login
HR zones...AGAIN!
-
No new posts
 2005-01-29 11:46 AM |
Pro  3870      Virginia Beach, VA |  Subject: HR zones...AGAIN!Okay, so I'm trying to lay out some basics for my training using the new HRM I got for X-mas. Problem is that every place I search I get different information on both the method of calculation and definition of training zones. Let's just assume that I'm going to use HR reserve [(max-min*%) + min)]to calculate my zones and let's also not talk about various ways to determine Max HR. I know that the TTB suggests calculating zones based on LT which is where you ransition from Zones 4 to 5. I'm specifically keeping it simple to try and get a straight answer. What limits are appropriate to estimate training zones? It makes a big difference what limits I use. For example, if I am trying to stay in zones 1 & 2 for base training, the two examples I've found below give significantly different values for each zone (75% vs 64%): I. 50-70% = Long Slow II. 70-75% = Endurance III. 75-80% = Steady State IV. 80-90% = Tempo/Threshold V. 90-95% = Interval VI. 95-100% = Sprint/Power OR I - 40-52% II - 52-64% - Easy III - 64-76% - Aerobic IV - 76-88% - AT V - 88-100% - VO2 Max I've often seen 70% thrown around as the LSD limit...which implies it is the zone 2 limit. EDIT - Here's another set of limits.. In Sally Edwards books she uses: zone 1: 50-60% of max HR also called Healthy Heart zone 2: 60-70% of max HR temperate zone 3: 70-80% of max HR aerobic zone 4: 80-90% of max HR threshold (changing to anaerobic) zone 5: 90-100% of max HR redline Edited by TH3_FRB 2005-01-29 11:51 AM |
| 2005-01-29 12:23 PM in reply to: #110031 |
Elite 3498 Chicago | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Wow, those really are all over the board. The first two examples you give, I suspect they are not using the same "calculation based" number to apply the percentages. If you use your LT to apply trng zones percentages to, then your percentages will obviously be different than if you use your Max HR and apply trng zones percentages. I think the key is determining what your "zones" are without the LT Analyzer protocol, would be to simply find what "calculation" you feel is most accurate (as you know there are many schools of thought on this) apply what percentages they recommend and try out those zones for a month or two and see how they work for you. Obviously I've had excellent success with using LT as the basis of my trng zones so I stick to (and consequently believe in) this methodology. However, you may find that another extrapolation methodology of HR trng zones works well for you. There is no substitute for experience...that's something I think everyone can agree on! Edited by Steve- 2005-01-29 12:24 PM |
| 2005-01-29 12:29 PM in reply to: #110031 |
Extreme Veteran 439 Germantown, MD | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Before I did a LT estimation test, I used the 180-age for your aerobic limit, think that is the Maffetone (sp?) method. You tweak it up or down depending on your fitness (i.e. couch potato -5, super stud +5). In my case, I'm 26 and in average shape, so I used 154. I then took that number and used the run charts in TTTB, with 154 as the upper Zone 2 limit, to determine my zones. For bike zones, I did 180-age-10 (i.e 144) as my upper Zone 2 limit. It seemed like a pretty good start. As a comparison, I did a 30 min LT TT on the bike to estimate my LT. From what I got from that, my bike upper zone 2 limit is 153, versus the 144 you calculate with the above formula. |
| 2005-01-29 12:56 PM in reply to: #110031 |
| Regular 66 Huntsville, AL | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Joel, I feel you pain! Steve is right on about how you calculate you HR and what zone you use. And as everything else with triathletes and life, there is no substitute for experience. If I can give my $0.02 and keeping it simple (yeah, right), here is what I use: I've found that the Karvonen Formula works the best for me, and since I don't want to spend the $$ to find my LT in a lab, I've estimated my Max HR (MHR) with the formula: 220-my age. Next, I've determined my Resting HR (RHR), by taking the average of my HR for 3 consecutive mornings and dividing by 3. (RHR = morning#1+morning#2+morning#3 divided by 3) You stated the Karvonen formula in your thread, so I assume you already know this. The zones that work best for me, with the Karvonen formula are as follows: [(MHR-RHR)] * %] + RHR = HR target zone 60-75% - long, slow distance (LSD) & recovery training 78-82% - steady state/tempo training (target for 1 hour run or ride, and typical IM type races) 85-90% - Interval training (this target is close to anaerobic threshold or AT) 91-95% - 5-10K Race pace/ Red lining (only 6-8% of training in each discipline in this zone) Of course to add to the abundance of info on this subject, you also have to consider environment temperature, your hydration, clothing,etc. I experienced this during my 1 hour run this Thurs. (check my log). My zone for this run was set at 162-167 (78-82%), but I avg'd 158. This pace seemed slow, but in reality this was my fastest pace of my build phase training. I was a little weireded out, but temp was 38F, and I wore shorts, a Hind running top, and gloves. No thermal underwear or anything on my head. I think a combo of these things kept my HR down...either that or I'm making gains or my intensity wasn't where it should've been (but this was my fastest pace yet?!) There is a great article in this month's issue of Triathlete (pg. 79) about this HR thing that may make what I've just wrote a lot more clear. I hope this dosen't muck it up more  Good luck! Aaron |
| 2005-01-29 1:28 PM in reply to: #110031 |
| Member 24 | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Wow. I have a new heart monitor that I got for christmas, and now I realize I have no idea how to use it. Anyone got links? I need to learn more about calculating zones and what each one is good for. But it looks like there are multiple calculation methods as well as multiple zone breakdowns? Yeech. |
| 2005-01-29 1:51 PM in reply to: #110031 |
Pro 3870 Virginia Beach, VA | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! I appreciate all the input. Obviously, the method you use impacts the limits of each zone. At this point I'm just trying to determine a reasonable limit for my base training...sounds like I should be staying under 70-75% (adjusted for RHR). That should get me started...I had been doing my 90+min trainer rides trying to stay under 140BPM (completely guessing on that limit). The highest I've ever been on my trainer is 176 during a Spinnervals session but I wasn't trying to max out...just survive Total Timetrial Next week I'll probably do it again and go all out. I hit 186 in the pool but hadn't planned to max out...I just decided 300m in to pick it up each lap till I couldn't go any harder. At 500m I was spent. I might be able to squeeze out another 1-2 BMP but I think that is a decent estimate for the pool. I'm not running currently so that will have to wait for another couple weeks. The personal fitness test in my Polar s520 estimated my max HR at 189. the 220-age gives me 190. Tops on my list for next year is a clinical measure of LT and all the associated parameters. I hate estimating something that can be measured relatively easily. |
| 2005-01-29 2:33 PM in reply to: #110031 |
Extreme Veteran 439 Germantown, MD | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! If you don't want to spend $ on LT test (yes Steve I know it's relatively cheap, at least by you!), try this: http://www.byrn.org/gtips/LTdeterm.htm Although not as accurate as a lab test, it will certainly be better in determining your zones than some formula based on age. Edited by JGFTri 2005-01-29 2:33 PM |
| 2005-01-30 5:24 AM in reply to: #110031 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Here is the link to my take on all this - test yourself - get your LT figured out and then use the tb % - they work. http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/heartrate.html And there are more articles on HR guidelines as well: http://www.d3multisport.com/articles.html I hope this helps and if you have any questions feel free to ask. Mike |
| 2005-01-30 12:47 PM in reply to: #110031 |
Pro 3870 Virginia Beach, VA | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Thanks Mike. You've got an error on that page under the Karvonen Formula where 182-40 = 148. For the time I've decided to use the Karvonen method and have defined the following zones for myself: <60% = Easy 60-72% = LSD/Base 72-85% = Steady State/Aerobic 85-92% = Interval/Threshold 92-100% = Max I'll be pushing myself on the bike trainer next week to establish my max. I'll need a few weeks to get back into running before I push myself for a running max. I'm also going to pick up the TTB and will look into estimating my LT and see how that compares. |
| 2005-01-30 5:49 PM in reply to: #110316 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Thanks for the heads up on the error. I don't advise using a Max - I don't see the logic behind it. |
| 2005-01-30 6:23 PM in reply to: #110031 |
Veteran 180 Hawkins | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! I am thoroughly confused now. if I trained by the formulas proposed here, I'd be basically standing still! For a start, my RHR is pretty high--about 66. Walking out the door to go work out, it's in the 90s. Today, running at a pace where I can speak (the recommended pace) my heart rate is 171-174 for the first 2 miles, 175-181 for the next two, spiking to 193 occasionally (which I've only seen once before when I was cycling a humongous hill). I work out 5 days a week and I'm 41. |
| 2005-01-30 6:36 PM in reply to: #110398 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Sorry - don't mean to be confusing. It's just my opinion and others will disagree but using MAX HR in a sport where we never approach it just doesn't make sense. Basing your HR numbers from an LT Field Test or an LT Lab Test makes more sense. Go out and run as has as you can for 30' - this is pretty darn close to your LT - subtract about 25-30 bpm is this is the top end of your aerobic zone. If you can run in this zone for 2 hours you are pretty fit. It's not all that complicated. Sometimes it just seems that way. :-) |
| 2005-01-30 7:14 PM in reply to: #110400 |
| 1 | Subject: All American?? Mike- I don't want this pirate this post and turn this into a 'flame', but noticed you include a list of your 'resume' on every post. I was curious as I like to see who we're getting our advice from as there's tons of b.s. all over the tri forums. Everything I've read from you is solid, but I'd like to point out that although you are a very well respected coach and obviously know your stuff, I don't know if I'd go around titling posts with ALL AMERICAN?? Don't get me wrong, I wish I was ranked high enough to even crack the top 500, but if I were unranked this year and barely making honorable mention in 03 (250 something?), I'd hardly go around calling myself an All American let alone include it in all my posts. Call yourself a great coach, mention your certs...great, but AA, come on??? |
| 2005-01-30 7:23 PM in reply to: #110388 |
Pro 3870 Virginia Beach, VA | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! I don't intend to train in the "Max" zone. I just included it for completeness of the range. All I'm really concerned with for the next few months is the LSD zone anyway. mikericci - 2005-01-30 5:49 PM Thanks for the heads up on the error. I don't advise using a Max - I don't see the logic behind it. |
| 2005-01-30 11:26 PM in reply to: #110410 |
