HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! (Page 15)

Do the 30' test.

http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/training/create-hrzones.asp

Select run or bike and plug in LT.

I don't see the purpose of your point, can you please explain? Thanks.

Do you have any scientific data to back up your statements? Maybe a study you have read or something?

I remember when I was 23, my max HR was around 205. So that math tells me 220-age didn't work for me. I would consider myself an average person in the general healthy population.

Obviously it's important to know your MHR and like I said the Karvonen Method as it's called (220-AGE= "estimated MHR" is accurate. The only way to know your "true" MHR is to have a VO2 Max test. But we do know the Karvonen method can be used. It may vary like in your case. For people who can't do maximal test than the Karvonen method is absolutely ok.

How about if I am dehydrated and I do a Max VO2 test? What about if I drink a gallon of coffee before the VO2 Test? Will my results still be accurate?

I do like the Karvonen Method to a degree. Its the max HR I don't agree with. To me its too arbitrary, and doing an LT test yields far greater results in my experience (20+ years of coaching endurance athletes).

To each his own and that's fine. For Beginners, like those who are on this website, looking to get into shape after years of inactivity, I wouldn't recommend that they do a max HR test- you might have a few liability cases on your hands if anyone dropped. ;-)

Using an Aerobic or LT test is a much safer bet in my experience.

I disagree, 1 deviation is still a lot of range, 2 deviations forget it. I don't know my "official" MHR but have done plenty of HR training leading up to a HIM using the LT tests. My unofficial MHR measured during a 5k PR run in 06 was 198, 220-41 (at the time) says 179 theoretical MHR. Basing training zones on that number would have lead to under training. My run LT at the time was 175. Measured LT will change for a beginner as they gradually get in better shape, the Max HR number will not. I see no sense knowing the MHR number when the variability of a changing LT, and resultant training zones, can be found out using a "easier" method. Maybe for beginners fresh off the couch with several years of inactivity using an age adjusted method is acceptable, but as soon as one has developed the fitness to do an LT test they would be better off.

Now that you throw that in there I agree LT testing is more important bc a person with a good running economy can win a race with a person with just a high VO2 Max.

 (EX: a person can keep a low (30ml/kg/min) VO2 (not max) running at 7mph compared to someone who is running at higher (35 ml/kg/min)  V02. ) The first person is running at an effort that is less than the second person. Even if the second person may have a higher VO2 Max.)

Ok I'm off

Now that you throw that in there I agree LT testing is more important bc a person with a good running economy can win a race with a person with just a high VO2 Max.

 (EX: a person can keep a low (30ml/kg/min) VO2 (not max) running at 7mph compared to someone who is running at higher (35 ml/kg/min)  V02. ) The first person is running at an effort that is less than the second person. Even if the second person may have a higher VO2 Max.)

Ok I'm off

Well said. I honestly wouldn't use age adjusted in any case. Your other points are spot on.

Mike,

 I've been training 6 days a week for the last 4 weeks using a HR monitor and PRE to gauge my workout time in each zone.  My goal was to be doing all most all of my running and biking in zone 1-2 mostly zone 1.  Unfortunately I was using the 220 -age method (and PRE) to determine the zones w/ 179 mhr giving me a zone 1 of 118-152.   OK, so in the last 7 days I put in 3hrs w/ avg HR of 144 and biked 5.5hrs w/ avg HR of 140.  I'm defintately thinking this averages are too high and I for sure had some spikes that were way too high.

OK, so here is my dilemma; I'm pretty weak on the run and can't really do a 30' TT per se.  I can do 30' but it's usually pretty slow.  I did a 10min slow warm up followed by a 10min pace run going pretty much as fast as I could for that time period.  I definately started out faster, slowed a little and finnished a little faster.  I couldn't really go any more at that point so a did a cool down.  My question is can I use this test to give me a baseline LT or not?  I started at 155bpm went up to 170's pretty fast and finnished w/ an avg of 170 max of 174.  So can I use 170 for my LT or should I try to do the test again and just do whatever pace I can keep up for 20 min which will be a medium jog I think.  Thanks!!!

