Yes we have a few of them too - more proof that missing out the pub/cakes is not good for you.
I agree.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@snowdave
Agree that stryd has a lot going for it in terms of pacing. Most of the anecdotal evidence I've heard for pacing with stryd power is similarly positive to yours. Will it work for everyone? I'm not sure, we don't know yet. It's also based on critical power, which we don't have agreement on for how to calculate in runners yet (stryd uses quite a unique testing protocol for this, or can just automatically calculate it based on all running data). I suspect it has some of the same issues as cycling power in the video posted earlier in the thread.
Quote:
It’s not about optimising my training, my biggest return is from eating less, and eating better.
Yep recovery is a huge part of things. Good sleep and nutrition are key.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
At the start of lockdown I took out a subscription to Zwift, because my only outdoor exercise was walking the dog. To keep it interesting I did Zwift's 12 Week FTP Builder programme. Four or five workouts a week, mostly around an hour long and mostly what they call "sweet spot" training, with efforts at just below FTP. Improved my FTP from 228W to 252W and my VO2 Max (on my Garmin) from about 43 to 51. I'm not sure how reliable or significant either of these numbers are, but I am sure that I'm fitter now than I was back in March when I started. I also lost 7kgs during the training so with my BMI now 25.1 I'm almost not overweight for the first time in several decades. I like the sweet spot training, but I also like doing sustained hill climbs on Zwift, the motivation to get a new PB for the "Alpe" is enough to make me push myself harder than I would if I was just riding a flat course with no specific objective.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Zwift looks good they even have mountainbike routes. I take it you have to buy the rear wheel smart trainer and then the subscription on top.
https://www.zwift.com/uk/offroad
@DB, I already had a Tacx Flux smart trainer, so just had to get wifi into my garage and take the subscription. For the first month or so I just used my iPad as my screen but then I splashed another few hundred pounds on a 40" TV and an AppleTV. That's about the cheapest and easiest way to get it working on a big screen and much better than using just the iPad as now I don't have to peer through glasses covered in sweat. Not tried the mountainbike routes, but they've just added steering to Zwift (if you buy another attachment of course) and that's going to be good on the mountain bike routes. The Zwiftinsider website is really useful for getting to grips with how it all works. https://zwiftinsider.com/
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Gordyjh, Yep, I've got one of those too. Best dogs ever.
After all it is free
After all it is free
davidof wrote:
DB wrote:
Over here (Austria) many old men die every year in the mountains with heart attacks and falls relating to poor fitness etc.
Round these parts it is all the ultra fit types that keel over beasting themselves. I'm always hearing people say "did you hear Jean-Marc had a hard attack doing the 4 summits ultra trail? Unbelievable, so fit, resting heart-rate of 45bpm, 5% body fat"
I suffered from atrial fibrillation last year aged 52, very fit, training 10-12 hours a week for triathlon. Nobody can say for sure if it was bad luck, genetics or the training. But I've backed off the training by 50%, no longer do double sessions, my resting HR has gone up from 40 to 50 and almost a year without a fib after a catheter ablation.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
kitenski wrote:
I suffered from atrial fibrillation last year aged 52, very fit, training 10-12 hours a week for triathlon. Nobody can say for sure if it was bad luck, genetics or the training. But I've backed off the training by 50%, no longer do double sessions, my resting HR has gone up from 40 to 50 and almost a year without a fib after a catheter ablation.
Wow didn't realise that, suprised now that you were skiing late last year.
Were you doing a lot of high intensity training? or very intensive interval training/events?
I've always thought triathlons for the over 35's as being dangerous. Most top sportsmen / women have peaked by 35 if not earlier and retire from competition (Boxers, footballers, skiers etc). Entering races for all ages when you're past your prime age group could present the danger of over doing things in the heat of competition.
It's around 20 years since I really pushed for max. heart rate and hit round 195 bpm in my early 30's. It felt like either my head or my heart would explode. I was a bit stupid as I wasn't quite trained to my peak at the time. Felt like an overtuned engine that was about to blow. The last thing it felt was healthy. Was trying to find my current max hr by pushing my max pulse up slightly 1 to 2 beats with each MTB ride and then stumbled upon this VO2 max thing.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
DB wrote:
kitenski wrote:
I suffered from atrial fibrillation last year aged 52, very fit, training 10-12 hours a week for triathlon. Nobody can say for sure if it was bad luck, genetics or the training. But I've backed off the training by 50%, no longer do double sessions, my resting HR has gone up from 40 to 50 and almost a year without a fib after a catheter ablation.
Wow didn't realise that, suprised now that you were skiing late last year.
Were you doing a lot of high intensity training? or very intensive interval training/events?
When I skied with you that was 3 months after the 2nd operation.
Not really anything stupidly high or intense! Thing is nobody I've asked can tell me if it was bad luck, genetics or the training. ie would I have still had it if I'd done no training and been a couch potato, or just done occasional exercise.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@kitenski, it has happened to high class racehorses in the peak of condition so make of that what you will!
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
kitenski wrote:
Thing is nobody I've asked can tell me if it was bad luck, genetics or the training. ie would I have still had it if I'd done no training and been a couch potato, or just done occasional exercise.
Did they do a lot of tests before operating? I had a bit of AF a few years ago, and it was clearly linked to excessive endurance training (I was just building up for a big ultramarathon). I had a lot of testing done, including multiple 24-48hr 12-lead ECG studies. Throttling back on the training eliminated the AF; no drugs or ablation required, tho' I was warned that if I continued to train at the same level I'd be struggling to walk up the stairs in my 60s.
I was told that it was very much linked to duration rather than intensity of exercise - my cardiologist told me I was fine to run up to half marathon and train as hard as I wanted for up to 30 miles/week, but I should steer clear of the marathon-plus distances I was regularly doing. There's been a lot of research in this area, particularly amongst endurance Nordic ski racers - from memory the stat was that at one race, 15% of the field had AF, vs an age-adjusted expectation of <<1%.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
snowdave wrote:
kitenski wrote:
Thing is nobody I've asked can tell me if it was bad luck, genetics or the training. ie would I have still had it if I'd done no training and been a couch potato, or just done occasional exercise.
Did they do a lot of tests before operating? I had a bit of AF a few years ago, and it was clearly linked to excessive endurance training (I was just building up for a big ultramarathon). I had a lot of testing done, including multiple 24-48hr 12-lead ECG studies. Throttling back on the training eliminated the AF; no drugs or ablation required, tho' I was warned that if I continued to train at the same level I'd be struggling to walk up the stairs in my 60s.
I was told that it was very much linked to duration rather than intensity of exercise - my cardiologist told me I was fine to run up to half marathon and train as hard as I wanted for up to 30 miles/week, but I should steer clear of the marathon-plus distances I was regularly doing. There's been a lot of research in this area, particularly amongst endurance Nordic ski racers - from memory the stat was that at one race, 15% of the field had AF, vs an age-adjusted expectation of <<1%.
Yeah I wore portable ECG for 1 day, then a 3 day session with me taking my own ECGs using an AliveCor device. On the last 3 day one I was almost always in A Fib which was a bit of a shock to both the consultant and myself!
Interesting to hear a consultant link it to duration vs intensity, that is good to hear! my consultant was very wary of linking it to one specific thing. Backing off the training didn't help for me, indeed my first op took 5 hours as he couldn't get me into sinus rhythm despite the ablation and trying multiple shocks.
I've read loads of research about the endurance, inc the haywire heart book which picks up on Nordic skiers, but always a small field of study. Also nobody can say the folk that got it would have got it anyhow. There are plenty of non atheletic types with A Fib!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@kitenski, there's very few non-athletic types under 50 who get AF; it's (sorry!) primarily a condition of the elderly.
I think the research on endurance sport and AF is pretty conclusive; the "why" is a lot less clear. It's also widely accepted (as I found, and as another ultra-endurance mate found) that backing off the training is beneficial.
Do you still use the AliveCor? They are amazingly accurate (and cheap) - I find it helpful as a way of checking whether I'm pushing my training too hard again.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@snowdave, yeah I guess you are correct, but nobody can tell me if I hadn't done endurance exercise would I have got it? and yes, the Why some endurance athletes get it and others don't also appears unknown.
I actually got an Apple Watch 5 and compared the ECGs to the Alivecor and was very impressed, plus it has automatic warning if it detects high HR or A Fib, which did trigger once after my 2nd ablation.
Out of interest, how did you find out you had A Fib?
@kitenski & @snowdave,
Could lack of minerals stack up for you? It seems to make sense to me as a long exercise period could be depleting minerals which causes muscle problems (cramp etc) and afterall the heart is a big pumping muscle.
