training with HR
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2016-04-15 9:03 AM |
304 | Subject: training with HR Can someone point me to the basics on getting going with HR training? 180 - 41 =139 AB 220- 41 = 179 max HR how do I determine proper Thresholds and zones? I'm a little lost on this part. if it helps, I am using 920xt with HRM-Tri to monitor. |
|
2016-04-15 10:00 AM in reply to: dworth |
409 Durham, North Carolina | Subject: RE: training with HR I don't have the time to find links right now, but just google calculators and read about them (ie. running heart rate zone test and calculator and then same thing for bike). I don't recommend the age calculation personally. |
2016-04-15 11:52 AM in reply to: dworth |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: training with HR Originally posted by dworth Can someone point me to the basics on getting going with HR training? 180 - 41 =139 AB 220- 41 = 179 max HR how do I determine proper Thresholds and zones? I'm a little lost on this part. if it helps, I am using 920xt with HRM-Tri to monitor. Take a read of this BT article on field testing for the LTHR method of finding a threshold. Your training log shows you should be able to do these tests, its a great start for HR training.BT has HR zone calculators that offers the HR zone calculations based on several of the methods out there, it 's kind of hidden: Go to upper right and lick you user name (Hello, 'user name'), then 'Settings'. Form there go to the left side and click on 'Training log settings', then 'HR zone manager'. If you want a spreadsheet for the LTHR zone calc, Coach Mike has it available here.
|
2016-04-15 12:10 PM in reply to: dworth |
Pro 5892 , New Hampshire | Subject: RE: training with HR 220-age is darn near useless... For me that would be 220-42=178 HRmax, but my max HR is 192... if I used the formula, I won't be working nearly as hard as I could (and should). |
2016-04-15 12:32 PM in reply to: audiojan |
Expert 4627 Middle River, Maryland | Subject: RE: training with HR Originally posted by audiojan 220-age is darn near useless... For me that would be 220-42=178 HRmax, but my max HR is 192... if I used the formula, I won't be working nearly as hard as I could (and should). Agreed, and I'm the opposite 220-47 = 173. I've never seen my HR above 162, so if I followed that formula I'd probably be dead. |
2016-04-15 1:00 PM in reply to: dworth |
370 , North Carolina | Subject: RE: training with HR Depending on how well you have been training in the past you might not be ready for a lactate threshold test. I know when I started running back this year I was in no shape to run 30 mins. I've just now (3months) getting to the point where I feel like I could do a 30min lactate threshold test. While the formulas do not apply to everyone they are generally correct. I would recommend you take a look at maffetone and see where his formula puts you. I see the 180-41 and the 139. I'm 33 and did the same an had to subtract 5 to put me at 142. I've done all of my running at this pace and I've really seen some great gains and have stayed injury free. I will say though that if you are already pretty heavy in to your training and have a solid base then you will need to do a lactate threshold test. Then you will find your zones based on that number. Generally you will find that most recommend you will spend 80% of your time in Zone 2 and then 20% of your time is Zone 4/5. There is tons of research out there and lots of different way people use HR for training. Not always the best metric for training but it is a good one. |
|
2016-04-15 1:27 PM in reply to: jmhpsu93 |
Subject: RE: training with HR Originally posted by jmhpsu93 Originally posted by audiojan 220-age is darn near useless... For me that would be 220-42=178 HRmax, but my max HR is 192... if I used the formula, I won't be working nearly as hard as I could (and should). Agreed, and I'm the opposite 220-47 = 173. I've never seen my HR above 162, so if I followed that formula I'd probably be dead. Or maybe you're not working as hard as you could (and should). |
2016-04-15 2:52 PM in reply to: Jason N |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: training with HR Originally posted by Jason N LOL!Originally posted by jmhpsu93 Originally posted by audiojan 220-age is darn near useless... For me that would be 220-42=178 HRmax, but my max HR is 192... if I used the formula, I won't be working nearly as hard as I could (and should). Agreed, and I'm the opposite 220-47 = 173. I've never seen my HR above 162, so if I followed that formula I'd probably be dead. Or maybe you're not working as hard as you could (and should). |
2016-04-15 3:07 PM in reply to: Jason N |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: training with HR Originally posted by Jason N Originally posted by jmhpsu93 Originally posted by audiojan 220-age is darn near useless... For me that would be 220-42=178 HRmax, but my max HR is 192... if I used the formula, I won't be working nearly as hard as I could (and should). Agreed, and I'm the opposite 220-47 = 173. I've never seen my HR above 162, so if I followed that formula I'd probably be dead. Or maybe you're not working as hard as you could (and should). Yep! Time to step your game up! PR or ER! |
Training without HR Pages: 1 2 | |||
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|