Try this test instead:

After Warm UP:
Run 4' on a track or flat path - at a hard effort, not all out. Look at your ending HR. Rest 1'. Try to run a little faster on the next 4' rep, take a look at the HR at the end, rest another minute, and do this 2 more times. Your last 4' effort should be a pretty hard effort. If you can do this on a track you could measure how far you are going for each 4' effort. See what the average HR is for the last 4' effort. I would guess that would be close to your LT.

The other test you do is this:
After warm up, run 2-3 miles at a conversational pace on a track and see what the pace is for the 2-3 miles. Also, what is your AVG HR? I would add about 20 beats to that and that would be close to your LT as well.

I hope that helps.

Mike,

Thanks for the advice on how to perform this alternative to the 30' TT for checking my LT.  I ran the test the way you suggested.  Here are the results of the 4 min runs w/ 1 min RI.

Lap      Ending HR   Avg HR     Dist

1             167            159        .46

2             170            162        .45

3             172            165        .43

So based on this test my LT is 172?  That's pretty close to what I came up with on the doing the 10' TT.  So, when should I try this test again to see if it was accurate and or if I am improving?  Thanks!!!

I'd be conservative and go with 165. That way if you are wrong, you are wrong on the side of being too easy.

What I would do is try 3-4 runs a week of varying time:
2x20', 1x45', and maybe one of an hour if you can handle it.

Try to run the middle portion of these runs at 140-145 HR and see how hard that is for a week or even two. Let me know how that goes ok?
Does that seem remotely possible to do that?

I can do that.  What HR should I try to stay at the rest of the time?  I've been trying about 125-130.  I am also cycling 3-4/week for at least 1 hour with a 2+ hour ride mixed in as well.  So, I gathered you subtract 10-15bpm for cycling right?  I've been trying to stay around 125-135bpm for the majority with some spikes in 145 range.  Does that sound like a good mix?  I can't swim for a few more weeks due to sinus surgery.  Thanks again for the advice!!!

Anything under 140. Using 10-15 bpm less on the bike is good as well. So anything under 130 on the bike is easy enough and 130-140 should be a good baseline to start with for Z2 rides. Spikes are fine as long as you aren't spiking the HR too often.

Good luck!

I still don't get it.

I tried starting a new thread and no one really tried to explain LT but referred me to this link.  I now remember reading this thread months ago ... and it is this very thread that got me so confused that I don't know if my HR is coming or going.

From the very first post from the OP, I get lost.  So, I'd like to start from there.  There must be some common knowledge that is assumed by everyone, but I don't have any of that common knowledge.

Here goes:

You say that after the 30 min TT starts, hit the Lap button after 10 mins, so you can get your avg HR over the last 20 mins.  Does that avg HR over the last 20 mins ever get used?

The next paragraph below you state "Johnny has an avg HR of 156 for the 30 TT.  Did you mean to say he had 156 avg HR for the last 20 mins of the TT, or do you indeed mean for the whole 30 minutes TT?

The next paragraph you mention the Training Bible zones ... I don't know what those are, and what calculations are you using?  You say using the LT and Training Bible zones ... does LT mean the avg HR of the last 20 mins of the TT (you never gave what that was in your example, so I can't even do algebra to figure out what that 20 min avg HR would be), or are you using 156 bpm as the LT ... if so is the LT really the avg HR for the entire 30 mins?  Or did you mean all along that the 156 bpm avg is the avg over the last 20 mins of the 30 mn TT and that the LT is the last 20 mins and that the LT is 156 bpm?

IF so .... that I tried some math and for HR Zone 1, I calculate that 102 - 125 is about 65% to 80%.  Is this HR Zone 1 ..... 65% - 80% ???

Also, this 156 bpm, if this is LT ... is LT supposed to be like the Max Rate one should ever train or exert themselves at?  Is the LT equivalent to the Max Heart Rate of the old method (220-Age) ??

If 156 is LT, and this is really taken from the last 20 mins of the TT, then I see:

HR Zone 1 as 102 - 125 .... or 65% - 80% of 156 ....

... but then you jump to HR Zone 2 as 136 - 139 ... what happened to 126 thru 135 ??? Did you mean for HR Zone 2 to be 126 - 129 ....??  If so ... then the other numbers need to be re-worked as well .... and without knowing if these bpm numbers are correct or not .... I can't figure out what the percentages are supposed to be ....

So, can you please post what the percentages should be for each HR Zone, such as:

HR Zone 1 = 65% - 80%

HR Zone 2 = 80% - xx% .....

..etc ...

And finally, once you can post a re-vised chart ... what exactly are we supposed to be training at ???? HR Zone 2, or 4 or 5a .... I don't see an answer to that ...

I don't mean this to sound un-appreciative or impolite .... I'm just frustrated because I've been trying to figure this out for a while and just don't get it.

Thanks!!!

Mike,

And to continue from my above post, I am also looking to run an Oly next Spring.  I've done  sprints, one Sept 14th 2008 and one on Oct 18th, 2008. 

I currently run 4.25 about 3 times a week, avg 50 to 54 mins or 11:50 to 12:30 min/mile pace (I think ...)

Then the past week or two I'll do an additional 2 to 3 mile easy run after the first 4.25 mile run, and I did a 5.5 mile run after the 2nd 4.25 mile run, then a day off and then did a 7 mile run.  Did 7 miles the first time in 83 mins (a sub 12 min/mile pace), but today took 88 mins which is 12:34 min/mile pace.

So, should I instead be running 8 mins, walk 2 ... vs. running the whole distance?  If I can run the whole 7 miles, should I increase it and add that 8 min run/2 min walk at the end? .//// for ex, should I run my 7 miles, then run 8 min / walk 2 mins .... or do the 8 / 2 until I've completed miles 8 thru 10?

Short term I want to be able to run a consistent 10 miles and then do some 10k races, and that should get me ready for an Olympic distance Tri next Spring I hope.

Thanks for any help and advice.

Also, I guess to keep my HR in Zone 2? .... I just need to figure what my LT is and if I can find out the percetages of LT that falls into each Zone, then I should know what bpm to run at ... (see above post by me...)

Again, thanks...

You're making this way too complicated.

Your average HR for the last 20 minutes is your lactate threshold (LT).  Ignore max HR as it has nothing to do with much of anything and isn't used for calculate anything.  Everything is based off percentages of LT.

The percentages can be found by either going to the appropriate section of The Triathlete's Training Bible by Joe Friel or simple go to this link here on BT and enter your LT.  It will calculate your zones for you.

http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/training/hrzones.asp

You won't find what zones you're supposed to train in in these discussions because that is up to your own training plan.  In general, most plans have you doing the majority of your work in zone 2 with a little bit of higher zone work mixed in at times.  Again, that's up to your goals, races planned, and training plan.

So in summary.

1.  Do time trial and find average HR for last 20 minutes.  This is LT.

2.  Plug LT into calculator to find zones.

3.  Ignore max HR.

OOOoooooHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh .....

Thanks!  That does seem simple enough.  It's not that I was trying to make it complicated, it's just that it seemed so complicated because I was unable to follow the example given in the original post.  Seems like the numbers jumped around and skipped the 126-135 range .... the OPmentioned avg HR of 156 for the 30 min TT vs. the avg of the last 20 minutes, etc .... and when mentioned about Training Bible I didn't realize it was talking about a book.  Thanks for giving me the full title and Author of the book. 

But now I do see now that it is pretty simple.  This will be my goal, some time this week or possibly this coming Saturday, I will do the timed test to find my LT, then I'll simply use that LT calculator you posted a link to.

Thanks a million for the clarification, I really do appreciate it!  And thanks to Mike Ricci for posting the LT information to begin with!!

..

 ...

ok, i performed a treadmill LT test a little over a week ago and came up with my zones.

my z2 is 142-151. that just seems so darn slow. i understand the benefits of running at this level (optimal fat burn, build endurance safely, aids in recovery, etc), but it just feels so darn slow...

will doing longer workouts in z3 benefit me at the same level as z2, or should i just slow down, keep in that zone, and continue to build base. 

those zones should steadily move up over time, no?

Thanks!