| |
Main
Date: 28 Jul 2006 16:27:09
From: WheelerDealer
Subject: recovery heart rate....
|
Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is between 45 and 48bpm, i
usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute mile pace) and my
active heart rate is about 155bpm How long should i be looking at for my
heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 16:22:42
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com > wrote:
>
> Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is between 45 and 48bpm, i
> usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute mile pace) and my
> active heart rate is about 155bpm How long should i be looking at for my
> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in the morning.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 19:35:42
From: WheelerDealer
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrneckeei.6sl.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is between 45 and
>> 48bpm, i
>> usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute mile pace) and my
>> active heart rate is about 155bpm How long should i be looking at for my
>> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
>
> Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in the morning.
Doesnt it ? i thought recovery rate was a much better way of finding out
just how fit you are ?
let me re phrase, what would a good recovery rate be to show that im pretty
fit ?
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2006 04:05:40
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
"WheelerDealer" <wheelerdealer@aol.com > wrote
>>> How long should i be looking at for my
>>> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
>> Donovan: Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in the
>> morning.
>
> Doesnt it ? i thought recovery rate was a much better way of finding out
> just how fit you are ?
Depends how long and hard you run. After an easy workout, in cool weather,
I'm back to starting rate + 5 after 5-10 minutes. After a long hard race,
it takes till the next morning.
> let me re phrase, what would a good recovery rate be to show that im
> pretty fit ?
If you can jog 45-50 minutes, you're way ahead of most people.
However, your weight (assuming you're not 6'10") may be a health risk factor
regardless of the fact that you have become endurance trained.
-- Dan
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2006 05:36:33
From: WheelerDealer
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:o8Byg.5949$bP5.941@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "WheelerDealer" <wheelerdealer@aol.com> wrote
>
>>>> How long should i be looking at for my
>>>> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
>
>>> Donovan: Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in the
>>> morning.
>>
>> Doesnt it ? i thought recovery rate was a much better way of finding out
>> just how fit you are ?
>
> Depends how long and hard you run. After an easy workout, in cool
> weather, I'm back to starting rate + 5 after 5-10 minutes. After a long
> hard race, it takes till the next morning.
>
>> let me re phrase, what would a good recovery rate be to show that im
>> pretty fit ?
>
> If you can jog 45-50 minutes, you're way ahead of most people.
>
> However, your weight (assuming you're not 6'10") may be a health risk
> factor regardless of the fact that you have become endurance trained.
>
> -- Dan
>
>
Thanks for the info Dan, im 6`2"
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 21:29:48
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com > wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:slrneckeei.6sl.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>> On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is between 45 and
>>> 48bpm, i
>>> usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute mile pace) and my
>>> active heart rate is about 155bpm How long should i be looking at for my
>>> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
>>
>> Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in the morning.
>
> Doesnt it ? i thought recovery rate was a much better way of finding out
> just how fit you are ?
A good measure of running fitness is your 10k time.
> let me re phrase, what would a good recovery rate be to show that im pretty
> fit ?
Not really. My heart rate (resting, recovery, and active) is much higher than
yours, but I'm pretty sure I could beat you at any distance.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 21:48:49
From: bj
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrnecl0ec.b25.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>
> A good measure of running fitness is your 10k time.
>
How do you judge it?
What adjustments do you make for age and gender?
bj
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 22:57:26
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
On 2006-07-28, bj <bjones44@bellatlantic.net > wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnecl0ec.b25.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>>
>> A good measure of running fitness is your 10k time.
>
> How do you judge it?
There are lots of ways to judge it. But generally speaking,
faster means more fit.
> What adjustments do you make for age and gender?
It's not necessary to make such adjustments unless you want to compare runners
of different ages and genders. This is always going to be an "apples and
oranges" comparison, but there are ways to do it, such as WAVA tables.
The problem is that there are different methods that produce very different
results e.g. WAVA score versus finishing percentile at a race versus
intermediate methods like the Mercier tables (that take into account the best
N performances or something like that)
There's really no "absolute truth" about which way of comparing apples and
oranges is the "correct" way.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 00:16:36
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com > wrote
> On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrneckeei.6sl.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>>> On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is
>>>> between 45 and 48bpm, i
>>>> usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute
>>>> mile pace) and my active heart rate is about 155bpm How
>>>> long should i be looking at for my heart rate to recover
>>>> to near resting after running ?