Extreme Veteran 393 Tokyo, Japan | Subject: RE: All American?? UtahVet - 2005-01-31 9:14 AM Mike- I don't want this pirate this post and turn this into a 'flame', but noticed you include a list of your 'resume' on every post. I was curious as I like to see who we're getting our advice from as there's tons of b.s. all over the tri forums. Everything I've read from you is solid, but I'd like to point out that although you are a very well respected coach and obviously know your stuff, I don't know if I'd go around titling posts with ALL AMERICAN?? Don't get me wrong, I wish I was ranked high enough to even crack the top 500, but if I were unranked this year and barely making honorable mention in 03 (250 something?), I'd hardly go around calling myself an All American let alone include it in all my posts. Call yourself a great coach, mention your certs...great, but AA, come on??? Let me answer this one for you Mike, not that STUPID comments like this really warrant a reply, but it got my blood boiling!! Firstly Jason, who are you to talk about Mike's achievments?? What have you done that's worth us hearing about?? Nothing I imagine. A quick English lesson. Resume is a French word meaning "summary". In English we use it to describe our "job summary". It describes jobs (in the case achievments) from the present and the PAST! Therefore, wether Mike is an All American at the moment or not isn't the question. Was, or has he been an All American?? Yes!! Oh, and exactly what place he was on the list doesn't really matter either. Did he make the list...yes!! Did you...no!! Perhaps you should spend more time worrying about what you have achieved in life and less time worrying about what others have. Also if you're going to make comments like this, particularly on your first post, then you might want to think about exactly who you're talking to. This is a friendly site, let's keep it that way!! |
| 2005-01-31 9:36 AM in reply to: #110480 |
Elite 3498 Chicago | Subject: RE: All American?? I concur with Mike. Using Max HR to establish trng zone is crazy. The main reason is because you're max hr doesn't change that much with training but your LTHR does so if you continually use your max hr to determing your zones, you'd be training in the wrong zones as you become more fit. The only exception is if you incorporate your RHR into the calculation using your max HR...but this is still not as accurate as a LT test either blood test protocol or TT protocal. |
| 2005-01-31 10:33 AM in reply to: #110552 |
Pro 3870 Virginia Beach, VA | Subject: Back to my original question I appreciate all the input. But this has unfortumately gone the direction I was trying to avoid. I didn't want it to be a debate about what method to use...I know there are several and they all give different answers. And I understand why LTHR is probably a mre logical method for determining training ranges for the long-term..as your LT changes, so do your zones. But all I wanted to do is figure out what the upper limit of my base training should be for the next couple months. The reason I decided on the Karvonen because it adjusts for RHR which seems like a logical step. I prefer to test my max HR rather than use one of the generic formulas to estimate it. Yes, I know it's going to hurt but I also know it will be accurate. All I really wanted to know is what range should be used for Zone 2...65%, 70%, 75%? I picked 72% as the upper limit...just because there doesn't seem to be any agreement...although it probably depends on what method you use to calculate. This isn't a long-term solution for me, I just needed something to get started. Thanks again- Joel Steve- - 2005-01-31 9:36 AM I concur with Mike. Using Max HR to establish trng zone is crazy. The main reason is because you're max hr doesn't change that much with training but your LTHR does so if you continually use your max hr to determing your zones, you'd be training in the wrong zones as you become more fit. The only exception is if you incorporate your RHR into the calculation using your max HR...but this is still not as accurate as a LT test either blood test protocol or TT protocal. |
| 2005-01-31 10:52 AM in reply to: #110031 |
Extreme Veteran 311 Tinton Falls, NJ | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Mike, Let me answer this in 30 seconds or less :o) When you're having to determine THRZ's, especially for base, err on the side of keeping things low. You'll rarely take steps backwards by training at a HR on the lower end, but if you're getting into 'no man's land' at the zone above AeT, but below AT, your gains will be minimal. Brian Shea www.PersonalBestNutrition.com |
| 2005-02-02 1:04 AM in reply to: #110031 |
| Regular 182 | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! good question...... 2 things I do know about using a HR monitor are 1, it is just a tool and not the be all and end all of training, some days your figures will be way off....remember to keep an eye on your perceived exertion too! 2, Lactate Threshold testing is very valuable to guage where your base training should be. In your shoes I would get a lactate test done after a few weeks of very easy training (no more than 65% of HHR) and base your zones from that and get a re test about every 12 weeks and adjust from there........and read this link however long and boring it appears it explains very well exactly what you will achieve with training to improve your lactate threshold. http://www.ffh.us/cn/hadd.htm this coach deals with elite runners but the same principles apply and since adopting this way of training I'm making bigger gains and I'm not as tired. thanks Kevin |
| 2005-02-02 8:53 AM in reply to: #110031 |
Pro 3870 Virginia Beach, VA | Subject: RE: HR zones...AGAIN! Thanks Kevin- I just printed it and will read through on the plane to MARDI GRAS tomorrow! |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK