Jack Daniels on HRM

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by David Justin Ros » Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
>Who told you that anaerobic activity can not be sustained for more than a
>minute or two?  

I don't know who told David Fenton, but it's generally accepted that a pure
anaerobic effort (or something very close to it) can't be sustained for more
than about 45 seconds.  

Quote:
>Who says that because your body is burning sugar that you're
>necessarily out of breath?
>Read "In Fitness and in Health" and you'll have
>a better understanding of the difference between burning fat and burning
>sugar (and "aerobic" activity versus "anaerobic" activity).

It sounds like you are confusing the concepts of aerobic and anaerobic
exercise with the ratio of glycogen:fat burned during exercise.

Unless you have completely depleted your liver and muscle glycogen stores,
you will burn a mix of fat and glycogen while running at slower
than 5K race pace.  At rest, you burn approximately 50% glycogen and
50% fat.  Above 5K race pace (individual response will vary, of course),
the body uses only glycogen for fuel.        

The body can exercise for a relatively long time--longer than one or two
minutes--while burning only glycogen.  However, a body deriving 100% of
its fuel from glycogen is not necessarily in a completely anaerobic state.
Unless you are engaged in a 100- or 200 meter race, your body is using some
oxygen to produce energy even when your only fuel source is glycogen.  

Take the 5K race as an example.  Exercise physiologists estimate that a 5K
race, for an elite runner, is 70% aerobic and 30% anaerobic.  The runner burns
little (if any) fat during the race, yet 70% of the energy used is aerobic.

How about a 10K?  Physiologists estimate that a 10K is 80% aerobic and 20%  
anaerobic, while the ratio of glycogen (or "sugar") to fat burned is
approximately 90:10.  

In any event, there is no way any human can sustain a 100% anaerobic effort for
more than a minute or two.  Remember, a 5K--which will leave most of us fairly
breathless--is only 30% anaerobic.  

I have not read "In Fitness and in Health", but I suspect that they take a
level of exertion at which most of us would feel subjectively comfortable and
call it "aerobic"; exertion above that arbitrary level is deemed "anaerobic."
There's nothing wrong with doing this, but it's not physiologically accurate.

-Dave R.    

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by IndyRun » Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>I quit, Penguin, you win.  But I'm going to keep coaching my way and hope the
>the teams we run against are doing things your way.

My moneys on you Jim.
As with all the other winners, elites and record setters who don't subscribe to
this nonsense and that's why they're where they are, on top.

   David
"IndyRunr"

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by overworke » Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:00:00

  You seem to be hung up in the old myth that you burn more fat running slow than you do running fast.
    Not true, I am "hung up" on the fact that if your heart rate is above a certain level, your body switches from burning primarily fat to burning sugar.  This level is not necessarily "low intensity", as you suggest.  When one is not accustomed to training this way, they may have to train at a slower pace than normal until their body learns to burn fat more efficiently.  After the body learns this, however, they will be able to run much faster, much more efficiently, and without injury, compared to their previous training.

     I have to think that your "In Fitness and In Health" is little more than a thinly disguised fad diet book.

    You really should read it before making that type of statement.  The author of this "thinly disguised fad diet book" is the man who trained Mark Allen (the man who "owns" the Ironman).
    dave

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Denny Anders » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Excellent summary. It's a keeper!  :)

Denny


Quote:
>>Who says that because your body is burning sugar that you're
>>necessarily out of breath?
>>Read "In Fitness and in Health" and you'll have
>>a better understanding of the difference between burning fat and burning
>>sugar (and "aerobic" activity versus "anaerobic" activity).

>It sounds like you are confusing the concepts of aerobic and anaerobic
>exercise with the ratio of glycogen:fat burned during exercise.

>Unless you have completely depleted your liver and muscle glycogen stores,
>you will burn a mix of fat and glycogen while running at slower
>than 5K race pace.  At rest, you burn approximately 50% glycogen and
>50% fat.  Above 5K race pace (individual response will vary, of course),
>the body uses only glycogen for fuel.        

>The body can exercise for a relatively long time--longer than one or two
>minutes--while burning only glycogen.  However, a body deriving 100% of
>its fuel from glycogen is not necessarily in a completely anaerobic state.
>Unless you are engaged in a 100- or 200 meter race, your body is using some
>oxygen to produce energy even when your only fuel source is glycogen.  

>Take the 5K race as an example.  Exercise physiologists estimate that a 5K
>race, for an elite runner, is 70% aerobic and 30% anaerobic.  The runner burns
>little (if any) fat during the race, yet 70% of the energy used is aerobic.

>How about a 10K?  Physiologists estimate that a 10K is 80% aerobic and 20%  
>anaerobic, while the ratio of glycogen (or "sugar") to fat burned is
>approximately 90:10.  

>In any event, there is no way any human can sustain a 100% anaerobic effort for
>more than a minute or two.  Remember, a 5K--which will leave most of us fairly
>breathless--is only 30% anaerobic.  

>I have not read "In Fitness and in Health", but I suspect that they take a
>level of exertion at which most of us would feel subjectively comfortable and
>call it "aerobic"; exertion above that arbitrary level is deemed "anaerobic."
>There's nothing wrong with doing this, but it's not physiologically accurate.

>-Dave R.    

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Patc » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>(deleted blah, blah, blah to make room for my own blah, blah, blah)

There are three major sources of fuel for the body's pathways in which
energy is stored as ATP:
1)  Proteins (polymers of amino acids, and actually only a minor source of
fuel),
2)  Carbohydrates (polymers of sugars like glucose), and,
3)  Fats (3 fatty acids + glycerol).

There are two pathways in which ATP is generated:
1)  Anaerobic (producing ATP without oxygen, called substrate level
phosphorylation), and,
2)  Aerobic (producing ATP in the presence of oxygen, called oxidative
phosphorylation).

The by-product of the anaerobic pathway is lactic acid, a compound that
causes muscle fatigue and pain.  The by-products of the aerobic pathway are
carbon dioxide and water.  The anaerobic pathway produces ATP much faster
than the aerobic pathway.  However, the aerobic pathway produces more ATP
per cycle than the anaerobic pathway (~36 ATP as compared to 2 ATP).  All
the fuel constituents mentioned above except fatty acids can be used to make
ATP in either pathway.  Fatty acids can only make ATP in the aerobic
pathway.

"A 100m sprint is powered by stored ATP, creatine phosphate, and anaerobic
glycolysis of muscle glycogen." (Stryer, 1995)  These are the most immediate
sources of energy and thus produce the most rapid initial velocity.
However, this maximum pace cannot be maintained for much longer than 100m.
Virtually all the energy available from creatine phosphate is used in the
first few seconds.  By 10 seconds, 1/3 of stored ATP is used and the
concentration of lactic acid in the *** is over 5 times higher than the
concentration at resting state.  This not only causes muscle fatigue and
pain, it inhibits the regeneration of NAD+, a molecule necessary for
anaerobic ATP production.

Fortunately, we breathe when we run.  When oxygen is present, ATP can be
generated by either the anaerobic or aerobic pathway.  Additionally, NAD+ is
readily regenerated in the aerobic pathway, and the ATP produced gives the
liver time to lower the concentration of lactic acid in the ***.

The mechanism that determines whether the anaerobic or aerobic pathway is
favored is completely different from the mechanism that determines whether
fat burning or carbohydrate burning is favored.  The degree to which either
pathway, anaerobic or aerobic, is preferred depends upon the availability of
oxygen, or in other words, by heart rate.  The type of fuel, either fat or
carbohydrate, used to create ATP is determined by a feedback mechanism
concerned with concentrations of citrate, pyruvate, acetyl CoA, ADP, ATP, as
well as *** sugar level, but not heart rate.

So, when David F. said, "Without oxygen being supplied to the muscle you
burn nothing (not sugar, not fat)." he was not entirely correct.  However, I
do agree with him when he wrote, "If you want to lose weight there is no
magic book, you must consume less calories than you expend, that's the big
secret."  The statement might seem more positive if it ended " ... you must
expend more calories than you consume ..."

Overworked wrote, "Not true, I am "hung up" on the fact that if your heart
rate is above a certain level, your body switches from burning primarily fat
to burning sugar."  Perhaps Overworked should not be so "hung up" on a fact
that isn't necessarily true.  Remember, concentrations not rates regulate
the type of fuel burned.  In Overworked's defense, reading a book should be
required before commenting on it.

David R. wrote about several situations of which I am not sure exist:
1)  "Above 5K race pace (individual response will vary, of course), the body
uses only glycogen for fuel."
2)  " ... your body is using some oxygen to produce energy even when your
only fuel source is glycogen."
3)  In a 5K race, "The runner burns little (if any) fat during the race ..."
4)  In a 10K race, "... while the ratio of glycogen (or "sugar") to fat
burned
is approximately 90:10"
In regards to 1 and 2, except in starvation and bursts of activity lasting
less than 10-15 seconds, the body does not and cannot afford to use only one
source of fuel.  As for 3 and 4, once again excepting very short sprints,
the type of fuel used by the body is not dependant on the runner's pace, or
heart rate.  However, I'd like to read the studies where you got your
numbers on the very probable chance that I'm completely wrong.

After all, I am just an undergraduate at a state university.  Anybody know
where to find a grain of salt big enough to take with this post?  Then
again, all that salt might wreak havoc with one's *** pressure. :)

Now you see why I'll probably always be a jogger and not a runner.  Happy
running.

--
Patrick

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Mike Tennen » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>I quit, Penguin, you win.  But I'm going to keep coaching my way and hope the
>the teams we run against are doing things your way.

In other words, you don't have anything to substantiate your theory
and you won't even debate it intelligently?

I love it.

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

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Mike Tennen » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>>I quit, Penguin, you win.  But I'm going to keep coaching my way and hope the
>>the teams we run against are doing things your way.

>My moneys on you Jim.
>As with all the other winners, elites and record setters who don't subscribe to
>this nonsense and that's why they're where they are, on top.

>   David
>"IndyRunr"

Uh, except for elites in other sports, right?

And my friend Tommy Buchanan, the AG record holder for Georgia who
'religiously" uses his HRM

Mike "Still waiting for that overwhelming evidence from your buddy"
Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Ironman Canada '98 16:17:03
Great Floridian '99, 17:13:38

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Palme » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:


> 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.

Wrong.  If the pump is pumping into a fixed system the pressure would be 16
times more.  If the heart pumps 4 times (twice as much liquid in half the
time) against the same pressure it is four times as powerful--four times
more work in the same time.  If the pipelines did not expand the flow might
change from laminar to turbulent.  I am not a doctor but I believe that
turbulent *** flow may cause clots to form.

Palmer

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Palme » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:


> As this pertains to human physiology - Wrong.  For one thing, the
> heart is not a typical mechanical pump that moves *** continuously
> and smoothly.

The heart's action is typical of positive displacement pumps.  Most PD pumps
pulse.  The fuel pump in your car is not smooth.  You can watch the pulses
in the discharge hoses of pumps used to drain construction projects.  Most
artificial hearts use some form of PD pump.

Palmer

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by David Fento » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

The author of the 'In Fitness and In Health" is Dr. Phil Maffetone.
From the information I have been able to find on the man he is not a
medical doctor.  He is a Chiropractor who has an undergraduate degree in
Biology.  He may have a medical degree; but, I have not been able to
document that at all. His level of expertise in Kinesiology is not well
documented in his biographical information that I have found.

