HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! (Page 16)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2009-01-06 9:57 AM in reply to: #237705 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! |
|
2009-01-06 9:59 AM in reply to: #237705 |
Master 1240 Knightdale/Raleigh | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! You'd have to compare zone 2 to zone 2, not HR ranges. For me that range would be zone 3, so not slow. But I do feel slow when I am in my zone 2. |
2009-01-06 11:10 AM in reply to: #1889110 |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! tri_d00d - 2009-01-06 10:52 AM 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! What did those 20 minutes feel like to you, was it hard, were you spent afterward? Were the 10 minutes before hand a WU or was it hard effort just below the effort you did in the 20 minutes? The 10 minutes period is not a warm up per se, it should also be at a moderate-hard effort, you then lap/avg the last 20 minutes. If you didn't follow the run LT protocol as described with a WU period then the 30min TT split into two with 10 min then 20 min periods then you may have an underestimated LT. I never did a run LT on a dreadmill so I can't say what the differences are vs outside. Retest if you feel like you should, and probably outside if more of your training is done so. [Edit, just checked you logs and see that you described the 10 min period as WU with a 8m/mi pace and the 20 min period at 6:39m/mi pace. Sounds like too much disparity per the protocol and you underestimated the LT this way] Also I found whenever I run on a dreadmill my pace is a faster than it is outside for the same perceived effort. I'll never forget my first long run after doing the run LT test, it felt so slow and had to do some short walks to maintain it. But run fitness improved greatly doing more with less effort, classic case of slow down to get faster happened for me. Edited by Donto 2009-01-06 11:15 AM |
2009-01-06 11:31 AM in reply to: #1889347 |
Elite 3683 Whispering Pines, North Carolina | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Donto - 2009-01-06 12:10 AM tri_d00d - 2009-01-06 10:52 AM 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! What did those 20 minutes feel like to you, was it hard, were you spent afterward? Were the 10 minutes before hand a WU or was it hard effort just below the effort you did in the 20 minutes? The 10 minutes period is not a warm up per se, it should also be at a moderate-hard effort, you then lap/avg the last 20 minutes. If you didn't follow the run LT protocol as described with a WU period then the 30min TT split into two with 10 min then 20 min periods then you may have an underestimated LT. I never did a run LT on a dreadmill so I can't say what the differences are vs outside. Retest if you feel like you should, and probably outside if more of your training is done so. [Edit, just checked you logs and see that you described the 10 min period as WU with a 8m/mi pace and the 20 min period at 6:39m/mi pace. Sounds like too much disparity per the protocol and you underestimated the LT this way] Also I found whenever I run on a dreadmill my pace is a faster than it is outside for the same perceived effort. I'll never forget my first long run after doing the run LT test, it felt so slow and had to do some short walks to maintain it. But run fitness improved greatly doing more with less effort, classic case of slow down to get faster happened for me. you know, i did treat the first 10 mins as a warm up, then running at a pretty hard pace for the next 20 mins. I misunderstood. I will redo this test utilizing the entire 30 mins as a TT, rather than 20mins. Thanks for clarifying. |
2009-01-06 2:17 PM in reply to: #1889421 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Sometimes it takes a few attempts to get the LT test right - Good Luck on the 2nd attempt. |
2009-01-07 7:45 AM in reply to: #1889347 |
