Ego's Journal

[7Wannabe5]

This results in an extrapolation that is forced pretty far out of range. Consider that one's resting VO2 consumption-rate is 10--15 times below that of one's maximum rate (VO2max) and it becomes obvious how such estimates can easily get wildly off the mark.

Yes, but a great deal of the mortality risk (as opposed to sports fitness rating) measured by VO2 max is captured by Resting Heart Rate alone. VO2 max correlates with mortality risk better than RHR alone, likely because it also includes a component that measures excess adiposity, but not necessarily in a manner that is most consistent with best estimate of mortality risk. A metric such as (Maximal heart rate under exertion - Resting Heart Rate)/waist-to-height-ratio would quite possibly better approximate mortality risk.

https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/ ... 2.full.pdf

DISCUSSION
In the present study of healthy middle-aged men, the main finding was that resting heart rate was a risk factor for mortality independent of physical fitness (VO2Max) and other major potential confounders.
Resting heart rate as a risk factor for mortality has received considerable attention in recent years. However, a concern has been whether elevated resting heart rate is merely a surrogate marker of poor physical fitness, which in turn is associated with
poor prognosis. A high level of physical fitness is a strong predictor of longevity11 and is associated with lower heart rate, as also demonstrated in the present study. Level of physical fitness-therefore plays a pivotal role in the study of resting heart rate.
In a study from the Paris Prospective Study, resting heart rate was predictive of mortality and especially sudden death after
adjusting for duration of exercise.24 However, the main body of studies use self-reported levels of physical activity22 25 or, in
some cases, include no information.26 In the current study, all subjects underwent a physical exercise test and estimation of
VO2Max as well as an assessment of leisure-time physical activity; we found that irrespective of level of physical fitness subjects
with high resting heart rates fare worse than subjects with lower heart rates. This suggests that a high resting heart rate is not a
mere marker of poor physical fitness but is an independent risk factor.

https://www.runnersworld.com/health-inj ... to-weight/

In other words, if you want to compare the cardiorespiratory fitness of a group of people, dividing by lean mass will give you the best measure of their actual oxygen-processing abilities, unconfounded by their size. Of course, DEXA scans aren't the most convenient thing in the world, but the researchers found the relationship still holds true if you use body impedance measurements (much more easily accessible) to estimate lean mass.

[Ego]

The assertion was that if you want to have excellent VO2 max from age 60 onward you need to develop it when you're much younger. Of course they say about strength/muscle mass too, and although I'm far from ripped, I'm estimating that I added roughly 12 lb of lean in the last 12 months by making an effort, based on a ~15 lb weight increase with no change in the belt notch metric.

Thanks iDave! This morning I did my first hard run. I tried and failed to hold a nine-minute mile pace in the medium packed sand on the beach for three miles. I did well until the last few hundred feet when the sand got deeper and I slowed significantly.

I've been extremely skeptical of the wrist heart-rate readings from my garmin watch as there are times after a set of air squats where I will measure HR the old fashioned way and compare it to the watch reading. Sometimes the watch is much lower (30% ) and other times it is much higher. This was the first time in more than a year that I used my heart rate chest strap paired with the watch. I believe the strap is more accurate, so I hope the algorithm uses that accuracy to improve the guessing it does with wrist data. We shall see.

Next week I will do at least one spin class and one Peloton HIIT session paired with some rowing. The Y finally got the message about resisting the takeover by dead old people and removed a bunch of the lazy-machines (ellipticals) to add a functional fitness area. It has two assault bikes, two of the newest Concept2 rowers and a bunch of other gear like sandbags, medicine balls, kettlebells and a lot of other fun stuff. I think I will come up with a few circuits to torture myself.

I too am very much enjoying this new project. While I absolutely love travel, the limited workout options on the road makes it challenging to stay as fit as I would like. It is a fun and healthy obsession.

A few disjointed notes. In all my years of travel, I have never struggled for so long with jet lag as I have this time. Last night was my first really good night of sleep since we returned 18 days ago. Someone told me that the rule of thumb is one day of recovery for every hour of time difference. Bangkok is 14 hours ahead of Southern California, so that seems accurate.

My HRV crashed. Let's see if we can get that back up now that regular sleep has returned.

[IlliniDave]

... I've been extremely skeptical of the wrist heart-rate readings from my garmin watch as there are times after a set of air squats where I will measure HR the old fashioned way and compare it to the watch reading...

... My HRV crashed. Let's see if we can get that back up now that regular sleep has returned.

