Originally Posted by
chasm54
Digibud, I think chinarider was making the point that you max HR isn't just a function of the efficiency of the heart muscle itself, but a product of general aerobic fitness- but I agree that for practical purposes it's probably academic.
No, it's not a product of general aerobic fitness. It is a genetically determined individual characteristic.
Originally Posted by
chasm54
I'm not persoanlly convinced, however, that one's HR is all that informative about one's fitness. Yes, resting HR is generally lower in the fit than in the unfit. But I have a cycling buddy, 12 years younger than me, whose resting HR is similar to mine but who rockets up into the 150s and 160s with effort. When we ride together he routinely averages 150+ while I'm averaging in the 130s, but he seems no more distressed than me and can still outsprint me at the end.
Exactly. That's why if you're going to use MHR to determine training zones, you have to have an accurate number for your own MHR. This is from the NYT article I linked to in #7 above:
Dr. Fritz Hagerman, an exercise physiologist at Ohio University, said he had learned from more than three decades of studying world class rowers that the whole idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate was ludicrous. Even sillier, he said, is the common notion that the heart rate is an indication of fitness.
Some people get blood to their muscles by pushing out large amounts every time their hearts contract, he said. Others accomplish the same thing by contracting their hearts at fast rates. As a result, Dr. Hagerman said, he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220. And he has seen others on the same team and with the same ability, but who get blood to their tissues by pumping hard, with maximum rates of just 160.
"The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing athletes," Dr. Hagerman said.