenting as soon as I can.

Sometimes we do circuits that include an arc-trainer with a HR monitor in the handles. For a while I would play heart rate games and see how high I could get it on the arc-trainer. About 160 was as high as I could go. Anyway.

Thanks, all very informative. You gals rock.

Karen

I just want to clarify that it is squat-thrusts, not just squats, that I'm talking about. The thrusting and jumping back up is what drives the heart rate. (Lifting my fat a@@ in the air!) I can do sumo-type squats all day long.

http://www.expertvillage.com/video/6...uat-thrust.htm

Karen

Luckily, my crappy knees prevent me from doing those. :D

SK - that was exactly why I revised my post - I meant that the HR from squats (or weight lifting in general) doesn't translate to HR for cycling. Clearly squats, etc. are beneficial training for cycling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuckervill

*I have hit my max heart rate according to the formula 220-age, at least twice during this class that I can remember. Once was this morning. The other was last week doing squat thrusts.

---

Remember that the 220-age thing is just a rough guideline! (and I vaguely seem to remember hearing that it's for people who don't exercise, but I can't point to the source of that).

You can also try 211-Age/2 (for fit women), or get as complex as:
* Use the Miller formula of MHR=217 - (0.85 × age) to calculate MHR
* Subtract 3 beats for elite athletes under 30
* Add 2 beats for 50 year old elite athletes
* Add 4 beats for 55+ year old elite athletes
* Use this MHR value for running training
* Subtract 3 beats for rowing training
* Subtract 5 beats for bicycle training

So, er, what? The third option, and the one I'm most fond of, is to just keep track of your workouts, and use your own max as your max. (I have seen 212 on mine, so according to the first equation, I should be 8 years old! But also, I hit 212 and I didn't die from it.)

To repeat what others have said: that 100% effort, or YOUR max (not necessarily the calculated one), shouldn't be where you hang out, but there's no real danger in hitting it, so long as it's brief. You can hit your real max on intervals, weight lifting sets (but not inbetween), probably your squat thrusts, sprints, maybe a sprint to the top of a hill when a squirrel runs right in front of your wheel... but after hitting that high spot, recover recover recover!

-- gnat! (Just took a VO2max test and has been reading all about this stuff)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuckervill

I'm concerned that it's not safe, either--after a minute of squat thrusts I'm at my max? A sprint of maybe a 10th of a mile? Can this be healthy?

---

If you doctor has given you the green light, i.e. you don't have risk factors, your resting HR is under 100, you don't have a family history of heart condition or anything would be indicative of a heart condition, I don't think there would be a problem hitting your max quickly. Of course you would have previously warmed up.

I think a good fitness yardstick is not so much how fast your HR goes up but how fast it goes back down when you enter a recovery phase. As you train, your heart will become faster at adapting to what you're asking it to do: you need it to push a lot of blood and oxygen down to your muscles, it beats fast; you stop running and need less blood, it slows down.

Remember that fitness builds up during recovery...

This being said, I'm no physiologist or cardiologist so this is all based on my experience and readings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnat23

... but there's no real danger in hitting it, so long as it's brief.

---

There's no chance I could hold it for more than a minute or two, I'd pass out if I kept going... or my muscles would not snap!! :eek:

There are several other calculations to approximate your maxHR. They all have one thing in common. It IS an approximation of your maxHR. Bigger the numbr or smaller the number does not makes you a better athlete or predispose you to become a great athlete. I think you are born to have your own particular maxHR. I'ver read that as you age, your maxHR do drop. If you are very active, the rate of fall in maxHR is slower than someone who is sedentary. so I wouldn't worry too much about how high/low your maxHR is. Just be mindful of what number you have for your maxHR. FYI, my max HR is still hanging in at 202-204 and has not changed in last 8 years. and I'm past being in the 40's :(

Your fitness level does not increase your maxHR and likewise, if you become sedentary, your maxHR will not decrease.

There are plenty of maxHR, lactatate threshold discussions and articles... so you might search using google or like.

The other thing that doesn't get mentioned and noticed much is your resting metabolic rate and heart rate. The resting HR I think is just as important as maxHR. If you are out of shape your resting HR is pretty high, whereas if you in good shape/conditioning your HR will be lower.

