all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Heart Rate - How Does the Amount of Increase Above Resting Relate to Improvements?

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor Emeritus
Elite Certified Instructor
Time for a little bro science, although real science would be welcomed, of course! This thread: Low HR During Rucking in Flat Terrain, got me thinking. (Visual: Steve at computer, smoke coming out of his ears.) @Bauer asks about when he rucks with a light weight and his heart rate only goes up a little. I'll propose a specific set of circumstances:
  • 40-minute walk
  • resting pulse rate of 60
  • goal of keeping your HR around the top of Zone 2, which is 140 bpm, or resting + 80.
Here's the question: What percentage of benefit can be assigned to each increase in HR? Does resting + 40 give half the benefit, does resting + 20 give 1/4 the benefit, etc., or is this non-linear, meaning (possibly) that resting + 20 gives half the benefit, and resting + 40 gives 3/4 of the benefit, and resting + 60 give 90% of the benefit? Or does it work the other way, that there is little benefit to the smaller increases and greater benefit the closer you get to the top of Zone 2? Or yet another possibility, that there is little benefit with small increases, greatest benefit near the Zone 1 - Zone 2 border, and diminishing returns after that?

Or to put it another way, what does a graph of HR on the vertical axis and benefit on the horizontal look like?

No doubt that @Al Ciampa will tell me I'm not asking a good question :) and that's a welcomed comment here, too. And no doubt that this is biased by my subjective take on my personal experience, which is that a increased HR provides significant benefits even when it doesn't get out of Zone 1. (And let's please not discuss exercise HR's higher than the top of Zone 2 - that's another discussion entirely.)

-S-
 
Not to be persnickety...(there‘s a word) but for the sake of your thought experiment define ‘benefit’
Purposely undefined, since it's another subject entirely, too. Whatever taking your HR from 60 to 140 for 40 minutes does, that's "benefit" for the purpose of this discussion. (If you can find a way to break it down because different aspects of "benefit" happen differently over time, be my guest, but that risks changing the subject.)

I am all to well able to be persnickety, hence my attempt to keep the focus on the focus, which I could put another way. "Is it worth one's time to exercise in Zone 1 and not above?" Or, "Am I better off exercising in Zone 2 for 20 minutes than in Zone 1 for 40 minutes?" Lots of ways to phrase the question, just looking for advice as to, in @Bauer's case, how to interpret what we're getting when we don't reach the top-of-Zone-2 target heart rate. Clearly it's better than nothing but the question is, "How much better than nothing is it?"

-S-
 
Purposely undefined, since it's another subject entirely, too. Whatever taking your HR from 60 to 140 for 40 minutes does, that's "benefit" for the purpose of this discussion. (If you can find a way to break it down because different aspects of "benefit" happen differently over time, be my guest, but that risks changing the subject.)

I am all to well able to be persnickety, hence my attempt to keep the focus on the focus, which I could put another way. "Is it worth one's time to exercise in Zone 1 and not above?" Or, "Am I better off exercising in Zone 2 for 20 minutes than in Zone 1 for 40 minutes?" Lots of ways to phrase the question, just looking for advice as to, in @Bauer's case, how to interpret what we're getting when we don't reach the top-of-Zone-2 target heart rate.

-S-
This is post ruck and only 2 cups of coffee in so....
As many people here know, I am mostly informed on stuff of this nature by Steve House and Scott Johnston. (Authors of Training for the New Alpinism and Training for the Uphill Athlete) Their stuff is usually based on either percentage of HRmax or more recently and accurately where you are at compared to AeT and AnT.

Zone R (recovery zone) is <55% of HRmax - Conversational Breathing. Provides the benefit of producing aerobic enzymes and hormones that improve the rebuilding process of structures damaged during harder training.

Zone 1 (Basic Endurance) 55-75% of HRmax. - Nasal Breathing. The upper end of this zone is AeT (LT). The point at which your blood lactate rises above your baseline. “Aerobic threshold power output is the single most important measure of a person‘s aerobic system”

For anyone really interested in locomotive endurance training and its effects in detail (through all HR zones) I would highly recommend reading these two works. (I would just be repeating what is written there)

But I (and those authors and athletes) certainly concur with you Steve that there is great benefit to training at these lower ranges.
 
"Is it worth one's time to exercise in Zone 1 and not above?" Or, "Am I better off exercising in Zone 2 for 20 minutes than in Zone 1 for 40 minutes?" Lots of ways to phrase the question, just looking for advice as to, in @Bauer's case, how to interpret what we're getting when we don't reach the top-of-Zone-2 target heart rate. Clearly it's better than nothing but the question is, "How much better than nothing is it?"
Steve, I appreciate this thread and your thoughts on the topic.

