Heart rate zone
Welcome to the Peak Performance forums!
To contribute to the discussions please either register here for free or login.
To access 20 years worth of Peak Performance downloads, articles, workouts as well as the locked members only forum click here to take a trial membership for $1.97
Useful Links: Quick Start Guide, Forum Guidelines, Terms and Conditions,Recent Activity…
8th Nov '05, 10:30pm
I'm a cyclist and have recently bought a HR monitor. I've read a lot about training zones and and torn between which method to use.
The first one involves taking MHR (mine is 202) then using % of it
the other known as th The Karvonen Formula takes RHR into account. The reason i ask is my aerobic zone for the first method is 141-161 where as the other is 160-174. This is quite a difference and would not want to be over training of even under training.
Heart rate zone
11th Nov '05, 7:01pm
It seems to me that your calculations are a bit awry.
You don't say how you calculated your MHR but as a quick rough guide you can use the formula 220 - your age. In you case the 202 MHR you quote makes you 18 years old.
To be more accurate you have to have a tesat made by a personal trainer using one of the methods that they use.
Having arrived at your MHR you can calculate your aerobic zone as 60-70% of your MHR which in your case means that your upper aerobic limit (the point at which your body switches from burning fat to plundering other sources of energy such as carbohydrate and protein) would be around 141.
Of course all of this is subject to varience with different people, but if you are only looking for basic training guides it should be OK.
Heart rate zone
13th Nov '05, 1:03pm
the predictive equation 220 minus age is well outdated and should never really had any credability since it was devised from a study of less than 50 people back in 1936. And only one person over the age of 50 was used to see any linear decreases in HR and age. Since this person was told they could stop at anytime, there is no real evidence that this equation is accurate. Especially when you look at more current research on the area showing a +/- 15 bpm difference from actual HR. Too inaccurate to use.
Karvonen formula is better - when working with cardiac rehab patients, this is what we used although a predictive equation was used to work out max. We simply removed the 15 bpm differnece from the equation. Not perfect, but when working with high risk patients, kept the HR to the safe side.
And I dont know where 160 bpm is the maximum for aerobic HR for anyone under 25. Dont believe it - too many variables to consider. MAx HR for a start. IF a 24 year old only had HRmax of 180, then 160 would be way off. Surely optimal is athlete specific.
Heart rate zone
14th Nov '05, 9:01am
I dont believe you plucked the number out of the air but that is still a huge generalisation to assign everyone under the age of 20 into a one group while not considering personal factors.
I dont necessarily agree with the statement that someone with a HRmax of 180 is in a constant anaerobic state either. Some individuals have a naturally low HRmax. HR is correlated to VO2 max but it is not VO2 max alone that determines aerobic ability - it is a measure of it and you read Tim Noakes work, then he would say it is almost an indirect measure of VO2 max. It does not take into consideration skeletal muscle function. So why can someone with a relatively low VO2 max and HRmax produce world record aerobic performances (granted not necessarily in cycling)? - Economy of performance which includes a combination of aerobic function and skeletal muscle function.
I agree some athletes are in a constant anaerobic state but not everyone with a low HRmax is in that state. Plus using HR monitors to determine HRmax also has a variablility of 4 - 10 bpm while compared to ECG data. So potentially HRmax is misleading using a HRmax. And if changing HR monitors from athletes on regular basis, internal validity of monitoring is compromised. So HR monitoring is also suspectable to possible inaccuaracies.
I would be interested in hearing the secret of aerobic training if you wouldn't mind sharing with the forum- thanks.
I did not mean to question your integrity for which I apoligise.
Heart rate zone
16th Nov '05, 9:05am
Yeah it woulod be good to hear the training secret.
Thanks
Alex
Heart rate zone
20th Nov '05, 12:21pm
I'd like to hear it too!
Heart rate zone
23rd Nov '05, 10:29pm
Well, out with it then, don't keep us waiting! :shock:
Heart rate zone
27th Nov '05, 9:40am
Hi, I am new to the forum so thanks for letting me join in.
A few comments I would make is that the purpose of using the Karvonen method ((MHR-RHR) x %) + RHR is to give a more accurate representation of % VO2 max as a training guidline.
Second comment would be that MRH varies depending on the activity eg for a triathlete they will need to find their MHR for each discipline as it will vary.
Everyone is different, I am 47 and have a tested MHR of 170 but I have friends who are older who have a much higher rate
Lastly, HR training bands are very much a rough guide, a good guide but general. The only way to accurately develop accurate HR training bands is to a get to a lab and have testing done for lactate levels during your chosen activity.
George
Heart rate zone
7th May '06, 10:41pm
The Aussie is right.
Check out this link http://www.rrca.org/publicat/slowdown.html
Mark Allen - the greatest Ironman of all time followed these principles to the letter and had a 15 year career as one of the worlds best tri-athletes. Very few endurance athletes can hope to attain these performance levels for so long.
Dr Philip Maffetone developed the 180minus formula in the late 70's and the subject is well covered in Dr Tim Noakes running bible The Lore Of Running.
Wishing you all the best
John