Concept2 Forum

Can my MHR be worked out without doing any actual testing?

Could i simply go by the 206.9 - (0.67 x age) formula? Or is this idea too vague.

TIA

No, you can't work it out without testing.
You should be able to get close to max during time trials.
Mine got up to 205 in a 500m time trial last week which is the highest that I've seen.
However, I see no reason why you'd need to know what it is.

I want to know, to make sure i'm training in the correct aerobic zone.

Hows about this for an example? For example, a 40 year old man's MHR would be 180, and his fat-burning zone would be between 108 and 126 beats per minute.

Using that formula I get 179 for max but the max I see on the PM5 when using my heart strap is 188.

I have the training zones based on my actual max written beside me so I can keep track of things, even though I tend to get carried away with myself. I find it really useful being able to do this.

For a large population those figures are going to be close enough but not for an individual training programme in my pernickity opinion!

Anth_F wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 2:45 pm

Can my MHR be worked out without doing any actual testing?

Could i simply go by the 206.9 - (0.67 x age) formula? Or is this idea too vague.

TIA

Hell no, there s only one way. And it needs to hurt a lot!

Two people can have 30/40 beats difference in max being the same age.

I suppose i should really do a test then, to make sure i get my numbers into perspective.

I hear my erg calling meeee... get on me and get some flat out meters done... NOWWW

jimmyshand wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Using that formula I get 179 for max but the max I see on the PM5 when using my heart strap is 188.

Mine would be 158 and it's 205.

I see no reason to use training zones either.

johnlvs2run wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:42 pm

jimmyshand wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Using that formula I get 179 for max but the max I see on the PM5 when using my heart strap is 188.

Mine would be 158 and it's 205.

I see no reason to use training zones either.

Well, i just recently got a HRM!!! In the past i know when i do a rowing session i'm working good most of the time... definitely out of my comfort zone most sessions. But this was all without a HRM. Now i want to back off a bit in some of my erg sessions, as i'm doing more weights now, and don't want the erg work to be too detrimental to that and the energy i need for lifting.

Anth_F wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:49 pm

Well, i just recently got a HRM!!! In the past i know when i do a rowing session i'm working good most of the time... definitely out of my comfort zone most sessions. But this was all without a HRM. Now i want to back off a bit in some of my erg sessions, as i'm doing more weights now, and don't want the erg work to be too detrimental to that and the energy i need for lifting.

I've been using one recently, but more to help keep me entertained than for anything else.

Anth_F wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:40 pm

I suppose i should really do a test then, to make sure i get my numbers into perspective.

I hear my erg calling meeee... get on me and get some flat out meters done... NOWWW

A “workable” method is doing a pretty hard session and end it with a sprint. This will give you a starting number, over time when you do other hard sessions you will see likely a bit higher number, but for starters this is close enough. It will never be miles off. And no need to do it right away.

I think "calories in" will have more impact on energy/recovery than HR...as long as we are talking about moderate sessions on the erg. You'll need to be in a significant surplus to make gains with the weights and any sessions on the erg will only be helping to keep the gut in check. You have to be training pretty damn hard to stray into "over training" imo.

johnlvs2run wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:54 pm

I've been using one recently, but more to help keep me entertained than for anything else.

I was never bothered about one, until now. Having a new gadget for the erg has definitely sparked something in me

hjs wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:55 pm

A “workable” method is doing a pretty hard session and end it with a sprint. This will give you a starting number, over time when you do other hard sessions you will see likely a bit higher number, but for starters this is close enough. It will never be miles off. And no need to do it right away.

Thanks Henry.

I was thinking doing some 500m intervals would get my max? But now you mention a hard session with end sprint, something like a hard 5k then sprint the finish maybe?

Anth_F wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 4:06 pm

johnlvs2run wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:54 pm

I've been using one recently, but more to help keep me entertained than for anything else.

I was never bothered about one, until now. Having a new gadget for the erg has definitely sparked something in me

hjs wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:55 pm

A “workable” method is doing a pretty hard session and end it with a sprint. This will give you a starting number, over time when you do other hard sessions you will see likely a bit higher number, but for starters this is close enough. It will never be miles off. And no need to do it right away.

Thanks Henry.

I was thinking doing some 500m intervals would get my max? But now you mention a hard session with end sprint, something like a hard 5k then sprint the finish maybe?

Longer sessions work best, 5k should be fine. People often have trouble getting max hf readings during shorter intervals. Not if you do enough ofcourse. Don,t worry to much, over time you will find out.
Hf readings are also sport specific per athlete. The sport you best trained can often give the highest readings. And the more vertical we are and the more muscle we use the higher the number.

There is a big reserve, sometimes people get trouble, this is an illnes, where the signal for beating will be disturbed, in that case much higher readings possible, even in rest. Ofcourse this is a serious matter which needs medical care. But that shows that max numbers are not the real max. There is a reserve, it needs to work a lifetime, so our body needs to be carefull

jimmyshand wrote: ↑

June 20th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Using that formula I get 179 for max but the max I see on the PM5 when using my heart strap is 188.

Using any formula is a complete waste of time and effort. 220-age is one of the most flawed pieces of pseudo-science ever seen. The sample size was a small number of trained athletes.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... e_equation

The only way to get an accurate measure is with a lab conducted lactate test.

The practical way (at zero cost) is a step test to failure.

Maximum HR is very useful to know, but very painful to find out. Basically a 5Km will get you there and its the point your just about to be forced to handle down, its really not a nice feeling and feels a bit like drowning.

Once you have the Max HR you need your resting HR, plug the two numbers into the Free Spirits training bands calculator and that way you stay in your zone for all your training rows using the average HR recorded on the monitor as a comparison.