HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! (Page 21)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2012-03-09 8:15 PM in reply to: #3905046 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Luke If you want to go out and run for an hour as hard as you can, you can do that. That is the definition of Threshold; the pace /HR you can cold for one hour. So..the option is taking a % of a smaller sampling. And after worked with so many athletes over the years, I'm very confident that 95% of your 20' time will work - or you could run a 10k as well. If upper 160s is comfortable, but not conversational, then its definitely not Z2. You aren't going to do harm by going too easy, but you will cause harm, or lack of improvement if you go too hard (injury, illness or plateau). If it's too easy, then next time you test or run a race, you'll see the improvement and you'll be able to run at a faster pace, higher HR or both. Another way to figure this out is to take your 5k or 10k time and match it up on the Macmillan Running Calculator. You'll be surprised at how easy of a pace you should be running. So, to answer your question, I would use the lower HRs for now and see how that goes for one month. Then restest or race and see if there is an improvement and then move the pace / HR up. I hope that helps. |
|
2012-03-09 8:17 PM in reply to: #4088937 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! You can use the 10k for your LT yes. How long did it take you? |
2012-03-09 8:18 PM in reply to: #4089032 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! x_caliber50 - 2012-03-09 1:01 PM rsmoylan - 2012-03-09 1:30 PM x_caliber50 - 2012-03-09 2:23 PM Hello. I had a quick question. I have been meaning to do a field LT test but just haddn't gotten around to it. A few weeks ago i ran a 10k. I really performed much better than I thought I would. I beat my PR by about 20 second a mile. I left everything I had out on the course. I didn't even think until later that I could use the race to do a field test. but I did start my HR monitor at the beginning of the race and stopped it about 30-45 seconds after I crossed the finish line. Will the average HR I get be good enough for my LT? Thanks I've heard a few things on this subject. Some will say that it is better to do a stand alone LT test and not a race. I have come across articles that state you can use a 10k to approximate LT. What was your time? I suppose that could also determine whether or not you could use it.
Editted fur spealiing
I finished the race in 51:59. Thanks Gotcha, thanks. So , yes you can definitely use that HR for your LT. |
2012-03-09 9:19 PM in reply to: #4089499 |
Extreme Veteran 578 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! mikericci - 2012-03-09 8:18 PM x_caliber50 - 2012-03-09 1:01 PM rsmoylan - 2012-03-09 1:30 PM x_caliber50 - 2012-03-09 2:23 PM Hello. I had a quick question. I have been meaning to do a field LT test but just haddn't gotten around to it. A few weeks ago i ran a 10k. I really performed much better than I thought I would. I beat my PR by about 20 second a mile. I left everything I had out on the course. I didn't even think until later that I could use the race to do a field test. but I did start my HR monitor at the beginning of the race and stopped it about 30-45 seconds after I crossed the finish line. Will the average HR I get be good enough for my LT? Thanks I've heard a few things on this subject. Some will say that it is better to do a stand alone LT test and not a race. I have come across articles that state you can use a 10k to approximate LT. What was your time? I suppose that could also determine whether or not you could use it.
Editted fur spealiing
I finished the race in 51:59. Thanks Gotcha, thanks. So , yes you can definitely use that HR for your LT. Thanks Mike. I'll do that. |
2012-03-09 10:00 PM in reply to: #4088752 |
Master 2426 Central Indiana | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! jbahjj - 2012-03-09 1:15 PM I have limited access to other websites but why is the 220-age method wrong?