    In any event, I have checked out his web site, and I don't believe
that you are accurately relating his theories. I'm sure that he never
defined aerobic as burning fat, and anaerobic as burning sugar.  He does
speak of exercising aerobically in the accepted usage of the term.  He
makes a big point of building an aerobic base.  He speaks of the train
of thought that you exercise at low intensity to become accustomed to
burning your fat stores.  Runners do this frequently, in the form of
long runs, while preparing for a marathon.  Their purpose may not be the
same; but, the end result should be.
I have not seen one of his training programs for an elite athlete; and I
would be interested in the intensity of these peoples' workouts.  I
can't imagine them doing well without speed work, temp runs, and some
fairly high intensity work.

    Dr. Maffetone is a proponent of the 40-30-30 diet.  He makes some
dietary recommendations that are certainly not big hits with the
American Heart Association.  Those are personal choices that need to be
made with long-term cardiac health in mind.

Quote:

>        You seem to be hung up in the old myth that you burn more
>      fat running slow than you do running fast.

>      Not true, I am "hung up" on the fact that if your heart rate
>      is above a certain level, your body switches from burning
>      primarily fat to burning sugar.  This level is not
>      necessarily "low intensity", as you suggest.  When one is
>      not accustomed to training this way, they may have to train
>      at a slower pace than normal until their body learns to burn
>      fat more efficiently.  After the body learns this, however,
>      they will be able to run much faster, much more efficiently,
>      and without injury, compared to their previous training.

>       I have to think that your "In Fitness and In Health" is
>      little more than a thinly disguised fad diet book.

>      You really should read it before making that type of
>      statement.  The author of this "thinly disguised fad diet
>      book" is the man who trained Mark Allen (the man who "owns"
>      the Ironman).

>      dave

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Mike Tennen » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>I quit, Penguin, you win.  But I'm going to keep coaching my way and hope the
>the teams we run against are doing things your way.

Oh, one more thing.

As Indy found out (much to his chagrin), I don't own or use a HRM.
I've never even put one on.

I'm not arguing this issue because I own one. I'm simply challenging
the anti-HRM crowd to show me the money. So far, it's all anecdotal.

One piece of evidence I would be interested in is the names of those
elite runners (and their coaches) who aren't living up to their
potential because they are slaves to a HRM. Indy seems to think
they're out there.

You're a coach. maybe you can give some names so we can assess that
particular argument?

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

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by phoff.. » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Most of the comments from the 'anti-HRM' crowd (this time and earlier as
well) can  be summarized as saying that runners are mostly too stupid to
be able to use HRMs to help improve their running. Actually, this may be
the case, but it also may be the case that, at least subconsciously, the
'coaches' realize that intelligent use of an HRM removes part of what
little utility the coach had to begin with. People like Jack Daniels
might become even more irrelevant than they already are. However anyone
coached by the sillier 'coaches' who rant against HRM use here probably
really ARE too dumb to use an HRM profitably, as indicated by their choice
of where to get running advice.

To be more specific, we seem to be suspected of being too stupid:

(1) to realize that in sprints, short hard intervals, at the beginning
of a run, etc..., the reading is of little or no use;

(2) to be able to chew gum and walk across the room at the same tim..oops..
I meant to say : to be able to monitor our bodies and read the HRM at the
same time, and make use of all that information;

(3) to run a course (at least a reasonably flat and wind-free one) at
a constant pace (even splits, etc.) by understanding  our HR behaviour
and planning a run so that the HR will increase slowly in a regular
manner between two pre-determined levels (taking into account (1) above
and ignoring the HR for the final sprint if that's what we decide to do).

Without wishing to sound arrogant, I'd like to say that as applied to
me these suspicions of stupidity are unfounded---I confine my dumb
behaviour to other avenues of life.

Best,  Peter
a constant speed (even splits, etc.)

