Today, my goal was to get up the mountain as easy as possible, keeping my HR as low as possible. No hard sprinting, resting on flats, staying in 1st gear a lot, zig zagging a bit. And I did it. Wow what a difference, despite the heat. It was mid 80ºs with heat index well into the 90ºs.
Roark's cove rd bike climb - 26:20 min
Max HR - 172
Avg HR - 151
Time over 170 - 1:03
Avg speed - 5.36 mph
HUGE difference, Mon v Wed:
" really doubt you’re hurting yourself. The key data point is how fast and to what depth your HR comes down to at 60 seconds AFTER you stop your workout….before any cool down. It should drop at least 12 beats per minute and depending on your environment and fitness it could drop as much as 30 beats per minute. Deeper the better. You are able (for now) to exceed your calculated (estimated) max HR. As you age, you may not be able to overshoot this as much. As long as you’re not dizzy, lightheaded etc with this max HR, I think you’re fine."
So, based on this, I probably shouldn't worry. That Monday workout was an anomaly, started so fast due to the on coming storm.
Also, I chatted with a cyclist who once held the M60 WR for mileage in one hr (velodrome track). He said his HR averaged 165 for an hour and he was 62 at the time. He also developed afib and coronary artery disease 2 yrs later. Sort of verifying what I had read about heart issues caused by long term extreme endurance training, particularly afib. I don't want to put myself in the same danger as such athletes so I'm going to not try for a repeat of what I did on Monday, except maybe once or twice a month, or when I'm going for a PR. Also, I learned there are many athletes my age who have high max HRs. Those tables are just averages and certainly don't include masters athletes, let alone 400m sprinters.
Before today's climb, I also swam about 400yds at the lake. Had the place to myself. Swimming weather is definitely back.
There is a higher incidence of AFIB with long term competitive endurance athletes. But not coronary heart disease. Coronary heart disease is extremely common unfortunately chances are less for an endurance athlete but other factors may dominate. So your example did not get coronary heart disease from exercise, if anything he got it later in life as it is protective for coronary heart disease. Don’t kid yourself that your all out 300 meter runs provide you protection over endurance training. Your blood glucose response indicates you are taxing yourself to the absolute max. Likely remodeling the heart’s electrical circuits. And you do have a small heart, or a defective one, or your monitor is wrong. I checked two Strava entries, two different riders, each had it at 899 ft climb at 6.4 percent. I can do that at least 7 mph with my HR mostly around 150 getting into the low 160’s at the end, max is about 170. Recent data: 162 at end of hard effort, 127 30 seconds later, 112 one minute later, 85 three minutes later. That is the difference between an endurance trained heart and your sprinter trained heart. Also real cycling or cross country skiing athletes have a lot more variability in their demands than you get in your climbing. It’s like two or three of your climbs with efforts like your long sprints mixed in to get over some narly section or to make a break in a group ride. Anyway coming back to heart metrics, mine pumps more volume per stroke and beats slower. Yours pumps less volume per stroke and beats faster. In the end the total volume may be the same, but since I’m bigger and climbing a little faster I’m pumping more. But yours works fine for your 400 meter sprints and may be adapted and optimized for that.
ReplyDeleteI do think that duration of max or near max HR is an issue. Like my Monday session, being over 180 for 3:45, or 170 for nearly 18 min could be damaging if I did that 3x /week over yrs. I do think short duration, just hitting the peak and going down as I do in a track workout is probably less harmful. Bill M. turned me on to that book 'Haywire Heart' written by cyclist/physician who claims a clear link to AFIB from extreme endurance training. He has AFIB. (I linked to it in my tab above on 'sprinting v endurance running.') I definitely don't have an endurance trained heart for sure. I have read in some cases, "chronic, excessive, sustained, high-intensity endurance exercise may be associated with diastolic dysfunction, large-artery wall stiffening and coronary artery calcification" ... and "Lifelong endurance athletes had more coronary plaques," https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Journal-Scans/2023/03/14/14/21/lifelong-endurance-exercise ....One of Bill's HS classmates, Dan McBride was long term endurance athlete, cross country in HS, died of a heart attack at 59 after a bike TT. He was a physician. Anecdotal of course. https://www.pressconnects.com/obituaries/bps120315
DeleteThanks for that study. It takes time for the medical community to come to consensus. I know there are a lot of studies on this subject there might be a meta study available now. When there are multiple studies meta studies (where they aggregate the results from multiple studies) have more power and more likely to be true. I’ll look.
DeleteI suppose you are right. But there are many many thousands of old decade long endurance athletes. Just a fraction of that number have trained like you into old age. As even in the endurance group it is fairly rare, I don’t think the numbers are there in the long sprint group for an increased rate to be noticeable. And the small number of affected people won’t attract the interest of researchers.
DeleteMedical community is trained and incentivized to the 95th percentile so the outliers are missed sometimes with tragic consequences. So they accurately say you are unlikely to see an issue with some test, and do not call for it as they are incentivized with insurance plans to not over test. If you read enough peer review papers they call out “acceptable rates of mis or no diagnosis”, which is necessary for practical reasons but sucks for the 2 percent who get missed and does some tragic death. Happens regularly unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteThat’s not to say you have a heart issue- very unlikely there. But applies as it is another reason to not test you.
ReplyDeleteI recently tried the Balke treadmill test. https://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/balke.htm. Often used as a method of evaluating cardiac health in a medical situation. Can also be used as a method of estimating VO2 max. Also an interesting way of observing HR during a period of increasing but highly controlled effort, max HR at the end of a period and recovery afterwards.
DeleteEssentially you walk on a teadmill at a defined speed increasing gradient by 1% per minute to exhaustion, or nearby. Since it is not sports specific, governed by hills, weather etc very controlled.
I did one for medical reasons it increased grade and speed at 1 min increments. Since I had a calf strain we modified it a bit we increased speed to just below where I’d have to start jogging which was 4.3 mph and just increased grade. I went 21 minutes ending at 22 percent grade, I could have gone a little longer but I think they were impatient and wanted to get to the next patient. My metabolic equivalents was 17 which is in the 98th percentile.
DeleteAge 65. Resting HR45-50. Stuck to the exact brisk walking protocols, same pace throughout and precise increments of gradient. I did it for 15 mins which took me to 15% gradient. Felt very comfortable and could have continued but gradient on gym treadmills could not go higher than 15% so had to stop ! HR at the end was 136 compared to my max of about 170 and `hard training` level of 155ish. VO2 calculated as per the end of this session was 36.6. So reasonably happy, the protocol enables you to see a nice smooth upward gradient of HR. Hills etc create false spikes. Need to find a better treadmill or do a running version.
ReplyDeleteActually I doubt the calculation on my test as MEQ of 17 is very high.
ReplyDeleteI think whenever calculations on HR are made using any type of equipment like a bike or rower, the element of technique and mechanics is involved. I don't really think I'm very good at either of these
ReplyDeleteWe each have unique biomechanics that fit some sports better than others. You have advantages for running, gymnastics, etc but are significantly disadvantaged for rowing. Neutral at best for cycling probably modestly disadvantaged as long leg length is an advantage. I’m built well for rowing and would have done reasonably well in the light weight class. Rowing days are over due to lower back issues. I’m built better for cycling than running long femur is advantageous for cycling but not for running.
DeleteI also wonder what kind of a toll long term excessive caffeine intake may have? Assuming 1 shot of espresso = 1 unit of caffeine, I sometimes consume upwards of 5-8 units / day in coffee and tea. Routinely, 4 shots of coffee in two cappuccinos in the morning, maybe an iced coffee in the afternoon and a pot of black tea in the evening and maybe some chocolate.
ReplyDeleteEverything I’ve read about caffeine tea and coffee is good but I haven’t seen anything over 5 cups daily. I think if you already have a heart rythym issue caffeine should be avoided. If you are sleeping poorly or have lack of sleep from caffeine consumption that can lead to health issues- not caffeine per se but lack of sleep.
ReplyDelete