Heart Rate/RPE Question

[madyogi]

I was reading this thread (http://www.rmaxinternational.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18463&page=2) this evening, and Coach Bentz was talking about your head telling you one thing (when it comes to perceived effort), while your heart is telling a different story. I don't use a heart rate monitor at the moment, but I was wondering what you guys would consider high intensity, med intensity, and low intensity in terms of actual percent of max heart rate.

Let's assume I was using a formula such as the Karvonen formula that figures in reserve, which is basically ((220-age-resting rate)*intensity level in tenths)+resting heart rate. So at 29, with a resting rate of 68, if my heart rate measured 166, that would 80%, or 8 on a scale of 10.

Does this seem like a reasonable/accurate way to scientifically measure intensity?

Furthermore, what portion of the entire session would have to be done at that heart rate to consider that workout an 80% workout?

Still more, where does low intensity become medium intensity, become high intensity?

[mrfuzzy]

Hi Phil-
I can only relate my own experience here.
Since using my heart rate monitor I have found a method to tailor my conditioning sessions and all of my workouts such that my ego is removed from my perception of my effort.
I can not tell you how exactly to do something similar in your own practice.

Any 'max heart rate' as a number in isolation and theoretical will lead you down the path to pain.

For me, 20 years ago a 'balls to the wall' effort was all that I needed to get in shape.
Or so I thought.
I always ended up hurt and wondering.
No thought was given to measuring technique, discomfort, effort.

Measuring technique was for esthetes, .
Measuring discomfort was for cowards.
Measuring effort was dismissed after comparing my momentary results with the results of others. This is easy after dismissing the other two RMAX tenets.

Intuitive training is great if you are not beating yourself up in the
process of attempting to getting better conditioned.
If intuition is contaminated by ego you are going to beat yourself up every session. You will not recover sufficient to guarantee your health!

Measuring effort by heart rate is a great discipline.

Once you have even a theoretical heart rate max, you can start to craft your program. After you calibrate your own foundation you are on your way. What activity puts you over the max? What activity can be performed 'forever'?
It is an individual process.

With your monitor and a bit of caution and rational judgment your progress can be sustained and progressive in a way you can measure. (keeping records is paramount to judging progress!)

Progress is achieved in fits and starts without a plan, if it is achieved at all. I'm not suggesting that
my approach will suit everyone. What I am suggesting is to take a step back and spend some time calibrating your personal high-low-medium threshold. Be conservative. Likely your numbers will reflect the great bell-curve averages. Maybe not.

Scott's RESET program is astonishing in it's effectiveness to recover your baseline heart rate very quickly down from any heart rate target in a way you can put numbers to and I recommend it without reservation. Check it out!
Be careful, though. You may become dizzier watching your heart rate fall between rounds than you became after pushing youself beyond 'max effort' for a training effect.

Once you utilize the principles in RESET you will find your way toward surpassing your own expectations, no matter what approach to conditioning you pursue.

The personal distinctions of high-low-medium-no effort do really become intuitive as an end result
because the combination of effort measured clinically by heart rate and one's personal level of discomfort ingrain themselves into your will to do more quality work.
I have found that I am able to set a target for high-intensity: 30% or so more work than I normally do with by heart rate and low intuitively perceived discomfort along with technique as perfect a possible.

Now I can schedule my work to increase medium intensity (for me) as an average heat rate for the session regularly and ratchet up effort to achieve a higher average heart rate target. When I cannot achieve that goal I know it is time to back off with low-intensity sessions. It is axiomatic.

I am 52 years old and I am not planning to 'roll' with anyone any time soon.
Neither am I going to back off from any challenge.
Your fitness goals at 29 are likely completely different than mine.
Your goals are almost certainly different.

There are so many great understanding coaches on this board who can steer your effort better than I can to achieve your specific training goals that I do not offer commentary on that subject.

I am simply offering my 2 cents on this fascinating subject.

