journal article on heartbeat/index

[blacklab2020]

Just for fun...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/mmvaxguq2kma3f34/fulltext.pdf

Critique it all you want, but just though I would share.

Each mountain/route/weather/climber is different...

 

[Tom Rankin]

I'm not a professional hiker, or doctor, or anything else related to this, but ...

I disagree with the premise that the difficulty of climbing a mountain is directly proportional to the elevation gain.

Marcy and Giant are both about 3K of elevation gain, but Marcy is 7.7 miles while Giant is only about 3 miles (one way). I doubt they are equal effort.

Walking on flat ground still requires the expenditure of energy.

 

[Mac]

Heartbeat

I use the old "200 minus your age" calculation to reduce the likelihood of an unfortunate incident. (in my case, 200-50=150 x 60% to 80% = 90-120 beats per minute). I take frequent 15 second pulse rates early in the hike & then less frequently after that.

This seemed to work well during my two most recent hikes (May skiing in TR & Hermit Lake to Appalachia in August).

 

[mookie]

confusing

man,
thats just confusing

one would think that your body will tell you when to slow down and when you can push it more.

 

[DougPaul]

I use the old "200 minus your age" calculation to reduce the likelihood of an unfortunate incident. (in my case, 200-50=150 x 60% to 80% = 90-120 beats per minute). I take frequent 15 second pulse rates early in the hike & then less frequently after that.

This seemed to work well during my two most recent hikes (May skiing in TR & Hermit Lake to Appalachia in August).

That rule can be very inaccurate. If I run it backwards, I was just born... (I'm in the high 50s, my max HR is ~200 bpm (I just hit 195 on my bike yesterday), and my aerobic threshold is somewhere between 180 and 190 bpm.


IMO, the article on heartbeats vs altitude gain is rather simplistic. It ignores a number of rather obvious factors.

Doug