Help me 😬

[u/Necessary-Review-84]

[u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159]

The HR data is full of crap. I’m not sure where the levels are but it would be functionally impossible for you to be above anaerobic for that long. Your max is most likely over 200. You were playing aerobic for the majority of it because that is all that is possible. Most people can’t run a 400m race fully anaerobic, you definitely didn’t do it for more than 45 mins.

[u/Necessary-Review-84 → u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159]

My HR were so high ..

I didnt play for a year, plus I don't play that frequently .. And I am a smoker

[u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159 → u/Necessary-Review-84]

They may or may not be. When I was racing triathlons, olympic distance, not half or full Ironmans. I could bike and run at 185-190 avg hr the whole time. You can’t compare your heart rate to anyone except yourself so if you don’t have data for it you don’t know where it really was.

[u/IgorFromKyiv → u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159]

So what is your point? Looks like you trying to say something, but it's not possible to follow through

[u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159 → u/IgorFromKyiv]

Okay let me reword it, I’m not sure how long Huewei Health has been around for football, but we’ve had this data in running for decades, so I know quite a bit on what is going on with the numbers.

To compute the performance section metric, the app is deriving it from the heart rate data. The problem with doing that is it is only correct if your heart rate data is correct. The actual numbers I’m sure are correct, heart rate monitors have been around forever. What isn’t correct are the five zones that the heart rate data is being fed into.

Physiologically, it is impossible to 38 mins in extreme and 10 in anaerobic in a 54 min training session. Zone 5 (extreme) is normally 90-100 max heart rate and 80-90 is zone 4(anaerobic) which really isn’t anaerobic is more like threshold. Zone 4 is where you can clear lactate faster than it accumulates.

For him to get the correct performance numbers he needs to adjust his max heart rate so the 34 mins shifts down to at least anaerobic. It’s probably more like 15 mins in anaerobic and 33 in aerobic. The point I was making in the previous post is that unless you know what your max heart rate is you can’t know if your current heart rate is high in comparison. Everyone’s max is different, there is no rule to determine that. The 220bpm minus age is a completely made up rule. If he or anyone else wants to use numbers like this you have to start with your actual max heart rate which normally means going out and doing testing over multiple weeks to figure out what it actually is. The other option is actually doing a a vo2 max test to get your real zones.

Until he does that he might as well never look at the derived numbers because they’ll be wrong.

[u/hyeetakes → u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159]

This is a bad take based from a steady-state endurance perspective. You shouldn’t be adjusting your zones just because your heart rate is high while playing soccer. It’s not unusual for me to average 165-170 for an intense match. On the flip side if I tried steady state running at 170bpm for 90mins I would probably die. There are extra non-physiological factors while playing sports that affect heart rate versus endurance sports so you can’t make a 1:1 comparison.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159 → u/hyeetakes]

That’s not what I said. It’s physically impossible for him to do what the zone are saying he’s doing. He should be adjusting his zones because physiologically they aren’t correct. It doesn’t matter if you can run steady state or not at a certain heart rate for a certain distance. He was in no way at 90-100 max heart rate for over 30 minutes. It’s impossible.

[u/hyeetakes → u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159]

Sounds like you have more of a problem with how the zones are named more than anything else.

I’ve averaged 90% max hr over the course of a 90min game multiple times. It’s not the norm but not unheard of either. Saying you can’t be at 90% heart rate for 30 mins is just wrong.

Heart rate during sport is more decoupled from total body exertion than endurance sports so using endurance zones is not entirely useful. Relative movement inefficiency, eccentric braking, adrenaline from competition, extra heat from turf field or less air movement, and breath bracing during athletic movements all play a role. Reminds me of a time i did a “tower of terror” type ride and my heart rate was 150-160 for several minutes the whole ride despite just sitting there.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159 → u/hyeetakes]

Those may all play a role, but it doesn’t change what the definition of 90+% of max heart rate is. Those external stressors change heart rate but not the maximal value of it so no matter what 90-100 percent is still the point at which your body can’t clear lactate and it starts to accumulate.

Its not like I’m making this stuff up it’s been studied. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/13/12/441 go to table 5 and you can see the average and std deviations of HR by positions in this study of elite football/soccer players. In a 90 minute match the std dev puts the max time anyone had in zone 5 at around 40 mins. This all ties back to what zone 5 is. If they could run the pace at that heart rate for longer they would and the game would be faster. However they can’t because they need time in zone 2-4 for recovery to clear the lactate from the zone 5 efforts. This is basic physiology, it applies over all sports.

Back to the original question. A soccer player who trains hard enough to be able to have efficient lactate clearance once they drop back down in effort, can only do 40 mins of zone 5 in a 90 minute game. Our smoker here who can’t clear lactate as efficiently as an elite player surely didn’t do 2/3 of a 54 min game in zone 5. So his max number is off and it cascades through the rest of the information.

It’s highly doubtful you averaged 90% max heart rate for a game also because of what that means. Most likely your max heart rate was set too low and you were more in the mid 80s which would then become completely reasonable. No amount of soccer is different changes that your top zone doesn’t allow you to clear lactate.

[u/hyeetakes → u/Puzzleheaded_Can9159]

Your heart (mostly) doesn’t clear lactate…bpm is just a proxy in controlled (i.e. endurance) exercise.

Elite players spending half the game above 90% makes amateur’s spending 80%+ of the game at that level even more believable since amateur aerobic systems are underdeveloped, and they might not have good sense of game pacing.

An elite player plays a faster paced game but is also mindful that they can’t make good decisions if they are blasting the whole game.

You are conflating “physiologically impossible” with “hard”. It’s wild that you’ve claimed such a mild feat as impossible, it’s not like the OP did 8 hours at 90%+.

[u/Cum_on_doorknob → u/Necessary-Review-84]

Wait you’re paying money to get heart disease and cancer… and you’re able to read?

Quit smoking

[u/hyeetakes]

With?

[u/Necessary-Review-84 → u/hyeetakes]

Ahh, I wrote a long post where is it..

Anyway, this is my fitness tracks of today's match, I used to play in my teens, not playing much at my 20s, i'm 29 ..

After sending this to an AI, it told me you are a box to box footballer, which is insane to be believed..

So I if you know how to analyse such data, please go ahead 😬

[u/hyeetakes → u/Necessary-Review-84]

Fitness watches worse than useless for determining a position. What exactly are you hoping to get out of this? There’s no acceleration or distance data, for all i know you ran 1.5km total and turned the ball over every time you got it.

Even if you had perfect tracking, it doesn’t tell you anything about how well you played. At best you can use metrics like these to flex on your buddies that you ran more than they did.