Sport Today

I just watched a videoclip of meeting with Jack Daniels (available
at trackmeets.com), and here's an interesting transcript on the ever-recurring
question of heart rate monitor (HRM) use among general population.
(Sorry for bringing this up, AGAIN, but I thought that his approach certainly
qualifies as reasonable and well-ballanced and might provide some better
understanding in each "camp")

Here's what Jack said:

Question: Do you use HRM in training any of your athletes?

Jack Daniels: I feel they can be good and they can be bad...
If somebody's using a HRM and they understand the whole idea real well then
they can be real good.
But the general public don't understand the HRM.
All the HRM are telling you is how fast your heart is beating.
That's all they tell you. They don't tell you how hard you are working.
You are assuming they are telling you how hard they are working, but they are
not.

If you are running 6 minute pace and that on a nice cool dry calm day it
produces a heart rate of 148, and on hot sweaty day it produces a HR of 168, what are
you going to do - slow down to 140's? Now you are running 6:40's. You are not
training your body anymore, you are training your heart.

HRMs, the idea of them in the first place, was to monitor cardiac rehab
patients, so that they were not excercising too hard when they were
rehabilitating from cardiac surgery or something like that. We wanted to make
sure that their heart rate wasn't going too fast. We are not worried about our
heart rate going too fast, we are worried about  getting better running, and
under dehydration or under heat, particularly those two things,
your HR is going to be way too faster than your pace. So you are not training
anymore.  You are just slowing down to monitor your heart.

But if you understand that, then you can still use them, I think."

About HRmax and HRrest:

"There are always individual cases that fall way beyond what you can expect.
Jim Ryun, for example, I tested him for 5 years, never had a resting HR lower
than 60. Never had a max heart rate over 180...
I tested Bob Schul in 1968, and his maximum HR was 148, he was 30 years old...
I tested him many times. 25 years later I tested him when he was 55 and his
heart rate was 146. Never changed... Another guy I tested when he was 27, and
his max HR was 186, and I tested him 25 years later when he was 52 and it was
192. It's not supposed to do that, your HR is supposed to go down with age, but
it's very different, it varies a lot"

Another quote I find interesting:
"I used to say all training should be enjoyable, but I changed it to saying it
should be 'rewarding'"
--
 Oleg

Good job, Oleg!  If more people would read what's already published about
HRM use in combination with 'effort based training' (Roy Benson's term, I
think) it would make the HRM a much more meaningful tool for them.  When I
was riding bikes a lot I saw a lot of riders absolutely tied to their
computers ...watching the numbers...same story, different verse. After
reading Benson, I came to understand the BPM rise toward the end of a long
run as the temperature got higher and my hydration level dropped...and my
'effort' had not changed.

Sandy in Louisiana (who doesn't have a cute remark but is working on
it.....five for Jenn...that'll fire her up)

Thanks Oleg,

This quote helps us understand what Daniels really feels about HRMs.

Happy Y2K,

Johnny

All the HRM are telling you is how fast your heart is beating.
.......... (then he said):

Jack does not make sense above.  First he says that HRMs do not tell you how
hard you are working--they only tell you how fast your heart is beating.
Then he says that their original purpose was to monitor cardiac patients "so
that they were not exercising too hard.......to make sure that their heart
rate wasn't going too fast."   Either the quote given in an earlier post is
not accurate, or Jack should clarify what exactly he thinks the difference
between monitoring heart rate and monitoring effort is.
The harder you exercise, the higher your heart rate is going to be, other
things equal.  So, yes, a HRM DOES tell you how hard you are working--anyone
who uses a HRM can verify that.  To make the statement that running 6:40 on
a hot day is NOT training, but running 6:00 on a cool day IS training is
just plain dumb.  To go on to say that training your heart is not training
your body is also just plain dumb.  What exactly does Mr. Daniels think he
is training on cool days--eyebrows?  toenails?  some new part of the body
called running?  NO--he is training the heart, just as he is on hot days.
The key is the heart--monitoring heart rate takes the guess work out of all
the rest--wind, heat, humidity, etc...  Your heart automatically adjusts for
all of these--that's why using a heart rate monitor is so great.  You can
constantly monitor your body's effort no matter where, when, or under what
conditions you train in.

dave

An example - when taking a hot sauna, even though you are sitting still,
your HR may very well be at pretty high levels. Does it mean you can
improve your 10k times by sitting in sauna for an hour every day,
instead of running? On the other hand, if you are cardiac rehab
patient, taking a hot sauna can be very dangerous.
This is just one example when HRM DOESN'T tell you how hard you are working,
just how fast the heart is beating.