It has no scientific validity but appears to have originated as a "best guess" by a researcher named Fox in 1971. Subsequent research has found 220-age to be rather imprecise. A good review on the subject can be downloaded here: faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf |
2012-08-15 2:19 PM in reply to: #4089499 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! I wanted to bump this up - this thread is 7 years old this month. I still get questions on this weekly and I still refer people to this thread. If you haven't read it, please do!! |
|
2012-08-16 1:39 PM in reply to: #4364828 |
Extreme Veteran 570 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Mike! Long time - hope things are fantastic! Big congrats on the continued success at CU! I've an email notification tied to this thread and it brings up a question I've been chewing on for a couple weeks. I started Mountain Biking last year and love it. I've haven't raced a tri for a few years but want to give a sport XTERRA a go next month. However, sticking to zone training when mountain biking is impossible - I go to anaerobic every time I ride. I also find it tough not to go out of zone when trail running and have to walk as much as I run to keep in zone. Should training for a short XTERRA be the same as a regular tri in regards to HR Zones? Maybe my fitness level just isn't high enough to be training correctly for this kind of race? Having stuck to zone training in the past I'm kind of at a loss here. Thanks in advance! Jim |
2012-08-16 3:10 PM in reply to: #4366613 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Hi Jim! As far as mountain biking and Xterra; I've ventured into this as well this season - I'm about to do my 4th Xterra race next weekend and I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. Since every mountain bike ride or even trail run can be very hard, I try to limit the amount of minutes I ride at LT or above. Typically I know certain trails and the efforts to get up / down / around etc, and I meter my efforts appropriately. Some days I just ride super easy and if I hit LT it's by accident. I try to pick one day a week where I can let it rip. As far as trail running I typically do the same - if it's too steep or I have to walk to keep my HR down, I do. There are other times when I'm trying to simulate a race and I just go hard. It depends on the purpose of the workout, and do tend to stay in Z2 for both the bike and run, but I'm not as exact as I would be on the roads, where you can control things much better. In the beginning of the season, it seemed as though every mountain bike ride was an interval workout, but since I've improved my fitness and riding form, it's been much easier to control the HR and it only goes into LT when I'm trying (not always though!). So, my advice is to get the technique down, and you'll see the HR down, but also be smart about how much LT work you do on the bike and run. One thing that's for certain, is that your road biking power is going to go WAY up. Have fun! |
2012-08-31 5:08 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Veteran 320 Littleton, CO | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Just finished the thread my first triathlon season is over and I have a new garmin time to get this heart rate zone action going for the winter training season! |
2012-08-31 6:16 PM in reply to: #4364828 |
Expert 839 Anaheim Hills, CA | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! mikericci - 2012-08-15 12:19 PM I wanted to bump this up - this thread is 7 years old this month. I still get questions on this weekly and I still refer people to this thread. If you haven't read it, please do!! I refer to this post all the time. Great stuff! |
2012-09-11 10:58 AM in reply to: #237705 |
Veteran 320 Littleton, CO | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Did my run test this morning and actually think it was a PR for my 5k time still not 100% sure I went hard enough.
my average for the final 20 min was 160 I put it into the BT calc and got:
1 - Recovery 106 - 136
Posting here because this thread is an amazing resource and I found it by a recent post hope more will. Edited by Exige 2012-09-11 10:59 AM |
|
2012-09-11 11:00 AM in reply to: #4405623 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Exige - 2012-09-11 9:58 AM Did my run test this morning and actually think it was a PR for my 5k time still not 100% sure I went hard enough.
my average for the final 20 min was 160 I put it into the BT calc and got:
1 - Recovery 106 - 136
Posting here because this thread is an amazing resource and I found it by a recent post hope more will. Great work! if you have time / resources this fall, jump into a 5k and see what shakes out! |
2012-09-11 11:48 AM in reply to: #237705 |
Veteran 320 Littleton, CO | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Thanks I am going to to a winter 5k series for fun excited to see my gains.
one question I went to do the custom zones for the garmin and its a tad off.... mine look like this it was the closest I could get. Zone 1 106-136 zone 2 136-146 zone 3 146-154 zone 4 154-160 zone 5 160-164 zone 5+ 164-170 Zone 5++ 170-177
Should these be fine even though they are a bit off the calculator and the spreadsheet? anything I should change? |
2012-09-11 12:40 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Expert 1375 McAllen | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! I've never done a legitimate test to get my running values but I've just kinda put it into ballpark zones based off of perceived effort, and have been using them for about four weeks. They feel about right, but how accurate do you think they are for most athletes? I've been able to sustain a heartrate of 155 for a long run of 9mi before, and granted it was difficult towards the end it was done. 165-ish is where I start feeling like I'm over the cliff of where the "sore leg" feeling kind of kicks in.
These are the values I have
However if I did a sprint set and pushed to the point where I fall down I feel like I could get my HR up to 210... I don't know if 5c is the ABSOLUTE MAX your body can push, but I feel like 200's are attainable. I've definitely hit 200+ in the pool before just from checking my HR and counting for 6 seconds. |
2012-09-11 6:16 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Member 354 Los Angeles | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! I was reading page 26 of this thread. Now I have to start at the front and read the other 25 pages. Very interesting. |
2012-09-11 9:44 PM in reply to: #4405732 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Exige - 2012-09-11 10:48 AM Thanks I am going to to a winter 5k series for fun excited to see my gains.
one question I went to do the custom zones for the garmin and its a tad off.... mine look like this it was the closest I could get. Zone 1 106-136 zone 2 136-146 zone 3 146-154 zone 4 154-160 zone 5 160-164 zone 5+ 164-170 Zone 5++ 170-177
Should these be fine even though they are a bit off the calculator and the spreadsheet? anything I should change? These are fine! |
|
2012-09-11 9:45 PM in reply to: #4405869 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! odpaul7 - 2012-09-11 11:40 AM I've never done a legitimate test to get my running values but... Don't say another word. Go run a 5k or test and come back and let us know what you get. |
2012-09-11 10:21 PM in reply to: #4406852 |
Expert 1375 McAllen | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! haha alright thanks |
2012-09-11 10:29 PM in reply to: #4405869 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! odpaul7 - 2012-09-11 12:40 PM I've never done a legitimate test to get my running values but I've just kinda put it into ballpark zones based off of perceived effort, and have been using them for about four weeks. They feel about right, but how accurate do you think they are for most athletes? I've been able to sustain a heartrate of 155 for a long run of 9mi before, and granted it was difficult towards the end it was done. 165-ish is where I start feeling like I'm over the cliff of where the "sore leg" feeling kind of kicks in.
These are the values I have
However if I did a sprint set and pushed to the point where I fall down I feel like I could get my HR up to 210... I don't know if 5c is the ABSOLUTE MAX your body can push, but I feel like 200's are attainable. I've definitely hit 200+ in the pool before just from checking my HR and counting for 6 seconds. Seriously? I can't get my HR anywhere close to my run threshold in the pool....I suck at swimming. |
2012-09-11 10:44 PM in reply to: #4406893 |
Expert 1375 McAllen | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! I haven't done it since last summer but it was one of the hardest sets I've ever done. It was in club swimming. Was 600 w/u, several 200's... like 8. all on 2:45, decreasing pace. lots of 25 sprints then we did 30 fifties @ 0:45... I doubt I could pull it off again I've refocused to running and cycling since then but thats the hardest I've ever pushed myself. I don't want to again, several people were throwing up. Tell you what though he made us fast. |
2012-09-11 10:47 PM in reply to: #4406907 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! odpaul7 - 2012-09-11 10:44 PM I haven't done it since last summer but it was one of the hardest sets I've ever done. It was in club swimming. Was 600 w/u, several 200's... like 8. all on 2:45, decreasing pace. lots of 25 sprints then we did 30 fifties @ 0:45... I doubt I could pull it off again I've refocused to running and cycling since then but thats the hardest I've ever pushed myself. I don't want to again, several people were throwing up. Tell you what though he made us fast. My HR would go to ZERO! |
|
2012-09-13 12:52 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Member 354 Los Angeles | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Mike, I got a question. Does a higher or lower LT heart rate make you a fitter athlete ? Or is it different for all people? |
2012-09-13 12:58 PM in reply to: #4409707 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! The absolute number doesn't matter, kind of like shoe size, everyone is different. What we are looking for eventually is how your LT relates to VO2. If you can hold LT at 90+ % of VO2, you are doing pretty well! If you are holding it at 80% of VO2, that's still solid, but not quite as good as 90% obviously. Hope that helps |
2012-09-13 2:48 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Member 354 Los Angeles | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Thxs for the quick response. |
2012-09-20 12:30 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Champion 7036 Sarasota, FL | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! With all the heart-rate discussions going on I thought it might be a good time to bump this thread again. Lots of mis-informaton floating around. This thread should manditory reading for anyone considering HR training. Mark |
|