My guess is, raising your HR 40 beats above resting gives you about 80% of benefits for longevity and 20% for aerobic fitness, if that makes sense.

Right now I am biased more towards low level, everyday aerobic fitness and thus walking and rucking with a rather low HR is fine. But as you phrase it, I wonder how much better I would be off if I would increase my HR some more. (Which would then lead to the question: How much is this HR-raise costing recovery-wise? Walking is great for recovery, and running too up to a point - until it gets taxing and needs its own recovery budget.) Right now I am fine commuting by bike to work (30 minutes total per day) + S&S 3-4 times per week + some walks and possibly light rucks.
 
There is the immediate benefit, and then there is the benefit if changing things in a more positive direction -- i.e. stimulating further adaptation.

Zone 1 will give you lots of immediate benefit. Energy usage, circulation improvements, mood improvements, etc. Keeps everything flowing well as it is.

Zone 2 (in sufficient volume) will give you the same and more immediate benefit as Zone 1, plus it will stimulate further adaptation -- will tell your body that you need more mitochondria, better oxygen deliver than what you have, more aerobic enzymes, etc.

Above these zones will also stimulate adaptations, some of them aerobic also, but at a greater recovery cost.
 
"Am I better off exercising in Zone 2 for 20 minutes than in Zone 1 for 40 minutes?"
What say you folks?

In terms of "cost to the organism" in particular, I prefer Zone 1 for 40 minutes in answer to this either/or question. So I again ask how others feel, e.g., do you agree that 40 minutes in Zone 1 has a lower cost to the organism? And, if pressed to determine a time in Zone 2 to equal 40 minutes in Zone 1, what would you say? "Equal" here doesn't mean precisely the same benefits but rather the same overall amount of benefit ...

-S-
 
What say you folks?

In terms of "cost to the organism" in particular, I prefer Zone 1 for 40 minutes in answer to this either/or question. So I again ask how others feel, e.g., do you agree that 40 minutes in Zone 1 has a lower cost to the organism? And, if pressed to determine a time in Zone 2 to equal 40 minutes in Zone 1, what would you say? "Equal" here doesn't mean precisely the same benefits but rather the same overall amount of benefit ...

-S-

I would say 40 min in Zone 1 would give you equal or greater benefits in energy usage, mood boost, cardiovascular health/usage. 20 min in Zone 2 would give you more stimulation for aerobic enzymes, oxygen usage, muscle development, and mitochondria.

In terms of "Cost to the organism" it depends on which one your body is used to (adapted to). If you're used to 20 min in Zone 2 and do it regularly, there is very low cost. If you only do that once in a blue moon and all of your work is Zone 1, then there will be a higher cost (but also a greater benefit) to doing some Zone 2 work. And, relative to other training, both of these would have a pretty low "cost".
 
Steve I think we have to consider health vs fitness
Zone 1 - probably not effective for fitness, probably good for health

@offwidth what is "zone breakdown" is used by House/Johnston? you've listed the parameters for Zone 1/2, what are the others? I usually see Zone 2 up to 80-82% of max HR

EDIT: There was a great thread on this a while back that @mprevost chimed in on. I will try to find it
 
@Steve Freides I think 40 minutes Zone 1 is preferable for most people, most of the time.
a) It is low-cost prehab (nourishing for body and mind)
b) You can do it in your everyday clothes, talking to people (even on the phone) which makes it easier to integrate into a busy life.
 
@wespom9 - "health vs fitness" - there's something we could debate all day. :)

For many people, I think the benefit they're looking for from "fitness" is "health."

-S-
 
There was a great thread on this a while back that @mprevost chimed in on. I will try to find it
This?


-S-
 
Time for a little bro science, although real science would be welcomed, of course! This thread: Low HR During Rucking in Flat Terrain, got me thinking. (Visual: Steve at computer, smoke coming out of his ears.) @Bauer asks about when he rucks with a light weight and his heart rate only goes up a little. I'll propose a specific set of circumstances:
  • 40-minute walk
  • resting pulse rate of 60
  • goal of keeping your HR around the top of Zone 2, which is 140 bpm, or resting + 80.
Here's the question: What percentage of benefit can be assigned to each increase in HR? Does resting + 40 give half the benefit, does resting + 20 give 1/4 the benefit, etc., or is this non-linear, meaning (possibly) that resting + 20 gives half the benefit, and resting + 40 gives 3/4 of the benefit, and resting + 60 give 90% of the benefit? Or does it work the other way, that there is little benefit to the smaller increases and greater benefit the closer you get to the top of Zone 2? Or yet another possibility, that there is little benefit with small increases, greatest benefit near the Zone 1 - Zone 2 border, and diminishing returns after that?

