5km Cool Night Classic Run

[Arpy]

Hi ya guys

Last night I entered into a 5km charity race, along with a few others from my workplace, which supports varying charities from year to year. The event raised $16,000 last night for the Clontarf Foundation which helps our young indigenous population re-engage into the education system by means of sport (specifically Australian Rules football for which many of them an affinity and also have naturally good skills).

The route is quite scenic, running along the foreshore of the river from the start at the city end to Matilda Bay near the University of Western Australia. Approx 1000 odd people participated from either a running or walking standpoint.

Fastest Male completed in 15 mins and 35 secs and fastest female at just over 19 minutes!!! Pretty amazing.

My time was a little more grounded but I did crack the 25 minute barrier at 24 mins and 9 secs although I felt very "heavy". Perhaps an indication that my running base lags a long long way behind my cycling base.

Still need to do some more work to meet the demands of the 400/18/4 triathlon in late November.!!!

I do have my hands on the new bike now though and it certainly is a big difference - same speed less effort it seems. Money well spent.

regards


Russell

 

[msiwik]

Congrats Russell

Congrats Russell

Hi ya guys
My time was a little more grounded but I did crack the 25 minute barrier at 24 mins and 9 secs although I felt very "heavy". Perhaps an indication that my running base lags a long long way behind my cycling base.
Russell

Russell - I think that is a great result - less than a year out and you are running a respectable time and a pace of 7:46! All these great people from Australia on this website - me thinks will have to visit someday! Good luck with your training.

 

[Buzz Lanning]

Excellent 5K Performance

Excellent 5K Performance

Russell,

Good job! Until I ran a sub-8 minute mile pace last week (7:53 for 4.1 miles), I was beginning to wonder if ANYONE could run under an 8 minute pace after AVR!

I really believe that at high-cardiac output (while running for example), the pressure gradient across an artificial valve (especially a mechanical) is more pronounced as compared to our original valve. The higher pressure drop at elevated heart rates would require the heart to work harder for the same level of effort. At normal heart rates, the pressure gradients are probably very similar; i.e., pressure gradient goes-up/down by the blood velocity-squared. Note: If I didn't exercise at HR's above 140 - 150, I wouldn't have ever known; I feel as good now as I did 2 months after surgery when just sitting around (or walking) . . .

Perhaps our performance is limited by the new valve, but I like the challenge!

Anyway, you had an excellent race! Keep us posted.
Buzz

 

[tommy]

Way to go! Besh wishes in the Tri. Enjoy!

 

[LLJ]

Russell: Good on ya mate! I hope some day to breathe the same rarified air of you sub 8 milers instead of gasping for breath up here in the 11 minute mile territory! I can't wait to hear about your tri! Full report please and Photos!
Buzz: Way to go with your new P.R. All things are new P.R.s after OHS which is kinda like being a novice runner all over again.
I think we need to go to Austrailia for a race.........
Laura

 

[Arpy]

I really believe that at high-cardiac output (while running for example), the pressure gradient across an artificial valve (especially a mechanical) is more pronounced as compared to our original valve. The higher pressure drop at elevated heart rates would require the heart to work harder for the same level of effort. At normal heart rates, the pressure gradients are probably very similar; i.e., pressure gradient goes-up/down by the blood velocity-squared. Note: If I didn't exercise at HR's above 140 - 150, I wouldn't have ever known; I feel as good now as I did 2 months after surgery when just sitting around (or walking) . . .

Perhaps our performance is limited by the new valve, but I like the challenge!
Buzz

Buzz

Thanks for the detail background on the pressure gradients. I know if I work hard on the bike I seem to recover far more easily than when I go for a reasonable run but I dont have the heart rate monitor (...yet!) to quantify the variation in workload between the two disciplines of running and cycling. Perhaps my heartrate is appreciably higher when running compared to that when Im biking accounting for the completely knackered feeling at the end of it.

I'm still in awe of you guys who do the big running distances though.

Mark, Laura et al

I'll look forward to your training diaries for the Indy race so keep posting on your progress.

regards

Russell

 

[Mary]

Russell,

Good job! Until I ran a sub-8 minute mile pace last week (7:53 for 4.1 miles), I was beginning to wonder if ANYONE could run under an 8 minute pace after AVR!