I guess the answer is that delivering oxygen to the muscles is only part
of the job the heart is doing at all times. Therefore in order to improve
your running performance one needs to train heart specifically, by
improving oxygen-delivery capabilities to muscles used in running.
The fact that the heart rate goes up due to, say, heat, or the person
being nervous, or any other reason not related to running, does
little to improve those capabilities. I guess this is also part of the
reason why some bicyclists, XC skiers, or rowers, despite having a very
well-developed cardiovascular systems - top XC skiers, for example,
demonstrate larger numbers in terms of VO2max, than top runners - are often
mediocre-level athletes as far as running is concerned.
In addition to factors like physique, specific muscle groups, running
form/efficiency and so on, I suspect that their cardiovascular system is
developed in order to satisfy the needs of their sport, which can be quite
different from what is  required in running. Which also explains why their
VO2max numbers can be larger than anything we can find in runners.

Then again, I am not a physiologist, and maybe someone who is a "pro" (Sam,
are you reading this?) can shed more light on this question of
"sport-specific" cardio system.

--
 Oleg

<<  The key is the heart--monitoring heart rate takes the guess work out of all
the rest--wind, heat, humidity, etc...  Your heart automatically adjusts for
all of these--that's why using a heart rate monitor is so great.  You can
constantly monitor your body's effort no matter where, when, or under what
conditions you train in.  >>

Not true!  Jack's point was that a cardiac patient needs to be concerned with
how hard the heart is working for obvious reasons.  But there's more to running
than the heart.  Much more.  Even though you may not feel more fatigued at the
end of an easy training run, because of "cardiac drift", your HR is usually
10-20 BPM higher than it might be in the middle of the run for reasons the
physiologists can define.  One small example.

Serious runners have a much cheaper and much more effective monitor than
anything you can get off the gizmo shelf.  It's called your body.  The main
reasons African runners dominate the world is that they are masters at
listening to/reading your body and heeding the messages it's sending.  

I realize that in swimming/cycling and other endurance sports that HR monitors
have a very important role.  But running is an unusual form of exercise where
the impact stress (which most other endurance sports don't have) does things to
the body that the HR monitor doesn't quite measure.  

Dave if you could understand what you just wrote you would feel very
foolish??!!!

You are not training your muscles or your nervous system in the same way if you
do not run at the same speed irregardless of your HR!!

So Dr Daniels is correct you are slowing down because of a # on your wrist,
DUMB!!!

The key to this whole mess is the effort that you or anyone puts into your
running.  You can only run as fast as you can on any given day, PERIOD.  

In the case of monitoring cardiac patients the speed of a diseased or
recovering heart may trigger another attact depending on the the person in
question, so monitoring the heart speed is OK in that sense.

The HRM does tell you how hard you are working but does it tell you that you
running up hill at the same effort as running down the same hill, of course
not.

 Tell me you are working at a higher % of your Max Vo2 at the end of a marathon
when your fluids in your *** are very low & your heart rate is nearly at
max???  Your not, unless your EFFORT is higher.

Your statement "Your heart automatically adjusts for
all of these--that's why using a heart rate monitor is so great".  answers your
questions, the heart adjusts to the enviroment so you don't have to!!!!

The heart is not the Tach on your body as all of the HRM preachers want you to
believe!!!  It only tells you how fast your HR is on that day.  The heart does
not run the muscles!!  The muscles & the mind run the heart!!

I would like to say I do use a HRM but as Dr JD says you have to know what your
looking at.
John Stiner

Irregardless?

   -Phil

I thought it had something to do with training and talent?
Reading this group you learn almost every day new things!!

--

Ivo van der Putten
http://home.worldonline.nl/~iputten

It still a valid word in an awkward way.

Main Entry: irregardless
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'g?rd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early
20th century. Its fairly widespread use in
speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as
1927. The most frequently repeated remark
about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however.
It is still used primarily in speech,
although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its
reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still
a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

--
Caveat Lector!

Sorry Jim, but I gotta question that last part.

I've never read anything that says *impact* from running has an effect
on the heart. Knees, ankles, joints, muscles, yes. But heart rate?

As a triathlete I do all three. I just don't see anything unique about
running in this regard.

