Heart rate when training

[gvcormac]

I'm going to be a naysayer here.

To start, I believe in polarized training: Volume should be below lactate threshold; lower volume should be above, ranging from slightly above to all-out effort.

But HR Zones (however calculated) are a very dull instrument for determining what's below and what's above.

It is well known that formulas based on your age are useless, and that it is very difficult (and perhaps risky) to measure your absolute max HR. The end of a 5K won't do it unless you sprint for the last couple of minutes, and even then "sprint" is subjective.

My point here is that even if you knew your max HR, 70% or whatever would still be a wild-ass guess as to your lactate threshold. Some sources say 80% which is probably closer for a fit person. Some use HR reserve, based on your resting and max HR, but although it is intuitive, it is probably backwards: A well-trained person will have a lower resting HR, but the "reserve" formula would have them training farther from max HR than an untrained person.

Personally, I think my max HR is a bit higher than 170 -- I've seen 170 in sprinting at the end of a 10k. I can go a long time without distress or heavy breathing at 130-135, which is 75% - 80% of 170. I don't do this every day, though. My daily wake-up ride is typically under 100, which is below Zone 2.

Although I like to measure my HR, I don't think I need to: Perceived exertion and breathing are probably better guides to what's going on.

Maybe it is better to leave the HR monitor on the shelf.

[Dangerscouse]

I've seen my assumed max HR at the end of max efforts of 5k and up. I have not done the recommended testing protocol, so it may be a tad higher. Maybe it's possible that I'd have a record of something higher on my most recent marathon if the monitor didn't disconnect at the end.

Same for me. Highest observed HR was at the end of a 5k PB.

I've just checked, and my 6k PB also got to 99% of my assumed max

[gvcormac]

I've just checked, and my 6k PB also got to 99% of my assumed max

Interesting. FWIW, here are my ranked workout workout HRs (avg/max). No info (other than what's below) on what my max HR is.

500m: 147/155
1km: ??/158 (no splits so no avg)
2km: 154/160
5km: 153/165
7146m: 159/170
10km: 152/168
21097m: 142/165 (not all out effort)

[Nomath]

...
It is well known that formulas based on your age are useless, and that it is very difficult (and perhaps risky) to measure your absolute max HR. The end of a 5K won't do it unless you sprint for the last couple of minutes, and even then "sprint" is subjective.

I don't think that what you say about measuring the maximum heart rate is true. In a recent scientific study, that can be read free of charge, it was found that after a 6 min all-out test the participants got to within a few beats from the MHR found by a more sophisticated test with incremental power steps. See results in Table 1.

The participants were non-elite experienced male young rowers, aged 19-24 yrs. I think it is safe to assume that this also holds for other age categories and females.

[Dangerscouse]

I'm going to be a naysayer here.

To start, I believe in polarized training: Volume should be below lactate threshold; lower volume should be above, ranging from slightly above to all-out effort.

But HR Zones (however calculated) are a very dull instrument for determining what's below and what's above.

It is well known that formulas based on your age are useless, and that it is very difficult (and perhaps risky) to measure your absolute max HR. The end of a 5K won't do it unless you sprint for the last couple of minutes, and even then "sprint" is subjective.

My point here is that even if you knew your max HR, 70% or whatever would still be a wild-ass guess as to your lactate threshold. Some sources say 80% which is probably closer for a fit person. Some use HR reserve, based on your resting and max HR, but although it is intuitive, it is probably backwards: A well-trained person will have a lower resting HR, but the "reserve" formula would have them training farther from max HR than an untrained person.

Personally, I think my max HR is a bit higher than 170 -- I've seen 170 in sprinting at the end of a 10k. I can go a long time without distress or heavy breathing at 130-135, which is 75% - 80% of 170. I don't do this every day, though. My daily wake-up ride is typically under 100, which is below Zone 2.

Although I like to measure my HR, I don't think I need to: Perceived exertion and breathing are probably better guides to what's going on.

Maybe it is better to leave the HR monitor on the shelf.