To avoid AF typically how many hours are you guys training at, at what intensity and how many mins per session?
Both my father and older brother had heart attacks at around my current age although they are pretty much couch potatoes who don't exercise or eat healthy. There seems to be a hanging J curve where no exercise is bad and more exercise is better up to a point but then the risk increases again.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@DB, I did pay for some private blood tests after the first operation which showed I had a low vitamin B and D, so I've been supplementing those at the moment.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Pelicia et al, found that large atrial diameter (>29.0mm/m2) was present in 83% of athletes with more than 4500 hours of lifetime training vs only 24% in those with less than 1500 hours of lifelong training. With atrial dilation being an important factor in the development of arrhythmias and atrial dilation occuring at 4x the rate in athletes with more than 4500 hours of lifelong training, it should come as little surprise that the risk of a-fib tends to scale with hours of endurance training.
but also with your concerns about heart attacks etc
Quote:
My good friend, & blogger on athlete heart issues, cardiologist, Dr. Larry Creswell (www.athletesheart.org) helps to keep this in perspective - "the rewards of regular training still far outweigh the risks" & his thoughts are 100% backed up by mortality studies that show the overall positive influence endurance training has on longevity even at VERY high levels (e.g. Tour De France cyclists).
@kitenski,
Thanks, what I am trying to work out what exactly is "Endurance Training". Is it a lot of training above Zone 2 i.e. 70%+ HR (equates to approx. 142 bpm for me) or is it the majority of the training in Zones 1&2 with short spells in Zone 5. A half marathon is typically ran at around 85% HR. I'm wondering whether zones 3&4 is where the damage is being done. My MTB training runs are generally in this area (high zone 3 / zone 4), maybe I am putting damaging miles on the clock here.
I was boxing training for around 30 years but this type of training does give you rests unlike XC skiing, cycling, marathon, running etc.
Quote:
Type of Sport and Atrial Fibrillation
Studies have demonstrated that athletes who engage in endurance sports such as runners, cyclists and skiers are more prone to AF than other athletes.[15-18,22,23,32] The exact mechanism involved remains unclear as other athletes who participate in boxing, wrestling, weight-lifting also practice strenuous sport practices, but AF does not appear to be as prevalent in those groups. The question remains – is this related to the type of sport?
@DB, I think it's total time training with an elevated HR IMHO. If you take the example linked above of athletes with 4500 hours of training have large atrial diameter then if someone trained 10 hours a week, 11 months of the year you hit that total in 10 years! Some ironman doing 20 hours a week could hit that in 5 years!!
So that's why boxing, weight lifting etc don't see the increase as its not continuous steady training with increased HR like marathon running, cycling etc .
Then take a "normal" someone who does the gym 3 times a week for 3 hours, they are looking at 34 years to get to 4,500 hours of training.
And a link here saying Exercise training is an effective treatment for important atrial fibrillation (AF) comorbidities. However, a high level of endurance exercise is associated with an increased AF prevalence.
@kitenski, my wife (a doc) detected an abnormal heart rhythm, which led to investigations (I've had almost all of them - cardiac MRI, ultrasound, exercise ECG, etc.), which led to the discovery of (very) intermittent AF. The Alan Couzens article is a good summary IMO. My cardiologist said the same about exercise, telling me that about the worst thing I could do would be to stop, as moderate exercise would more than offset the AF risks.
@DB, there's a lot of factors, some of which you cover, which can cause temporary arrhythmia or exacerbate one that's already there (I don't have caffeine or ibuprofen, but alcohol definitely has an effect) - these are very much positioned as "triggers" rather than "causes". What's unclear is why endurance exercise is causing the problem in the first place.
At peak, (when I unknowingly started to have the AF), I would do 30-60 mile training runs (albeit at moderate intensity; HR under 140 or 70% in those days, probably avg more like 65%.) Probably worked out to be 200 miles and 40-50 hours in a peak month (peak months were in the alps, where running is much slower!)
Now I still do 200miles in a good month but I almost never run >15 miles (=2hrs), and nearly all training runs <7.5miles/1hr. My pace is higher, so my total training time is probably <30hrs. I do a lot more intervals and tempo, 1-2 sessions/week, with c. 4 easy sessions.
[Edited again because somehow the symbols I've used are causing the middle half of the post to disappear each time!]
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 2-09-20 15:29; edited 3 times in total
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
kitenski wrote:
Read this if you want to scare yourself!
ah no not really!
Best not to overdo it too much seems to be the take out. I may give up cycling to work.
I thought the problems were:
1. thinning artery walls with age make things like AVC more likely
2. scarring to the heart muscle interfering with the heart beat - the signal gets dispersed
3. thickening the heart muscle with training
after all, the heart is just a muscle.
I've never been one for "beasting things" or doing mega rides but the 4500 rule doesn't sound great.
After all it is free
After all it is free
kitenski wrote:
@DB, I think it's total time training with an elevated HR IMHO.
I'd agree with this. Suspect it's anything above Zone 2 that is doing the damage, a HR of 140 is typically above zone 2. It's as if the body stores/generates something (e.g. something from a mineral) that runs out eventually if constantly used without time for short regeneration. Alcohol affects digestion and magnisium levels, maybe this is why it's a trigger.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7836619/
Maybe mineral levels testing doesn't reveal this because people are not normally tested right after exercise but many hours later. By this time the body has had time to regenerate the mineral levels.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@snowhound, great trainer too!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Moderate exercise reduces risk of AF. As said above exercise on the whole is much more beneficial to health than a negative.
The problem is some people associate elite athletes and top physical performance with health, which is clearly flawed. Elite athletes have many physiological markers outside what is considered a normal healthy range.
In regards to AF I think you are going down the wrong path with minerals. The research is already there. AF is linked to overtraining (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16504414/). AF is also linked to structural changes in the heart in adaptation to exercise.
I think it's total time training with an elevated HR IMHO
Seems to be the case. From the above linked paper: "Cumulative duration of high-intensity endurance training predicts AF. This has been clearly established by a number of studies as endurance exercise has often been measured in terms of total lifetime physical activity rather than amount of exercise per unit of time. The published cutoff values used to differentiate risk are 1500–2000 h total of intense exertion."
Again it's a u shaped risk. Those that do no exercise and those doing extreme amounts are highest risk for AF. Those doing moderate are lowest risk. It doesn't mean you should stop high intensity training (which has a lot of health and performance benefits). But maybe supports the idea of polarised approach for training where high intensity training is limited.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@boarder2020, yep for me (age 55) I am now happy to do a large volume (>10 hrs / week) of MAF intensity training (HR < 180 - age, with some small adjustments), and have a very limited amount of time (<10% of weekly volume, for only a few weeks/year, and only when I am fully rested and ready) at intensities greater than that.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
@boarder2020, there's an undefined term in that paper which strikes me as potentially very confusing - "high intensity endurance exercise". Once its endurance exercise, by definition its not "high intensity" in any conventional sense. The paper also talks about "high intensity exercise" without the word "endurance" and is unclear about what this means. What makes ultra-endurance sports hard is not the intensity, even for the top athletes, its the duration.
A "high intensity endurance" session for me (i.e. a hard session) would have been many hours at HR 120-140 against a (then) max HR of 200 and resting (then and now) 40; any higher and I risked wasting the training by going anaerobic. As a result, I could barely break 2 hrs for a half marathon, but I could run 100km in the Alps. I was typically a mid-pack ultra runner so I suspect my training was about par for the course.
A physiologist would consider the training I was doing to be low intensity, highly aerobic, yet it is this type of training that seems to induce AF.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@snowdave I can't see how they are defining high intensity. There is clearly a difference between jogging at a easy pace for 2.5 hours and completing a marathon in 2.5 hours. Where the exact line is you would have to ask the researchers (who I expect don't really know either!). We do know that HIIT style exercise produces high levels of cardiac remodeling, I don't think steady state exercise produces such big changes, but I've not read all the research.
Clearly ultra distance events are terrible for the body by pretty much every metric. There comes a point where even low intensity is going to be negative if its continued for hours. It's commonly accepted that training load is a product of intensity and duration. Clearly huge amounts of inflammation and high likelihood of overtraining in ultra athletes must also be considered (both are linked to AF).
The problem is that for better performance we want some of these structural changes. Again it comes down to if you want to train for health or performance. You can't optimise both. It should be noted that even for those doing lots of exercise the risk of AF looks to be similar to sedentary people.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
boarder2020 wrote:
Again it comes down to if you want to train for health or performance. You can't optimise both. It should be noted that even for those doing lots of exercise the risk of AF looks to be similar to sedentary people.
