Lactate Threshold

that depends on a world of factors.

You max HR
Your age
Was this a running LT
Did you do the test right?

And a bunch other stuff i am sure people will follow up behind me with

My LT can beat your LT's @ss....

I am just saying

As mentioned above it's a very individual thing with lots of variables.  I had mine measured on my bike last year using a Computrainer.  Mine is "only" 157 bpm, but then again I'm 53 years old and had not done a lot of endurance training until about three years ago. 

At the same time, my resting heart rate is in the low 40's.  Pretty low, but probably more reflective of genetics than physical conditioning.

Mark

the "perfect" athlete would have their LT = their Max HR.

so, in theory, the higher your LT (if tested accurately) the better for obvious reasons.  however, the caveat to this "theory" is that if you have a high LT (tested accurately) that is very close to your max HR the only room for performance improvement then is through efficiancy...which is generally more difficult and has smaller performance gains.

Max HR is more or less useless.  Your heart is capable of beating way faster than you could ever push it through physical activity.  The more appropriate reference for LT is against your VO2max.  An average person may have an LT that is 50-60% of their VO2max HR while an elite athlete may have their LT pushed up to 80%+ of their VO2max.  Think of VO2max as a measure of your potential.  Both VO2max and LT can be trained.

To the OP, your LT is higher than the "average" but that certainly doesn't mean it's "wrong".  There are poeple oput there who can push their HR well over 200 and I would suspect you are one of them.  If you followed the testing protocol (30min TT taking the HRavg of the last 20min) then I'd say your result is reasonably accurate.  I'd suggest working out your training zones and then go for a Z2 run...it should feel relatively easy and your breathing should be completely under control.  You should feel like you could go for hours at Z2.  This should give you a reality check for your new LT number. 

You sure about those numbers? Are you defining an average person as someone who is physically inactive and would have a very low LT? or an average age group athlete?

My LT is ~166. If this is 50-60% of my VO2max HR, it would equate to 332-277 bpm. If an elite athlete had the same LTHR, it would correspond to a VO2max HR of 208, which is about 30 beats higher than I've ever seen (or would care to). 

I would also offer one other caveat. If the OP has been training mostly in Z1, lower Z2 should feel relatively easy, but upper Z2 will probably feel difficult until there has been some time to acclimate to the new zones. At least that was my experience.  

Start by doing the field test for LTHR (30-minute TT, record average HR over the last 20 minutes) on bike and run, from that determine your training zones, and use that information in your training. Then, if you decide to get more serious, spring for the testing.

I disagree (surprise, surprise right?)

well, my LTHR is 94% of my V02 max and I am WAY below an elite athlete....trust me. A 12:44 Ironman time is at a minimum 2 hours slower than an elite. Additionally my V02 max is 63...again, something people would look at on the surface and say "elite" but I'm no way NEAR elite.

Furthermore, if your heart is capable of beating way faster than you could ever push it through physical activity then that's not the max HR I'm referring to because that max HR is meaningless since you can never reach it.

The max HR you can physically push your heart to is the max HR I am referring to (and I suspect others in the athletic community too) as this is the only one that makes any difference.

By way of illustration, we only use a small percentage of our brains and even Mensa members only utilize a SMALL fraction also and they are considered the geniuses. But we don't compare mensa members or IQ numbers based on the total capacity of our brains because our brains are much more capable of thinking and doing more than we could ever "push it through activity" but we are not capable of using our brains to their full capacity (at least not at this evolutionary stage).

Likewise, we never would compare our max HR to the max HR our hearts are physically capable of, but rather we compare it to the max HR we can physically push it to.

So this is why I don't believe max HR is more or less useless and an example of how LTHR as a % of V02 max is also more or less useless.

In general, your max HR is VERY difficult/if not impossible to train (aka increase) and is the reason I suggest that it's a better "benchmark" to use in LTHR comparisons since you can train V02 max...although to a much lesser degree than LTHR (obviously).  Using this idea coupled with my empirical evidence of my own LTHR and V02 max numbers above coupled with the fact that max HR can't be "trained" and V02 max can.

Anyway, this is just what I've experienced and it's not based on books I've read but simply based on what I know/learned through empirical evidence via my progression in triathlon over the past 10 years.

FWIW.

I'm sticking to my guns here.  Explain to me what your max HR tells you about fitness or potential?  It isn't something that is a result of exercise, it just is.  For some poeple it's 180 for others it's 210 and we couldn't say squat about the athletic potential or fitness of either one.  All that matters is how much oxygen their body can process and how efficiently their muscles can utilize it.  Tell me your VO2max and I at least have an idea of your potential.  Add to that your LTHR and HR at VO2max and I've got some very useful data to work with.  Does the highest VO2max always win, no.  Economy and efficiency play an important role here.

For that you need to do a test on a treadmill or ergometer (stationary bike) where they monitor your HR as well as ventilatory gases.  You have a mask over your face that accurately measures the incoming and outgoing gasses for both volume and O2/CO2 concentration.  The test is graded...meaning that you gradually increase your effort in stages up to the point where you are maxed out.  Depending on your level of fitness you may or may not be able to achieve VO2max.  In this case your body tires before you max out your muscles capacity to process oxygen and the number measures is called VO2 peak as opposed to max.  A VO2max test typically costs $100-150 for each bike and run and will also give you LT and a few other potentially useful values.

What's your HR max? Whether 182 is good or not depends more on the % of HR max the the actual number. Comparing between individuals is interesting but not very illuminating!

BTW - my LT is 163 on a HR max of 177 - ie LT is 92% of HR max

Hey....I love this stuff!   

I agree that max HR by itself is more or less useless. 

While max HR by itself doesn't necessarily predict/indicate someone's fitness or potential, their LTHR as a % of their max HR provides a better indication of room for improvement since both V02 max and LTHR are trainable (aka moveable) figures.

I agree that LTHR as a percentage of V02 max does indicate someone's fitness as does V02 max in and of itself.  However, it doesn't, indicate how much MORE fit they can become since both figures are trainable.  That is why I'm suggesting using max HR is better than V02 max as you can only physically push your HR to X bpm at any given age (i.e. max HR is unchangeable/untrainable at a given age)

If someone has a LTHR at 80% of their V02 max and their V02 max is 51 those figures may indicate they can increase both numbers to gain performance.  Unfortunately, since both measures are trainable (i.e. they can/may fluctuate...albeit V02 max much less than LTHR) athletic potentiality interpolated from V02 max is less indicative/consistant than max HR.

Let my use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate my point.

If an athlete has their LTHR at 100% of their max HR, they have reached their LTHR max...period...no questions asked.  However, if an athlete has their LTHR at 100% of their V02 max, they can still "train" their V02 max to increase (again, I concede to a much lesser extent that LTHR) so consequently V02 max is a less usefull than max HR.

Your HR at V02 max to equal your LTHR to equal your max HR is the best possible situation for an athlete and that was the point I was attempting to make in my last post by referencing max HR rather than V02 max.