Elite 3683 Whispering Pines, North Carolina | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Donto - 2009-01-06 12:10 AM tri_d00d - 2009-01-06 10:52 AM 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! What did those 20 minutes feel like to you, was it hard, were you spent afterward? Were the 10 minutes before hand a WU or was it hard effort just below the effort you did in the 20 minutes? The 10 minutes period is not a warm up per se, it should also be at a moderate-hard effort, you then lap/avg the last 20 minutes. If you didn't follow the run LT protocol as described with a WU period then the 30min TT split into two with 10 min then 20 min periods then you may have an underestimated LT. I never did a run LT on a dreadmill so I can't say what the differences are vs outside. Retest if you feel like you should, and probably outside if more of your training is done so. [Edit, just checked you logs and see that you described the 10 min period as WU with a 8m/mi pace and the 20 min period at 6:39m/mi pace. Sounds like too much disparity per the protocol and you underestimated the LT this way] Also I found whenever I run on a dreadmill my pace is a faster than it is outside for the same perceived effort. I'll never forget my first long run after doing the run LT test, it felt so slow and had to do some short walks to maintain it. But run fitness improved greatly doing more with less effort, classic case of slow down to get faster happened for me. since the TT is based off of time and not distance, won't the zones be the same? For example, let's say i run a 6:30 min average on the treadmill for 30 mins and a 6:40 min average on a track for the same time. will 6:30 = 6:40, as far as zones go, or are there too many factors to assume this is true? Once again, thanks for your help. |
|
2009-01-07 8:07 AM in reply to: #1891533 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! tri_d00d - 2009-01-07 6:45 AM Donto - 2009-01-06 12:10 AM tri_d00d - 2009-01-06 10:52 AM 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! What did those 20 minutes feel like to you, was it hard, were you spent afterward? Were the 10 minutes before hand a WU or was it hard effort just below the effort you did in the 20 minutes? The 10 minutes period is not a warm up per se, it should also be at a moderate-hard effort, you then lap/avg the last 20 minutes. If you didn't follow the run LT protocol as described with a WU period then the 30min TT split into two with 10 min then 20 min periods then you may have an underestimated LT. I never did a run LT on a dreadmill so I can't say what the differences are vs outside. Retest if you feel like you should, and probably outside if more of your training is done so. [Edit, just checked you logs and see that you described the 10 min period as WU with a 8m/mi pace and the 20 min period at 6:39m/mi pace. Sounds like too much disparity per the protocol and you underestimated the LT this way] Also I found whenever I run on a dreadmill my pace is a faster than it is outside for the same perceived effort. I'll never forget my first long run after doing the run LT test, it felt so slow and had to do some short walks to maintain it. But run fitness improved greatly doing more with less effort, classic case of slow down to get faster happened for me. since the TT is based off of time and not distance, won't the zones be the same? For example, let's say i run a 6:30 min average on the treadmill for 30 mins and a 6:40 min average on a track for the same time. will 6:30 = 6:40, as far as zones go, or are there too many factors to assume this is true? Once again, thanks for your help. no, there are quite a few factors that affect your HR inside vs. outside. |
2009-01-07 8:10 AM in reply to: #237705 |
29 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Hey, this was awesome...and my name's Johnny so it was fitting that it was the first thing I read on BT this morning!! You rock! |
2009-01-07 11:50 AM in reply to: #1890010 |
Elite 3683 Whispering Pines, North Carolina | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! mikericci - 2009-01-06 3:17 AM Sometimes it takes a few attempts to get the LT test right - Good Luck on the 2nd attempt. just completed the second test avg HR for the 20 min portion was 176, so that brings my Z2 to a 150-160 bpm range. now, let me go find a couch for a nap... |
2009-01-07 12:23 PM in reply to: #1892342 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! tri_d00d - 2009-01-07 10:50 AM mikericci - 2009-01-06 3:17 AM Sometimes it takes a few attempts to get the LT test right - Good Luck on the 2nd attempt. just completed the second test avg HR for the 20 min portion was 176, so that brings my Z2 to a 150-160 bpm range. now, let me go find a couch for a nap... Nap? Rest? That is for weak people. You are NOT weak! |
2009-01-07 12:36 PM in reply to: #1892448 |
Master 1240 Knightdale/Raleigh | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! mikericci - 2009-01-07 1:23 PM tri_d00d - 2009-01-07 10:50 AM mikericci - 2009-01-06 3:17 AM Sometimes it takes a few attempts to get the LT test right - Good Luck on the 2nd attempt. just completed the second test avg HR for the 20 min portion was 176, so that brings my Z2 to a 150-160 bpm range. now, let me go find a couch for a nap... Nap? Rest? That is for weak people. You are NOT weak! Call it horizontal recovery. I realized I made the same mistake you did, but it was too exhausting to consider a retest right now. So I'm using PE and just tracking my HR. |
