ErgData LogBook HR Zone Bands

[iain]

IIRC 22-age was initially a small sample size to establish a safe HR to test people at in medicals. It may thus be on the conservative side (although as 70% of this is often used, this may be where they were being conservative). As for the numbers here, I believe MaxHr declines more slowly in those that stay fit than average. As the posters to these boards are overwhelmingly masters athletes, this would explain why they are now higher than expected.

JMHO

[Xrayvizhen]

Based on the comments seen here it seems that it would be prudent, especially for us old guys, to assume that for someone new at this (as I am) the 220 - age formula should be something we might want to pay attention to. I would also expect that over time, as strength, endurance and conditioning improve, then perhaps that 220 number and the resulting maximum HR could gradually increase. That's my plan, anyway.

[Joebasscat]

Based on the comments seen here it seems that it would be prudent, especially for us old guys, to assume that for someone new at this (as I am) the 220 - age formula should be something we might want to pay attention to. I would also expect that over time, as strength, endurance and conditioning improve, then perhaps that 220 number and the resulting maximum HR could gradually increase. That's my plan, anyway.

Use the formula max HR as you wish and caution is prudent to a point. Almost assuredly you will observe a higher max than the formula as you get more comfortable pushing yourself. My understanding is your max HR will not go up with fitness. It is what it is according to genetic makeup. And there is no advantage to having a higher max HR. But most assuredly your resting HR will go down as fitness improves and that is a bonus.

[Dangerscouse]

My understanding is your max HR will not go up with fitness. It is what it is according to genetic makeup. And there is no advantage to having a higher max HR. But most assuredly your resting HR will go down as fitness improves and that is a bonus.

Exactly that. I've seen excellent ergers who are both very close to sub 6, one has a max of circa 200, and the other is circa 168.

Lower or higher is just what it is, and it is only useful to be used as a comparable solely for yourself and your training.

It is worth noting that max HR can possibly increase with training, purely based on the fact that your confidence will improve so you'll push harder and further with improved fitness, but there's definitely a defined hard limit to this increase.

[iain]

My understanding is your max HR will not go up with fitness. It is what it is according to genetic makeup. And there is no advantage to having a higher max HR. But most assuredly your resting HR will go down as fitness improves and that is a bonus.

Exactly that. I've seen excellent ergers who are both very close to sub 6, one has a max of circa 200, and the other is circa 168.

Lower or higher is just what it is, and it is only useful to be used as a comparable solely for yourself and your training.

It is worth noting that max HR can possibly increase with training, purely based on the fact that your confidence will improve so you'll push harder and further with improved fitness, but there's definitely a defined hard limit to this increase.

In fact, there is some belief that Max HR may actually slightly decrease with erging as the stroke volume increases and so the heart has to work harder at the same HR. I can certainly confirm that hitting a high HR gets harder with training. I have hit 184 when starting out after a break recently and a year ago, but when I was fitter between never managed over 180 despite working harder and longer.

[gvcormac]

[edited to correct some egregious arithmetic errors]

220-age is largely a wive's tale. It doesn't predict the population mean (or median) particularly well, and it certainly doesn't predict individual max HR.

There are better formulae for population, for example https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax

But individuals still vary. The linked-to one says my max should be 169, but I have recently hit 171 in hard workouts. So the calculator is out by 2+ bpm, which isn't bad (for me).

But 220-age gives an estimate of 153, which is out by 18+ BPM.

That said, who cares? The "percentage of HRM" zone divisions are equally bogus, as are "percentage of HRR."

[JaapvanE]

That said, who cares? The "percentage of HRM" zone divisions are equally bogus, as are "percentage of HRR."

I always considered a starting point, not a definitive truth. For me, the 70% of Max (observed) HR puts the end of my Zone 2 around 131/132. In practice, when I hit around 128 around 2K in, and maintain pace, my HR will not drift much (usually to 129 to 130 at the end of a 10K). When I hit 130 for too long, I'll hit 150 to 155 at the end of the 10K. But it takes a lot of experimenting to find out where it is, and how your body reacts. But the formula give a nice hint where to start looking.

[hikeplusrow]

[edited to correct some egregious arithmetic errors]

220-age is largely a wive's tale. It doesn't predict the population mean (or median) particularly well, and it certainly doesn't predict individual max HR.

There are better formulae for population, for example https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax

But individuals still vary. The linked-to one says my max should be 169, but I have recently hit 171 in hard workouts. So the calculator is out by 2+ bpm, which isn't bad (for me).

But 220-age gives an estimate of 153, which is out by 18+ BPM.

That said, who cares? The "percentage of HRM" zone divisions are equally bogus, as are "percentage of HRR."

Probably true, but everyone needs a framework within which to organise their training in terms of frequency, intensity and duration. I think watts/pace is better, with HR used as a confirmatory metric.

[mjhatten]

I'll answer this even though I have a Model D with a PM3 computer.