I really believe that at high-cardiac output (while running for example), the pressure gradient across an artificial valve (especially a mechanical) is more pronounced as compared to our original valve. The higher pressure drop at elevated heart rates would require the heart to work harder for the same level of effort. At normal heart rates, the pressure gradients are probably very similar; i.e., pressure gradient goes-up/down by the blood velocity-squared. Note: If I didn't exercise at HR's above 140 - 150, I wouldn't have ever known; I feel as good now as I did 2 months after surgery when just sitting around (or walking) . . .

Perhaps our performance is limited by the new valve, but I like the challenge!

Anyway, you had an excellent race! Keep us posted.
Buzz

Buzz,
Would you explain a little bit more about the pressure gradient? I don't understand why the heart has to work harder. I'm curious, because I have always been able to swim for long periods of time, but pushing for fast times always exhausted me.
I'm wondering what my future holds, since I haven't swum long enough again to detect much of a difference.

 

[BillCobit]

My time was a little more grounded but I did crack the 25 minute barrier at 24 mins and 9 secs

Consider me officially envious. Good job!

 

[Buzz Lanning]

Pressure Gradients at Elevated HR's

Pressure Gradients at Elevated HR's

Buzz,
Would you explain a little bit more about the pressure gradient? I don't understand why the heart has to work harder. I'm curious, because I have always been able to swim for long periods of time, but pushing for fast times always exhausted me.
I'm wondering what my future holds, since I haven't swum long enough again to detect much of a difference.

Mary, here's a replay I sent to another valve replacement.com member.

Sorry for the long delay in responding. I've been on a business trip for the last few weeks.

In summary, all valves have "some" resistance to fluid flow. At low flowrates, the pressure losses are fairly small. As flowrate rate and the corresponding flow velocity increases, the pressure losses (gradient) across the valve increase rapidly (i.e., pressure loss / gradient is proportional to the resistance coefficient of the valve X the velocity squared). Therefore, when we're at rest (sitting, eating dinner, sleeping), the pressure gradient across a mechanical valve / biological valve would not be significantly different than our original tissue valve. However, since the replacement valves are not as efficient as our original valve, small differences at rest translate to much bigger differences at high flowrates (i.e., high heart rates). Remember, the resistance to flow goes-up by the square of the velocity. I believe for a mechanical valve, these differences are more pronounced than with a tissue valve replacement. However, I also believe that a tissue valve replacement is still not as good as our original valve. In summary, when exercising at elevated heart rates with a artificial valve (mechanical / tissue), the heart must work harder to overcome the higher pressure gradients (of the replacement valve) . . .

Finally, based on the above write-up, I believe our performance "may" not be as good as before due to the slight differences in the workload to pump blood at higher flowrates through an artificial valve (i.e. more work is required to run / swim the same pace). For those valve replacement patients that were suffering the beginning effects of heart failure (ejection fraction < 50%), or a high-degree of blockage (stenosis), this would probably not apply.

I hope this helps!
Buzz

 

[Mary]

Thanks Buzz.
It all makes sense now, even though I don't think it explains my lack of swimming speed.
I think I'm just slow!

 

[stormrev]

pressure gradients

pressure gradients

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz Lanning

I really believe that at high-cardiac output (while running for example), the pressure gradient across an artificial valve (especially a mechanical) is more pronounced as compared to our original valve. The higher pressure drop at elevated heart rates would require the heart to work harder for the same level of effort. At normal heart rates, the pressure gradients are probably very similar; i.e., pressure gradient goes-up/down by the blood velocity-squared. Note: If I didn't exercise at HR's above 140 - 150, I wouldn't have ever known; I feel as good now as I did 2 months after surgery when just sitting around (or walking) . . .

Perhaps our performance is limited by the new valve, but I like the challenge!
Buzz


Hi Buzz et al

I'd have to agree by virtue of my own experience post surgery (AVR) that there seems to be a discernable difference in effort (i.e. cardiac output) required that cannot just be explained by increasing age or lack of fitness.
Four years ago I was able to still run a 3:35 marathon, and back then I was diagnosed with mild/moderate aortic stenosis. Now I'm 18 months post surgery and I am at least 25% slower for the same apparent amount of effort. In fact, despite exercising for an hour a day including running, walking and cycling, I have been frustrated with an inability to return to previous levels of cardiorespiratory fitness. Despite the assurances of surgeons and cardiologists about the return to 'normal' post-surgery, I too believe that there has to be some loss in efficency due to the changes in flow patterns and valve efficacy.

