Active Community: Message List - Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:34:41 GMT

You guys are awesome, thank you! I guess in some cases ignorance is bliss. I felt fine and happy with my cardiovascular fitness before taking the test. If you had asked me before I took it, I would have told you my fitness level was "above average" (not top level, but definitely very good) because I FEEL fine when I run and afterwards. Then some test comes along and tells me I'm not in good shape and I worry I'm going to die of a heart attack every time I run - not because I feel like it but because that stupid test said so!

I am the one always telling other runners to "listen to your body" so I guess I need to take my own advice.

Thanks again for the responses.

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:49:56 GMT

Hey, Mary

You know that these test results are garbage, so -- there's something wrong with the test! My internet connection is still dial-up, so I haven't been eager to track down the details, but if it's giving you this kind of results it's an invalid test.

My suspicion is that the weak point is judging fitness by heartbeat in the first place. Maximal heart beats can be predicted by age and gender, and target heart rates are often recommended, but they are also known not to apply to everyone.

Keep running,

Pay no attention to the 12 inch step behind the curtain.

Robin

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:27:51 GMT

Look at it this way, it's kind of like taking a 10 question quiz in a magazine at the checkout counter to find out your IQ. Not only is it a very poor aproximation of your IQ, but your IQ really doesn't have anything useful to say about you other than how well you do on IQ tests. If this test were really all that good, they'd be using it rather than real VO2max tests in the lab. It's good because it's easy, and that's about it. There are so many variables it's not taking into account: height, weight, normal pulse range (both resting and max)... and you mentioned endurance. This test doesn't say ANYTHING about endurance.

Like I think I said before, it might be good as an individual's guage of improvement, but not for comparing to someone else.

Marykb wrote:

Sorry, I just can't seem to get over this. I even hesitate now, when I post on newbies threads, to give any advice because I feel like ranking so low on the fitness test I am not qualified to advise anyone else.

PLEASE! please please keep answering! There's a huge range of people that call themselves runners, and come here to give and ask for advice. The advice from an olympic coach on how to shave 1 min off a 2:10 marathon is going to be useless to someone worried about finishing their first 5K. What counts isn't some number on some test, but how useful your advice is. Heck, I've never run more than 10mi, but I've answered questions from people about marathons, because I think I have a perspective to offer.

Instead of worrying about a test, consider how you feel after a run :-) THAT'S what's important!

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:06:24 GMT

My understanding is that V02max potential is mostly genetic. So if you're out of shape, you can increase it to your potential, but after that, you can train as hard as you want and it won't do much for your numbers.

Probably true and a good point.

I am coming back to this thread just to vent a little more because I am still P*#&$ed about it! Maybe, like you say, I am not genetically inclined to good V02 max. But I do know this: that among my circle of family and friends, I am known for my relatively high level of endurance (a trainer I have worked with occasionally has even made that observation). That isn't saying a lot since few of these people run so there isn't really any direct comparison. But then again, the reason most of them don't run is because it is "too hard". Yet for me its NOT too hard! No, I'm not any great runner. Compared to other runners (as opposed to those who don't run at all) I am just average for my age/gender. But even an "average" runner should be in GOOD shape compared to the general population.....right? And yet I scored the VERY LOWEST POSSIBLE SCORE on the test?

I guess it set me off today, in particular, because I went for a four mile run a little while ago in the 90 degree heat. I didn't run fast (10:20 miles) but I passed some other runners, including women half my age and 40 lbs lighter. I even passed a couple of men (okay, they were older, out of shape men, but still!) I was hot and sweaty, of course, but I was running comfortably. I didn't check my HR immediately after running, but by the time I got home it was about 80. Yet always, always, there is a little voice inside my head saying "You are a phony! You are in VERY POOR condition. You suck".

Sorry, I just can't seem to get over this. I even hesitate now, when I post on newbies threads, to give any advice because I feel like ranking so low on the fitness test I am not qualified to advise anyone else.

Vent over.... for now....sigh

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:08:07 GMT

Sorry Mary, I missed that earlier where you mentioned the metranome. My understanding is that V02max potential is mostly genetic. So if you're out of shape, you can increase it to your potential, but after that, you can train as hard as you want and it won't do much for your numbers. The "Marathon Challenge" episode of PBS's Nova talks about this, as they test the participetns prior to starting the training program. If you've never seen, it, look for it in your library. I guess what I'm saying is that you don't have the genetics to win a marathon, and even at 'good' neither do I.

I used to be a bike racer, and quickly learned that no amount of training could make up for the luck of birth.

Angelique, I used an Ikea step stool we have in the bathroom for my son to reach the sink. It's 12" and nice and stable so it worked well. But I coulnd't find anything higher to try the other tests.

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:25:41 GMT

I went all over my house, inside and out and could not find a 12 inch step so I could try this. Those of you that were able to do it, did you have an actual step bench or where did you find the right height to be able to do this test? I have a lot of steps in and out of my house and none of them are 12 inches, I'm surprised they would make a test like this for a height that is not common. I was hoping to find some 6 inch steps and do two at a time, but that didn't work either.

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:21:12 GMT

@ 64spokes: I did use a metronome set at 96 to pace my steps because the test on Spark People said to do that (exactly the same test). It is a steady, moderate beat, not fast.

So seeing that the test showed you as in excellent shape, then it is obviously accurate. I guess I really AM in "Very Poor" shape. I don't think improvement is really something I am shooting for at this point. I have been running for several years and have probably reached my peak fitness (unless I really pushed for the next level, which I'm not interested in doing.) If working out intensely 5-6 days/week for the last several years hasn't even made me any fitter than Very Poor, then what is the point.

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 03:58:34 GMT

I'll try it later tonight and edit this with a result. But something I see right off the bat is they don't tell you how fast to step. I would think you could get a huge range of numbers depending on what kind of pace you maintain. The Harvard Step Test looks to me like it would be more accurate http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/step-harvard.htm

It does say to not concentrate on the socre itself, but how you improve. I think this kind of rough test is better at guaging how much your fitnes is increasing, and not so good at comparing yourself to the general population. I think the fact that you can run for an hour says a LOT more than your heart rate after 3 min of exercise.

ok, I'm 45 and got 95- BUT I think this test in particular is only good for tracking personal progress, and not overall fitness. And only if you use the same step rate each time. I'd suggest trying to slow down your step rate, and see how it affects the score. Or try either the Havard or Queen's College for what I suspect would be a more accurate score. I'll try one of them later using a metranome app on my phone.

Another thing they mention that is a good point is that your weight. These tests will negatvily bias heavier people more than, say, a treadmill or stationary bike test.

The bottom line is, you know you're fit. All this is really good for is tracking how your fitness changes.

Message was edited by: 64spokes

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:29:42 GMT

I did the step test first - I figured the other exercises might leave me with a residual elevated HR. I looked at another version of the same test on Spark People that said to sit down while taking the pulse (otherwise it was the exact same test) so I don't know how much diff that would make.

Hey, I'd love it if you would take the test and tell me how it worked out for you so I can put it in perspective. Thanks!

Re: Confused and bewildered about Recovery Heart Rate!

guest — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:20:10 GMT

Did you do the step-test last? When you did it relative to the other tests may have had an effect on the results. Also, that one tells you to remain standing while you take your pulse. I don't know if that would make it better or worse. I'll try it if I can find a 12" step - not something I keep handy.

Len