"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Donovan Rebbechi said:
Plotting pace (that is, 1/t) against heart rate, I was surprised how good a fit the linear model gave me -- R^2 = 0.9981. Basically a perfect straight line.
Which is odd because I'd understood that there should be an inflexion (second derivative changes sign) on the curve and this defines the "anaerobic" or "lactic" threshold (whatever that may mean exactly).
Or maybe you didn't get that high (what is your max HR)?
The Conconi test where one exercises at increasing intensity and there is some point at which HR "deflects" from the linear relationship has been widely discredited. There is no physiological reason for such a deflection and only about 50% of the people in the original studies even showed such a deflection.
Many of these were done on cyclists (since Conconi worked with cyclists mainly)
The Conconi test where one exercises at increasing intensity and there is some point at which HR "deflects" from the linear relationship has been widely discredited. There is no physiological reason for such a deflection and only about 50% of the people in the original studies even showed such a deflection.
Fair enough. I suppose 50% would equate to a purely random result then? Or should there have been much fewer occurrences for it to be considered useless?
ie would it be possible that a given runner has 50% chance of demonstrating the "Conconi behaviour"? A bit like the difference can/cannot roll your tongue into a tube lengthways?
"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Sam said:
The Conconi test where one exercises at increasing intensity and there is some point at which HR "deflects" from the linear relationship has been widely discredited. There is no physiological reason for such a deflection and only about 50% of the people in the original studies even showed such a deflection.
Fair enough. I suppose 50% would equate to a purely random result then? Or should there have been much fewer occurrences for it to be considered useless?
Not quite random. But I would say that if only half the people show the deflection it means that half the time you do a test it will be wasting everyone's time.
Quoted message said:
ie would it be possible that a given runner has 50% chance of demonstrating the "Conconi behaviour"? A bit like the difference can/cannot roll your tongue into a tube lengthways?