Or to put it another way, what does a graph of HR on the vertical axis and benefit on the horizontal look like?

No doubt that @Al Ciampa will tell me I'm not asking a good question :) and that's a welcomed comment here, too. And no doubt that this is biased by my subjective take on my personal experience, which is that a increased HR provides significant benefits even when it doesn't get out of Zone 1. (And let's please not discuss exercise HR's higher than the top of Zone 2 - that's another discussion entirely.)

-S-
The relationship is certainly non-linear; what the specific curve looks like, science doesn’t know. So it’s anyone’s guess. My feeling is that the lower intensity of your exercise, the more total volume you need. If we’re caring about performance, you’ll need some limited higher intensity stimuli as well.

So, a similar and perhaps more relevant question you might ask is: how long am I idle in each 24 hour period? ?

I’d also suggest that for your specific case, your breath practice will hedge any benefits lost from primarily lower HR work. And, you have your training history + current outcome as an applicable anecdote.
 
Turns out I was thinking of something else - the infamous "How are KB Swings not Cardio" thread. I thought we touched on your question in that thread but it turns out I remembered something that didn't happen!

You are absolutely correct though, most people use fitness as a driver for health.
 
Steve I think we have to consider health vs fitness
Zone 1 - probably not effective for fitness, probably good for health

@offwidth what is "zone breakdown" is used by House/Johnston? you've listed the parameters for Zone 1/2, what are the others? I usually see Zone 2 up to 80-82% of max HR

EDIT: There was a great thread on this a while back that @mprevost chimed in on. I will try to find it

Wes...

TFTNA:
  • ZR <55%
  • Z1 55-75%
  • Z2 75-85%
  • Z3 80-90%
  • Z4 90-95%
  • Z5 n/a
TFTUA:
  • ZR under AeT -20%
  • Z1 AeT-20% to AeT-10%
  • Z2 AeT-10% to AeT
  • Z3 AeT to LT
  • Z4 LT to HRmax
  • Z5 n/a
I think that Z1 (first definition) is actually rather important and highly effective for fitness. It is the so called ‘base’
I try to spend a lot of my locomotive training time there.
 
@offwidth
I haven't read the books, but I do know enough that in a trained endurance athlete the gap between AeT and LT narrows

I too think the "recovery zone" is important as I noted above. I don't think anything will replace low level cyclical dynamic movement.

In terms of heart health - increased venous return (which expands the heart, the adaptation we are looking for in cardio) would likely provide a greater "stretch" of the heart. A) How much more of that stretch occurs from say AeT -20 to AeT? and B Is it a significant difference that right below AeT better for long term health? I have no idea. I do know the stretch is important.
 
The relationship is certainly non-linear; what the specific curve looks like, science doesn’t know. So it’s anyone’s guess. My feeling is that the lower intensity of your exercise, the more total volume you need. If we’re caring about performance, you’ll need some limited higher intensity stimuli as well.
Thank you, Al. In my case, although I don't have much higher intensity "cardio" type exercise, I do have my strength training's intensity, and I guess I do have some higher intensity "cardio" type exercise in that I do some Q&D training. I say "I guess" because Q&D type training is so much more tolerable to me than Zone 2 aerobic work. I feel like I did a lifetime's worth of trying to find Zone 2 and failing because I overtrained in the 20-25 years I ran, cycled, and swam, so I'll have to say that I'm probably prejudiced in this regard.

So, a similar and perhaps more relevant question you might ask is: how long am I idle in each 24 hour period? ?
I fidget at the computer while reading and writing on the StrongFirst Forum; does that count as not being idle? :)

I’d also suggest that for your specific case, your breath practice will hedge any benefits lost from primarily lower HR work.
That's interesting. I hadn't considered it and honestly, I don't get it, but I don't know nearly as much as you about how all this works. Care to say more on this?

And, you have your training history + current outcome as an applicable anecdote.
Indeed, I am a legend in my own mind when it comes to my health and fitness.ROFL

Thank you, Al.

-S-
 
@offwidth
I haven't read the books, but I do know enough that in a trained endurance athlete the gap between AeT and LT narrows

I too think the "recovery zone" is important as I noted above. I don't think anything will replace low level cyclical dynamic movement.

In terms of heart health - increased venous return (which expands the heart, the adaptation we are looking for in cardio) would likely provide a greater "stretch" of the heart. A) How much more of that stretch occurs from say AeT -20 to AeT? and B Is it a significant difference that right below AeT better for long term health? I have no idea. I do know the stretch is important.
I haven't read the books, but I do know enough that in a trained endurance athlete the gap between AeT and LT narrows
Yes indeed. The gap narrows considerably. But also what happens is that the LT is likely to increase a small amount, but importantly the AeT increases dramatically.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom