Effects Of Age And Aerobic Fitness On Heart Rate Recovery: Fill & Download for Free

tldr;Depends on what you're attempting to train.Predominantly low intensity exercise stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system (often coined as the brake or relaxation side of your autonomic nervous system -- but neither is one hundred percent accurate). It can be particularly useful for people with high sympathetic lifestyles (lots of high intensity exercise and stress for example...) by providing balance.It might also lead to small improvements in neuromuscular ability over long slow distances (make a better gardener...), can increase energy output slightly, can be used to maintain mobility/flexibility/range of motion, and have a very mild effect on your heart depending on your level of cardiorespiratory fitness.With that in mind, it depends on your definition of intensity.In the context of cardiorespiratory fitness, heart rates less than 100 BPM don't do much of anything.In the context of weight lifting, it's unlikely* that you're lifting at an intensity to improve strength or hypertrophy or even global endurance with a heart rate under 100 BPM.*Though you might be improving localized muscular endurance with same rehabilitation or prehabilitation movements and stimulating your parasympathetic nervous system for recovery purposes.In the context of moving synovial fluid around in your joints f0r joint health; Neither of the above methods is ideal unless done through full ranges of movement (strength training more so generally than cardiorespiratory endurance training). The intensity of mobility/flexibility improvement can be quite low (under 100 BPM) and still be quite effective, but heart rate determination of intensity for mobility training is irrelevant. A scale of exertion (how deep a stretch is on a scale of 1-10 for example) is a better indication of intensity in that context.The "exercise" (if you can call it that) you speak of is REALLY low intensity.I believe you'll find it very challenging to bike or lift and keep your heart rate under 100 BPM, unless you are quite old and under conditioned. I have had 70 year old clients that keep their heart rates above 100 BPM for an entire hour with fairly light training.Walking maybe you can keep your heart rate down, but walking slowly is often used as an indication of poor health for middle aged persons. It might even predict mortality better than smoking... (Mortality Predictors)When I walk my heart rate gets up very consistently over 100 BPM (and my resting heart rate is 52-56 on average so my heart is fit by fitness standards) and you might be surprised if you test yours that walking at a brisk pace -- by for the most useful approach for 'training' purposes -- gets you above 100 BPM quite easily.The ability of the heart to raise to meet the challenge and recover after a bout of exercise is used to determine heart health. A slow response to an exercise cue is often viewed as an indicator that you need to improve your cardiorespiratory health.However, again you need to consider what you're trying to train.Using heart rate as a measure of training mobility or flexibility qualities is near useless. As it often is for strength training. Heart rate response is not black and white either, the fight or flight response from racing a car for example results in very high heart rates due to stress/anxiety with very little carryover to heart health (cardiorespiratory fitness). The higher heart rates seen during resistance training are also more of a result of stress than cardiorespiratory fitness and have a very different effect on the heart as a result (thickening the ventricular wall, rather than making it more elastic).Some light stretching and mobility work could keep you under 100 BPM (Yoga or Pilates for instance) but heart rate changes is not the aim of the training. The aim of that training is to improve range of motion and stabilizing muscle control. Heart rate is irrelevant to intent in this case.Typically low intensity exercise puts you in an aerobic training zone, which for most people depending on age is between 130-150 BPM. Significantly higher than what you've indicated here.This is where a cyclist might develop their 'aerobic base' prior to starting their training season. Or where most people improve cardiorespiratory fitness. It is also closer to the mythological 'fat-burning zone.' This is also where I'd try do most of my recovery work and even mobility work, though I wouldn't worry about monitoring heart rate in the context of mobility specifically.For aerobic training purposes, or cardiorespiratory fitness, this is typically where you want to get as a baseline zone for training. This is level 1.For weight training, you'd want to monitor intensity based on weight lifted as opposed to heart rate in most instances. Low intensity lifting, done in high volume has little effect on muscle unless done to complete fatigue (which will raise heart rate considerably in most people).Below that and most of your training adaptations will be specific to whatever you're doing. So you might get some good activation of deep stabilizing muscles at that intensity (planks for improving spinal stability for instance), burn a little extra energy (but not much), and get a relaxing effect from stimulating your parasympathetic nervous system.So it really depends on what you want to train. I'd only use the intensity you speak of maybe as a starting point for someone very deconditioned. Mostly though, I'd use it for mobility training (important) and recovery purposes..

Mediocre fitness writers and heart rate monitor companies popularized Fox and Haskell’s formula without noting individual variability rendering it useless for exercise.Dr. Samuel Fox and Dr. William Haskell observed the relationship in data from 10 studies circa 1970.'Maximum' Heart Rate Theory Is ChallengedThe subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart disease.On an airplane traveling to the meeting, Dr. Haskell pulled out his data and showed them to Dr. Fox. ''We drew a line through the points and I said, 'Gee, if you extrapolate that out it looks like at age 20, the heart rate maximum is 200 and at age 40 it's 180 and at age 60 it's 160,'' Dr. Haskell said.It’s not accurate as a population average, and completely useless for exercise because with a 12 bpm standard deviation a target heart rate could end up anywhere between a recovery pace and not physically possibleThere’s a 34% chance a 30 year old's real maximum (190 from the formula) is somewhere between 190 and 202, 14% for 202 to 214, and 2% for 214 to 226. In the other direction it's 34% likely to be 178-190, 14% 166-167, and 2% 154-166.Even measuring your actual maximum heart rate isn’t fruitful because individuals’ relevant physiological thresholds occur at different fractions of maximum heart rate.Exercise as hard as you can manage for 30 minutes. Take your average heart rate over the last 20 minutes. That’s approximately your anaerobic threshold (AnT), Ventilatory Threshold 2, Lactate Threshold Heart Rate, and LT4. Exercise beyond that point will do the most to lift your lactate threshold and VO2max. 7–10 minute intervals as hard as possible are most effective. Stop when you can’t exceed LTHR noting its a lagging indicator that takes minutes to catch up with effort. One day a week is sufficient.Exercise as hard as you can without feeling your muscles, breathing becoming rhythmic, and conversation not flowing. That’s your aerobic threshold (AeT), VT1, and LT1. You could average that over 5 hours with an even effort split between halves. Exercise below that will do the most to lift it. Mark Allen set his 2:40 Ironman marathon split record which stood for twenty-five years after doing that, initially dropping his training pace to 8:15 miles with performance improving over a year to 5:20 at the same 155 bpm heart rate.Going far beyond your anaerobic threshold is needed to improve explosive performance powered by your creatine phosphate energy system. Heart rate lag makes it useless to quantify these efforts lasting just tens of seconds.Save intensities between the two thresholds for competition or fun unless you’re trying to get through a long non-competitive event and are short on training time to build endurance. Training stress is proportional to the square of effort, and some extra will let you accumulate it faster.

Sprinting is about maximum muscular efficiency over short distancesRunning is about maximal energy endurance over a long distanceAnaerobic exercise (sprinting) develops aerobic ability (running). The other way doesn't work.The answer to this one involves is a bit more tricky, since I'm looking at fitness. In this case I would look at max heart rate (220-age) and training heart rate (from 60-75%, 75-85%, 85-95%, to 95+ % of max heart rate). Better for fitness is reaching your training heart rate.Consistently reaching training heart rate during exercise enables your body to gain 'fitness"So a way to use only sprinting and running, this can be done with interval training involving consistent sprinting and running times over a set distance.Sprinting is used to reach and maintain training heart rate, while running is used as recovery for the next sprint.