>>>
>>> Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in
>>> the morning.
>>
>> Doesnt it ? i thought recovery rate was a much better way
>> of finding out just how fit you are ?
>
> A good measure of running fitness is your 10k time.
>
>> let me re phrase, what would a good recovery rate be to
>> show that im pretty fit ?
>
> Not really. My heart rate (resting, recovery, and active)
> is much higher than yours, but I'm pretty sure I could beat
> you at any distance.
Your resting HR is much higher than 45-48? What accounts for
that? Good athletes always bragg about having a low RHR. How
come yours is so high?
Also, there is some number for the desired recovery rate -
something like 20 beats down in 3 minutes, or some such thing.
It's lookable uppable.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 01:41:10
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
On 2006-08-04, Mark Hutchinson <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote:
>> Not really. My heart rate (resting, recovery, and active)
>> is much higher than yours, but I'm pretty sure I could beat
>> you at any distance.
>
> Your resting HR is much higher than 45-48?
About 55 at best.
> What accounts for
> that? Good athletes always bragg about having a low RHR. How
> come yours is so high?
I guess I'm just a lousy athlete (-;
Seriously, there's a lot of variation in resting heart rates, even
among elite athletes.
> Also, there is some number for the desired recovery rate -
> something like 20 beats down in 3 minutes, or some such thing.
> It's lookable uppable.
Yes, but what does it mean ? What performance related physiological
variable is it a predictor of ?
The point of resting heart rate is that it's a predictor of VO2 max, but
not a very good one, unfortunately. If you're concerned about running-
specific aerobic power, a 3k time trial is a better measure.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 01:10:17
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com > wrote
> On 2006-08-04, Mark Hutchinson <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>>> Not really. My heart rate (resting, recovery, and active)
>>> is much higher than yours, but I'm pretty sure I could
>>> beat you at any distance.
>>
>> Your resting HR is much higher than 45-48?
>
> About 55 at best.
>
>> What accounts for
>> that? Good athletes always bragg about having a low RHR.
>> How come yours is so high?
>
> I guess I'm just a lousy athlete (-;
Or an "at-risk" athlete if your RHR is higher now than your
normal baseline.
> Seriously, there's a lot of variation in resting heart
> rates, even among elite athletes.
The reason I asked is that someone recently mentioned that an
elevated RHR may be an indication of overtraining. I had not
heard that before, but apparently there may be some evidence to
support this notion.
>> Also, there is some number for the desired recovery rate -
>> something like 20 beats down in 3 minutes, or some such
>> thing. It's lookable uppable.
>
> Yes, but what does it mean ? What performance related
> physiological variable is it a predictor of ?
I think it predicts the number of weeks you have left before you
drop dead of a heart attack.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 03:48:35
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
On 2006-08-04, Mark Hutchinson <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote
>
>> On 2006-08-04, Mark Hutchinson <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not really. My heart rate (resting, recovery, and active)
>>>> is much higher than yours, but I'm pretty sure I could
>>>> beat you at any distance.
>>>
>>> Your resting HR is much higher than 45-48?
>>
>> About 55 at best.
>>
>>> What accounts for
>>> that? Good athletes always bragg about having a low RHR.
>>> How come yours is so high?
>>
>> I guess I'm just a lousy athlete (-;
>
> Or an "at-risk" athlete if your RHR is higher now than your
> normal baseline.
Nah, my normal baseline is equally high (-;
Yeah, I agree that an elevated morning heart rate is a sign
of overtraining.
>> Yes, but what does it mean ? What performance related
>> physiological variable is it a predictor of ?
>
> I think it predicts the number of weeks you have left before you
> drop dead of a heart attack.
Oh, that's OK then. For a moment, I was worried that it might hurt my
10k times (-;
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 03:20:43
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com > wrote
>>
>> I think it predicts the number of weeks you have left
>> before you drop dead of a heart attack.