Movement can trick out my oura heart rate measurements too. When I play guitar I have to switch it to my right hand and if I turn on the continuous rate HR tracking function I get numbers sometimes on the order of 2X what I'm pretty sure my heart rate is. Apparently Oura incorporates its accelerometers into the measurement and their algorithm can't decouple strumming and picking motions well, and most music falls in the 60-200 bpm tempo range which aligns with human heart rate ranges quite well (I've often speculated that that is not is not a coincidence).

I'm prone to cycles of HRV. I think the image you showed is a 7-day moving average (?). I can get 7-day consecutive averages from Oura easily enough, and I've observed cyclic behavior of up to a few months periodicity. I don't remember where I heard/read it, but there's a school of thought that the most useful way to look at it is via monthly or longer averages.

One strange thing I've noted is that my lowest HRV nights are often my best sleep nights, with the converse being true as well--my highest HRV nights are often my poorest sleep nights. Since low HRV is associated with stress (sympathetic dominance) that sort of throws a wrench in my operating theory that some level of stress drives occasional poorer sleep. I still have a lot to learn on that topic, lol. I've stayed in the range of 61-70 in average monthly HRV over the last few months, and trending closer to 70 the last few with my little biohacks. Over 2025 I've ranged from a low of 50 to a high of 76 looking at weekly averages. Individual nights range from 35-105. Point is I think that a lot of variation is expected and supposedly long-term averages are more meaningful, though it's always good to spot trends early and try to make adjustments if possible.

[Ego]

On Friday a tenant received a big heavy box from Factor. This morning it was on top of the trash, still sealed. Like a kid on Christmas morning, I opened it to find a dozen of these meals. The ice sheets were not frozen but they were still cold. Unfortunately, they were all chicken breast or salmon. Bummer. I went to the factor website and found that a box like this costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 per serving. Gotta love 'em.

Since low HRV is associated with stress (sympathetic dominance) that sort of throws a wrench in my operating theory that some level of stress drives occasional poorer sleep. I still have a lot to learn on that topic, lol. .

My HRV is still heading downward despite a few good nights of sleep. Going from very little stress to a moderate amount (newish job, moving into the new apartment, restarting my old business, starting a new business, troubleshooting the thousand little problems that this building manifests....) could be the culprit. That said, I find readapting to a faster pace and multitasking invigorating.

I had a great trail run this morning. This is the second time I've run the steep-hilled, round-rocked trails and my agility improved significantly. I realized that I must do this kind of run at least once a week as I want to work on my agility, stability and proprioception.

While contorted in a small space, trying to reconnect a gas line this afternoon, I had a flash of insight that the strange combination of skills needed for this weird life I lead - some tech, some interpersonal conflict resolution, some practical hands-on mechanical skills, some analytical, creativity, leading by example.... building interdependent relationships... working with my spouse.... finding ways to align other's motivations with my goals.... these are all actually quite good at preparing me for... what's to come. Kinda like running on a steep downhill trail full of head-sized round rolling rocks.

My ISP was balking on providing two free connections to the building, one for the office and one for our apartment. When they connected our apartment, they disconnected the office. I had to use all of my powers of persuasion to politely encourage them to reconnect the office.

The swap meet at the border is about 50% of what it used to be. No one is crossing to buy stuff. Initially I assumed it was because of the unstable situation for non-citizens on the norther side of the border, but it turns out that the Mexican customs officials are cracking down on people who cross to buy stuff in the US. I haven't figured out if it is corruption or legit enforcement of Mexican laws, but apparently they are stopping cars going south and charging duties even on small purchases like groceries. As a result, I have a lot less competition. Not happy about that, as several of my friends have just disappeared.

The mafia room is nearly empty.



Bikes are reassembled and ready to ride. Working on rebuilding the gym. Slowly but surely things are coming together.

[Ego]

Is it enough to "light the fuse" under the glycolytic system in order to trigger increased capability of the oxidative system (which would result in a higher VO2max)? This would be REHIT. Or do you need to burn down the glycolitic system to achieve the effect. This would be HIIT. And third question for extra credit? Is there a difference between the two triggers or methods?
.....

If I was me, I would be more motivated by competing against other humans with something like Zwift (I think Concept rowers have something similar?) than I am about trying to do 3% better than my own numbers from last week or adhering to some algorithm multiplying 17 by 1.03 on the fly.

In summary, if fancy gadgets can cause exercise to happen when it otherwise wouldn't happen, I'm all for it. Preventative health is pretty good ROI compared to fixing even the smallest issues after things have gone bad.

Pulling this over here so as not to clog iDave's journal with my personal stuff... but I am all in on his experimenting with REHIT. This is my attempt to reproduce something similar to REHIT with the tools at my disposal.

