HR during Bike interval VS Run interval

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Matt, you're thinking again. How often have I warned you against this?

Zero.

I'm just a zero said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Matt, you're thinking again. How often have I warned you against this?

No I'm not thinking. Read again. I'm guessing. Very different.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Zero.

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Matt, you're thinking again. How often have I warned you against this?

Quoted message said:

No I'm not thinking. Read again. I'm guessing. Very different.

I stand corrected. My apologies. In the future, before making smart-ass comments, I will check that
they are relevant.

BTW, get your ass back to rec.running. They need you....BAD!

Zero.

Quoted message said:

Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while doing
intervals has me somewhat perplexed. When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths or
intensity each interval seems to have a higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved effort
seems to match this trend by each interval being slightly harder. However the bike intervals seem
to have a slightly lower AVE HR fo each interval even though the percieved effort is either harder
for each one and in some cases much more of difference to the more difficult side than running. My
guess on this is that aerobic capacity and or endurance is not the limiting factor in my cycling as
much as power and strength
is. Anyone else have any ideas?

~Matt

What I have learned is that biking HR's are lower than running is by maybe 10 beats per minute and
swimming is 15 beats lower than a running one. If I am running on the treadmill it is easier to keep
my heartrate steady than running on the track. With the track it goes way up because I haven't
learned to pace myself I guess. The recumbent bikes at the gym have a way lower heartrate than the
regular bikes because with the regular bikes you are more vertical. The eliptical machine has a
higher heart rate than the bike. The more vertical you are, the higher the heart rate. The track is
the highest because you are very vertical and there is no pacing bounds. Not sure if I helped you
any though lol

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while doing
intervals has me somewhat perplexed. When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths or
intensity each interval seems to have a higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved effort
seems to match this trend by each interval being slightly harder. However the bike intervals seem
to have a slightly lower AVE HR fo each interval even though the percieved effort is either harder
for each one and in some cases much more of difference to the more difficult side than running. My
guess on this is that aerobic capacity and or endurance is not the limiting factor in my cycling
as much as power and strength
is. Anyone else have any ideas?

Sounds to me that it is *precisely* your aerobic capacity and endurance (of your muscles) that is
lacking on the bike - as a result, even though perceived effort rises with each repeat, your actual
power output is going down, down, down. Try doing the same interval session as before, but *really*
hold back during the first interval or two, esp. during the first couple of minutes of each. I'll
bet then that you'll observe the same cardiac drift while cycling as while running.

(Alternatively, you can just do the cycling intervals on an ergometer or using a powermeter, to
prevent yourself from going out too hard.)

Andy Coggan

(LighthouseView99) said:

Quoted message said:

Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while doing
intervals has me somewhat perplexed. When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths or
intensity each interval seems to have a higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved effort
seems to match this trend by each interval being slightly harder. However the bike intervals seem
to have a slightly lower AVE HR fo each interval even though the percieved effort is either harder
for each one and in some cases much more of difference to the more difficult side than running. My
guess on this is that aerobic capacity and or endurance is not the limiting factor in my cycling
as much as power and strength
is. Anyone else have any ideas?

~Matt

What I have learned is that biking HR's are lower than running is by maybe 10 beats per minute and
swimming is 15 beats lower than a running one. If I am running on the treadmill it is easier to
keep my heartrate steady than running on the track. With the track it goes way up because I haven't
learned to pace myself I guess. The recumbent bikes at the gym have a way lower heartrate than the
regular bikes because with the regular bikes you are more vertical. The eliptical machine has a
higher heart rate than the bike. The more vertical you are, the higher the heart rate. The track is
the highest because you are very vertical and there is no pacing bounds. Not sure if I helped you
any though lol

I'm aware of the difference of HR's between running and biking. My problem is more about
falling HR during intervals on the bike versus rising HR during run interval. Here's
some numbers.

