Notice they kept the watts the same between lower and upper. So HR 120 is actually a pretty high effort. In reality though, you are using this much smaller muscle group with smaller VO2max. So it thinks at say HR 120, this is pretty easy effort, if the whole body was really being used that would be true. You move on to just upper body stuff, VO2max is even lower.īut that study formula doesn't know that, it's still calculating a VO2 based on stats and running that is higher than reality for the smaller muscle group actually being used. (rowers usually weigh more, so their absolute score is lower, but total is great).Ĭompared to cyclist and runners, lower body only. That's why cross-country skiers and rowers have some of the highest VO2max scores around, total body muscle involvement. But because of the amount of muscle used that oxygen must be supplied to. Even that formula though is leaving out the important HRmax stat, they assume the same 220-age.Īnd the reason why it won't match up very well for just upper body very specific muscles of this workout, is because your VO2max and HRmax are almost always literally different for different exercises, and not just because you may be better trained at one over the other. Which is the best you have for HR related calorie burn estimates.Īnd a link for the Polar funded study is there too for review, that came up with that formula. Here's an easier way to use those formulas too. The only thing the age and weight and gender bring to the equation, are trying to estimate what your likely VO2max might be compared to the study. What is relevant, in calculating calories, is age, weight, and heart rateĪctually, the only thing relevant to calculating calories is your liter Volume of O2 and CO2, age and weight and HR don't matter.īut outside measuring that, the best stat you can tie back to VO2/VCO2 is HR, then you can have something.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |