Training zones, Heart-rate, Advice, and Humbug
- From: "jtaylor" <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:43:33 -0400
Recently on rec.sport.swimming there has been a discussion of training and
heart rates. While heart (or pulse; they are the same) rate has long been
recognised as an indicator of work rate, and thought to be a possibly useful
tool for the development and evaluation of training regimens, it's clear
that at least one of the participants on r.s.s. is not aware of the most
basic facts in this area; and worse, is spreading misinformation. I intend
to be rather general in what follows, tailoring the post to the intended
audience; and those who actually are knowledgeable in this area will no
doubt see the simplifications and missing minor details, but as the purpose
is to instruct Micheal and correct Martin a broad brush is the best tool.
1. Training Zones
To understand the current state of thinking on training and heart rates, one
must know that the energy for muscular work can come from a number
"pathways", starting with the food we eat and the air we breathe, and ending
with waste products and the results of our exertions. For the purposes of
this discussion, we need not examine the major parts (digestion, transport,
excretion, etcetera) of this process, nor even examine those parts which are
of interest in any great detail. Suffice it to say that the researchers in
this area have divided work rate into "zones", each of which is associated
with one or more of the energy pathways.
These researchers differ slightly, as might be expected, on the number and
names of these training zones; and as well on exactly when and how to
determine that a person is in one or other of the training zones; but in the
main there are two broad areas of training zones, each with some small
number of subcategories, depending on the particular model that is being
described.
These two (broad) areas are:
a) Aerobic (the lower levels of exertion)
b) Anaerobic (the higher ones)
Which are often subdivided into a1, a2, b1, b2, possibly b3, and/or b4/b5
(or c1/c2, depending on the researcher, who will frequently assign more
descriptive names to them)
The point at which someone doing physical work switches from a) to b) is
known at the anaerobic threshold; this is reached when the rate of
production of blood lactate exceeds the rate of its removal. Once the
intensity of effort crosses this threshold, an athlete can only maintain the
effort until the level of lactate reaches the point where he/she either
cannot bear the discomfort, or the nerves and muscles fail to function
properly.
2. Heart-rate
Deciding when an athlete is has crossed this threshold is most accurately
done by taking blood samples. As this is not convenient for the majority of
recreational and lower-level athletes, it has been suggested that heart
rate - more precisely percentage of maximum heart rate - be used as an
indicator. A typical algorithm is as follows:
a1 - 60-70% of max HR
a2 - 70-80% of max HR
b1 - 80-90% of max HR
b2 - 90-100% of max HR
(with b3/b4/b5 being positioned somewhere between 80-100% depending on the
model in use)
This method is indeed much more convenient, but at a price - that of
inaccuracy. This stems from three sources:
a) inaccuracy in measurement
b) inaccuracy in determination of a person's maximum HR
c) inaccuracy in the algorithm itself
a) is probably the biggest problem. Athletes are "notoriously unreliable at
taking their own pulse" in the words of one researcher. This can be
improved either by using a recording HR monitor; or by instruction and much
practice on taking one's pulse manually, as closely following the end of
effort as possible, for a length of time short enough that the decline of HR
during rest is minimised, yet long enough that measurement granularity is
not a confusing factor (typical pulse-taking times are 6 or 10 seconds).
b) is unfortunately often done by using a formula; a much better method is
an actual test such as the common 7 x 200m step test.
c) the point at which any one athlete's body changes from one sub-component
to another o the energy pathways is unlikely to be the same as another
athlete. This is sometimes reduced by constructing an individual's lactate
response/HR curve (at a time and place when the equipment for such
measurement is available) and then using that during normal training,
instead of a generalised formula.
3. Advice
Athletes will use training tailored to focus on specific zones to achieve
improvement in work capability. They will choose which zones depending on
the duration of their competitive event; cross channel swimmers, for
example, need not consider any anaerobic zones at all, while competitors in
the 110m hurdles might well focus on those zones for the majority of their
training.
For swimmers competing in the standard variety of indoor events, a mixture
of energy pathways is used, and so a mixture of training zones must be
employed. Events such as the 100 IM are at least half anaerobic in nature,
while the 1500 (which in no way can be considered a sprint) still has a
moderate anaerobic component.
Readers should be aware that there is considerable variation among
individuals in their "trainability" in these different energy pathways. At
present researchers are looking for specific genetic combinations that they
think determine the amount of improvement that is available to any
particular athlete, but they have not yet been successful. The only
remaining method is to train and find out.
4. Humbug
Now, as to the misinformation.
The original poster is a 25-year old male, who posted as follows:
"If you know anything about life saving/first aid you would have heard of a
maximum heart rate. Basically, it is, i think, 220 - your age. So, for me,
that would be 195."
To which Martin W. Smith responded:
a) "A heart rate of 195 is almost impossible to reach.";
b) "First, the formula is 80% of (22 - age)."; and
c) "Your maximum heart rate is about 156."
All of which are wrong.
a) A pulse rate of 195 is _not_ impossible to reach. Right now I am looking
at some sample data from a set of 7x200 step tests conducted at the
Australian Institute of Sport. These show final pulse rates of 200, 203,
219, and 220.
b) there is no _one_ formula for maximum heart rate (and certainly, .8 x
22-age is not one of them). There have been many, and all are merely
guides. As I have previously posted:
"Formulas such as these are useful only as an indication. One opf the
original studies used an N of 10, and the varience of the samples was high.
Many factors were not controlled, and the authors temselves stated "The
formula was never supposed to be a guide to rule people's training."
Many other formulas, such as the following:
206 - (.711 x A),
217 - (.85 x A),
205 - (A/2)
214 - (.8 x A)
have also been suggested. These will not all give the same vaules for the
same age. Nor do they take into account the level of fitness, length of
time spent training, type of exercise, and so on."
c) The original poster's maximum heart-rate is most certainly much higher
than 156. Using any of the formulas above the maximum heart rate is
somewhere between 188 and 196.
And further, the original poster seems to have sufficient aerobic capacity
to swim distances much longer than any indoor pool events. It is quite
possible that his other stated goals (the 200 IM for instance) would be
better achieved by training at higher intensities; in general somewhere
around 90% of max HR, which would be in the 170 and up range, well in excess
of 156.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Training zones, Heart-rate, Advice, and Humbug
- From: Silver0l
- Re: Training zones, Heart-rate, Advice, and Humbug
- Prev by Date: Re: psych profile of a swimmer
- Next by Date: Re: psych profile of a swimmer
- Previous by thread: Re: Olympic swimmer dies - Eric Namesnik
- Next by thread: Re: Training zones, Heart-rate, Advice, and Humbug
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
