I found this to be a great read: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/your_cardio_makes_no_sense I know heart rate monitors have been discussed on here, and most trainers approve. I have one and I did the MAF test. I found I was no where close to the 7 min mile @ MAF (which mine was 149). Question is this, do you think that's a good example of a "well developed" cardiovascular system? The reason I say this is that I thought I was fairly fit myself.
Hmmmm. Might try this. Not sure it means much. I remember doing something similar in High School. Despite being the fittest and best runner in the class, I didn't do much good at the test as my heart rate was naturally high. The teacher, who was monitoring the heart rates, kept telling me to slow down as It was too high. I felt fine tho. Could've gone on at the same pace for 10-15 km without much trouble.
I get the rationale, but I think that 7 minutes may be a bit too low of a time to determine a good cardiovascular system. I would like to know how he came at the number 7 minutes. ie. What kind of research did he do to say this is a good number. As far as what Max Power is talking about, the coach may not have even considered that you may have a much higher anaerobic threshold than others, and 165 bpm may feel great to you, because your anaerobic threshold is 172. Whereas others AT may be 168 or so. This is a largely genetically predetermined number that is relatively unchanging. Joel Jamieson at 8weeksout.com or Lyle McDonald(don't remember his website) both have a very good understanding and easy to explain way of conveying the idea of energy systems and specifically the aerobic energy system.
Anaerobic threshold is more changeable than VO2max is. This MAF stuff is nonsense, try the coopers test (12 minute) for a fitness test that athletes actually use.
Good call "dealt with," absolutely about the Cooper Test. In Joel Jamieson's book called Ultimate MMA Conditioning(very practical for any combat athlete, not just MMA) he describes a modified Coopers Test that he uses. While AT may be more changeable than VO2 max, it is still largely a very stagnate number. The idea is to obviously increase work output at threshold, as opposed to attempting to increase the actual number AT number. As a side question, why does everyone look to TNation for answers on conditioning, not strength, but conditioning? While I am not an expert, I feel I have a decent understanding on conditioning aspects and energy systems as they work in athletics. I have read two articles posted now from forum members, and both were very weak.