Training for health is what I'm looking for, but nobody seems to be able to define what that is.
The current book I'm reading says up to 60% HR which equates to around 129 bpm. The MAF equation comes out with 129 too. I'll go with that at around 10 hours a week with a bit of high intensity (80% to 95% HR) and strength training.
Arrrgh I just knew I should have bought that leotard and taken up Zumba and Piloxing instead.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
DB wrote:
boarder2020 wrote:
Again it comes down to if you want to train for health or performance. You can't optimise both. It should be noted that even for those doing lots of exercise the risk of AF looks to be similar to sedentary people.
Training for health is what I'm looking for, but nobody seems to be able to define what that is.
The current book I'm reading says up to 60% HR which equates to around 129 bpm. The MAF equation comes out with 129 too. I'll go with that at around 10 hours a week with a bit of high intensity (80% to 95% HR) and strength training.
...
Arrrgh I just knew I should have bought that leotard and taken up Zumba and Piloxing instead.
Agreed (not necessarily the leotard and Zumba bit!) that its very hard to define "training for health".
However, 10hrs/week at 60% HR is a _lot_ of training. It would be 65-70miles/week running for me; it took less than that to put me into AF a decade ago.
If I were to treat 60% HR as a ceiling but actually average say 30-40% HR then I had a year where I did over 1,500 hours at that level with no ill effect, so there appears to be some kind of threshold level of intensity/duration interaction, but I've seen no research at all on what that might be, or how to measure it. Hence my quibble with a paper talking about "high intensity endurance exercise" without any quantification of this.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
So it seems you need a power meter for cycling vo2 Max with Garmin device
Getting Your VO2 Max. Estimate
Before you can view your VO2 max. estimate, you must put on the heart rate monitor, install the power meter, and pair them with your device (Pairing Your Wireless Sensors).
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
BobinCH wrote:
So it seems you need a power meter for cycling vo2 Max with Garmin device
Getting Your VO2 Max. Estimate
Before you can view your VO2 max. estimate, you must put on the heart rate monitor, install the power meter, and pair them with your device (Pairing Your Wireless Sensors).
I guess that is because speed isn’t a good proxy for how much work you do on a bike (hills, tailwind, drafting) whereas it is pretty good for running.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
BobinCH wrote:
So it seems you need a power meter for cycling vo2 Max with Garmin device
Getting Your VO2 Max. Estimate
Before you can view your VO2 max. estimate, you must put on the heart rate monitor, install the power meter, and pair them with your device (Pairing Your Wireless Sensors).
My Garmin Fenix 6X watch comes up with VO2 Max figures without me ever connecting a power meter or inputing power figures
It doesn't say it's "Cycling VO2 Max", just "VO2 Max", I understand with the right equipment the watch will give an estimate for both.
Maybe it just assumes standard values which could be total baloney.
Those pedal power meters are ruddy expensive though.
So it seems you need a power meter for cycling vo2 Max with Garmin device
Getting Your VO2 Max. Estimate
Before you can view your VO2 max. estimate, you must put on the heart rate monitor, install the power meter, and pair them with your device (Pairing Your Wireless Sensors).
My Garmin Fenix 6X watch comes up with VO2 Max figures without me ever connecting a power meter or inputing power figures
It doesn't say it's "Cycling VO2 Max", just "VO2 Max", I understand with the right equipment the watch will give an estimate for both.
Maybe it just assumes standard values which could be total baloney.
Those pedal power meters are ruddy expensive though.
The Vo2 Max you see is the running one...the cycling one is identified seperately.
from Garmins website
In order to generate a Running VO2 Max estimate, you must record a Run activity with heart rate for a minimum of 10 minutes above 70% of your max heart rate. Walking in most cases will not provide you with a VO2 Max estimate. Running VO2 Max can only be estimated when using the Running profile. The Trail Running activity profile will not generate a VO2 Max.
In order to generate a Cycling VO2 Max estimate, you must record a cycling activity with heart rate and power from a power meter for a minimum of 20 minutes above 70% of your max heart rate. It is recommended that this be performed on an indoor trainer to eliminate variables such as elevation change, drafting, and pacing. Cycling VO2 Max can only be estimated when using the Bike or Indoor Bike profiles. The Mountain Biking activity profile will not generate a VO2 Max.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
DJL wrote:
BobinCH wrote:
So it seems you need a power meter for cycling vo2 Max with Garmin device
Getting Your VO2 Max. Estimate
Before you can view your VO2 max. estimate, you must put on the heart rate monitor, install the power meter, and pair them with your device (Pairing Your Wireless Sensors).
I guess that is because speed isn’t a good proxy for how much work you do on a bike (hills, tailwind, drafting) whereas it is pretty good for running.
I would have thought the heart rate was enough? Shows how hard you’re working to maintain speed/altitude.
Although I’ve noticed big performance/ heart rate fluctuations on the same ride based on fatigue and what/whether I’ve eaten.
Agreed (not necessarily the leotard and Zumba bit!) that its very hard to define "training for health".
However, 10hrs/week at 60% HR is a _lot_ of training. It would be 65-70miles/week running for me; it took less than that to put me into AF a decade ago.
If I were to treat 60% HR as a ceiling but actually average say 30-40% HR then I had a year where I did over 1,500 hours at that level with no ill effect, so there appears to be some kind of threshold level of intensity/duration interaction, but I've seen no research at all on what that might be, or how to measure it. Hence my quibble with a paper talking about "high intensity endurance exercise" without any quantification of this.
From what you said earlier - a max heart rate of 200 bpm, resting = 40 bpm then 140 bpm equates to 62,5% HR. If 140 was your target even with fluctuations it might have been that most of your training was still over 60% HR.
30-40% HR is very low, this would equate from 90 to 103 bpm for me.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
kitenski wrote:
The Vo2 Max you see is the running one...the cycling one is identified seperately.
from Garmins website
In order to generate a Running VO2 Max estimate, you must record a Run activity with heart rate for a minimum of 10 minutes above 70% of your max heart rate. Walking in most cases will not provide you with a VO2 Max estimate. Running VO2 Max can only be estimated when using the Running profile. The Trail Running activity profile will not generate a VO2 Max.
In order to generate a Cycling VO2 Max estimate, you must record a cycling activity with heart rate and power from a power meter for a minimum of 20 minutes above 70% of your max heart rate. It is recommended that this be performed on an indoor trainer to eliminate variables such as elevation change, drafting, and pacing. Cycling VO2 Max can only be estimated when using the Bike or Indoor Bike profiles. The Mountain Biking activity profile will not generate a VO2 Max.
This is strange as I've only been mountainbiking, cycling, walking and on the cross trainer since buying the watch.
After all it is free
After all it is free
BobinCH wrote:
DJL wrote:
BobinCH wrote:
So it seems you need a power meter for cycling vo2 Max with Garmin device
Getting Your VO2 Max. Estimate
Before you can view your VO2 max. estimate, you must put on the heart rate monitor, install the power meter, and pair them with your device (Pairing Your Wireless Sensors).
I guess that is because speed isn’t a good proxy for how much work you do on a bike (hills, tailwind, drafting) whereas it is pretty good for running.
I would have thought the heart rate was enough? Shows how hard you’re working to maintain speed/altitude.
Although I’ve noticed big performance/ heart rate fluctuations on the same ride based on fatigue and what/whether I’ve eaten.
That's why you need a power meter as you've identified HR fluctuates depending on lots of things!
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Based on what HammondR said on Page 1
HammondR wrote:
You really need a good indication of what your 1st and 2nd Ventilatory Thresholds are (or Aerobic and Lactate thresholds). For the first one, nose breathing is no real help. The advice in TFtNA on this is aimed at well trained endurance athletes. For those who have spent long periods of time exercising at high intensity, nose breathing is hopeless, you will end up working much too hard. The best money you will spend is to get a proper test at the sport science department of your nearest university. In these times of lurgy shutdown, look to the DIY methods on the website.
Once your thresholds are established, a quick calculation will make it easy to see how you should train. Bigger than a 10% difference between the thresholds and you work solely in z1 and mostly z2 on all endurance work until the difference is down to 10% or less. Once the difference is under 10% you are in a position to 1) reduce the bulk of your endurance work to z1 (z2 will just wear you out at this stage) and 2) introduce higher intensity work exactly as @gra, describes above. Do that too soon, or too much and it will dismantle your hard earned endurance gains.
As Johnson and House set out, 2 x weekly core/strength sessions are essential. Also, the thing I like best is that it is better to take it a little too easy than a little too hard for the bulk of the endurance work. What's not to like!
... combined with this video and the book I'm reading, has all helped me to understand exercise intensity levels a bit better.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
