|
A
|
05-25-20 10:16 AM - Post#898464
I suspect that the best way is going to be to compare heart rate and time. If you're cruising at, I dunno, 130 beats per minutes for half an hour doing one thing, then 130 per minute doing another is roughly equivalent.
Outside of a lab, that's probably the best you're going to comparing across machines/exercise.
This is probably right. They are going to be "roughly equivalent." I don't think it's going to be exactly equivalent because I think it is possible that you maximum heart rate may actually vary depending on the exercise. I know that sounds crazy: a maximum heart rate is, well, a maximum heart rate, right? But my maximum recorded heart rate on the Airdyne is higher than anything I have managed to produce during a run. The disparities weren't due to different recording devices, but conditions, such as fatigue, hydration, temperature, humidity, or even sheer will to max out could explain why I consistently have reached no higher than 183 when testing maxes on runs, but 189 (if memory serves) on the Airdyne. But maybe--and I really mean to sound tentative here--the fact that you are exerting with both arms and legs on the Airdyne could affect the maximum heart rate on that machine. The only point I am trying to make is that any comparison between different exercises (or to sound fancy, "exercise modalities") might only be approximate, as you note. But that is probably sufficient. I will finish by noting that my wife and I LOVE the Airdyne and are actually looking for a used one to put in her mother's house for our extended stays there. There is nothing like going all out on the Airdyne.
| Why are you squatting in the curl rack? |
|