Today was my first time syncing my Garmin to the stages bike in class. Cycling VO2 MAX increased by 1 to 50. I went all out for a few of the shorter 20 second sprints, so much so that my left pedal unclipped during one of the max efforts. I thought I had borked my knee, but kept pedaling easy for a few minutes and the pain went away. Feels perfectly normal now. I present it here as a baseline for future improvement. I agree with Jacob regarding competition. I like (need?) it to excel. I was competing with two strong cyclists in the class.

[suomalainen]

That heart rate zone chart is nowhere near what I think people currently mean when they say “zone 2”. Iirc, it’s going to be in the range of 80% of max heart rate so prolly in the 140s.

[jacob]

That heart rate zone chart is nowhere near what I think people currently mean when they say “zone 2”. Iirc, it’s going to be in the range of 80% of max heart rate so prolly in the 140s.

It's 60-70% ... https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/nutritio ... ng-online/

Somewhere around rucking or a slow jog.

[theanimal]

That heart rate zone chart is nowhere near what I think people currently mean when they say “zone 2”. Iirc, it’s going to be in the range of 80% of max heart rate so prolly in the 140s.

Zone 2 is generally considered to be 60-70% of max heart rate. An unofficial way to test this is via talking. You should be able to sustain a conversation, talking in short sentences. Another unofficial indicator is if you are able to breathe nasally continuously.

Eta: Jacob beat me to it.

Somewhere around rucking or a slow jog.

That is only true for the uninitiated.Those who train in zone 2 regularly will continue to improve their performance. At the high end, that looks like 4:40 min mile times for elite marathoners for more than an hour in zone 2. It scales accordingly based on the individual's cardio base and training regimen. Most endurance athletes who follow this style of spend upwards of 75% of their year in zone 2 (when active), reserving higher zones for competition. THE book on this is Training for the Uphill Athlete.

[C40]

840 watts is a lot!

[jacob]

I went all out for a few of the shorter 20 second sprints, so much so that my left pedal unclipped during one of the max efforts.

First time I did that I nearly fell off the bike. It's a bit shocking when it happens! Two ways around it: You can change the tension on the spring of what I presume is SPD pedals? It's usually set at 50% and most people never touch it. Just dial it up to 100. Second, instead of going all out from one pedal stroke to the next and ripping the back foot out, spend a few turns ramping up. That should prevent it from happening again.

BTW, check out the spinervals 27.0 DVD (you can find it for $10 or so since it's misery) which will test your 20min functional [lactate(*)] threshold and give you a number you can then compare to the Coggan power chart to see where you are. The FT measures what percentage of VO2max you can effectively perform at over over time. In general higher FT wins over higher VO2max.

(*) Effectively the maximum rate at which lactic acid can be cleared out of the system. If you're above it, lactic acid builds up. When acid builds up, the glycolytic system becomes less effective. As the oxidative system tries to compensate (but can't because of the higher power demand) VO2 demand goes up until it hits VO2max and then the body collapses in a heap shortly thereafter.

[delay]

You can change the tension on the spring of what I presume is SPD pedals? It's usually set at 50% and most people never touch it. Just dial it up to 100

Here's the manual for that. I'd be afraid of my foot being locked to my bike if I fell. The manual only mentions being a bit harder to unclip as a downside.

[Ego]

That heart rate zone chart is nowhere near what I think people currently mean when they say “zone 2”. Iirc, it’s going to be in the range of 80% of max heart rate so prolly in the 140s.

I think you are right. It is strange. I feel like I am in zone 2 until about 140. But I quickly go from that to the mid 150s where I am maxed out. I have not done a lot of high intensity running while we've been traveling. In my mind, my max heartrate should be much higher. Using the traditional formulas: 220-57=163 or 208-(.7 x 57) = 168.1. Area for improvement.

840 watts is a lot!

Yeah, I held that for maybe five seconds. That said, I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to generate those watts. I guess air squats did their job of maintaining the power that can degrade when I do a lot of running. I can only imaging your wattage in an all out sprint.

Two ways around it: You can change the tension on the spring of what I presume is SPD pedals? It's usually set at 50% and most people never touch it. Just dial it up to 100. Second, instead of going all out from one pedal stroke to the next and ripping the back foot out, spend a few turns ramping up. That should prevent it from happening again.

Yeah, spd pedals, but I don't own the trainer, so I probably shouldn't mess with it. I will definitely be ramping up from now on.

BTW, check out the spinervals 27.0 DVD (you can find it for $10 or so since it's misery) which will test your 20min functional [lactate(*)] threshold and give you a number you can then compare to the Coggan power chart to see where you are.