I suspect that most of us have similar metabolic rate at rest. When we exercise, our metabolic rate increase to meet the demands of the exercise. If your metabolic rate increases by X then you are doing Y amount of exercise. And if you are in good shape, you might be able to increase your metablic rate by 3X maybe 4X. But you can only reach 4X if the demand on your heart is less than the maxHR. And if you can put out 4 times of your resting rate against someone who can only put out 3 times their resting rate, you should outperform the other person. case in point is Miguel Induran (Induran the train 4x TOF champion), Alberto Salazar marthon runner. Both had their resting HR down in the 30's Their HR was much higher than 120s during competition.

FYI my resting HR used to be 52, but today, being out of hape, its up in high 60's. I was much fitter when my rsting rate was 52.

I just can't explain very well today so I give up. make any sense??
smilingcat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maillotpois

SK - that was exactly why I revised my post - I meant that the HR from squats (or weight lifting in general) doesn't translate to HR for cycling. Clearly squats, etc. are beneficial training for cycling.

---

Ah, we were cross-posting. I really couldn't figure out why you were saying that. Maybe too much post-cursing rehydration.

To burn fat and lose weight, I understand that it's best to do sustained aerobic workouts in which your heartrate is between 60% and 80% of max. If your goal is losing weight, it might be something to keep in mind

It's really hard for me to feel like I"m exercising at less than 85% of max. That's a comfortable level for me to sustain over, say, an 8-12 mile run without feeling like my tongue is dragging the ground.

I don't use my HR monitor much because trying to stay UNDER a certain %HR (say, 80%) takes all of the fun out it for me :(.

I know I'll have to get over this eventually, but...

I just want to clarify that it is squat-thrusts, not just squats, that I'm talking about. The thrusting and jumping back up is what drives the heart rate. (Lifting my fat a@@ in the air!) I can do sumo-type squats all day long.

That sounds like plyometrics to me. Usually for developing power. And it would also kill my knees!

I trained for 8 months with the formula of 220 - HR. Can't say my fitness improved, did not lose any weight. I was consuming about 1800cal/day.

Saw a guy (now my coach) who did metabolic testing. My very efficient body that likes to eat sadly only burns about 1200 cal/day (that was 2 years ago).

Apparently I'm a very efficient fat burner and have the metabolism to do middle to long distance stuff. Tell that to my brain that only likes to do short sprint duathlons!

Anyways, was tested again the other day to make sure I'm training where it is effective for me to improve. My anaerobic threshold for running is 181. Yesterday, I did a run for 45 minutes at 170 as my coaches aim is to "get me comfortable" running at that pace, which is still aerobic for me. I will do a long, slow distance on Sunday. My bike anaerobic threshold is 178, so they're pretty close.

I'm glad I have him to figure out these details as I probably would not have the patience to do this myself - I do find it a bit complicated, especially not going hard all of the time. I have someone to answer to, so I will behave myself.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, or just damn confusing?

I also stopped using my HR monitor. My resting HR in the morning before I get out of bed is anywhere between 55 and 62. It is very affected by lack of sleep, caffeine, stress, etc. But, once I start walking around, doing normal daily activities, it stays around 68 anywhere up to 75. Just getting up and walking can sometimes make it go to 80. I know from when I used my monitor, my HR would often go up to 130 right away! Then it settles in, stayed around 120-140 except during climbs (most of my riding is on rolling roads, with short steep climbs in between). As I got older, not much changed! It seems like my HR is always higher than everyone else's, yet I can climb tougher hills than a lot of the people I ride with. Now that I am 54, 80% of my max is around 133... I think if I wore my monitor I would find I am higher than that a lot of the time.

I don't worry about this anymore. I know I'm in pretty good shape and that my HR is usually higher than I think it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crankin

I also stopped using my HR monitor. I know from when I used my monitor, my HR would often go up to 130 right away! Then it settles in, stayed around 120-140 except during climbs (most of my riding is on rolling roads, with short steep climbs in between)

I don't worry about this anymore. I know I'm in pretty good shape and that my HR is usually higher than I think it should be.

---

Running, I'll hit 180 within a mile or two and stay there for 75 minutes, which does seem high. I've never worn the thing on the bike though, my biking hr might be lower... resting hr is around 45 though.

