Accurately establishing MHR

liamo

Hi,

As I was lucky enough to receive a Garmin Forerunner 305 for Xmas, I have developed a renewed interest in my various heart rates: Resting and Maximum Heart Rates; and my heart rate during training.

I had previously established what I believed to be an accurate MHR of 180.
I tried a few of the various formulae and settled on Miller et al. The others returned a lower value.

Anyway, based on a MHR value of 180, I establish the various HR zones as follows :
Recovery (60%-70%) 128-141
Aerobic (70%-80%) 141-154
Anaerobic (80%-90%) 154-167
Redline (90%-100%) 167-180

During a training run yesterday I recorded a relatively consistent HR after 10 minutes of 170-175 for 20 mins with a finish HR of 186 during a finishing sprint.

This led to me question the accuracy of either the HR monitor or the method for establishing a MHR.

I compared the Garmin's HR value against a manual pulse check and am happy that Garmin is reporting correctly. That just leaves the accuracy of my MHR value.

I understand that there can be wide variations in MHR between individuals and that the formulae for estimating MHR return just that - an estimate. My question is : is there somewhere that my MHR can be accurately established and is it expensive to establish?

Regards,

Liam

Colm_OReilly

Liam,

HR is not a great way to measure intensity and, as you pointed out, can fluctuate wildly depending on temperature, how dehydrated you are (whether you had beers last night), stress/anxiety levels, efficiency of movement (i.e. if you're a better cyclist than runner, you could train at the same intensity and have massive differences in your HR)

If you're interested in fitness, concentrate on power output, how heavy, how far, how fast.

Colm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dajaffa

220 - age is a very rough estimate, it's what the MHR would be for the average person, wheras someone whos fit will generally have a higher MHR than you'd get from 220 - age.

I stumbled upon this (not sure how good it is) http://www.stevenscreek.com/goodies/hr.shtml


Another good measure of how hard you're working is the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), http://0-www.cdc.gov.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/measuring/perceived_exertion.htm

I've used it in cardiac rehab classes as its a good measure for patients who are on beta-blockers so you can't monitor how hard they're working accuratley with their heart rate. For the normal population it can be a fairly accurate predictor of HR.

mickoo

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

HR is not a great way to measure intensity and, as you pointed out, can fluctuate wildly depending on temperature, how dehydrated you are (whether you had beers last night), stress/anxiety levels, efficiency of movement (i.e. if you're a better cyclist than runner, you could train at the same intensity and have massive differences in your HR)

The harder you push your heart rate the stronger your heart becomes, then you can push your power output more-For cardio, heart rate is the best method of judging training, no doubt.

thirtyfoot

mickoo wrote: »

-For cardio, heart rate is the best method of judging training, no doubt.

For beginners or weight loss etc perhaps but I'd be with Colm O' Reilly on this "how heavy, how far, how fast". When you get used to running, rowing, cycling etc, the watch is the best judge for training. I've tried both and gave up on the HRM as if I listened to it and not my body (or my stopwatch) I'd be cutting and quitting training sessions left, right and centre for fear of cardiac arrest. When you get experience you learn to listen to you body.

liamo

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

I'm going to revise my MHR upwards and see how training in the various zones feel (RPE) and adjust further, if necessary.

I agree to a point with the posts about "how far", "how fast" type training. However, I intend beginning triathlon training in a week or so and, from the reading I've done on the subject, a HR monitor is a useful tool that can act as a limiter in order to prevent the tri newbie doing too much too soon.

Any triathletes here have an opinion on the subject?

Regards,

iam

Reyman

I got one of those heart monitors last year and like you found I could train beyond the MHR. I read up on this quite a bit and the conclusion seemed to be that a fit person has an MHR between 5 and 10 above the normal calculated MHR.
I.E. Using the age method (220 - age) a 40 year old could get up to 185-190.

It's possible to physically check your MHR by running hard for 5-10 minutes and then going up a steep hill as fast as you can until you nearly collapse. I feel myself though this is a little risky and not worth taking the chance!

EileenG

My official MHR is 174 (I'm 46) but I can easily hit 185 on hills without feeling that I'm killing myself. I'm pretty sure I could could go 5-10bpm higher if I had to.

Pherekydes

Reyman wrote: »

I got one of those heart monitors last year and like you found I could train beyond the MHR.

You can't train beyond your MHR. It's called maximum heart rate for a reason.

Reyman

Slow coach wrote: »

You can't train beyond your MHR. It's called maximum heart rate for a reason.

You're right of course. But there isn't much agreement on how to determine MHR:

"Miller et al

A paper by Miller et al (1993) from Indiana University proposed the following formula as a suitable formula to calculate MHR

* MHR = 217 - (0.85 x Age)

USA Researchers

Evidence from USA researchers, reported in the Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007 May; 39(5):822-9, identified the following formula as more accurately reflecting the relationship between age and maximum heart rate.

* MHR = 206.9 - (0.67 x age)

UK Researchers

Research carried out by scientists at John Moores University in Liverpool (UK) in 2007, reported in the Int J Sports Med 2007;24, came up with with the following formulae for predicting maximum heart rates in both endurance and anaerobically trained athletes:

* Male athletes - MHR = 202 - (0.55 x age)
* Female athletes - MHR = 216 - (1.09 x age)

Miller, Londeree and Moeschberger

To determine your maximum heart rate you could use the following, which combines the Miller formula with the research from Londeree and Moeschberger.

* Use the Miller formula of MHR=217 - (0.85 × age) to calculate MHR
* Subtract 3 beats for elite athletes under 30
* Add 2 beats for 50 year old elite athletes
* Add 4 beats for 55+ year old elite athletes
* Use this MHR value for running training
* Subtract 3 beats for rowing training
* Subtract 5 beats for bicycle training "