I will watch for the spinervals dvds at the swap. At the beginning of each of the Stages classes we do a 4 min FTP test to calibrate the bikes. We used to show the results, but the Y has decided to minimize the competitiveness of classes in order to foster inclusiveness so the numbers are no longer revealed. I should probably track the FTP stage and remember the numbers.

This morning I bought this shelf for $2, did a quick sand and Danish oil treatment before mounting.

[suomalainen]

Now I’m confused. Either ego is an old lady, or the garmin zone 2 chart is different from the zone 2 that i’ve heard about lately. Or maybe I’m listening to too much Attia.

https://youtu.be/1RqY5EYOM0k

For him, zone 2 is defined properly as a lactate threshold of 1.7-1.9. Which translates to hr of 134-142 in this clip. I thought in his book he mentioned 70-85% of max heart rate as an estimation. In any event, my point is that that zone 2 chart or the 60-70% effort is RIDICULOUSLY easy. I can’t imagine getting any real benefit from not cracking 120 bpm.

@jacob from your link:

Zone 2 cardio focuses on maintaining a specific heart rate zone or intensity level during exercise, typically ranging from 60% to 70% of your maximum heart rate. This ensures a light to moderate intensity throughout the workout.
…
With those two numbers [max and resting heart rates], you can determine your heart rate “zones.” To identify your specific heart rate zone, use the calculator app on your phone. Follow these steps:

Maximum heart rate – resting heart rate = heart rate reserve.
Heart rate reserve x 0.6 + resting heart rate = low end of heart rate training range.
Heart rate reserve x 0.7 + resting heart rate = high end of heart rate training range.

These two calculations are not the same:

Say max of 180. Resting of 60.

60-70% of max = .6x180=108 to .7x180=126. So zone 2 is 108 to 126.

Vs.

60-70% of reserve + resting = .6x120+60=132 to .7x120+60=144. So zone 2 is 132 to 144.

Which is correct, @mayoclinic?

[jacob]

For him, zone 2 is defined properly as a lactate threshold of 1.7-1.9. Which translates to hr of 134-142 in this clip. I thought in his book he mentioned 70-85% of max heart rate as an estimation. In any event, my point is that that zone 2 chart or the 60-70% effort is RIDICULOUSLY easy. I can’t imagine getting any real benefit from not cracking 120 bpm.

[...]

Which is correct, @mayoclinic?

Neither and both.

The simple method is MHR*k, where k=0.6-0.7.
The slightly less simple method is RHR+(MHR-RHR)*k (oh no, algebra! )

The difference between them is RHR+(MHR-RHR)*k-MHR*k = (1-k)*RHR, which for k=0.6 and RHR=60 becomes 24bpm which is significantly higher for the "slightly less simple method".

In both cases, the point of zone 2 training is to stay below that lactate threshold (which in the old days was simply known as the "fat-burning"-zone) which the "simple method" will definitely accomplish and the less simple method will borderline. IOW, I think the internet sacrificed accuracy for ease of calculation and some CYA and perhaps also the attraction of doing ridiculously easy exercise while feeling accomplished. Well, the lower estimate is accomplishing something if it may not be much, so ...

PS: I do agree that the Garmin power zone range looks suspiciously low/off given Ego's other feats of strength. Back when I owned a trainer (Kurt Kinetic), 40yo me had a FT of 300W and an all-day effort (that would be zone 2) power of around 200W weighing in at 175lbs.

[Scott 2]

that zone 2 chart or the 60-70% effort is RIDICULOUSLY easy. I can’t imagine getting any real benefit from not cracking 120 bpm.

I see this as the point. Zone 2 adds endurance while accumulating very small amounts of systemic or localized fatigue.


Ego has two factors confounding his range:

1. Low resting heart rate. More like 40 than 60 IIRC
2. Extensive time doing endurance work

1 is going to lower the threshold, but 2 could raise it. He'd have to manually determine his zones to know for sure. The Garmin ranges vary based upon a couple of configurable options. A user has to choose what's best.


My zone 2 tops out around 125bpm. Max around 175, resting around 45. That's based upon physical experience, using the Uphill Athlete test. Essentially, holding power constant, what heart rate can you hold for an hour, within 10%?

