Pantani Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 If there are any physiology buffs out there... If you had 2 athletes, in our case cyclists, in similar condition, can it be assumed that the one with the higher maximum heart rate would be able to achieve better performance? Empirically, the athlete with the higher maximum heart rate could do more work in the same amount of time? Is that a safe assumption or are there more variables to consider or am I taking the definition of work too literally and it can't be soundly applied to physiology...
fandacious Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 not neccessarily... the ones heart might be more effective than the other, so it wont need to pump as fast. test their power output & heart rate @ LT - that will be a better indicator
Red Zone Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Fand is right, heart volume differs from person to person, a larger heart which can pump a larger volume of blood can beat slower than a smaller heart. The amount of red blood cells, (oxygen carrying capacity) of a persons blood also makes a difference, hence Fand's reliance on EPO & CERA
Pantani Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 Hmmm.... quite true... power meters make all of this child's play, max HR doesn't matter if one of the athlete's is pushing more power in the same time...
fandacious Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Fand is right' date=' heart volume differs from person to person, a larger heart which can pump a larger volume of blood can beat slower than a smaller heart. The amount of red blood cells, (oxygen carrying capacity) of a persons blood also makes a difference, hence Fand's reliance on EPO & CERA[/quote'] and roids
Napalm Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I might be talking out of my ass, but that has never stopped me before, but I think the time it takes for your heartrate to return to normal after exercise is considered a far better gauge of potential performance
fandacious Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I might be talking out of my ass' date=' but that has never stopped me before, but I think the time it takes for your heartrate to return to normal after exercise is considered a far better gauge of potential performance[/quote'] kind of... it indicates how quickly you are able to recover. but if you werent able to push a lot of power when your heart rate was up, quick recovery means nothing
porky Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Yes, the volume your heart pumps per beat is usually the deciding factor, not beats per minute.
Roders Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I'm no boff on this either but my team mate and I, both in our early 50's, have been training and racing together for many years.My max HR is 178, he can still get close to 200. He seems to be able to out - accelerate / sprint me easily, but on a long haul or hillclimb I can ride him off at will. I don't know if this correlates to anything.
porky Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I'm no boff on this either but my team mate and I' date=' both in our early 50's, have been training and racing together for many years. My max HR is 178, he can still get close to 200. He seems to be able to out - accelerate / sprint me easily, but on a long haul or hillclimb I can ride him off at will. I don't know if this correlates to anything.[/quote'] Phew, I think your bud has a V6 in that moniter and I think its over reading. At 50+ years young 200 bpm is very high, unusually so in fact. As one ages the heart wall naturally becomes more "calcified and less supple" theres nothing one can do about this, its just a process of ageing. Staying fit and healthy slows the process down but it will never stop it completely, so correspondingly as we age the max BPM our hearts can attain is reduced. Reaching a beat rate of 200 at that age is phenominal - I know the max rates of some really good athletes (and I am talking 7 hour Comrades finishers) in their late 30s early 40s who max out at around 185 - fairly similar to you at 178 which is still very, very good for your age. Please dont get me wrong, I am NOT doubting your word, I am just saying its highly unusual. porky2009-03-25 11:18:55
Overlord Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 38 Years old and I can get my HR up to 210 and keep it there for some time.
porky Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 38 Years old and I can get my HR up to 210 and keep it there for some time. I am not doubting it - but at 50 + ?? - thats some doing.
Overlord Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 38 Years old and I can get my HR up to 210 and keep it there for some time. I am not doubting it - but at 50 + ?? - thats some doing. Do agree with you porky.
GTRacing Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I'm 36 with a max hr of 201. My friend did the low impact training (maintaining a low heartrate trainning 140 max)for the epic last year.I on the other hand maintain around 160 max, and a general ave of 136.I beat him on steap hills. But he can maintain for longer on the level roads.My cal rate is around 1150kcal/h were he runs around 850kcal/h at the same pace. So in conclusion, he can maintain due to the lower hr. body weight also plays a part. I'm 110 kg were he's only 81kg.
turtlek Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Wow thats hectic roders my max at 21 years of age is 203 measured so either your training partner is superhuman or just very special
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now