[Oldmanmatt]

Tom's idea of aerobic excercise is having a manual rather than automatic gear box.

He told you this?

Because his post indicated that his idea of aerobic exercise was pushing a pram. Now, if that was "pushing a pram up Ben Nevis at a run", it certainly wasn't clear from the post.
(Sorry Tom, if I misunderstood).
Bare with me, I'm doing this from memory, between cooking a meal and doing dishes. I just sat down (21:47); so unless Mrs OMM demands my Xmas present wrapping skills; I might be able to answer you.
Since you're leaving me to do all the work, perhaps you could answer a question for me. Or two, perhaps.

Given that there is an increased risk of the following, when exercising to Max Heart rate; Stroke (rare, but not impossible), Fainting, Vomiting , loss of coordination (to name a few).

What is the advantage of training to that level, for aerobic fitness?
Why do have "Training Zones", which cover a range of HR's?
Why is the Aerobic Zone the lowest of those Zones?
(Damn, that's 3 already).
What about reaching a point of diminishing returns, and when operating at 100 per cent and you have no aerobic "headroom" left, at which point you begin to build an "oxygen debt" which can actually reduce training improvement?
(Bugger! Alright 4 then).

So, we recommend training within certain Zones for certain benefits and usually try to avoid a client collapsing on a treadmill ('Cos that can hurt, lead to extended stays in the local A&E, preclude any future clients and possibly standing on the wrong side of the Dock). It is also commonly accepted that vomiting clients are not good for business or your chances of seeing the client again or being allowed back in the gym.

If you think I'm being rude, please note the "in-a-friendly-way" part of my rider, I'm not trying to be.
But, if you think recommending such high intensity training to someone over an internet forum, without knowing any medical history etc, well....?

There are exceptions to the rule, of course. I am and (used) to train Mixed Gas divers (I wasn't a PT then, just an INTD, GUE instructor) and we trained very hard for Expeditions. My speciality was Wreck penetation (U533 Exped 2004 amongst others), many of my Buddies were Cavers (TCDP, PCP etc). I trained/dived with John Bennet, in the build up to his record attempt (300mtrs SCUBA) and some of that was fucking nuts (him, not me, I just watched him vomiting).
And throughout that part of my life, I had annual ECGs and examinations and had to have a full medical before Exped departure; because no one took it for granted that that level of stress was going to have a happy ending.

John died, by the way. On a dive, a easy one, in open water. We don't know why, they never recovered the body.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[webbo]

I'm not suggesting training to your max heart rate but in order to be able to accurately train in the right zones. You need to know what your max is.
If I went with 220 minus my age I would be looking at around 160, the highest I've recorded this year was 184 while riding up 20 % hill trying to keep with the teenagers.
So if I used 160 as my max and based my zones on this, I would be training at a level which is not going to achieve much.
Most training regimes using heart rate zones suggest a max heart rate test.
There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest ECG's are not a good indicator in finding if athletes are at risk of cardiovascular problems. Some cycling federations insist on them for their racing licence holders

I hope this makes sense and is not the usual bollocks I spout as I have eaten too many of them.

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry for not being able to do this quicker.
My entire library is in PDF and I didn't have links for it all, so I've back tracked through Google (wouldn't it be nice to be able to share a PDF the way you can a photo on here).

Anyhoo... Xmas has been a bit of a distraction.
I believe the main purpose of the ECG's in our case was looking for previous Barotrauma/DCI's etc and was only one of a battery of tests (to do with Cardiac muscle damage I think(?)). Also a lot of time spent on bikes/treadmills measuring VO2...

Anyway, back to high intensity/Max HR risks:

Unfortunately, the Gov guidelines we use are an, unhelpfully brief, single page position statement.
It says it's risky.

(Thanks for that).

The problem is that it is the result of a Working group review rather than direct research.

 Physical Activity Guidelines in the UK: Review and Recommendations

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213743/dh_128255.pdf

This in turn is primarily informed by US and Aus research/Gov. positions...

The ACSM being the most coherent (to my mind) and the one I had saved in iBooks:

They state: " It is well established that the transient risks of SCD (Sudden Cardiac Death (my parenthesis)) and AMI (Acute Myocardial Infarction (again mine)) are substantially higher during acute vigorous physical exertion as compared with those during rest (1,31). Retrospective and prospective data suggest that vigorous-intensity physical activity transiently increases the risk of nonfatal AMI and SCD approxi- mately sixfold (31) to 17-fold (1) as compared with rest- ing behavior."



http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2015/11000/Updating_ACSM_s_Recommendations_for_Exercise.28.aspx

Citing:

(1)Albert CM, Mittleman MA, Chae CU, Lee IM, Hennekens CH, Manson JE. Triggering of sudden death from cardiac causes by vigorous exertion. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(19):1355–61.

(31)Mittleman MA, Maclure M, Tofler GH, Sherwood JB, Goldberg RJ, Muller JE. Triggering of acute myocardial infarction by heavy physical exertion. Protection against triggering by regular exertion. Determinants of Myocardial Infarction Onset Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(23):1677–83. 


So, this applies principally to those with pre-existing risk factors. The problem being these people are often asymptomatic or unaware of their predisposition and no amount of pre-exercise interviewing is going to help bring it to light. So, we (I) would always want medical clearance prior to anything very vigorous (you should hear some of the circuit/spinning etc training debate going on right now).

None of this means I wouldn't work with someone at high intensity, just not casually or over the net.

So...

Why use that old formula?

It's easy to do in your head. It's close enough for most applications (not quite as good as Newtonian physics for an Engineer, but you get the picture).

There is no accurate way to predict Max HR. There are (slightly) better versions of that, that have a better accuracy at population levels. However, there is an interesting study (can't find link) that shows a variation of up to 60 BPM in MHR for members of a single international standard rowing squad.

The Formula tends to under predict and more so (ie. is safer) with advancing age. (Which is why it's way off for a fit person of my age or more (you? I'm 46 in three days (Fuck! How did that happen? Help!))

Using the fairly broad ranges of the training Zones allows you to move up to the upper limits over a relatively short period and reassess.

Without being able to monitor VO2, you can gain *some* empirical feed back to estimate the training Zone accuracy, using RPE.

Most people give up long before they hit MHR, it's too uncomfortable for all but the dedicated.

Most people, basically, just need to double their resting HR for thirty minutes plus per week for general health; even quite sporty people; that don't partake in more "extreme" CV sport. Bouldering ain't one of them. (Cycling is, of course).


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[webbo]

We are clearly talking about different versions of active people. Your version is folk who want to get fitter. Mine it would seem are people who are willing to die trying. 30 years of Cycling/ Triathlon clearly effects ones ability to see things as others do.

[Oldmanmatt]

So, an around about figure for calories burned for 1 hour (of average) bouldering (warm up, etc), no walk ins counted, would be about...?

Missed this.
Do you know about METs (Metabolic Equivalents)? I put a screen cap up earlier in the thread and Tommy mentioned them. They are a rough guide to how much extra your body burns during a given activity.

In case you don't:

It's based around your BMR, Basal Metabolic Rate; or the number of calories you burn simply existing.
Usually it's easiest to download a calculator app...
But, using the Harris Benedict method:

BMR = (13.7516 x weight + 5.0033 x height - 6.755 x age + 66.473) kcal/day
Where the weight is in kg.

Now, there are then correction factors to be applied, depending on habitual activity rates to estimate daily calorie requirements.

If, though, you  instead apply a MET to the BMR for a given period of exercise, you can estimate the calories burned during that period.

So take:

BMR/ 1440* = BMR/minute

* The BMR is a 24 hr figure.

Then:

BMR/Min x T* x MET = Calories burned. (CB)

* where T = duration of activity excluding rests.

Finally:

CB - (BMR/min x T) = Calories burned extra  to BMR.

Now, the quoted METs for rock climbing range from 5.8 (light to moderate difficulty/ traversing) through 7.5 (Difficult) to 8 for Mountaineering.
They're guides only, of course, pretty sure slogging up K2 chalks up a higher MET than the one mentioned.

The upshot being, it depends on you and you physical characteristics. Add a weight belt and...

It is higher than you think (assuming some accuracy (or at least the same inaccuracies)). Higher (at "difficult" at least) than a "Moderate" swim of equal duration, for instance.

Problem is though.. What does "Difficult" mean? I assume it correlates to the RPE (Rate of Perceived Effort) scale, but?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fried]

Sorry, I'm an Arts student, my mind went blank after 5 lines.

[nai]

five lines of what?

[fried]

 

[tomtom]

five lines of what?

Code?

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry, I'm an Arts student, my mind went blank after 5 lines.

I'm an Engineer.

I downloaded the app...

[emoji12]


Or:

Call it 1000kcal (who cares[emoji13]) and have another bottle and [emoji126]🕺dance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomtom]

Apologies OMM and Webbo if my request has caused some disagreement...

I really don't want to exercise hard enough to throw up, but my question arises from having now worn a watch that monitors my heart beat every few min for nearly a month (but NOT worn during climbing), my heart rate has not got above 120bpm.. so whilst I think I am engaging in some aerobic exercise, its not exactly stretching my ticker much..

I did get a max of 180 during a deadhanging session when I was trying really hard, but discounted that as an error/outlier..

The watch also tells me I'm walking on average 45-50 km a week, so its not like I'm sat on my arse all the time..

I am lazy - but pragmatic - and if 30 min of exercise that makes my heart go a bit more, 2-3 times a week, will keep me on this planet for a bit longer then I'm happy to put the effort in...

until I get bored

[webbo]

Given that watched based heart rate monitors are unreliable it's quite possible that 180 was an error.
I read something on Cycling Weekly about Fitbits giving much higher readings than a chest strap monitor.

[Oldmanmatt]

Given that watched based heart rate monitors are unreliable it's quite possible that 180 was an error.
I read something on Cycling Weekly about Fitbits giving much higher readings than a chest strap monitor.

Amen.

But I wouldn't discount it completely. Check the consistency of the reading in that activity. Borrow a different type if you can and repeat. Are you a gym member? Do you have access to a treadmill/bike with an HR monitor? If you do, compare readings. Whilst they all have inaccuracies, hopefully they're not the same inaccuracy! Check your own pulse with a watch for good measure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomtom]

Err - it appears I have underestimated the quality of my fruit based fitness device.. it appears it's pretty much bob on...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2015/05/08/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-accuracy/amp/?client=safari

[Oldmanmatt]

Incidentally, why not wear it climbing?
Stick a trendy, chic and awesome 70's stylee Sweatband over it (don't forget the matching Headband and short shorts); and see what you get.
It's not *That* expensive, after all...

Still, that graph (for what it's worth) seems to show the greatest discrepancies at the peaks/troughs of the read +/-5BPM as best as I can deduce from that picture. Still the Karvonen is supposedly +/-10 BPM so...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[webbo]

If you get 180 dead hanging I would avoid or  now you are getting on a bit.

[Oldmanmatt]

If you get 180 dead hanging I would avoid or  now you are getting on a bit.

Maybe they're one armed dead hangs, whilst conducting the activities you suggested he should avoid?
Making him a far superior athlete to anyone else I think of.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[tomtom]

Incidentally, why not wear it climbing?
Stick a trendy, chic and awesome 70's stylee Sweatband over it (don't forget the matching Headband and short shorts); and see what you get.
It's not *That* expensive, after all...

Still, that graph (for what it's worth) seems to show the greatest discrepancies at the peaks/troughs of the read +/-5BPM as best as I can deduce from that picture. Still the Karvonen is supposedly +/-10 BPM so...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did some more googling and more comprehensive tests (50 users) shown it's 90% accurate (not 98) - but still the best wrist worn one (Fitbit next best at 80%) etc...

Why not wear it when climbing? Well I'm a real clutz when climbing and always get bumps bangs and scrapes - so even if I covered it up I suspect it'd get damaged. And I know from bitter experience how those gritstone crystals can damage a phone screen :-/

That said, it would work strapped to an ankle which would probably be ok. We held it to the baby's back of hand and it gave a sensible reading (120..). Mind you, I feel enough of a wanker wearing it in public - let alone at a wall/crag, especially with a majoosive sweatband over it! I am interested in what the results would be though...

[Oldmanmatt]

Err - it appears I have underestimated the quality of my fruit based fitness device.. it appears it's pretty much bob on...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2015/05/08/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-accuracy/amp/?client=safari

Don't worry.

To Err is human.

To Um is divine.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[tomtom]

If you get 180 dead hanging I would avoid or  now you are getting on a bit.

Yes it's most likely an error. I was working myself hard but nowhere near the 'top of a (bike) climb about to faint from trying so hard' type effort where I would expect my heart rate to be highest.