HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! (Page 23)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2013-05-03 6:13 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Champion 7036 Sarasota, FL | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! |
|
2013-05-08 2:30 PM in reply to: #237705 |
Regular 287 Levittown, PA | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Wow, can't believe I just read this entire thread from front to back. A friend at work has a HR monitor and said I can use it for as long as I want. Going to do my LT test next week and start this low zone training. I had my first tri (sprint) ever 2 weeks ago and my run didn't go as well as planned. I had a great swim and bike, but it caught up to me on the run. I am determined to improve my run. Can't wait. Thanks to Mike on starting this thread. Great info provided.
Also, once I get my max heart rate should I ............................ j/k |
2013-05-09 9:04 AM in reply to: #4733612 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! spiderjunior - 2013-05-08 1:30 PM Wow, can't believe I just read this entire thread from front to back. A friend at work has a HR monitor and said I can use it for as long as I want. Going to do my LT test next week and start this low zone training. I had my first tri (sprint) ever 2 weeks ago and my run didn't go as well as planned. I had a great swim and bike, but it caught up to me on the run. I am determined to improve my run. Can't wait. Thanks to Mike on starting this thread. Great info provided.
Also, once I get my max heart rate should I ............................ j/k
Spider that is funny but after all this info on HRs, I JUST got an email from a guy about his HR for his upcoming IM and he said here's my LT, based on my MAX - I almost lost it. Well, I did lose it, but now we'll get him squared away and he'll have a great race. |
2013-05-09 9:46 AM in reply to: #237705 |
Veteran 403 Maryland | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Mike another question for you. I had tested my HR zones recently probably about a month ago per your protocol. Bike 147/run 159. done on a trainer/treadmill respectively. This weekend I raced a sprint. The swim was tough, cold/choppy and mentally draining. I did really well on the bike/run (PR for both) but my avg hr was 167/177 respectively. Was this a factor of me not pushing as hard as I should have for the testing? Outdoor vs Indoor? If so, should these be my new numbers? I have been using virtual power mainly on bike, so concerned more about run. Thanks for your thought/advice as always! bg |
2013-05-15 7:43 AM in reply to: #237705 |
Regular 287 Levittown, PA | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Ok, did my lactate test today and now have a few questions. First of all, what a great workout that test was. I definitely gave it all I had. I finished my test with the last half mile of my run at a high 7 min pace which I have only hit a 7 min pace probably once ever before. I felt completely drained at the end of the test and was able to negative split the test by breaking my run down into essentially 3 different 7 min periods for the 20 min test portion. Ok, now that I have my numbers, here is my question. My avg heart rate was 180. I went to the page http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/training/create-hrzones.as... and there were 4 fields to enter my numbers. I entered 180 in the "Lactate Test" area and hit calculate. I assume this is the one I wanted to use. I got the below info:
1 - Recovery 119-152 2 - Extensive Endurance 154 - 163 3 - Intensive Endurance 164 - 172 4 - Sub-Threshold 173 - 179 5a - SuperThreshold 180 - 184 5b - Anaerobic Endurance 185 - 190 5c - Power 191 - 199
Ok, so using 180 as my average I came up with the above numbers. So it looks like my optimum training zone is 154 - 163 in zone 2. Now I know that Mike has said to not pay attention to your max heart rate, which is fine, I am not going to do any type of work related to my heart rate max, but my only question is that during my test my average was 180 and my max was 185. Why does this chart above go all the way to 199? Does it assume that under different conditions my max could increase, maybe due to heat, anxiety, etc..... Just wondering. Anybody know?
Edited by spiderjunior 2013-05-15 7:56 AM |
2013-12-10 12:06 AM in reply to: Guest |
Regular 673 SF Bay area | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Mike, probably asked and answered 100 times, but when one of the training plans says "Keep HR in zone 1-2", that seems like a pretty big spread (1.0 - 2.9) and it seems like there has got to be more to it. I tend to push the upper end of the boundary in these types of broad definition so am wondering if I'm missing something. Does this mean that if you are coming off a really hard workout the day before keep it in the 1's but if you are feeling strong go for the 2.9? Or it is a simple answer of anything under 2.9 will accomplish the goal of the workout so it is athlete's choice? |
|
2013-12-10 7:18 AM in reply to: spiderjunior |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Originally posted by spiderjunior Ok, so using 180 as my average I came up with the above numbers. So it looks like my optimum training zone is 154 - 163 in zone 2. Now I know that Mike has said to not pay attention to your max heart rate, which is fine, I am not going to do any type of work related to my heart rate max, but my only question is that during my test my average was 180 and my max was 185. Why does this chart above go all the way to 199? Does it assume that under different conditions my max could increase, maybe due to heat, anxiety, etc..... Just wondering. Anybody know? yes it is assumed that you did not push your heart to its absolute maximum rate during your test. your maximum is the most your heart can do. period. under any circumstances. i'm not sure how it is calculated but i'm sure it uses some extrapolation based on the data from your test. i did a test last week and my max came back at 196 even though i never got above 185. |
2013-12-10 10:36 AM in reply to: Clempson |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by spiderjunior Ok, so using 180 as my average I came up with the above numbers. So it looks like my optimum training zone is 154 - 163 in zone 2. Now I know that Mike has said to not pay attention to your max heart rate, which is fine, I am not going to do any type of work related to my heart rate max, but my only question is that during my test my average was 180 and my max was 185. Why does this chart above go all the way to 199? Does it assume that under different conditions my max could increase, maybe due to heat, anxiety, etc..... Just wondering. Anybody know? yes it is assumed that you did not push your heart to its absolute maximum rate during your test. your maximum is the most your heart can do. period. under any circumstances. i'm not sure how it is calculated but i'm sure it uses some extrapolation based on the data from your test. i did a test last week and my max came back at 196 even though i never got above 185. That's your theoretical max. If We put you on a steep hill and had you run all out until you collapsed, you'd probably hit it. It's just a 'number'. |
2013-12-10 10:40 AM in reply to: TTom |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Originally posted by TTom Mike, probably asked and answered 100 times, but when one of the training plans says "Keep HR in zone 1-2", that seems like a pretty big spread (1.0 - 2.9) and it seems like there has got to be more to it. I tend to push the upper end of the boundary in these types of broad definition so am wondering if I'm missing something. Does this mean that if you are coming off a really hard workout the day before keep it in the 1's but if you are feeling strong go for the 2.9? Or it is a simple answer of anything under 2.9 will accomplish the goal of the workout so it is athlete's choice? Tom My answer is 'it depends'. I like to see athletes find a comfort zone that they can run in, all day - not really all day, but day after day for sure. I call this the "Law of Repeatability" - meaning if you can't repeat an easy workout the next day, you did it too hard the day before. So, if you look around 20-30 beats below LT, you'll find your sweet spot. I am typically about 30 beats below LT for my nice easy runs. If I want to run faster, I'll run closer to 20 beats below. This is all trial and error and if you keep pushing towards the top of Z2 - one of two things will happen: 1. You will get tired, burned out or worse, injured. 2. You need to retest b/c you didn't achieve a true LT number. Good luck! |
2013-12-10 10:57 AM in reply to: mikericci |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Originally posted by mikericci Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by spiderjunior Ok, so using 180 as my average I came up with the above numbers. So it looks like my optimum training zone is 154 - 163 in zone 2. Now I know that Mike has said to not pay attention to your max heart rate, which is fine, I am not going to do any type of work related to my heart rate max, but my only question is that during my test my average was 180 and my max was 185. Why does this chart above go all the way to 199? Does it assume that under different conditions my max could increase, maybe due to heat, anxiety, etc..... Just wondering. Anybody know? yes it is assumed that you did not push your heart to its absolute maximum rate during your test. your maximum is the most your heart can do. period. under any circumstances. i'm not sure how it is calculated but i'm sure it uses some extrapolation based on the data from your test. i did a test last week and my max came back at 196 even though i never got above 185. That's your theoretical max. If We put you on a steep hill and had you run all out until you collapsed, you'd probably hit it. It's just a 'number'. i believe you, but i'm not going to test that out |
2013-12-10 2:15 PM in reply to: Clempson |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by mikericci Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by spiderjunior Ok, so using 180 as my average I came up with the above numbers. So it looks like my optimum training zone is 154 - 163 in zone 2. Now I know that Mike has said to not pay attention to your max heart rate, which is fine, I am not going to do any type of work related to my heart rate max, but my only question is that during my test my average was 180 and my max was 185. Why does this chart above go all the way to 199? Does it assume that under different conditions my max could increase, maybe due to heat, anxiety, etc..... Just wondering. Anybody know? yes it is assumed that you did not push your heart to its absolute maximum rate during your test. your maximum is the most your heart can do. period. under any circumstances. i'm not sure how it is calculated but i'm sure it uses some extrapolation based on the data from your test. i did a test last week and my max came back at 196 even though i never got above 185. That's your theoretical max. If We put you on a steep hill and had you run all out until you collapsed, you'd probably hit it. It's just a 'number'. i believe you, but i'm not going to test that out It's pretty painful. I did bunch of 30 sec hill repeats on a steep hill a few years back and I'm sure I hit my max. I was toast for a few days too. Not recommended. |
|
2013-12-11 12:17 AM in reply to: mikericci |
Regular 673 SF Bay area | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Originally posted by mikericci Thanks for the reply Mike, it is good guidance. Right now I'm working on the "easy" part of the hard/easy equation as I've struggled to keep it easy as well as I should have in the past and yup, gotten to the injuries you refer to above. This is especially important to me as this year I'll be doing my first IM distance and know I'll have to keep thing easier than I feel I could be doing, especially in the first parts of the bike and run. That does beg another HR related question however. The course (Vineman) is rolling hills for a good portion. How does one account for that when running to a HR target since it will be a constant (no pun intended) uphill/downhill battle. For example, on the run if the plan was to stay in Z2, should you really try to stay under 3.0 on the uphills or do you allow yourself a little space there, say up to 3.2, as you'll be getting a bit of a HR break on the backside of the hill? Most of my marathons were on relatively flat courses so this is a new part of the equation for me. Originally posted by TTom Mike, probably asked and answered 100 times, but when one of the training plans says "Keep HR in zone 1-2", that seems like a pretty big spread (1.0 - 2.9) and it seems like there has got to be more to it. I tend to push the upper end of the boundary in these types of broad definition so am wondering if I'm missing something. Does this mean that if you are coming off a really hard workout the day before keep it in the 1's but if you are feeling strong go for the 2.9? Or it is a simple answer of anything under 2.9 will accomplish the goal of the workout so it is athlete's choice? Tom My answer is 'it depends'. I like to see athletes find a comfort zone that they can run in, all day - not really all day, but day after day for sure. I call this the "Law of Repeatability" - meaning if you can't repeat an easy workout the next day, you did it too hard the day before. So, if you look around 20-30 beats below LT, you'll find your sweet spot. I am typically about 30 beats below LT for my nice easy runs. If I want to run faster, I'll run closer to 20 beats below. This is all trial and error and if you keep pushing towards the top of Z2 - one of two things will happen: 1. You will get tired, burned out or worse, injured. 2. You need to retest b/c you didn't achieve a true LT number. Good luck! |
2014-06-30 12:26 PM in reply to: TTom |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! BUMP for all the new people on the site |
2014-07-08 6:32 PM in reply to: mikericci |
152 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Mike, this thread is awesome. Did my LT test today and my AVG HR was 161 which I believe is my LT # Ok, however this link no longer works to get the zone #'s http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/training/create-hrzones.as... Any suggestions ? |
2014-07-08 9:41 PM in reply to: ECS49 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Great! Try this link: Let me know if it works. Good luck! |
2014-07-08 9:59 PM in reply to: mikericci |
152 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Perfect, thanks! FYI, this is my #'s My Lactate Threshold is: 161 Zone 1 Low 105 High 137 Zone 2 Low 137 High 143 Zone 3 Low 145 High 151 Zone 4 Low 153 High 159 Zone 5 Low 161 High 164 Zone 5+ Low 166 High 171 Zone 5++ Low 171 High 177 Just to be clear, the majority of my running should be done in zone 2? Minus speed or quality days....... |
|
2014-07-09 6:53 AM in reply to: ECS49 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! It depends on a lot of factors really. What are your strengths and weaknesses? What distance are you training for? How long have you been training? What previous sports have you played? Injuries, current and past and so on.....
Here's an article I wrote on planning a week. It may help? http://d3multisport.com/season-planning/planning-a-week-of-triathlon-training/
Basically 20-25% of your run time is faster / higher quality. That leaves 75-80% for Z2 training. Same on the bike - although you can probably bump it up 5-10% depending on experience. For swimming almost 50-60% of the time can be higher quality. Let me know if this helps! |
2014-07-09 3:58 PM in reply to: mikericci |
Member 242 Co Louth, Ireland | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Perfect timing to see this - thanks Mike. Think I'll do this test in the morning to get me back focused on training. One question - how often do you do the test - right now I'm at a pretty average level of fitness, will the results change in 3 months time after a good training block? |
2014-07-09 9:24 PM in reply to: grahamclarke_6 |
152 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! good question Graham, I was thinking the same thing. Second question, I skimmed but didn't see it. Lets say my zone 2 is 137-143. At the end of my workout (run/bike whichever) my avg HR is 140, however I am sure it spiked up and down a bunch because the course was pretty hilly. Does that still count as level 2? |
2014-07-10 11:43 AM in reply to: grahamclarke_6 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Graham, I would test once per month - this can fit in place of your normal interval day during the week. You can sub a 5k, 10k or even a Bike TT in place of these 'tests. Testing is training and training is testing. This winter, starting in Jan I did the bike test every 10 days. It was great to see the improvement so quickly. |
2014-07-10 11:44 AM in reply to: ECS49 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! If your HR in Zone 2 = 137 - 143 and your average was in between, then yes, you are running Z2. You don't want to see 150 and 160 HR though. Walk the hills if you have to. Once you get more efficient you'll the HR come down on the hills and you'll be able to run them. |
|
2014-07-12 1:04 PM in reply to: 0 |
Member 242 Co Louth, Ireland | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Thanks Mike, I did this test earlier today and got an average of 175 for the 20mins. This would put my Z2 at 142-156 - does that sound about right? Is that what you would recommend working at for the majority of IM training? What sort of changes wouldl you foresee over a 3month block? Thanks for al the advice. Graham PS it was a bloody tough workout - especially on an indoor bike! Edited by grahamclarke_6 2014-07-12 1:33 PM |
2014-07-12 9:11 PM in reply to: grahamclarke_6 |
152 | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! So, Is it normal to be totally freaking out about my pace? Like my head keeps telling me that I am going to be losing all that I have built the last couple of months running so slow. Totally normal over reaction right? That said, running at my HR z2 when I finish running I am not even tired, in fact today I ran about an extra 15-20 min over the hour I was supposed to run just because I was so comfortable. |
2014-07-13 8:06 AM in reply to: ECS49 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Yes, completely normal. What have you built up over the last few months? Training too hard? ;-) I haven't made anyone slower in my over 25 years of coaching. As long as you follow the testing protocol you'll have the right HR numbers and you'll be improving over the next several weeks and months. Good luck! |
2014-07-13 8:09 AM in reply to: grahamclarke_6 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: HR Zones: 220-Age - the TRUTH! Those HRs are correct for Z2. Now, if you did the test inside and are going to train inside those numbers are valuable. But if you train outside you'll need to do an outside test. No two ways about it. I like to see accurate numbers for indoors and outdoors. For your IM ride, Z2 is where you would ride. Maybe some Z3 on some hills, but I would try to minimize that. An IM ride should be relatively easy, not hard. That way you can run to your potential. Good luck! |
|