Thanks for sharing this. I really like the concept of Aerobic Efficiency. Pace over heart rate as an indicator of cardiorespiratory fitness seems quite intuitive to me and actually way more simple than VO2max, for instance. It may be due to my own narrow perception, but how does it come that there’s so much fuss about VO2max, HRV, etc. but nobody has been promoting Aerobic Efficiency so far?
Anyway, as I like the concept, I’d like to understand better how you do compute Aerobic Efficiency in HRV4Training? It looks like kind of a baselined number between 1 and 100 but I can’t really make sense of it. In your example in the blogpost there’s a pace of 5:23 min/km and a heart rate of 125 bpm which equals an Aerobic Efficiency of 89. Dividing 5:23 by 125 obviously does not give 89, so what kind of formulae do you apply do compute Aerobic Efficiency? Is this the generally accepted way of computing Aerobic Efficiency or is it the unique way of HRV4Training?
thank you Michael, indeed we have a formula that makes the number a bit more user friendly (near the 100 scale), so there are some conversions there, but it doesn't really matter when you look at how it changes over time.
Hi Mario,
Thanks for sharing this. I really like the concept of Aerobic Efficiency. Pace over heart rate as an indicator of cardiorespiratory fitness seems quite intuitive to me and actually way more simple than VO2max, for instance. It may be due to my own narrow perception, but how does it come that there’s so much fuss about VO2max, HRV, etc. but nobody has been promoting Aerobic Efficiency so far?
Anyway, as I like the concept, I’d like to understand better how you do compute Aerobic Efficiency in HRV4Training? It looks like kind of a baselined number between 1 and 100 but I can’t really make sense of it. In your example in the blogpost there’s a pace of 5:23 min/km and a heart rate of 125 bpm which equals an Aerobic Efficiency of 89. Dividing 5:23 by 125 obviously does not give 89, so what kind of formulae do you apply do compute Aerobic Efficiency? Is this the generally accepted way of computing Aerobic Efficiency or is it the unique way of HRV4Training?
Cheers,
Michael
thank you Michael, indeed we have a formula that makes the number a bit more user friendly (near the 100 scale), so there are some conversions there, but it doesn't really matter when you look at how it changes over time.