Max heart rate

[sailortodd]

If you think your max is 180 and you do long/slow at 70% = 126 and later discover that your actual max is 190... it made no read training difference. You could have targeted 190 x 70% = 133 instead of 126, but it won't make a difference in your training outcome. Some people do their long/slow at 65% instead of 70%. It works.

To go further with the zone training discussion, I've seen different sources recommending max heart rate to calculate zones or using heart rate reserve. Has anyone done enough work with HR Zone training to experience whether the %MHR or %HRR is a better indicator of the aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold, etc?

My strictly age-based MHR is 183 or 187 depending on whether I use 220-age(37) or 211-(.64*age), which makes my Zone2 upper limit 128-131. If I use the higher MHR and my RHR (50) to calculate HRR, and use the most broadly available formula to calculate zone boundaries ((MHR-RHR)*0.7+RHR or (187-50)*0.7+50) makes my Zone2/3 boundary HR 146. There is a significant difference between keeping my HR below 131 and 146 for a LSD workout - like a 10+s/500m difference.

[ukaserex]

For me, I have to wonder, what difference does it really make?
I tend to lift weights, changing things up with reps/sets. For rowing, same kind of thing. Some longer rows, some sprints, some intermediate. Is knowing the Max HR really going to change how hard or how long you row?

Suppose I think my max HR is 178. I row a program that's based off of that HR. Then, I learn, for whatever reason, my actual Max HR is only 172. Or, I learned it was actually 190. Most training plans I see suggest a range for specific HR zone training. So, if you're on the lower end of the 65-80%, as opposed to the higher side...what do we gain? What do we lose?

I know some folks go fully vested with Maffetone, rowing longer, slower, using HR% as the baseline. Ideally, as time goes by, you can row farther in the same time frame. Do we know of any studies where being off by a few % points makes any discernable difference?

[Tsnor]

If you think your max is 180 and you do long/slow at 70% = 126 and later discover that your actual max is 190... it made no read training difference. You could have targeted 190 x 70% = 133 instead of 126, but it won't make a difference in your training outcome. Some people do their long/slow at 65% instead of 70%. It works.

To go further with the zone training discussion, I've seen different sources recommending max heart rate to calculate zones or using heart rate reserve. Has anyone done enough work with HR Zone training to experience whether the %MHR or %HRR is a better indicator of the aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold, etc?

My strictly age-based MHR is 183 or 187 depending on whether I use 220-age(37) or 211-(.64*age), which makes my Zone2 upper limit 128-131. If I use the higher MHR and my RHR (50) to calculate HRR, and use the most broadly available formula to calculate zone boundaries ((MHR-RHR)*0.7+RHR or (187-50)*0.7+50) makes my Zone2/3 boundary HR 146. There is a significant difference between keeping my HR below 131 and 146 for a LSD workout - like a 10+s/500m difference.

First the "age based max HR diatribe". You can skip over this if you like. But never ever use a max HR based on age in choosing your own personal training zones. Most of the time it's wrong, about a 1/3 of the time its wrong in a bad direction so it can drive you into overtraining. It's safer to ignore max HR then to use age based max HR in training.

Age based Max HR from population studies is good for answering questions like "how does HR change as people get older". Age based max HR does not work at all for your personal training zones. Its similar to saying "average depth of water is 4 feet. I can't swim, but I'm OK with 4 feet of water, so I'm safe." The formulas predict the average max heartrate based on age. They don't attempt to predict your own personal max HR. <end diatribe>

Second I totally agree with your point. When you plug your personally observed max HR into the zone formulas you get all sorts of answers, and they are not that close. And they all can't be mathematically be correct... Resting HR changes significantly with conditioning level, max HR doesn't. So HR zone formulas based on Heart Rate Reserve will give different answers than formula based on Max HR depending on conditioning level. You end up with a wide range like your "131 and 146" target HRs. If you add in the wattage based zone calculators you end up with more numbers with similar scatter. They don't end up close enough to each other to reliably tell you where to train.

Has anyone done enough work with HR Zone training to experience whether the %MHR or %HRR is a better indicator of the aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold, etc?

Yes, and unfortunately some formulas work for some people, other formulas work for others. Elite athletes use lactate testing not formulas to predict lactate for that reason. One British elite rower who posts on youtube and has national team coaches and lactate testing is down to 65% of his max HR as his UT2 target HR, which is way below what any of the formulas predict.


What to do....

1.Err on the low side for the critical boundary between long/slow no stress workouts and workouts that cause stress. (This is the zone 1 / zone 2 boundary in a 3 zone model, the high end of UT2, the point where lactate starts to go up.) Shoot for 70% of your personal max heartrate. This is safely lower than the expected lactate turn point, so lets you train in the UT2 zone. Your training heart rate will be lower than some models predict for the max HR in the UT2 zone, however your goal is to do hours safely in the UT2 zone, not to get as close to the top of the zone as you can.

2.Use your personally observed max HR and several formulas to get in the right range for your zones. (The critical one is the high end of UT2, point where lactate starts to go up.) Then use other data to get to your correct training zone. If you do a few workout days back to back at or under UT2 even on the last day you should feel OK, your breathing should be low enough so you can carry on a conversation. You should not be sore. Your heart rate should remain constant over the workout without you needing to reduce effort level towards the end (no cardiac drift). Even UT2 workouts will cause stress and stress symptoms if you ramp the duration too quickly, or workout overheated or dehydrated, so look for signs that you are pushing too hard on days where you are doing the workouts you normally do under normal conditions.

good luck.

[Tsnor]

Do we know of any studies where being off by a few % points makes any discernable difference?

The studies use lactate testing to determine the actual lactate turn points for their test subjects zones, so they won't have test subjects working out in the wrong zones.

There are studies that show that too much time above UT2 is counter productive. Being off by " few % points" could conceivably push you above UT2 when you think are at UT2 triggering the "too much time above UT2 is counter productive" problems. But if its only a "few % points" and your workout is not skating the edge then being wrong by a little bit shouldn't matter.

Other than that, I don't know of any case where a few % make a difference. There is plenty of research showing that working out at "tempo" vs "high intensity internals" gives you the same adaption benefits, so being in the wrong zone for these shouldn't matter.

[Dangerscouse]

Has anyone done enough work with HR Zone training to experience whether the %MHR or %HRR is a better indicator of the aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold, etc?

I found it was slightly more about ego. I train my UT2 at circa 70%-75% of MHR, but if I use HRR it's 65-70%.

When there's so much comparison happening on social media I found that showing it as 65% instead of 70% was sometimes perceived as a humble brag. Consequently I'm happy to stick to the old fashioned MHR, as I know what ranges work for me, if I exclude the past five months. I don't need to try and beat anyone, other than myself on UT2 sessions.

[nick rockliff]

At age 48 my MHR determined by vo2max step test with blood lactate profile was 173.

Lactate threshold <2mmol HR cap 154
Anaerobic threshold 4mmol HR 165

You can work out the percentages.

[gvcormac]

Has anyone done enough work with HR Zone training to experience whether the %MHR or %HRR is a better indicator of the aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold, etc?

I think not. There is a lot of literature, mostly with elite athletes, showing that tons of intermediate intensity is not great, and that it is better to do long, slow combined with a relatively small amount of fast intervals. But none of these show hard boundaries, or what happens when the boundaries are crossed. Some Maffetone adherents think if you go above 180-.7age (or whatever the formula is) for even one minute your entire workout is wasted. I'm not aware of any evidence of that. Actual measured lactate might be a bit better, but the thresholds are still somewhat arbitrary.

Many people have a propensity to overtrain, by which I mean excessive sustained cardiovascular stress. The zones are one way to try to prevent that, and maintain conditioning for occasional hard workouts.

[jamesg]

Heart Rate is not really a problem in rowing. We rowed perfectly well before Conconi, and still do so after. Learning to row with a big stroke that'll move a boat or a flywheel fast takes time, and is done at low ratings. The fitness needed to do it can increase at the same rate, with no need to do vast amounts of work that could cause overtraining.

[Dangerscouse]

Some Maffetone adherents think if you go above 180-.7age (or whatever the formula is) for even one minute your entire workout is wasted. I'm not aware of any evidence of that.

Many people have a propensity to overtrain, by which I mean excessive sustained cardiovascular stress. The zones are one way to try to prevent that, and maintain conditioning for occasional hard workouts.

I've always been cynical of that Maffetone assertion, as it's easy to increase HR, if only slightly, through different stimuli that aren't related to training harder. Surely if your HR increases through a stressful thought, that can't affect your blood lactate too, as it's not a result of training harder, it's all due to hormones?

Overtraining as you refer to it is definitely an issue, as it's hard for the ego to accept that it will make you faster, and the detrimental effects are subtle and easy to ignore

[JaapvanE]

I've always been cynical of that Maffetone assertion, as it's easy to increase HR, if only slightly, through different stimuli that aren't related to training harder. Surely if your HR increases through a stressful thought, that can't affect your blood lactate too, as it's not a result of training harder, it's all due to hormones?

I notice that my heartrate goes up 5 BPM before I need to burp and goes down again after. Could take a few minutes before that happens during rowing though. Should that count as (over)training?

[Dangerscouse]

I notice that my heartrate goes up 5 BPM before I need to burp and goes down again after. Could take a few minutes before that happens during rowing though. Should that count as (over)training?

That's a good example. I can't see how that would materially affect training, but I'm always willing to be proven wrong.

My HR always increases by a few bpm at the end of the session as I'm generally aware of when it will end, so I start paying attention to the monitor. The pace, and effort, is exactly the same so surely that's not got any consequences?

[Dangerscouse]

Has anyone done enough work with HR Zone training to experience whether the %MHR or %HRR is a better indicator of the aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold, etc?

I found it was slightly more about ego. I train my UT2 at circa 70%-75% of MHR, but if I use HRR it's 65-70%.

Edit: I accidentally rowed with HRR using Ergzone (I meant to delete it) and my HRR % was exactly 10% lower than my MHR.

If I tried to regularly row at 70% of HRR I'd definitely overtrain fairly quickly, albeit that might be more appropriate to me due to my (usual) longer distances.

[Erik A]

i ended up doing a long walk on the weekend in preparation for the Marathon im booked in to do in about 5 weeks. part of my walk included a large hill which i hit at about the 14km stage. previously my max HR that i had seen was 161. at the 1km mark (turnaround) up that hill i was at 167. after i turned around and came back down to finish up my HR dropped back to high 130s low 140s for the remaining 7kms. ended up at 22.3km. i think i can safely assume that my max HR is 167 give or take a couple of BPM.

[Ombrax]

Erik, I'm amazed you're able to get your HR up so high while walking. That must have been a pretty steep hill done at a brisk pace.

[Erik A]

Erik, I'm amazed you're able to get your HR up so high while walking. That must have been a pretty steep hill done at a brisk pace.

yes it is a very steep hill... no i didnt feel that i was doing it very fast . my pace for that particular km was 13mins. my goal pace for the marathon is sub 10 but my current average is usually nearer to 9:30 per km. i am very aerobicly unfit however i have noticed a very significant improvement since getting back on the erg.