[suomalainen]

I guess my reactions here are driven by a greater concern with going too low and thus not engendering sufficient (let alone maximal) endurance gains, or really just cardiovascular benefits. I have a lesser concern of “going too hard”. That may be personal to me because I’m more apt to undertrain while patting myself on the back thinking I’m a workout away from breaking a world record than I am to push myself too hard. So in that lens, the lower heart rate range on the garmin and on the 60-70% max hr rule of thumb was just “shockingly” low. I know ego’s a bit older than me, but also fitter, so I figured we’d probably be in the same neighborhood. If ego’s max is 155 and resting 40, then the “hard math” version yields a 109-120 range, so maybe it’s not that far off.

Anyway, sorry for the distraction, but thanks for reigniting an interest (and appropriate props to @idave as well). I used to do a ton of cardio and measured some hr data, but that fell off quite a bit post-accident for me. Been 10 years, so maybe it’s time to add some of that passion back in to my haphazard workouts.

[Ego]

Ego has two factors confounding his range:

1. Low resting heart rate. More like 40 than 60 IIRC
2. Extensive time doing endurance work

Today I went slightly easier because I was concerned about pulling out of the pedal again and hurting myself, but my max HR increased by 14 to 169!? Interestingly, my V02Max declined back to 49. I used the chest strap for both workouts. I was on the same bike.

My resting HR was 40 while traveling but it has been creeping up since we returned. Last night it was 47. I have being doing endurance work since I was in my teens, so more than 40 years.

Now I’m confused. Either ego is an old lady, or the garmin zone 2 chart is different from the zone 2 that i’ve heard about lately. Or maybe I’m listening to too much Attia.

So, either I washed out a clogged artery (hello stroke risk) or the HR reading is biased by the guestimates made by the algo. Now that I have done a few high intensity rides, is it doing a better job of guessing? I don't know. I will let you know if I am alive tomorrow.

I am getting my info on zone 2 from Attia as well, so we are equally confused. The heartrate zones remained the same for the two rides even though MaxHR was 155 for ride 1 and 169 for ride 2, which does not make sense to me. Anyone?

BTW, check out the spinervals 27.0 DVD (you can find it for $10 or so since it's misery) which will test your 20min functional [lactate(*)] threshold and give you a number you can then compare to the Coggan power chart to see where you are. The FT measures what percentage of VO2max you can effectively perform at over over time. In general higher FT wins over higher VO2max.

In the beginning of each class Stages incorporates a 3-4 minute FTP test, then uses the results to calibrate the bikes so that everyone is in their own personal yellow, green, blue, red or purple zone at the same time. The idea is, you go all out for 3 or 4 minutes, then multiple the average watts by .8 to get your FTP and the remainder of the class is based on % of FTP. Today I paid attention to the numbers. I did not go all out, but I did work very hard, and got an average of 317 watts for 3 minutes, which according to them should translate to an FTP of 253.6. I think there is a lot of slop in that calculation.

I worked hard on those 20 second sprints because I want to see if REHIT really works. There was not enough rest between them to recover fully as the REHIT protocol recommends. We will see if I improve.

ETA: Right now I feel like I used to feel after really hard track workouts when I was running competitively. I have not felt this in years.

[frugaldoc]

When I trained more seriously back in the day, I used the book "Total Heart Rate Training" by Joe Friel to calculate my heart rate zones. The Zones are based on the lactate threshold (LT) and are also sport specific. For example, Zone 2 is about 81-89% of LT for running but 85-90% of LT for cycling. Fortunately, there is a whole series of tables, divided by sport, where you find your LT (zone 5a) and then it gives all the other zones from 1-5c.

[7Wannabe5]

This doesn’t appear to be the case with your readout, but I noticed that my FitBit was indicating a significantly lower Maximum heart rate for the day than within the exercise period itself due to averaging over longer time interval. So, the ranges may also be updated using longer time intervals. IOW, even though I maintained heart rate over 194 for more than a minute, the minute long interval that ended at 197 started at 144, and the interval that started at 197 ended at 157, so Max heart rate for the day was indicated to be 177. There was much more granularity in the readout for the exercise, because it only took a few minutes to complete.

It may also be the case that the ranges are updated towards a rolling average rather than last result. Sure sign that Max heart rate is not indicative of overall fitness would be fact that I am now hobbling about with strained back after pushing myself to very moderate level.

[frugaldoc]

@7w5: Calculations based off of max heart rate should not be using a rolling average of maximum heart rates over several days, if that is what you are saying. They should be using your actual absolute maximum heart rate which is obtained by a max heart rate test (which can be pretty grueling) or, more commonly, by using a formula (e.g. 220-age or another formula).

However, if you truly got up to a HR of 197, I wouldn't classify that as moderate effort. Granted, one can never place too much confidence in wrist-based HR monitors. If it felt moderate to you yet your Fitbit said you had an HR of 197, I suspect you had a measurement error.