Max heartrate question

And these:

http://www.steelcityendurance.com/general/maximum-heart-rate-formul...

http://www.steelcityendurance.com/general/rating-of-perceived-exert...

Bottom line...all formulas will have a mean and a standard deviation. The standard deviation means that the formula is worthless for all but the small percentage that fall right on the mean. You won't know which you are until you train with those numbers and either have good results or don't have good results. Why waste the time?

Either do a field test, or train by RPE...

If you question is about "which is better, 180 or 220 based formulas", then you're asking apples vs. oranges. HR zone based training often uses the 220 formula, the Maffetone approach uses the 180 formula, and that's pretty much that.

If you're asking what people think about the Maffetone Method itself vs. other training methods, there are many many threads on that subject. Mark Allen and others are big fans of the Maffetone approach. Mark wrote a much references post here.

You should read and other articles on HR training right here on BT.

Personally, I think Maffetone is a good approach for base training for first time long distance endurance events (half, full tris, marathons) because it forces most people to slow way down from RPE and actually do base training instead of near tempo runs.

There comes a time where field tests are needed to fine-tune the numbers, and there are people who don't fit into any set of formula-based numbers. But I think formulas are "close enough" to use for at least a while.

You should read the links provided, lots of good information there, but the short answer is that the book is wrong about it being more accurate.

If you read the article AdventureBear posted (not sure which one it is) she talks about where the 220-age comes from and why it is an overly broad generalization at best. Since the 180-age comes from that, it doesn't get any better as far as accuracy.

If you don't have a HRM and are not yet fit enough to do an LT test (described in one of the other linked articles) then go out and run at a conversational level. Basically you want to run at a pace that stresses the system but is not so fast that you couldn't go out and do the same run again tomorrow.

Shane

If you don't have an HR monitor and instead use RPE, then by definition you aren't doing Maffetone training. You're doing something else.

And an RPE field test ("conversational level") may approximate the "right" heart rate or it might not. It's just too fuzzy of a definition; for example I could easy say my conversational pace was up to around 165, which is 25-30 beats higher than I should run for Maffetone training.

Edited by brucemorgan 2007-12-31 2:59 PM

Huh? When did I say that it was? I stated that one formula wasn't any better than the other and the fact of the matter they are pretty much useless.



RPE is too fuzzy but using an arbitrary formula is better? Most people are able to get close with "conversational level" of effort but if not, that is why I added that it is important to not run so fast that you couldn't do the same run tomorrow.

As for your example, what zone is your 165 in - if it is zone 2 then I would say if you want to do Maffetone style training it should be there. If it is zone 4, I doubt that you would feel you could carry on a conversation at that pace - at least not for long.

Shane

I didn't mean to be arguing with you, Shane. I thought the original poster was talking about doing Maffetone training and asking about the various formulas, and you told him to go run at a conversational level. That's good advice, but it's not Maffetone training.

Perhaps I'm merely being pedantic, but Maffetone training uses the MAF formula (not 220-age, or Karvonen, or something else) and it doesn't use RPE.

And very often someone following Maffetone after following other training philosophies feels the MAF calculated number is "way too easy" on RPE. That's sort of the point.

Edited by brucemorgan 2007-12-31 10:52 PM

I'm the farthest from an expert on this and am just getting to reading all the info there is on the topic, but isn't the 180-age method used for calculating your Maximum Aeorbic Heartrate and the 220-age used for calculating your Maximum heartrate?

You are correct that is what they are supposed to calculate.  However, both are based on an arbitrary number (180 or 220) so they are both just a pretty bad guess as to what your HR might be.

Shane

Edited by gsmacleod 2008-01-02 6:41 AM

just as an example of ANY formula and the standard deviation...

At a recent Biking VO2 Max test, I barely reached 85% of my predicted MAX HR based on 226 (for women) - age. So if I were to try and train by that forumula, I'd be consistently training 10 beats higher than I should and it would be extremely ineffective. The maffetone would also put me way above where I should be.

I posted a recent thread about the OMNI perceived exertion scale wiht links to peer reviewed publications of the scientific validaiton of that specific RPE scale with regard to %age of VO2 max.

I would say that RPE is far better than 220-age or 180-age, but the best route is to combine one or more methods of intensity measureing to zero in on where you need to train.

Did anyone see this month's Runner's World article on how to set up training zones based on your max heart rate?