Is it easier to get the heart rate up running than biking? Sure, but
that's due to the load bearing on the legs but that doesn't seem to be
what you're saying.

Can you elaborate?

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Ironman Canada '98 16:17:03
Great Floridian '99, 17:13:38

Unless you know something a lot of doctors and scientists don't, the
ONLY thing the heart does is pump ***. Period. It has no mystical
powers or functions. It doesn't chose where it sends the *** it
pumps, or control how much oxygen is in the ***, or how the muscles
use it. It only pumps ***.

The heart could care less if you're running, biking, making love, or
watching a scary movie. It pumps the amount of *** other systems
says it needs. It responds to an incredible number of stimuli that
effects how fast it pumps. Exercise rate is one of those. Fright is
another. The need to cool the body's temperature (and protect the
brain) is yet another.  

But that's all it does.

Exercise improves the heart's ability to function, but it doesn't
matter what kind of exercise is used. The heart doesn't know if you're
biking or running or swimming. It's a muscle. It responds like all
muscles by increasing it's ability in response to stress. But it
doesn't know where the stress is coming from. The brain tells it to
beat faster and that's all it needs to know.

Again, the heart doesn't determine where the *** it pumps is going.
Increasing the *** vessels in leg muscles or their size and mass is
not a function of the heart.

If improving the heart's capability to pump was the ONLY thing needed
to improve your running, then it wouldn't matter how it was
stimulated, all you'd have to do is stimulate it long enough to
provide the needed stress to improve it. You could do that with ***
or electrical stimulus and run 4 minute miles in few months.

But the heart is just one part of the cardio-vascular system and it
only pumps ***. You have to improve the entire system to get faster.
<Duh>

Or perhaps it's because they TRAIN for those sports - not for running?

Or perhaps they have more highly developed C-V systems because XC
skiing is better overall exercise for the entire body and developed
more muscles than just the legs, hence the demand for more ***?  

Sorry, but what that really says is that elite runners can succeed at
the highest levels of running w/o being as fit as elite XC skiers.

Mike "We aren't the top of the heap" Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Ironman Canada '98 16:17:03
Great Floridian '99, 17:13:38

I do understand what I just wrote, and I do not feel foolish.  I do slow
down b/c of a number on my wrist, b/c that number tells me that my body is
performing anaerobically (burning sugar) during a run in which I am wanting
to run aerobically (burning fat).  Those who want to run at a certain miles
per minute pace, regardless of other factors which can affect heart rate
(such as heat, humidity, etc...) may well working too hard or training in a
completely different manner than they intended.
Thanks to my HRM I always know if I am running aerobically or anaerobically.
No matter what the weather is, I can train effectively and get the most out
of each workout.  This is not DUMB--this is informed, and it works for me.

dave

First you say there's only one function, then you mention delivering
oxygen AND cooling body temperature as TWO functions. Which is exactly my
point. Heart may be beating faster to cool off your body (sauna example,
again), or it may be beating faster to increase oxygen delivery to muscles
(excercising). Does it mean your body gets the same  "training" benefits? I
don't think so.

It's not just the heart, it's the whole CV system we are talking about.
Here's a simple question - as you imrpove your fitness, your heart is
stronger, it beats slower when at rest, and there's more *** in your
system. Simple physics question - if you have a pump which is more powerful -
it pumps twice as much liquid in half the time - the peak pressure should
be 4 times what it used to be, right? But athletes have "normal" ***
pressure. The reason - as heart gets stronger, the pipelines - the capillaries
get thicker, more elastic and increase in numbers.

I wasn't talking about heart. I was talking about cardiovascular system
as a whole. As I mentioned above, it's not just the heart we excercise.
As to your last sentence - in a way, the heart IS responsible for
increasing the *** vessels in legs, their size and elasticity.

Hello?
That's what I was talking about... Did you read my "sauna" example?
That's exactly what I was talking about - you have to improve the entire
system, not just bring the heart rate up. That's exactly what Daniels
meant. Maybe you should read my post again?
So far you rephrased every statement I made. Your point is?

Yes, see my reference to "muscle groups, running efficiency etc." which you
cut out.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make, thanks.

What is "fit"?
What it probably says is that there's "running fit" and there's "XC fit".
Even if we are talking about CV system, and exclude "muscles" from
discussion.
--
 Oleg

Basic guideline: 180 minus your age.  Above is anaerobic, below is aerobic.

dave