Mile repeats Run Mile 1 Ave HR 172 Percieved Effort 16 Mile 2 Ave HR 176 PE 17

Mile 3 Ave HR 177 PE 17

10 min Repeats on Bike First Ave HR 155 PE 14 Second 152 PE 16 Third 148 PE 17

These aren't exact numbers as I don't have the HR data in front of me as I'm currenly slacking off
at work. However the trends are similar. It's not the difference in HR from teh run to the bike that
I'm speaking of rather the trend of HR to go down in the bike vs go up in the run.

~Matt

Andy Coggan said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while doing
intervals has me somewhat perplexed. When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths or
intensity each interval seems to have a higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved effort
seems to match this trend by each interval being slightly harder. However the bike intervals seem
to have a slightly lower AVE HR fo each interval even though the percieved effort is either
harder for each one and in some cases much more of difference to the more difficult side than
running. My guess on this is that aerobic capacity and or endurance is not the limiting factor in
my cycling as much as power and strength
is. Anyone else have any ideas?

Sounds to me that it is *precisely* your aerobic capacity and endurance (of your muscles) that is
lacking on the bike - as a result, even though perceived effort rises with each repeat, your actual
power output is going down, down, down. Try doing the same interval session as before, but *really*
hold back during the first interval or two, esp. during the first couple of minutes of each. I'll
bet then that you'll observe the same cardiac drift while cycling as while running.

(Alternatively, you can just do the cycling intervals on an ergometer or using a powermeter, to
prevent yourself from going out too hard.)

Andy Coggan

So if I'm understanding this, your saying that due to a lack of muscular specific endurance
on the bike(not actual aerobic capacity) the muscles use up whatever energy available on the
first repeat and can't supply enough/rid teh muscles of waster in subsequent repeats. Thusly
since the muscles are incapable of using/converting more fuel to energy the heart does not
need to beat harder to supply more blood/energy to the muscles and the HR level falls. Since
some believe that percieved effort is dictated by levels of certain waste products within
the muscle that would explain why it feels harder despite lowering HR. Am I even close here?

~Matt

Andy, your suggestion for monitoring power with a device is a good one to eliminate the confusion of
a variable output rate.

Matt, your explanation of exercise physiology is specious and a good effort, but it's a bit more
complicated than that. While you are correct in that RPE (rate of perceived exertion) will increase
when the body fails to meet the supply-demand of oxygen necessary for lactate recycling, you are
incorrect in associating the body's ability to recycle with a declining heart rate response. When
you reach lactate threshold and you can no longer process the inspired volume of oxygen efficiently
enough to meet the demands of the muscles, your respiration rate increases to try to get more oxygen
in. But the consequence to this is a decreased inspiratory volume. The higher respiratory rate
triggers a positive feedback loop in your nervous system which in turn increases your heart rate to
pump the blood faster and deliver whatever oxygen is available to the muscles cells more quickly.
Thus a higher RPE is correlated with a higher respiratory rate and a higher heart rate as well. Your
measurements, therefore, are also specious, and I would take a look at Andy's suggestion of
stabilizing your power output across your intervals in an objective fashion.

Of course this turns into a science project and kind of takes the fun out of just doing it!

My 2cents, Bob, MSPT, triathlete, thought-wanderer

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while doing
intervals has me somewhat perplexed. When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths or
intensity each interval seems to have a higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved
effort seems to match this trend by each interval being slightly harder. However the bike
intervals seem to have a slightly lower AVE HR fo each interval even though the percieved
effort is either harder for each one and in some cases much more of difference to the more
difficult side than running. My guess on this is that aerobic capacity and or endurance is not
the limiting factor in my cycling as much as power and strength
is. Anyone else have any ideas?

Sounds to me that it is *precisely* your aerobic capacity and endurance

(of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your muscles) that is lacking on the bike - as a result, even though perceived effort rises with
each repeat, your actual power output is

going

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

down, down, down. Try doing the same interval session as before, but *really* hold back during
the first interval or two, esp. during the

first

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

couple of minutes of each. I'll bet then that you'll observe the same cardiac drift while cycling
as while running.

(Alternatively, you can just do the cycling intervals on an ergometer or using a powermeter, to
prevent yourself from going out too hard.)

Andy Coggan

So if I'm understanding this, your saying that due to a lack of muscular specific endurance on the
bike(not actual aerobic capacity) the muscles use up whatever energy available on the first repeat
and can't supply enough/rid teh muscles of waster in subsequent repeats. Thusly since the muscles
are incapable of using/converting more fuel to energy the heart does not need to beat harder to
supply more blood/energy to the muscles and the HR level falls. Since some believe that percieved
effort is dictated by levels of certain waste products within the muscle that would explain why it
feels harder despite lowering HR. Am I even close here?

~Matt

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(LighthouseView99) said:

Quoted message said:

Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while doing
intervals has me somewhat

perplexed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths or intensity each interval seems to have a
higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved effort seems to match this trend by each
interval being slightly harder. However the bike intervals seem to have a slightly lower AVE HR
fo each interval even though the percieved effort is either harder for each one and in some
cases much more of difference to the more difficult side than running. My guess on this is that
aerobic capacity and or endurance is not the limiting factor in my cycling as much as power and
strength
is. Anyone else have any ideas?

~Matt

What I have learned is that biking HR's are lower than running is by

maybe 10

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

beats per minute and swimming is 15 beats lower than a running one.

If I am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

running on the treadmill it is easier to keep my heartrate steady

than running

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on the track. With the track it goes way up because I haven't learned

to pace

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

myself I guess. The recumbent bikes at the gym have a way lower

heartrate than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the regular bikes because with the regular bikes you are more

vertical. The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eliptical machine has a higher heart rate than the bike. The more

vertical you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are, the higher the heart rate. The track is the highest because you

are very

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

vertical and there is no pacing bounds. Not sure if I helped you any

though lol

Quoted message said:

I'm aware of the difference of HR's between running and biking. My problem is more about falling
HR during intervals on the bike versus rising HR during run interval. Here's some numbers.

Mile repeats Run Mile 1 Ave HR 172 Percieved Effort 16 Mile 2 Ave HR 176 PE 17

Mile 3 Ave HR 177 PE 17

10 min Repeats on Bike First Ave HR 155 PE 14 Second 152 PE 16 Third 148 PE 17

I would say the biggest factor here is the bike repeats are probably close to twice as long as your
run repeats. Try doing the same time interval repeats on the bike as you do on the run and see how
that compares.

Phil Holman

Phil Holman said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(LighthouseView99) said:

>Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while doing
>intervals has me somewhat

perplexed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths or intensity each interval seems to have a
>higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved effort seems to match this trend by each
>interval being slightly harder. However the bike intervals seem to have a slightly lower AVE HR
>fo each interval even though the percieved effort is either harder for each one and in some
>cases much more of difference to the more difficult side than running. My guess on this is that
>aerobic capacity and or endurance is not the limiting factor in my cycling as much as power and
>strength
>is. Anyone else have any ideas?
>
>~Matt

What I have learned is that biking HR's are lower than running is by

maybe 10

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

beats per minute and swimming is 15 beats lower than a running one.

If I am

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

running on the treadmill it is easier to keep my heartrate steady

than running

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on the track. With the track it goes way up because I haven't learned

to pace

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

myself I guess. The recumbent bikes at the gym have a way lower

heartrate than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the regular bikes because with the regular bikes you are more

vertical. The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eliptical machine has a higher heart rate than the bike. The more

vertical you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are, the higher the heart rate. The track is the highest because you

are very

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

vertical and there is no pacing bounds. Not sure if I helped you any

though lol

Quoted message said:

I'm aware of the difference of HR's between running and biking. My problem is more about falling
HR during intervals on the bike versus rising HR during run interval. Here's some numbers.