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by JimU » Fri, 07 Jan 2000 04:00:00

<<  In other words, you don't have anything to substantiate your theory
and you won't even debate it intelligently?  >>

I have lots to substantiate my theory.  One kid in particular who was a
world-class worry-wart and never broke 17 minutes for 5K when he was using an
HRM.  He had a high pulse rate in all categories that mattered (resting,
threshold, maximum) and it bugged him to be running so slow when his pulse was
so high.  Once we got him off the gizmo, he became one of the best runners in
the state and ran under 16 minutes (in addition to 1:53 for the 800).

Most coaches I know and respect who bought HRM's when they first came on the
market a few years ago have had similar experiences, and few that I know rely
on them very much any more.  I use ours occasionally to monitor a runner
recovering from illness or to keep a kid from going too fast who doesn't read
his fatigue signs very well, but I've found the monitor doesn't do as good as a
job of reading the body as the brain.  And I actually use the monitor on my own
runs now and then, but out of curiosity more than anything else because I know
how my body responds to situations.  With young kids who don't have my
experience, it results in more questions than answers.  And judging from their
non-use among elite runners (and I know quite a few), the same thing is true
with them.  

I'm no physioligist, but I've got a pretty good feel for what works and what
doesn't based on the observations of the young men who run on my team.  You may
have a different experience based on your personal use; if it works, great!
But I still think someone who rely's upon the monitor heavily is not reaching
their ultimate potential.

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by IndyRun » Sat, 08 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>I'm trying to figure out if the repeated insistence that "world class
>elites don't use HRMs, therefore Joe Runner should not use them
>either" is a valid argument.

>  - Mike

Mike, no, anyone can use them.  It's just fact that winners don't, world record
holders don't, etc..  
It doesn't take a rocket science here.  But then again it doesn't look like we
have many here on this issue.  :)
As the sports physiologist for the National Institute for Fitness and Sport
said and other elites and elite coaches,  I'll race a HRM runner any day.
There is a difference in the way you perform and the level of training you'll
get.

   David
"IndyRunr"

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by David Justin Ros » Sat, 08 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>David R. wrote about several situations of which I am not sure exist:
>1)  "Above 5K race pace (individual response will vary, of course), the body
>uses only glycogen for fuel."
>2)  " ... your body is using some oxygen to produce energy even when your
>only fuel source is glycogen."
>3)  In a 5K race, "The runner burns little (if any) fat during the race ..."
>4)  In a 10K race, "... while the ratio of glycogen (or "sugar") to fat
>burned
>is approximately 90:10"
>In regards to 1 and 2, except in starvation and bursts of activity lasting
>less than 10-15 seconds, the body does not and cannot afford to use only one
>source of fuel.  

This is incorrect.  Tim Noakes writes: "At exercise intensities greater than
95% VO2 Max [about 5K race pace], only carbohydrate is burned" (Lore Of
Running, 1990, p.76).

Quote:
>As for 3 and 4, once again excepting very short sprints,
>the type of fuel used by the body is not dependant on the runner's pace, or
>heart rate.  

Tim Noakes again, from the same paragraph quoted above:

"As the intensity of exercise increases, the contribution of carbohydrates to
energy production increases. The increased rate of carbohydrate oxidation is
due to an increased rate of both muscle glycogen and *** glucose utilization. The increased rate of muscle glycogen utilization becomes progressively more
marked at exercise intensities above 75% VO2 max."

Quote:
>However, I'd like to read the studies where you got your
>numbers on the very probable chance that I'm completely wrong.

Actually, some of my numbers were slightly off. I wrote that a 5K race effort
is 70% aerobic and 30% anaerobic. According to the most recent literature I
could find, about 88% of the energy in a 5K race is from aerobic sources
(Martin and Coe, Better Training for Distance Runners, p.185).

Quote:
>After all, I am just an undergraduate at a state university. Anybody know
>where to find a grain of salt big enough to take with this post?  

You seem to know what you're talking about. I haven't taken a real science
class since I got a "C" in high school chemistry, so I'm not likely to win a
battle of credentials with anyone.

-Dave R.