>
> Oh, that's OK then. For a moment, I was worried that it
> might hurt my 10k times (-;
Spoken like a true runner. But not to worry - until those weeks
are up, there is no effect at all. After that, you can expect a
certain measurable performance degradation.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 13:41:49
From: WheelerDealer
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrnecl0ec.b25.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrneckeei.6sl.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>>> On 2006-07-28, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is between 45 and
>>>> 48bpm, i
>>>> usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute mile pace) and my
>>>> active heart rate is about 155bpm How long should i be looking at for
>>>> my
>>>> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
>>>
>>> Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in the morning.
>>
>> Doesnt it ? i thought recovery rate was a much better way of finding out
>> just how fit you are ?
>
> A good measure of running fitness is your 10k time.
>
>> let me re phrase, what would a good recovery rate be to show that im
>> pretty
>> fit ?
>
> Not really. My heart rate (resting, recovery, and active) is much higher
> than
> yours, but I'm pretty sure I could beat you at any distance.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
mmmmm my brother can beet my time at any distance run, most weve tested is
10K, yet he cannot for the life of him do 60 minutes on the stairmaster in
the garage, i can do 1 hour 20mins and have done more and piss all over his
time and effort excert, . so what makes your theory work that you could beet
me at any distance ? what so special about 10k ? why are you saying the
standard is a 10k run ?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 14:34:49
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
On 2006-08-04, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com > wrote:
> mmmmm my brother can beet my time at any distance run, most weve tested is
> 10K, yet he cannot for the life of him do 60 minutes on the stairmaster in
> the garage, i can do 1 hour 20mins and have done more and piss all over his
> time and effort excert, .
Ummmm ... so what ?
> so what makes your theory work that you could beet
> me at any distance ?
I'm quite well trained. So are people who can beat me (most people who can beat
me have run much further than 10k before!). My 10k time is 34:33. What's yours ?
> what so special about 10k ?
Nothing, except it's a common race, so most runners have a 10k time. The 5k would
work just as well.
> why are you saying the
> standard is a 10k run ?
Why 10k ? As above. Why a run ? Because you're posting to a running newsgroup.
Most of us don't really care about performance on the elliptical, stationary
bike etc. Though a well trained runner will generally do pretty well in any
cardiovascular test.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 18:42:10
From: WheelerDealer
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrned6mo9.ej9.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-08-04, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> mmmmm my brother can beet my time at any distance run, most weve tested
>> is
>> 10K, yet he cannot for the life of him do 60 minutes on the stairmaster
>> in
>> the garage, i can do 1 hour 20mins and have done more and piss all over
>> his
>> time and effort excert, .
>
> Ummmm ... so what ?
>
>> so what makes your theory work that you could beet
>> me at any distance ?
>
> I'm quite well trained. So are people who can beat me (most people who can
> beat
> me have run much further than 10k before!). My 10k time is 34:33. What's
> yours ?
>
>> what so special about 10k ?
>
> Nothing, except it's a common race, so most runners have a 10k time. The
> 5k would
> work just as well.
>
>> why are you saying the
>> standard is a 10k run ?
>
> Why 10k ? As above. Why a run ? Because you're posting to a running
> newsgroup.
> Most of us don't really care about performance on the elliptical,
> stationary
> bike etc. Though a well trained runner will generally do pretty well in
> any
> cardiovascular test.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
you seem to misunderstand me Donovan, or im not making myself clear enough,
in my original post you replied as below:
------------------
>>> Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is between 45 and
>>> 48bpm, i
>>> usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute mile pace) and my
>>> active heart rate is about 155bpm How long should i be looking at for my
>>> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
>>
>> Doesn't really matter, as long as it returns to normal in the morning.
>
> Doesnt it ? i thought recovery rate was a much better way of finding out
> just how fit you are ?
A good measure of running fitness is your 10k time.
> let me re phrase, what would a good recovery rate be to show that im
> pretty
> fit ?
Not really. My heart rate (resting, recovery, and active) is much higher
than
yours, but I'm pretty sure I could beat you at any distance.