You are not hitting your max. Sure, you are up there and anaerobic and feeling crappy, but those exercises will not put you at your max. The formulas are a guide, but basically it boils down to genetics. You need to do a stress test (best if you get professionals to help you) where you are put to the max and your heart rate eventually peaks where you feel like you're going to die, but it won't climb any higher. You can guesstimate that your max HR is probably not too much higher than when you feel horrible during these workouts, but you are very likely not at your max under these conditions. Whether the number is relatively high or low compared to the formulas has no indication about how fit you are. Mine is pretty high. That just means that my comfortable working HR is also pretty high compared to others my age. That doesn't mean I'm fitter or they are. Resting HR and recovery time are better indications of cardiovascular fitness.

HR recovery time is another story altogether. When you get up to 80% or more, the time it takes your HR to get back to a moderate level indicates how fit you are. The more fit, the faster it will recover. So eventually you'll be riding your bike pretty hard at 185bpm, hit a red light, and in a minute of rest your HR will be down to, say 100bpm.

Interval training does the most to improve recovery time. You start out with long periods of recovery between short periods of hard work. Eventually, you shorten the recovery periods. Finally, you actually do recover in short periods of recovery. Just improving overall fitness will also help your recovery time, and it may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuckervill

*I can go a long time in the 60-80% range, and I'm happy with that. Climbing hills on the bike, though--that really cranks it up and it ticks me off. That's not even standing! I already climb slow, so slowing down more does not appeal to me! Karen

---

Can't speak to those squat thrust things, and can only say that if I ever said I enjoy sprints, or any kind of running fast, people would have me committed, but climbing on the bike....

I climb pretty slowly too, but I get there, and that's what I think of as the important part. I didn't get there until I discovered that granny gear is my best friend. Until I geared down right away on hills, my heart rate and breathing went crazy, and there was NO way I could climb a hill of any size. It's been a few months -- ski season, doncha know -- but last season I was starting at the bottom of the hill with the granny, and could actually move UP a gear or two now and then while climbing. I'm anticipating starting over on the hills, but maybe it will be a bit easier this year since I've learned some "tricks" that made it possible last year! The breathing is important too. The moment I lose the breathing, that's when everything goes to heck! Give some thought to breathing: sounds silly, but are you remembering to breathe during those squat thrust things and the sprints?

Karen in Boise

The highest I've seen my HR on the bike is around 165. When I first started spin classes (before I rode outside), I did see 170 once.
Running; I don't do it, but about five years ago I was running and my HR was 180 when I started!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tulip

To burn fat and lose weight, I understand that it's best to do sustained aerobic workouts in which your heartrate is between 60% and 80% of max. If your goal is losing weight, it might be something to keep in mind

---

That's a misconception. At low intensity it's true that a greater percentage of the calories expended are coming from fat. But the total number of calories burned is so low, that you still burn more total fat at high intensity in a fixed amount of time, you're just burning more glycogen as well.

What low-intensity activity is good for, is allowing people to exercise who couldn't otherwise, and also allowing people to burn more total calories by light exertion over long periods of time. Simply put, most people aren't in shape to be able to maintain very high intensity for more than an hour or so. (In fact, most of the people that that "guideline" is usually aimed at, aren't even in shape to be able to maintain 85% of MHR for longer than 10 or 15 minutes.) Whereas almost anyone can walk or ride a bicycle at 60% of MHR for one, two or five hours a day and burn hundreds of calories worth of fat doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aicabsolut

Just improving overall fitness... may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

---

Isn't it the opposite? that the more fit you are, the higher your HR at a given PER?

Tuckervill, my hubby was curious about HR and maxing it out quickly on long rides. So he bought a book, Heart Zones for Cycling. Maybe this will help answer your questions.

http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Zones-Cy.../dp/1931382840

I have a Polar too and my max heart rate is 184. My resting HR is 45 and my Own Zone is 128-154 to stay in the fat burning range.

Just like everyone else said- there are a lot of "prediction" formulas out there, but they are just that- predictions. The most accurate way to know your max heart rate is to exercise as hard as possible. The highest heart rate you reach- even if it's only for a second or two- is your actual maximum heart rate. You can't do much to change that number. If you stay sedentary, it tends to decrease with time. However, if you keep training, you can maintain or at least slow the decrease.

As for testing for max HR, I recommend going to a lab that specializes in exercise physiology. They can perform a graded (as in progressively increasing in difficulty) exercise test in which they can measure VO2max (the most amount of oxygen your body is capable of using), max heart rate, lactate threshold, and VO2 used at different exercise intensities. By measuring the amount of O2 your body uses, you can calculate the amount of calories you are burning at different exercise intensities (which is why it's an important measurement to take in your case).
This type of testing is similar to a "stress test" performed at a doc's office, but is much more in-depth and will be of much greater benefit to you. The purpose of a stress test is not to test your capacity, but to evaluate your heart's electrical activity under "stress." They will watch your ECG (electrocardiogram) for anything that looks off. The thing is, if the ECG looks normal at, say, 85% of your age-predicted max heart rate, chances are very very slim that you'd see anything different at higher intensity levels, SO the doc will usually stop the test if everything looks normal up to that point. Therefore, you don't actually go until you reach your max heart rate, AND you don't get all that nifty data about how much oxygen (secondarily, calories) your body is using while you're exercising.

I hope this helps! Try checking your local university for a health and sport science department. They usually offer testing for a small fee (and the cost goes to help fund the lab- not line a doc's pockets!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

Isn't it the opposite? that the more fit you are, the higher your HR at a given PER?

Originally Posted by aicabsolut:
Just improving overall fitness... may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

---

Thanks for the morning brainteaser :). You're both trying to say the same thing I think. It's easier to conceptualize with a concrete example: imagine a beginning runner who starts out running a 10 minute mile at an rpe of 7 and a heart rate of 175. After two months of training, she can run 8:30 miles at an rpe of 7 and a heart rate of 175. After another 6 weeks, she can run 8:30 miles with hr of 175 and rpe of 6.

I think there's a correlation (though not a perfect one) between rpe and hr; I think they may move more or less together at least at first, although after training it seems likely your rpe would go down for the same hr.

As you get fitter, BOTH your hr AND your *perceived* exertion will be lower for the same **actual** rate of exertion (for instance, if our runner were to do some easy runs at her initial 10 min pace, her hr would be much lower than it had been at that pace when she started).

(That was a long way of agreeing with Oakleaf, I guess :) ).

I am SO interested in getting all that testing done, but I don't know if my hubby would go for it. It's not like I'm racing or competing in anything. I am competing with myself to get my body fit, and this would provide the most accurate data.

I'll I will check the UofArk. There's a UofA med school in Little Rock and that's probably where it would be done if they had such a thing.

Thanks!
Karen

The fitness assessment at the UA Med Sci fitness center has this available (cheap, too!). Is there something missing? Is lactate threshold part of the VO2 testing? I will call to see if the body fat % is the dunk test or calipers. Seems like it would cost more to do a dunk test.

Quote:

---

Fitness Assessments
The Get Healthy fitness assessment will include measuring the following:

* body mass index
* waist / hip ratio
* body circumference
* resting heart rate and blood pressure
* percentage body fat
* V02max (your total capacity to consume oxygen)
* resting metabolic rate (how many calories your body burns at rest)
* flexibility.

With your assessment you will receive a detailed explanation of the purpose for testing each area, the procedure used for the test, and recommended values for comparison.

Cost: $25 / fitness center members, $30 / UAMS employees, $35 / non-UAMS employees.

Services may be purchased separately:

Body fat %.....................................$10.00

Lipid Profile....................................$15.00

VO2................................................$10.00

BMR...............................................$15.00

Blood Pressure..............................no charge

---

This would be very interesting to find out all that custom data.

Karen

Karen, wouldn't UAF have someone in the phys ed/trainer dept that could help you with this? I would think it would cost less too.

Blood lactate is usually extra- it's tested much like blood glucose, and those little strips are freakin' expensive! You typically use at least 4 or 5 in the course of testing, too. It's mainly important to athletes & those looking to push the lactate threshold upwards with training. BMR and VO2 across the intensity ranges would probably be of most use to you if you're trying to calculate calorie burn.