|
2009-01-07 1:09 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Elite 3683 Whispering Pines, North Carolina | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Haha, that's funny! Horizontal recovery... So, now that I've done a LT test and have my ranges, am I looking for those ranges to go down or up on my next test? Once again, Thanks! |
2009-01-07 1:17 PM in reply to: #1892603 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! The goal is to get faster. Right Your HR may go up, or it may go down, depending on your fitness level now and the next time you retest. It will stabilize at some point, and hoepfully you'll continue to get faster at that HR. |
2009-01-07 1:30 PM in reply to: #1892628 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! 220-Age finally works!!!!! After years of waiting, the correct combination of Age, fitness, LT, etc. And 220-age hits my running LT PERFECTLY!!!!! WOOT!!!! Next year? worthless again.... |
2009-01-07 3:08 PM in reply to: #1892673 |
Master 1240 Knightdale/Raleigh | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Aikidoman - 2009-01-07 2:30 PM 220-Age finally works!!!!! After years of waiting, the correct combination of Age, fitness, LT, etc. And 220-age hits my running LT PERFECTLY!!!!! WOOT!!!! Next year? worthless again.... 220-Age is supposedly your max HR, not LT. So just another example of it not working. <sigh> I bet you could write a book and sell it on the internet, though. |
2009-02-25 6:45 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! time for a bump |
|
2009-02-25 7:00 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Extreme Veteran 356 Firestone, CO | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Are you kidding me? Why? |
2009-02-25 7:03 PM in reply to: #1982194 |
Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! acefaser - 2009-02-25 5:00 PM Are you kidding me? Why? Better question, why not? aren't there a couple LT threads on the board? Ricci's advice no longer good? Everyone who has ever read it done so? If so, then the mods should remove it ETA - I have to laugh at the disconnect between your words and actions Edited by ChrisM 2009-02-25 7:03 PM |
2009-02-25 7:26 PM in reply to: #1982169 |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! ChrisM - 2009-02-25 7:45 PM time for a bump Thanks, Chris. I was thinking about reading it again. |
2009-02-25 7:27 PM in reply to: #1982224 |
Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Artemis - 2009-02-25 5:26 PM ChrisM - 2009-02-25 7:45 PM time for a bump Thanks, Chris. I was thinking about reading it again. Again???? sorry, not enough sleep and too much working out this week Edited by ChrisM 2009-02-25 7:27 PM |
2009-02-25 7:36 PM in reply to: #237705 |
2009-02-25 7:42 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Expert 675 Woodridge, IL | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! They can't remove it because we (meaning me) link back to it when people ask the 220 - heart rate question. |
2009-02-25 10:49 PM in reply to: #1982240 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! skipg - 2009-02-25 6:36 PM So where did the 220-age myth begin anyway? http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Myth-Of-Maximum-Heart-Rate-=-220-Age&id=678707 |
2009-02-26 4:27 PM in reply to: #1892448 |
Expert 1027 Zürich, Switzerland | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! mikericci - 2009-01-06 7:23 PM tri_d00d - 2009-01-07 10:50 AM mikericci - 2009-01-06 3:17 AM Sometimes it takes a few attempts to get the LT test right - Good Luck on the 2nd attempt. just completed the second test avg HR for the 20 min portion was 176, so that brings my Z2 to a 150-160 bpm range. now, let me go find a couch for a nap... Nap? Rest? That is for weak people. You are NOT weak! |
2009-04-21 5:05 AM in reply to: #237705 |
2 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Gday Mike I know this is an old article but I have been trying to determine how you calculate the heart rate zones using the LT method. I know how to get my LT but how do I calculate the percentages of this to put into the individual zones? For Eg; Zone 2 is 136-139bpm, but what percentages have you used to calculate this? I have also been unable to find any info on the training bible on the website and it's calculations. Cheers Damian |
|