I do like HR training, but I also do understand your opinion. Through trial and error I've found my approximate tipping point, albeit it's very approximate and that does seem to correlate with circa 70-75% for steady state. I'm not sure if this is just coincidence, much like my max HR is very nearly 220-age, but it does work for me. Although only for pre-Covid days.

I'm not a fan of HRR as this gives me a ridiculous range of something like 120 being circa 60% range, which is too fast if I nudged it up to 70% and seems like I'm lieing if I leave it as 60%.

I used to really rate RPE, and I do still use it some extent, but it's a flawed measure for me at the moment due to my post Covid issues

[gvcormac]

...
It is well known that formulas based on your age are useless, and that it is very difficult (and perhaps risky) to measure your absolute max HR. The end of a 5K won't do it unless you sprint for the last couple of minutes, and even then "sprint" is subjective.

I don't think that what you say about measuring the maximum heart rate is true. In a recent scientific study, that can be read free of charge, it was found that after a 6 min all-out test the participants got to within a few beats from the MHR found by a more sophisticated test with incremental power steps. See results in Table 1.

The participants were non-elite experienced male young rowers, aged 19-24 yrs. I think it is safe to assume that this also holds for other age categories and females.

This is interesting, but I don't think it contradicts my assertion that measuring max HR is challenging. These were experienced athletes who knew how to push themselves. Their 3-day previous exercise was curtailed, they were fed, did a controlled 10-minute warmup, and were coached during their row to achieve all-out effort.

I am surprised that they always did the incremental test first, perhaps introducing an order effect. Also, the subsequent efforts were not blind. The participants (presumably) knew their pace and the coaches knew which method was being used.

That said, I suspect the result is basically true: if you control rest and diet, and do a 10-minute moderately intense warmup, an all-out 6-minute effort is likely to achieve near max HR.

[JoanneR2]

If MHR can't be found by formula, is hard to find by hard work (limited by technique and strength), it looks like a shaky basis for an entire training program. Could be learning to row is the only option.

I am not trying to use it for a training program, just looking at where I am against the ranges I would expect and trying to work out if I should consider it more or not.

[Spinal]

...
It is well known that formulas based on your age are useless, and that it is very difficult (and perhaps risky) to measure your absolute max HR. The end of a 5K won't do it unless you sprint for the last couple of minutes, and even then "sprint" is subjective.

I don't think that what you say about measuring the maximum heart rate is true. In a recent scientific study, that can be read free of charge, it was found that after a 6 min all-out test the participants got to within a few beats from the MHR found by a more sophisticated test with incremental power steps. See results in Table 1.

The participants were non-elite experienced male young rowers, aged 19-24 yrs. I think it is safe to assume that this also holds for other age categories and females.

Does Concept2 data from 2k time trials support this? Always thought 5k, 6k and 30min time trials produced much higher HR max results than a 2k. This study has a shorter time frame than a 2k for us mere mortals to reach peak HR.

[JoanneR2]

Can't see anything wrong, on the contrary, save maybe your MHR estimate.

If you can hold 145 for a 10k, that must be close to your aerobic limit. So max would be maybe 155, since training pushes AT higher. Which would be neat: rest 55, max 155, range 100; and AT 90% of range.

To do a real mhr test I find a 500 can be enough. But not at rate 24, I have to get to a suicidal 35.

Thanks James, I am not sure I can even do 35 SPM to be honest but I might give it a try and see where I end up. Once if have finished the challenge that is. Only 10k to go…

[Nomath]

This is interesting, but I don't think it contradicts my assertion that measuring max HR is challenging. These were experienced athletes who knew how to push themselves. Their 3-day previous exercise was curtailed, they were fed, did a controlled 10-minute warmup, and were coached during their row to achieve all-out effort.

I am surprised that they always did the incremental test first, perhaps introducing an order effect. Also, the subsequent efforts were not blind. The participants (presumably) knew their pace and the coaches knew which method was being used.

That said, I suspect the result is basically true: if you control rest and diet, and do a 10-minute moderately intense warmup, an all-out 6-minute effort is likely to achieve near max HR.

I agree about the importance of the warm-up. I should have mentioned it. It took 20 minutes : 10 min on an indoor bike, 5 min gymnastic arm and leg movements and 5 min rowing, all at 60-70% of the theoretical HRmax (i.e. 208 - (0.7*age)).

I didn't read about 'coaching' the participants, just verbal encouragement from the research team.

About the order of the incremental test and the 6 minutes all-out test : yes, the incremental test (IT) came first and probably gave the participants guidance about their maximum power and HRmax. But there was 72 hours rest between the IT and the first 6-minute test and again 72 hours rest to the second 6-minute test. The results of the two 6-minute tests (with prior warm-up's) reproduced very well.

Experienced athletes ? They trained less than 6h per week and their VO2-max/kg was below the elite level.

[GlennUk]

I don't think that what you say about measuring the maximum heart rate is true. In a recent scientific study, that can be read free of charge, it was found that after a 6 min all-out test the participants got to within a few beats from the MHR found by a more sophisticated test with incremental power steps. See results in Table 1.

The participants were non-elite experienced male young rowers, aged 19-24 yrs. I think it is safe to assume that this also holds for other age categories and females.

thats interesting my HRmax value was observed after a CTC which was a 3 miles, r3:00 , 2miles r2:00 followed by a final 1mile, with the max observed achieved during c.20seconds of the final mile.

I am unsure why you tik that the sample tested would hold for other age groups and women? Anecdotally on here I am unsure whether it seems to hold true for any particular individual either.

[Sakly]

I don't think that what you say about measuring the maximum heart rate is true. In a recent scientific study, that can be read free of charge, it was found that after a 6 min all-out test the participants got to within a few beats from the MHR found by a more sophisticated test with incremental power steps. See results in Table 1.

The participants were non-elite experienced male young rowers, aged 19-24 yrs. I think it is safe to assume that this also holds for other age categories and females.

thats interesting my HRmax value was observed after a CTC which was a 3 miles, r3:00 , 2miles r2:00 followed by a final 1mile, with the max observed achieved during c.20seconds of the final mile.

I am unsure why you tik that the sample tested would hold for other age groups and women? Anecdotally on here I am unsure whether it seems to hold true for any particular individual either.

I assume you will not go full effort for the 3 mile in such workout as you know there are 3 miles more to come. First 3 mile full effort means crash and burn in the second interval.
Or did you go full effort in all intervals? Then I would assume rising paces in each.

[GlennUk]

I assume you will not go full effort for the 3 mile in such workout as you know there are 3 miles more to come. First 3 mile full effort means crash and burn in the second interval.
Or did you go full effort in all intervals? Then I would assume rising paces in each.

Its difficult to recall precisely how i approached this effort, however it was not an 'easy row' for me, but my recollection is that all three reps were pretty intense, with my HR at the end of the 1st interval of 3 miles at 158bpm, the 2 miles 169 bpm, and the final mile at 183bpm which no doubt would dhave been pretty much all out.

Looking back on my logbook https://log.concept2.com/profile/863524/log/54824878
the time to complete the final miles was 6:38.6, and the final 38.x seconds or so saw my HR climb from 179-183bopm, so perhaps the 6 mins is not so far out afer all.

[Elizabeth]

On an all-out 2k (which for me is more than 6 minutes), I max out at ~8 bpm less than max. I like to approach longer timed pieces by taking a steady and achievable hard pace for the first 80% and then gradually picking it up until I hit an all-out sprint with ~250m left, which seems closer to the incremental power step approach for the very end, and is where I see max HRs.

[nick rockliff]

Back at my peak in 2005 I had blood lactate and V02MAX tests. They are done via a 4min on 1 min off step which start at a pace based on current 2k then increase each step. The 1 min interval is when you give the blood so can get messy. The last 4 min is all out to determine the V02MAX which also gives max HR. My MHR was 173. I was 48 at that time. As I remember being told that any HR above that was not delivering any more oxygen but was working harder keeping up? I did see 184 at the end of my HM pb a little later in the year.

I have had these tests over a six year period at various levels of fitness and HR zones changed very little.

Am nearly 66 now so 18 years later and think my MHR would be no higher than 165 if that.

At 48 my UT2 HR cap was 154 and AT 165.