The bands come from section 3 of The Concept 2 Training Guide. http://www.redking.me.uk/sport/rowing/t ... ing_v2.pdf They are based on Max Heart Rate as opposed to HRR. I use the Kanaka formula (208 - 0.7 x age) to calculate Max HR. It is endorsed by the National Institute of Health (NIH) as a more reliable formula. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11153730/

[Rowan McSheen]

Reading through this, the various methods give me a max hr of 172 (https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax), 157 (220 minus age), and 164 (208 minus 0.7 x age). From recent observation I reckon somewhere in the low 160s is about right. And as if by chance the three calculations average out as ... 164!

But that's while running, which I'm led to believe is the activity most likely to take your ticker to the max. It'll be lower on the erg, in my experience by 10-15 bpm. Mid to upper 140s erging feels like mid to upper 150s running, ie, pretty much redlining it.

So there's your answer. Use all three methods, take the average, and subtract 10 bpm and you shouldn't be too far wrong

[gvcormac]

Reading through this, the various methods give me a max hr of 172 (https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax), 157 (220 minus age), and 164 (208 minus 0.7 x age). From recent observation I reckon somewhere in the low 160s is about right. And as if by chance the three calculations average out as ... 164!

But that's while running, which I'm led to believe is the activity most likely to take your ticker to the max. It'll be lower on the erg, in my experience by 10-15 bpm. Mid to upper 140s erging feels like mid to upper 150s running, ie, pretty much redlining it.

So there's your answer. Use all three methods, take the average, and subtract 10 bpm and you shouldn't be too far wrong

For me, I haven't noticed much difference between running max and rowing max. It does depend a bit on how trained you are in the activity, and your threshold for pushing yourself. I'm slightly more inclined to push myself to gasping for breath when running than when rowing, but I'm sure others are the opposite. Similarly, on the bike if you're well trained you can reach max.

So I'd say your ability to reach max depends on sport-specific training, but your max doesn't.

[mjhatten]

MHR Foumulas

Fox Formula: 22-age
Tanaka Formula: 208-(0.67 x age)
Hunt Formula: 211-(0.64 x age)
Unattributed formula from Concept 2 web site: 205.8 - (0.685 × age)

You can also do your own 2000 meter VO2max test as described on the Concept 2 web site. Once you've done the hard test, you can use the calculator to use distance, time, and weight to get your average Percent VO2max. Same zones apply.

Take your pick. Fox is known to be less accurate for older rowers. None are perfect but neither are the Concept 2 computers. They are all helpful to measure relative progress.

The definition of the training zones from Concept 2 Training Guide

Zone 1: UT2 Light Aerobic / Fat Burning 55% - 69% MHR
Zone 2: UT1 Heavy Aerobic 70% - 79% MHR
Zone 3: AT Anaerobic Threshold 80% - 84% MHR
Zone 4: TR Oxygen Transportation 85% - 94% MHR
Zone 5: AN Anaerobic Overload 95% - plus MHR

[kerosene]

Just chiming in how stupid those formulas are.
I same elite sport two contestants can have 25bpm difference in max HR.
Even using a "better" formula is pointless when it is only better at estimating average of large population. Pointless for an individual.

Samples look like this.

[mjhatten]

I have been researching metrics -- especially metrics that don't require expensive measurement tools -- and all of them, HRmax, HRR, VO2, Calories (both burned and consumed), Mets, BMR, BMI,, and so on are generalizations based on estimations and often derived by multiplying estimations by estimations. The margins for error are immense. That does not make them useless, though. They give you something tangible to work with. For people like me who need more than Perceived Exercise guidelines, they can be motivational. I just know better than to expect that counting on a certain result from a certain measure of effort. Every time I read a post where someone who expects a certain amount of weight loss by consuming a certain amount of calories is disappointed that their results didn't match the math model, I shake my head. Biology just isn't that exacts a science.

[Dax46]

[edited to correct some egregious arithmetic errors]

220-age is largely a wive's tale. It doesn't predict the population mean (or median) particularly well, and it certainly doesn't predict individual max HR.

There are better formulae for population, for example https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmaxwebweb

But individuals still vary. The linked-to one says my max should be 169, but I have recently hit 171 in hard workouts. So the calculator is out by 2+ bpm, which isn't bad (for me).

But 220-age gives an estimate of 153, which is out by 18+ BPM.

That said, who cares? The "percentage of HRM" zone divisions are equally bogus, as are "percentage of HRR."

I've always seen it as a starting point rather than an absolute truth. Personally, I find that around 70% of my maximum observed heart rate marks the upper limit of my Zone 2, roughly around 131/132 beats per minute. In practice, when I reach about 128 beats per minute around 2 kilometers into a run and maintain that pace, my heart rate doesn't tend to stray much (usually ending up around 129 to 130 beats per minute at the conclusion of a 10K). If I sustain 130 beats per minute for too long, though, my heart rate will spike to 150 to 155 beats per minute by the end of the 10K. However, it takes a fair bit of trial and error to pinpoint these thresholds and understand how my body responds. Nonetheless, the formula does offer a helpful starting point for investigation.