Mile repeats Run Mile 1 Ave HR 172 Percieved Effort 16 Mile 2 Ave HR 176 PE 17

Mile 3 Ave HR 177 PE 17

10 min Repeats on Bike First Ave HR 155 PE 14 Second 152 PE 16 Third 148 PE 17

I would say the biggest factor here is the bike repeats are probably close to twice as long as your
run repeats. Try doing the same time interval repeats on the bike as you do on the run and see how
that compares.

Phil Holman

I realize that. However I recently for science sake did a similar time. I.E. 10 min run
interval and had similar rises in heart rate from one interval to another.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Bob Schroedter said:

Andy, your suggestion for monitoring power with a device is a good one to eliminate the confusion
of a variable output rate.

Matt, your explanation of exercise physiology is specious and a good effort,

Yes my "knowledge" of exercise Physiology is fledgling at best.

Quoted message said:

but it's a bit more complicated than that. While you are correct in that RPE (rate of perceived
exertion) will increase when the body fails to meet the supply-demand of oxygen necessary for
lactate recycling, you are incorrect in associating the body's ability to recycle with a declining
heart rate response. When you reach lactate threshold and you can no longer process the inspired
volume of oxygen efficiently enough to meet the demands of the muscles, your respiration rate
increases to try to get more oxygen in. But the consequence to this is a decreased inspiratory
volume. The higher respiratory rate triggers a positive feedback loop in your nervous system which
in turn increases your heart rate to pump the blood faster and deliver whatever oxygen is available
to the muscles cells more quickly.

Correct me if I'm wrong here or misunderstanding. Are you saying that HR is directly
correlated to lactate level of any given muscleand or increased respiration? And you can't
have a muscle or group of muscles decline in energy output due to crossing lactate threshold
without increased HR?

Quoted message said:

Thus a higher RPE is correlated with a higher respiratory rate and a higher heart rate as well.
Your measurements, therefore, are also specious, and I would take a look at Andy's suggestion of
stabilizing your power output across your intervals in an objective fashion.

I would love to measure my power output however those measurements come at a price I can't
afford right now. As far as RPE beng correlated to respiratory rate is it not possible to
feel as if one is worrking hard without actually doing any work. I.E. Isometric excercises.
Since a person is not doing any work and littel energy is being used why woudl delivery of
oxygen to the muscles need to be increased adn thus respiratory rate?

Quoted message said:

Of course this turns into a science project and kind of takes the fun out of just doing it!

I'm some what of a numbers geek. Thus jsut doing it is more fun if I understand what I'm
just doing adn why it is working. One of my montras I've adopted is every workout has a
purpose. The more I can comprehend that purpose thebetter I can direct the workout towards
that purpose.

Thanks for your input.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

My 2cents, Bob, MSPT, triathlete, thought-wanderer

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> Recently I've been paying closer attention to some of my Heart rate info. The trend while
> doing intervals has me somewhat perplexed. When doing running intervals of nearly any lengths
> or intensity each interval seems to have a higher HR AVE than the previous one. The percieved
> effort seems to match this trend by each interval being slightly harder. However the bike
> intervals seem to have a slightly lower AVE HR fo each interval even though the percieved
> effort is either harder for each one and in some cases much more of difference to the more
> difficult side than running. My guess on this is that aerobic capacity and or endurance is not
> the limiting factor in my cycling as much as power and strength
> is. Anyone else have any ideas?

Sounds to me that it is *precisely* your aerobic capacity and endurance

(of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your muscles) that is lacking on the bike - as a result, even though perceived effort rises with
each repeat, your actual power output is

going

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

down, down, down. Try doing the same interval session as before, but *really* hold back during
the first interval or two, esp. during the

first

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

couple of minutes of each. I'll bet then that you'll observe the same cardiac drift while
cycling as while running.

(Alternatively, you can just do the cycling intervals on an ergometer or using a powermeter, to
prevent yourself from going out too hard.)