Thanks and best regards,

Bill

[Paul K]

Rating of Perceived Effort does correlate to heart rate intensity.

Scott has used HR for monitoring training MMA athletes. In my personal training I use not only HR but ratings of technique, effort and pain/discomfort.

Max Heart Rate - Resting Heart Rate x Intensity + Resting Heart Rate = Training Heart Rate

Low intensity level: 50% - 60% - such as technical practice, tactical drilling, yoga, shadow boxing/sparring, et cetera.

Moderate intensity level: 60% - 70% - such as ramp-up conditioning, light rolling/sparring, et cetera.

High intensity level: 75% - 85% - such as high intensity exercise, full-on sparring, et cetera.

[madyogi]

Hey guys ... thank you both for your responses.

Seems like it's still walking a fine line, especially if having an arbitrary, theoretical max heart rate can, as Bill said, at the same time "lead you down a path to pain," or be the starting place for crafting an effective program. Looks to me like the intuitive or perceived aspect of training must always reign supreme. The trick, I suppose, is being honest with yourself, and that ain't always easy.

My main goals rest in being able to push my anaerobic threshold up, such that I am able to remain in aerobic metabolism during longer bouts of more intense effort. Being a trail runner and a guy who likes tennis, racquetball, and volleyball, I have many interests, but it seems the greatest benefits to me would be 1) to be able to reach a higher range of intensity for a longer period of time without building up too much lactate, and 2) to be able to clear and resynthesize lactate stores more efficiently.



In the end, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to keep the ego out of your training completely. I mean, that's part of why we strive to get better, but there must be a balance, right? Between pushing for greater heights and staying within the current limitations of your own body. Heart rate max is looking like a good starting point and great way to measure perceived effort against a real physiological mile-marker, but in the end, you have to listen to your body. If you're run down all the time, training at 90% of your heart rate max every other day is not doing you any good.

Thanks again for the conversation, guys! I look forward to more. I'll have to check out the RESET sometime, for sure.

peace ...

[Paul K]

Quote Philip “If you're run down all the time, training at 90% of your heart rate max every other day is not doing you any good.”

If you are discussing training following CST principles, you need to grasp the basics. Please read “4″ Ultimate Life-Long Fitness FREE for You! http://www.rmaxinternational.com/flowcoach/?p=224

[madyogi]

Quote Philip “If you're run down all the time, training at 90% of your heart rate max every other day is not doing you any good.”

If you are discussing training following CST principles, you need to grasp the basics. Please read “4″ Ultimate Life-Long Fitness FREE for You! http://www.rmaxinternational.com/flowcoach/?p=224

Thanks for the advice, Paul. I have actually read that article several times, and am right now working with a similar program. I didn't mean to infer that I train super-high-intensity every other day myself. I only meant to illustrate the idea that "training hard" is not necessarily "training right" or "training effectively," and that just because one has a target heart rate in mind, it is still more important to listen to your body than to go balls out toward an arbitrary number.

I'm sure most of us on this board are well aware of this. It's just that as I begin to log my workouts (http://www.rmaxinternational.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18380) and indicate intensity levels, I'm trying to make sure I'm speaking relatively the same language that all of you are.

It's also an interesting dynamic - how we psychologically perceive our effort versus the physiological realities of said effort.

[mrfuzzy]

"Max Heart Rate - Resting Heart Rate x Intensity + Resting Heart Rate = Training Heart Rate"

Thanks from me, also, Paul for weighing in on the topic. The perceived Intensity variable is something I will look to incorporating into my program in a more systematic manner.

"Rating of Perceived Effort does correlate to heart rate intensity."

This is something I have found to be fundamentally true - but only after giving myself permission to 'work out' guided by a closer examination of my own response to physical stress while training. RPE does not correlate to heart rate intensity on a unit for unit basis, but for a period of time governing my effort by heart rate measure is a hell of a substitute!

(edited response..!)

Best regards.

Bill