More sedentary pursuits and general day-to-day energy levels are certainly improved from two years ago, but as soon as I step up the effort, the 'motor' is not what it was - it's as if I've lost a couple of cylinders! I use a heart rate monitor and have tried to assess what is hapenning. One of the things I do know is that my anerobic threshold is close to what it was (relative for my age) but that it is reached at a much slower pace than previously. I.e. wheras 3-4 years ago prior to surgery, I might have been able to run at 7-7:30 mile pace and 155 bpm heart rate, now that heart rate would be achieved at 8:30 mile pace.

It would be interesting to hear if there are any longer term survivors who have found a return to an aerobic capacity enjoyed pre-surgery?

Regards

Grant

PS managed a 45.4 300m last week and 4:01 1000m at my Masters Athletics group, so am enjoying doing the shorter stuff! The pain is over more quickly than a 10k!

 

[msiwik]

Nice Summation - National Registry

Nice Summation - National Registry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz Lanning

I really believe that at high-cardiac output (while running for example), the pressure gradient across an artificial valve (especially a mechanical) is more pronounced as compared to our original valve. The higher pressure drop at elevated heart rates would require the heart to work harder for the same level of effort. At normal heart rates, the pressure gradients are probably very similar; i.e., pressure gradient goes-up/down by the blood velocity-squared. Note: If I didn't exercise at HR's above 140 - 150, I wouldn't have ever known; I feel as good now as I did 2 months after surgery when just sitting around (or walking) . . .

Perhaps our performance is limited by the new valve, but I like the challenge!
Buzz


Hi Buzz et al

I'd have to agree by virtue of my own experience post surgery (AVR) that there seems to be a discernable difference in effort (i.e. cardiac output) required that cannot just be explained by increasing age or lack of fitness.
Four years ago I was able to still run a 3:35 marathon, and back then I was diagnosed with mild/moderate aortic stenosis. Now I'm 18 months post surgery and I am at least 25% slower for the same apparent amount of effort. In fact, despite exercising for an hour a day including running, walking and cycling, I have been frustrated with an inability to return to previous levels of cardiorespiratory fitness. Despite the assurances of surgeons and cardiologists about the return to 'normal' post-surgery, I too believe that there has to be some loss in efficency due to the changes in flow patterns and valve efficacy.

More sedentary pursuits and general day-to-day energy levels are certainly improved from two years ago, but as soon as I step up the effort, the 'motor' is not what it was - it's as if I've lost a couple of cylinders! I use a heart rate monitor and have tried to assess what is hapenning. One of the things I do know is that my anerobic threshold is close to what it was (relative for my age) but that it is reached at a much slower pace than previously. I.e. wheras 3-4 years ago prior to surgery, I might have been able to run at 7-7:30 mile pace and 155 bpm heart rate, now that heart rate would be achieved at 8:30 mile pace.

It would be interesting to hear if there are any longer term survivors who have found a return to an aerobic capacity enjoyed pre-surgery?

Regards

Grant

PS managed a 45.4 300m last week and 4:01 1000m at my Masters Athletics group, so am enjoying doing the shorter stuff! The pain is over more quickly than a 10k!

Grant - thank you for writing this up. Your history makes you one of the most talented athletes to be part of this site. I think we need to stay in touch with each other for the long haul and see what happens. I have received the same assurance and at 5 months - am still amazed at how long the recovery is taking. Other athletes who have had OHS this year (2005) are reporting the same thing. One thing that I have decided to do for the next 7 months until I hit the one year mark is cut back on the amount of hard works that take me to my anerobic threshold (156 bpm). I found that these workouts took a toll on me and that I was better off with more rest in between workouts. This week, I was able to do 5 miles at 10:30 using that formula which is a marked improvement over where I started 5 weeks ago with my return to running when I could barely go a 1/2 mile at a 12:00 min. pace and not exceed 156 bpm. The one thing that I have picked up in looking at the ejection fraction literature is that sometimes, it takes 2 to 3 years to rebuild after OHS.
This week, I came across another organization, called Adult Congenital Heart Assn - based in Philly. http://www.achaheart.org/index.php While most people in this group are complex cases (I qualify as simple because only one part of my heart was operated on - aortic valve), they are on to something that needs to be done - creation of a national registry where people like us can be studied and tracked for the longterm. Until this happens, we are going to have rely on informal networking to support each other, including our athletic endeavors. Best regards.

Mark

 

[BillCobit]

Still need to do some more work to meet the demands of the 400/18/4 triathlon in late November.!!!

Russell

How did it go?