🚀 go-pugleaf

X-Orig-MsgId: <8428rq$bt4$4@news1.bu.edu>

In misc.fitness.aerobic Caleb Burns <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:
: M. Scott: Interesting site, and I think it makes my point fairly well.

: In describing the first test subject, the report noted: "With the additional
: oxygen, the test subject's heart rate was lower. With a lower heart rate,
: the workout was easier for the test subject."

This proves (as many other studies have) that HR and RPE are linked.  Gunnar
Borg studied this (and developed the RPE scales that bear his name) years
and years ago.

: And that is exactly my point. Without additional oxygen, the subject's heart
: rate would be higher, and if one is interested in a higher heart rate (for
: conditioning purposes), then probably one should not add extra oxygen. And

The goal is *not* simply higher HR.  HR is only used as a gauge of exercise
intensity because during steady-state aerobic exercise when the individual
is allowed to breathe freely the heart rate is related to oxygen delivery
to the working muscles.

I can scare you and make your HR go up.  That won't make you aerobically
more fit.  What *will* make you aerobically more fit is maintaining
"sustained, rhythmic movement of the major muscle groups" to increase
oxygen demand for an extended period of time.

Take a look at Wilmore and Costill (or McArdle, Katch, and Katch).  Maybe
then this business about HR, why we measure it, when it's a valid 
indicator of exercise intensity (and when it's not) will be more
obvious.

Your observation (that holding your breath may increase your HR and/or 
your perceived exertion) is quite correct, and no one is arguing with
that.

However, the problem is that your proposed mechanism for improving aerobic
fitness will not work because you're not increasing oxygen demand by
the periphery - you're lowering oxygen supply to the periphery.

I know we've been around this all before, and you're probably not any
more receptive to what I have to say now than you were before, but
you would do well to learn some basic physiology so that you can 
discuss this intelligently.  

As for appealing to aerobics instructors for justification of your rationales,
I teach physiology to aerobics instructors for a living.  If you imagine
what we know about exercise physiology as the Pacific Ocean, what we teach
aerobics instructors wouldn't cover the bottom of a dixie cup.  The 
concepts you're talking about are a bit too subtle to appeal to that level
of understanding for any useful model.  

There's no offense meant to aerobics instructors here - we have limited time,
and so we teach only what is deemed most essential.  It doesn't mean that
I can hold the ocean in my mouth - the only difference is the extra education
better affords me the knowledge of when I'm in over my head.

					larry...