-----------------
what i was trying to get at was in your reply you seamed to think that a
judge of fitness was a 10k time, as i said my brother beats me at running
but i nail him on the stepper, so does that make him fitter than me just
because he can run a faster time ? even though i can out do him on the
stepper, or is this somethign to do with stamina and not fitness ? i dont
know im just talking out loud here and not saying one or the other, im sure
you can beat me on a 10k(and have no idea what time i could do it in, im not
THAT serious into it) but why and how does that prove that you are fitter
than i ? maybe your like my brother and i could out do you on the stepper!
so why doesnt that make me fitter than you ? ;P
cheers
Dave
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 19:01:44
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
On 2006-08-04, WheelerDealer <wheelerdealer@aol.com > wrote:
>
> what i was trying to get at was in your reply you seamed to think that a
> judge of fitness was a 10k time,
Well, you *are* posting to a running newsgroup. A good measure of running
fitness is your 10k time.
It *is* a very specific measure of fitness. But there is *no* single test
that is a good measure of *general* fitness (you'd need seperate tests for
strength, endurance, etc for that)
> as i said my brother beats me at running
> but i nail him on the stepper, so does that make him fitter than me just
> because he can run a faster time ?
Well, he's fitter at running.
> even though i can out do him on the
> stepper, or is this somethign to do with stamina and not fitness ? i dont
The stepper is also a specific test, just different from running. I'd say you
both have a similar level of endurance if one of you is better on one test, and
the other on the other test. But if you were much fitter than him, you'd beat
him on both.
In any case, resting and recovery heart rates are not a very reliable predictor
of *any* sort of fitness.
> know im just talking out loud here and not saying one or the other, im sure
> you can beat me on a 10k(and have no idea what time i could do it in, im not
> THAT serious into it) but why and how does that prove that you are fitter
> than i
Well, fitter at running.
> ? maybe your like my brother and i could out do you on the stepper!
> so why doesnt that make me fitter than you ? ;P
if you're well trained on the stepper, you might be able to beat me, in which
case we'd have to call it a tie for "general fitness". Which is fine by me, my
sport is running, not "general fitness".
Once you hit a reasonable baseline of endurance training (e.g. 4hrs a week or more),
you will have good "general aerobic fitness", meaning that you'll be able to
beat a couch potato or Sunday gym-goer in almost *any* endurance test. From there
on, most gains are going to be driven by specificity. So for example, I'd be confident
of whipping a casual gym goer or cardio bunny in a cycling race, but a real cyclist
would beat me quite easily.
Most competitive athletes don't care a whole lot about general aerobic fitness,
because they already have more of that than they have any use for, and further
gains are all about sport specific adaption.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 03:42:49
From: anders
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
Donovan Rebbechi kirjoitti:
> Nah, my normal baseline is equally high (-;
It has famously been claimed that Frank Shorter in his prime had a RHR
of 75. I've also read that while a very low RHR is typical of elite
endurance athletes, "half a promille" have quite high RHRs. I'm not
sure that there was a study of 2000+ such athletes to back this up,
though.
> Yeah, I agree that an elevated morning heart rate is a sign
> of overtraining.
A sign of either that or some kind of infection, in most cases, I
believe.
OTOH absence of this sign is not a sign of absence of that condition:-)
Anders (who thinks the original poster referred to heart rate recovery
after exercise as an indicator of cardiovascular health)
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 11:26:04
From: MK
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
WheelerDealer,
Back in high school, my wrestling coach and track coach had a 10
percent rule. After a repetition, say a 440 yard run, take your pulse,
wait 1 minute, take your pulse again. If your heart rate dropped by 10
percent in that one minute, the coaches figured your fitness level was
where it should be, or that you should maybe push it a little harder,
or maybe up the distance. If your heart didn't drop by 10 percent,
they would have you back off a bit.
I still use this as a guide.
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2006 11:22:20
From: rick++
Subject: Re: recovery heart rate....
|
WheelerDealer wrote:
> Im a 39 year old male, 235lbs, resting heart rate is between 45 and 48bpm, i
> usually run for between 35 to 50 minutes (10 minute mile pace) and my
> active heart rate is about 155bpm How long should i be looking at for my
> heart rate to recover to near resting after running ?
Thats how I define whether a run is easy, medium or hard.
An average training run- about the same minutes as the run.
An easy run, slower or less distance, it could be a few minutes.
A hard run run, faster or longer distance, it could be several hours.
In a week maybe you could have four average, one easy and one hard.
|
|