Andy Coggan

So if I'm understanding this, your saying that due to a lack of muscular specific endurance on
the bike(not actual aerobic capacity) the muscles use up whatever energy available on the first
repeat and can't supply enough/rid teh muscles of waster in subsequent repeats. Thusly since the
muscles are incapable of using/converting more fuel to energy the heart does not need to beat
harder to supply more blood/energy to the muscles and the HR level falls. Since some believe that
percieved effort is dictated by levels of certain waste products within the muscle that would
explain why it feels harder despite lowering HR. Am I even close here?

~Matt

"Bob Schroedter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy, your suggestion for monitoring power with a device is a good one to eliminate the confusion
of a variable output rate.

Matt, your explanation of exercise physiology is specious and a good

effort,

Actually, although perhaps a tad...flowery? in terms of the language chosen, he nailed it spot on.

Quoted message said:

but it's a bit more complicated than that. While you are correct in that

RPE

Quoted message said:

(rate of perceived exertion) will increase when the body fails to meet the supply-demand of
oxygen necessary for lactate recycling, you are incorrect in associating the body's ability to
recycle with a declining heart rate response. When you reach lactate threshold and you can no
longer process

the

Quoted message said:

inspired volume of oxygen efficiently enough to meet the demands of the muscles,

Lactate threshold occurs at an intensity at which the muscles are still fully aerobic.

Quoted message said:

your respiration rate increases to try to get more oxygen in. But the consequence to this is a
decreased inspiratory volume. The higher respiratory rate triggers a positive feedback loop in
your nervous system which in turn increases your heart rate to pump the blood faster and

deliver

Both respiratory rate and heart rate are being driven by "spillover" from the motor control centers
of the brain. IOW, they are both dependent variables in this context.

Quoted message said:

whatever oxygen is available to the muscles cells more quickly. Thus a higher RPE is correlated
with a higher respiratory rate and a higher heart rate as well. Your measurements, therefore, are
also specious, and I would take a look at Andy's suggestion of stabilizing your power output
across your intervals in an objective fashion.

Andy Coggan

"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would love to measure my power output however those measurements come at a price I can't afford
right now.

Measuring your power would be the most precise way, but I think you'll find if you just really
concentrate on holding back during the first couple of intervals on the bike (think esp. about the
force you are exerting on the pedals, not how hard it feels to do so, or breathing, heart rate,
etc.), you'll end up A) with a HR response more like on the run (i.e., drifting ever upward), and
more importantly B) finish the workout w/o slowing down dramatically throughout.

Personally, as much as I love instrumentation and numbers myself, I think many people become too
dependent on HR monitors, etc., to the point that it interferes with the honing of their own innate
effort sense.

Andy Coggan

Andy Coggan said:

"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would love to measure my power output however those measurements come at a price I can't afford
right now.

Measuring your power would be the most precise way, but I think you'll find if you just really
concentrate on holding back during the first couple of intervals on the bike (think esp. about the
force you are exerting on the pedals, not how hard it feels to do so, or breathing, heart rate,
etc.), you'll end up A) with a HR response more like on the run (i.e., drifting ever upward), and
more importantly B) finish the workout w/o slowing down dramatically throughout.

Personally, as much as I love instrumentation and numbers myself, I think many people become too
dependent on HR monitors, etc., to the point that it interferes with the honing of their own innate
effort sense.

I did run into this when I first started running. I was using a speed disatnce monitor to
try and hold pace. I ended up after a few runs somewhat disreaguarding it due to the fact
that I found I was wasting more energy changing my pace than if I would have simple allowed
my pace to float and listened to my body effort. For the most part I try to do things by
effort, however having instrumentation along helps as a "second opinion". This is what
triggered my original post. Although I felt I was working harder on each successive interval
my HR was saying I was doing less work. This workout I actually did not pay attention to the
HR Monitor until after the workout was complete. All repeats were done by effort. Being
fairly new to cycling I'm sure my sense of "effort" needs honing versus my sense of effort
in the run.

Thanks

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan