Heart rate zones

Running Bing

Just curious about what heart rate zones people train in.

I went for an easy run today and decided to keep my heart rate below 150 (my max is 200 so thats about 75% of my max). I found it tough to keep my heart that low, the run felt so slow and monotonous. Now having said that I wouldnt mind doing a few workouts a week at this rate as its nice and relaxing and pretty easy but I was just looking at this article here and I was pretty shocked to see there recommended training intensities.


It advises that all easy recovery runs should be completed between 60-70%. Thats between 120-140 bpms for me and it would be nothing more than a fast paced walk.


I realise most of my running, even easy runs up to now, takes place at heart rates above 150 bpms!


Is this really bad? how many people actually do runs in the 60-70% zone? It just seems very very slow to me.

Krusty_Clown

Here's the spreadsheet I use, which is based on Pfitzinger and Douglas' Advanced Marathoning. Might be worth a look. Just sub in your values in the cells with red font.

dna_leri

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Here's the spreadsheet I use, which is based on Pfitzinger and Douglas' Advanced Marathoning. Might be worth a look. Just sub in your values in the cells with red font.

Krusty - thanks for the spreadsheet. When I opened it, I wondered how you managed to have my resting and max data in there already, but then I realised we have identical HR data !

I use slightly different %'s based on McMillan and some different terminology but overall its much the same, or a bit lower:

Max HR Purpose
65% Recovery run
70% Long run
75% Easy run
87% Steady run
90% Tempo run

I use these as guidelines, and find them useful especially for the slower runs, making sure I don't go too fast.

hot to trot

try working out your percentages a bit differently to get your WORKING heart rates. My max heart rate is 194 and my 70% is 151 bpm, 165 beats is where I start to do my tempo and speedier stuff. IF your max is 200 then you are too slow at what you are doing .
Try this and see what you get..
Max heart rate -( minus) resting heart rate taken in bed while almost dozing in the am. is usually nearly 10 beats less than sitting quietly in a chair! multiply by .70 ( for 70% calculation) then add back in your resting heart rate.

Work out your 70% for your long runs and your recovery and easy runs. Your 85% for your tempo lactate stuff, and then higher as you wish. I think you will find this a bit better for practical running.
Parkers book.." heart monitor training for the compleat idiot" is very good to make the most out of this kind of approach.
I used to run at 70% and my pace was about 8.5kph. Now at 70% I am closer to 9.8 kph.

tunney

Why are people still working of MHR?

pgibbo

tunney wrote: »

Why are people still working of MHR?

Sorry if you have answered this elsewhere tunney, but what should we be working off? And I guess, what is the best way to calculate it (it being your answer of course)? Cheers.

Racing Flat

tunney wrote: »

Why are people still working of MHR?

I imagine it's because:

1) They are not exercise physiologists so they rely on common running books and magazines which...
2) ....say that 70-80% MHR is a good jogging pace, 90% is a good lactate threshold pace and >90% is a good speedwork pace.

In fairness, many of these publications are writen by exercise physiologists who know that most people don't have the inclincation or the access to physiological testing so they provide these %s as they are close to mean aerobic, lactate threshold and VO2max paces.

At least it's a step up from - 'work out at 150bpm' or '70% x (220-age)' etc.

However, a problem is many people may not be accurate in their identification of their MHR and so they may not be doing what these books and magazines are prescribing...

Krusty_Clown

dna_leri wrote: »

Krusty - thanks for the spreadsheet. When I opened it, I wondered how you managed to have my resting and max data in there already, but then I realised we have identical HR data !

The Spreadsheet uses macros to take your resting pulse from the keys on your keyboard, while you are typing. It also records your maximum heart rate while you are watching videos on youtube.

911sc

post deleted.

Poncherello

Max HR 190
Age 31, weight 12 stone

Have recently started using my HR monitor, I am training for Half IM, Dub marathon and various Olympic dist events throughout year. I find on my cycles my average HR is approx 145-150 but on my runs almost always 165-170 - is that completely anaerobic and pointless training on the runs that is ?

Thx

ss43

tunney wrote: »

Why are people still working of MHR?

To have a guideline figure to tell them whether they are going too hard. Any Heart rate figure is at best a guideline.

What should they be working off?

You could just as easily ask why are people working with HR monitors at all. They're hardly neceessary.

Running Bing

http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

Good article on this from Mark Allen (apparently the fella was'nt bad at triathlons;)).



Interesting for me to read back over my post as well seeing as I do a fair bit of my running under 150 now and a few days back did one at 65%.

tunney

ss43 wrote: »

To have a guideline figure to tell them whether they are going too hard. Any Heart rate figure is at best a guideline.

What should they be working off?

You could just as easily ask why are people working with HR monitors at all. They're hardly neceessary.

MHR isn't always best to work off. My run MHR is 198bpm.

According to the links above my Threshold zones are 158bpm to 178bpm. With my LHR somewhere in between the two. My LHR is actually 185bpm.

People can, and should, estimate their LHR and use that instead.

HR monitors are essential

tunney

Poncherello wrote: »

Max HR 190
Age 31, weight 12 stone

Have recently started using my HR monitor, I am training for Half IM, Dub marathon and various Olympic dist events throughout year. I find on my cycles my average HR is approx 145-150 but on my runs almost always 165-170 - is that completely anaerobic and pointless training on the runs that is ?

Thx

you're running too hard

mloc123

tunney wrote: »

MHR isn't always best to work off. My run MHR is 198bpm.

According to the links above my Threshold zones are 158bpm to 178bpm. With my LHR somewhere in between the two. My LHR is actually 185bpm.

People can, and should, estimate their LHR and use that instead.

HR monitors are essential

What is LHR? Lowest heart rate? Google is not being very helpful..

copacetic

Lactate Heart rate. Threshold from aerobic to anaerobic.

Running Bing

copacetic wrote: »

Lactate Heart rate. Threshold from aerobic to anaerobic.

How related to heart rate is lactate threshold though?


What I mean is couldnt you have two athletes who run at identical paces at each heart rate but one has a higher lactate threshold?

I always though Lactate threshold pace was better predicted by 10k pace or subjective effort? Am I wrong on this?

copacetic

Babybing wrote: »

How related to heart rate is lactate threshold though?


What I mean is couldnt you have two athletes who run at identical paces at each heart rate but one has a higher lactate threshold?

I always though Lactate threshold pace was better predicted by 10k pace or subjective effort? Am I wrong on this?

Its absolutely related, but you can't guess it. You need to test for it, thats kind Tunneys point, guessing your MHR or by extension your MHR isn't optimal. At your 10k pace you would indeed ikely be at or around your lactate threshold heart rate.

To extend your analogy, those two athlethes could be the same age with wildly different lactate thresholds AND maximum heart rates/resting heart rates.

So guessing by your age isn't really valid.

tunney

LHR is short for Lactate threshold Heart Rate.

More specifically I'm talking about LT2 or OBLA (this will show up in google alright:) )

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

LHR is short for Lactate threshold Heart Rate.

More specifically I'm talking about LT2 or OBLA (this will show up in google alright:) )

Nice bed time reading there.

Running Bing

copacetic wrote: »

Its absolutely related, but you can't guess it. You need to test for it, thats kind Tunneys point, guessing your MHR or by extension your MHR isn't optimal. At your 10k pace you would indeed ikely be at or around your lactate threshold heart rate.

To extend your analogy, those two athlethes could be the same age with wildly different lactate thresholds AND maximum heart rates/resting heart rates.

So guessing by your age isn't really valid.

I think the confusion (from my point of view) comes from Tunneys original comment "Why are people still working of MHR?"

Now first of all when I say MHR Im not talking about 220-age, Im talking about a properly tested MHR.

Secondly I was using my MHR to predict an adequate zone for aerobic training which I think is far more reasonable than using it to determine LT pace.

I know HR can rise and fall under differing circumstances (heat etc.) but I still think using % of MHR to determine an adequate aerobic zone to train in is reasonable and widely used (i.e. not as strange or antiquated as Tunney's comment implied). Am I well wide of the mark here?

copacetic

No not really, I think you are bang on. Imo Tunney is very dismissive of
other peoples opinions. I was just giving a background on the LHR and
trying to be open to everyones point of view!

pgibbo

Babybing wrote: »

Now first of all when I say MHR Im not talking about 220-age, Im talking about a properly tested MHR.

Out of curiosity, how did you test your MHR? Cheers.

tunney

Babybing wrote: »

I think the confusion (from my point of view) comes from Tunneys original comment "Why are people still working of MHR?"

Now first of all when I say MHR Im not talking about 220-age, Im talking about a properly tested MHR.

Secondly I was using my MHR to predict an adequate zone for aerobic training which I think is far more reasonable than using it to determine LT pace.

I know HR can rise and fall under differing circumstances (heat etc.) but I still think using % of MHR to determine an adequate aerobic zone to train in is reasonable and widely used (i.e. not as strange or antiquated as Tunney's comment implied). Am I well wide of the mark here?

Different stroke for different folks.

MHR is an easy thing to measure and the zones based on it can often be pretty accurate. I think that LT2 can be used to give more accurate and benefical training zones. Most of the popular recent research would also back this up. (Friel, Carmichael, Ferrari to name but a few proponents of LTHR based zones over MHR zones).

MHR will give vague non specific, non personal training zones.
LTHR will give very specific, painful, personal zones.

Running Bing

tunney wrote: »

MHR will give vague non specific, non personal training zones.
LTHR will give very specific, painful, personal zones.

So if I go to a lab and get my LT tested how will that be used to get my appropriate training zones?

The other thing to keep in mind is if I go to a lab and get my LT tested and find it occurs at a specific heart rate that does not mean that when out on my training runs my LT will always be at that heart rate does it?


As I said above I wouldnt personally use heart rate to judge an appropriate LT pace...my original question was purely aimed at finding out what would be an appropriate range of heart rates to do my easy runs at.

I think Im missing something because I still dont see how LTHR could help me determine that

Out of curiosity, how did you test your MHR? Cheers.

Good article on it here:

http://www.howtobefit.com/determine-maximum-heart-rate.htm

Racing Flat

Babybing wrote: »

So if I go to a lab and get my LT tested how will that be used to get my appropriate training zones?

When you go to the lab, they will put you on the treadmill and start to monitor your heart rate and blood lactate levels. This will tend to be fairly stable at rest and will rise marginally once you start exercising at a comfortable level, but then stable out once again. They increase the speed a little every so often. Once the speed starts to get a little uncomfortable the lactate levels will rise more significantly, and then at a certain point, it will rise massively and fairly suddenly. IIRC the point where it rises massively is the lactate turnpoint.

As they will have graphed this, and recorded your heart rates at each time point on the same graph, you can see what your heart rate was at this turnpoint. If you train as close as possible to this heart rate you will be at your lactate threshold and so may improve your ability and capacity at this point, so that the graph will 'move to the right' i.e. you will soon be able to run faster before the lactate levels rise rapidly. If you train faster than the lactate threshold the effects of lactic acid will limit performance - ie you won't be able to keep doing it for too long as it's more 'anaerobic', so getting as close as possible is the key for improving your lactate threshold, the key indicator for marathon performance.

In terms of calculating your easy run heart rate, they will just look at the graph to see what your heart rate was when the latate levels were stable and before they started to rise in any way significantly. So they won't work this out from your HR at LT but rather from your HR at comfortable running pace/lactate levels.

Finally speed session HRs will be based on HRs higher than that at the lactate turnpoint.

As an example, on one of my tests:

HR max = 193 (but they did not use this info)
Velocity @ LT = 15.9kph
HR @ LT = 182
%VO2max @ LT = 81%
%HRmax @ LT = 94%
lactate @ LT = 2.6mmol/L
velocity @ 2mmol/L = 15.3kph
HR @ 2mmol/L = 180
lactate @ 160bpm = 0.9mmol/L
velocity @ 160bpm = 12.3kph

Based on this, the following HR zones were prescribed (for hard weeks):
easy - 150-160 (occasionally 165)
tempo/LT runs - 175-180
speed - >185

As a matter of interest, if I had used the often described zones of 70-80% of 220-age for my easy runs and 80-90% of 220-age for my LT runs, I'd have been at 132-150 and 150-170 respectively...My max HR was higher than 220-age and my LT occured at 94% rather than 90% max HR (which means I'm uneconomical I think :mad:) so the generic zones would have had me training too easy.

Also, when I went for this test, I told the testers that I'd been stuck around 61-62mins for 10miles for about 2 years and I wanted to run sub 60. The tester said that if everything went really well, if I picked a good course, a dry day and the wind was at my back I might just about mangae it if I really dug in. He got me doing a lot more LT running (this was very tough compared to what I was used to, not really the speed, but the frequency and duration) and 10 weeks later I ran 60.01 - or :mad: I'm not sure...

A few months later I went for another test (telling them I wanted to run 2.59..., they must love me :P):

HRmax = 189 (:eek:lower - am I older??? I think I just didn't push myself as much, knowledge of the test this time and knowing the'd got all the info they needed...)
velocity @ LT = 16.2kph (yes! I'm faster at LT, this implies faster at 10mile, half marathon, marathon etc.)
HR @ LT = 178
%HRmax @ LT= 94%
lactate @ LT = 2.2mmol/L
velocity @2mmol/L = 15.9kph
HR @2mmol/L = 176
lactate @ 160bpm = 1.1mmol/L
velocity @ 160bpm = 13.1kph

So new prescribed training zones...
easy 145-150
LT 170-175
speed >180

The key zone tbh is the LT one - you can see that it is a little lower than my HR at the actual LT during the test. I generally need the monitor to let me know when I am in this zone - otherwise I'd probably just start the session too fast and slow down fairly quickly and so not train hard enough for that session. For easy runs, just running naturally comfortably tends to have me close enough to the easy zone - I wouldn't need a monitor for that. For speed sessions - as they are very hard anyhow, the HR gets up appropriately, I wouldn't need the monitor to tell me this.

I had been at a plateau across the distances for about 2 years, ie didn't really set any pbs between mid 2006 (3rd year running) and early 2008. Since getting tested then and training according to these zones, omitting cross country, I have ran about 12 races and gotten 10pbs. The 2 non pbs are explined by one race being after a 4 week break from running and one where I was running up to my knees in water. So I'd be a big fan of training in the correct heart rate zones, but only if you know your individual correct zones from proper testing. You'd be better working off effort or race times than generic zones/estimations IMO.

pgibbo

Thanks for that Racing Flat. A working example always makes things clearer. :cool:

So in essence, you get the test done and then work off HR based on the results of the test. That being the case, how frequently do people tend to test themselves? I assume the first test happens when you start back training or early in the base period and re-test after 6 to 8 weeks?

dna_leri

Racing Flat wrote: »

When you go to the lab, they will put you on the treadmill and start to monitor your heart rate and blood lactate levels. This will tend to be fairly stable at rest and will rise marginally once you start exercising at a comfortable level, but then stable out once again. They increase the speed a little every so often. Once the speed starts to get a little uncomfortable the lactate levels will rise more significantly, and then at a certain point, it will rise massively and fairly suddenly. IIRC the point where it rises massively is the lactate turnpoint.

As they will have graphed this, and recorded your heart rates at each time point on the same graph, you can see what your heart rate was at this turnpoint. If you train as close as possible to this heart rate you will be at your lactate threshold and so may improve your ability and capacity at this point, so that the graph will 'move to the right' i.e. you will soon be able to run faster before the lactate levels rise rapidly. If you train faster than the lactate threshold the effects of lactic acid will limit performance - ie you won't be able to keep doing it for too long as it's more 'anaerobic', so getting as close as possible is the key for improving your lactate threshold, the key indicator for marathon performance.

In terms of calculating your easy run heart rate, they will just look at the graph to see what your heart rate was when the latate levels were stable and before they started to rise in any way significantly. So they won't work this out from your HR at LT but rather from your HR at comfortable running pace/lactate levels.

Finally speed session HRs will be based on HRs higher than that at the lactate turnpoint.

.

Great explanation RF.

Where did you get your test done, about how much does it cost and are there other locations around the country that are equally good?

...

Racing Flat

pgibbo wrote: »

So in essence, you get the test done and then work off HR based on the results of the test. That being the case, how frequently do people tend to test themselves? I assume the first test happens when you start back training or early in the base period and re-test after 6 to 8 weeks?

They advised me that I could get retested every 3 months, but maybe it's more frequently for elites? But I went as I had a target race, as I did well in that I kept going at the same zones and about 6 months later as I had a new target at a different distance, I went back for a retest. And in fairness, the zones were changed, so it was proabbly worth it. That's about 9 months ago and I haven't been back since, but as I ran a big PB recently I'm happy enough things are still okay for me, more of a time issue than anything else haven't been able to get around to it.

dna_leri wrote: »

Where did you get your test done, about how much does it cost and are there other locations around the country that are equally good?

...

They do it in DCU, Trinity, UCC and UL I think - contact the appropriate department (usually physiology or maybe anatomy) of the one nearest to you to set it up. Mine was 60Euro, but they also check bloods, iron levels etc., and lung function tests, so it's excellent value IMO. There was some private company doing it in Sandyford also, but I can't remember their name.

ss43

tunney wrote: »

MHR isn't always best to work off. My run MHR is 198bpm.

According to the links above my Threshold zones are 158bpm to 178bpm. With my LHR somewhere in between the two. My LHR is actually 185bpm.

People can, and should, estimate their LHR and use that instead.

HR monitors are essential

Why not run to feel. Lactate threshold is generally accompanied by a change of breathing and you can also feel it. I generally run with a HR monitor but when my HR goes above my threshold HR I can feel it in my legs. Relying on my perceptions is more importnat I think, with the HR for back-up. Your LHR can change from day to day, the feelings that accompany running above threshold won't. It's an internal intensity so rely on internal feedback. Use external feedback (watches etc.) for external intensities (paces). Being in touch with your body is very important and while HR monitors are useful when learning they shouldn't replace the need to feel.

Also going above threshold isn't the big no-no everyone says (IMO). Why would people use progressive runs where they start easy work up to and then beyond threshold be used?

Running Bing

Racing Flat wrote: »

As they will have graphed this, and recorded your heart rates at each time point on the same graph, you can see what your heart rate was at this turnpoint. If you train as close as possible to this heart rate you will be at your lactate threshold and so may improve your ability and capacity at this point, so that the graph will 'move to the right' i.e. you will soon be able to run faster before the lactate levels rise rapidly. If you train faster than the lactate threshold the effects of lactic acid will limit performance - ie you won't be able to keep doing it for too long as it's more 'anaerobic', so getting as close as possible is the key for improving your lactate threshold, the key indicator for marathon performance.

First of all great post RF but Ill just pick out this small point.

Lets say in the lab my Lactate starts turning at 7 min/mile and my heart rate is at 176 bpm surely when Im outside the lab running under different circumstances Ill be hitting different paces at 176 bpm?


What I mean is I can go out and run at 8:50 pace at 144 bpm and the next day Ill be running 9:40 pace at 150 bpm.....it varies a lot?

Or is heart rate the main thing that determines LT rather than pace? for instance should people be focusing on a specific heart rate rather than a specific pace on their tempo runs....so some days my tempo runs could be at 7 min/mile other days 7:35 min/mile as long as my heart rate is always at the predetermined value?

Also going above threshold isn't the big no-no everyone says (IMO). Why would people use progressive runs where they start easy work up to and then beyond threshold be used?

Is the purpose of those workouts to increase lactate threshold though? (maybe it is I have never done one)

I think RF raises a very good point there about people turning tempo runs into time trials (I used to be guilty of this before I started to understand what was going on). If the goal of the workout is to increase LT then going above a certain pace defeats the purpose by my understanding.

thirstywork

tunney wrote: »

MHR isn't always best to work off. My run MHR is 198bpm.

According to the links above my Threshold zones are 158bpm to 178bpm. With my LHR somewhere in between the two. My LHR is actually 185bpm.

People can, and should, estimate their LHR and use that instead.

HR monitors are essential

your lactic treshold is too high Tunney,how do you base this?
have you ever got a vo2 max test done ?

Racing Flat

Babybing wrote: »

Lets say in the lab my Lactate starts turning at 7 min/mile and my heart rate is at 176 bpm surely when Im outside the lab running under different circumstances Ill be hitting different paces at 176 bpm?

You should train at just less than 176 to train your lactate threshold then. 20min sessions, some people say 2 x 20min, I did 3 x 20min during one training period but this was very hard, and recently when training for 10mile I did 1 x 40 min sessions.

As you said some days this might be 7.00, the next day if you are tired, or on a hilly or muddy course, or it's windy, you might be at 7.35. So if you tried to go at 7.00 pace you'd be working too hard. Whereas at just below 176, regardless of the pace, you'll be just short of your LT and so training at the best intensity to improve this. Working off effort might be better than pace, as pace will vary with conditions.

But this only applies if you know your own LT HR. As this can change, you should probably also get rechecked fairly regularly, at least until you get the feel for it as mentioned above by others.

tunney

thirstywork wrote: »

your lactic treshold is too high Tunney,how do you base this?
have you ever got a vo2 max test done ?

Yes - LT2 was determined based on blood lactate and gas analysis.

silverside

Thanks tunney and everybody else for an interesting thread, i'm gonna get a lactate test done - reading some of the simple LT2 / OLBA graph stuff has really helped me understand the different types of training.

ChickenTikka

Any one know or come across any research as to what age its appropriate to introduce heart rate zone training for juveniles. I'm trying it out for a few weeks on a trial basis with 3 athletes aged 14/15 in our club.

I think they are probably too young because what I find is that even on an easy run, their heart rate is way up ... 95% of max. Going by the formulas, thats their red line zone and they should be nowhere near it on an easy run.

My conclusion so far after only a few wks is that the heart rate zones are not applicable to athletes this age ... they'd have to crawl in order to keep their HR down in the recovery zone and only have to go at little more than a jog to get HR up to 90-95%.

But from an observational perspective its useful to have an idea of what their HR is at different intensities of running. And maybe useful for them to learn to pace themselves better.

Any thoughts on it? Any advice as to when its best to introduce zones or threshold training?

hot to trot

Heart rates in children are much higher. For adolescents it may be 70-100 in a resting heart rate. Can be up to 200 in much younger children. I would suggest that you get them to wear a heart monitor for a prolonged time to see what the resting is( maybe watching tv for an hour or two etc) and then to really push them like the adults hill test to see what they reach on a max and work out the rates from there .

Poncherello

I'm pretty sure at that age my MHR was in region of 210-220. Never measured with a monitor as they were not around in those days.

silverside

am looking to do a vo2 / lactate test in dublin - anyone know who does them ?

something more specific than "sports department of ucd / trinity" would be useful, thanks

Poncherello

Anatomy Dept Trinity - ask for Bernard Dunne

dna_leri

ChickenTikka wrote: »

Any one know or come across any research as to what age its appropriate to introduce heart rate zone training for juveniles. I'm trying it out for a few weeks on a trial basis with 3 athletes aged 14/15 in our club.

I think they are probably too young because what I find is that even on an easy run, their heart rate is way up ... 95% of max. Going by the formulas, thats their red line zone and they should be nowhere near it on an easy run.

My conclusion so far after only a few wks is that the heart rate zones are not applicable to athletes this age ... they'd have to crawl in order to keep their HR down in the recovery zone and only have to go at little more than a jog to get HR up to 90-95%.

But from an observational perspective its useful to have an idea of what their HR is at different intensities of running. And maybe useful for them to learn to pace themselves better.

Any thoughts on it? Any advice as to when its best to introduce zones or threshold training?

hot to trot wrote: »

Heart rates in children are much higher. For adolescents it may be 70-100 in a resting heart rate. Can be up to 200 in much younger children. I would suggest that you get them to wear a heart monitor for a prolonged time to see what the resting is( maybe watching tv for an hour or two etc) and then to really push them like the adults hill test to see what they reach on a max and work out the rates from there .

I would be cautious about performing an "adults hill test" MHR stress test on children/ juvenlines without professional advice on the applicability.

CT - how did you calculate the max HR for your work to date?

ChickenTikka

dna_leri wrote: »

CT - how did you calculate the max HR for your work to date?

Something I had read a few years back and had used myself for calculating max was to do easy jog for 400m, pick it up to steady pace for 800m and then go flat out for last 400m and that HR will spike to max just as you finish/slow down. That is what I used with 3 athletes to calculate MHR. I've only tried the HRM with them for 2 weeks so need to have them use them a bit more in normal training to get a better idea of what their HR is at different intensities during normal sessions. It may be the case that the HRM gives an occasional invalid reading and maybe that has messed up my observations so far.

Appreciate any feedback people have. google doesn't seem to have much on this stuff for juvenile athletes.

Poncherello

Racing Flat wrote: »

You should train at just less than 176 to train your lactate threshold then. 20min sessions, some people say 2 x 20min, I did 3 x 20min during one training period but this was very hard, and recently when training for 10mile I did 1 x 40 min sessions.

As you said some days this might be 7.00, the next day if you are tired, or on a hilly or muddy course, or it's windy, you might be at 7.35. So if you tried to go at 7.00 pace you'd be working too hard. Whereas at just below 176, regardless of the pace, you'll be just short of your LT and so training at the best intensity to improve this. Working off effort might be better than pace, as pace will vary with conditions.

But this only applies if you know your own LT HR. As this can change, you should probably also get rechecked fairly regularly, at least until you get the feel for it as mentioned above by others.

Hi I recently had a lactate test done in the lab and my threshold was calculated at 165.
I was given a similar programme to do sets of between 10 and 20mins at 160-165 for my steady sessions to build my endurance cpacity. I am into week 3 now but find I can easily maintain 160-165 for 40 mins after 20 min warm up. Should I continue with this.

Also I have never worn a HRM during a race(Sprint or Olympic) but intend to going forward.(next race Sprint in NAC & Olympic Athy) What sort of heart rate should I be looking for in say my next Sprint on the run and cycle ?
Or do you need more info to be able to say ?

Big goals for season are Half Iron Man Kenmare and my first DCM

Thanks

tergat

ChickenTikka wrote: »

Any one know or come across any research as to what age its appropriate to introduce heart rate zone training for juveniles. I'm trying it out for a few weeks on a trial basis with 3 athletes aged 14/15 in our club.

I think they are probably too young because what I find is that even on an easy run, their heart rate is way up ... 95% of max. Going by the formulas, thats their red line zone and they should be nowhere near it on an easy run.

My conclusion so far after only a few wks is that the heart rate zones are not applicable to athletes this age ... they'd have to crawl in order to keep their HR down in the recovery zone and only have to go at little more than a jog to get HR up to 90-95%.

But from an observational perspective its useful to have an idea of what their HR is at different intensities of running. And maybe useful for them to learn to pace themselves better.

Any thoughts on it? Any advice as to when its best to introduce zones or threshold training?

ChickenTikka,

I think its probably a bit young at 14-15 to start using monitors and setting defined threshold zones with kids. I appreciate it would be great to know their zones and for them to learn the correct pace etc but you need to be careful in finding the balance between 'training' and 'fun' at that age.

Also max heart rates can be very high with younger kids and can fluctuate depending on lots of factors.

I recommend teaching them about keeping their easy runs 'easy' and introduce 'progression runs' over anything from 20-60 mins depending on their age. These are great aerobic runs for youngsters once they are kept controlled. Example 50 min progression run (start off with 20 mins easy pace and gradually increase pace depending on how you feel on that particular day and finishing last 5-10 mins at a strong pace but always ready for 10-15 mins more if needed). You can add 4-6*50m sprints afterwards to get legs moving again.

Kids can get huge fitness gains from these once they keep them 'controlled' The key when I use them with young athletes I coach is that I do 1 or 2 with them so they get the right idea and pace.

Using progression runs they are actually working the key zones to improve LT, work slow twitch and fast twitch 'A' fibres. When they are 16+ they can start wearing HR monitors to monitor pace etc.

Tergat

Racing Flat

Poncherello wrote: »

Hi I recently had a lactate test done in the lab and my threshold was calculated at 165.
I was given a similar programme to do sets of between 10 and 20mins at 160-165 for my steady sessions to build my endurance cpacity. I am into week 3 now but find I can easily maintain 160-165 for 40 mins after 20 min warm up. Should I continue with this.

I think you should ask your tester these questions.

Which 'threshold' was at 165? And waht do they mean by endurance capacity? As people define these things differently you better ask them.

But if you can 'easily maintain' 160-165 for 40mins, I imagine you are not at your lactate threshold. An LT run will typically be fairly hard or what people might call 'comfortably hard'. You know you could speed up a bit if you had to (but you wouldn't want to), you're dying for it to be over, and you're delighted when it is. From that regard it's a bit like a race, but not as hard, but a major difference being that you'll recover much more quickly after a LT run than a race.

Go talk to your tester, see what the story is.

tunney

Racing Flat wrote: »

I think you should ask your tester these questions.

Which 'threshold' was at 165? And waht do they mean by endurance capacity? As people define these things differently you better ask them.

But if you can 'easily maintain' 160-165 for 40mins, I imagine you are not at your lactate threshold. An LT run will typically be fairly hard or what people might call 'comfortably hard'. You know you could speed up a bit if you had to (but you wouldn't want to), you're dying for it to be over, and you're delighted when it is. From that regard it's a bit like a race, but not as hard, but a major difference being that you'll recover much more quickly after a LT run than a race.

Go talk to your tester, see what the story is.

To elaborate on the above:

Lactate Threshold #1 : blood lactate 1 mmol above baseline. Often referred to as "aerobic threshold".

Lactate Threshold #2: Also know as OBLA, Onset of Blood Lactate Accumulation. Often referred to as "anaerobic thresold", or for alot of people just "threshold". It hurts, hurts, hurts.

Sounds like you're talking about your LT#1.

Poncherello

Sorry what I meant when I said 'easily maintain' was exactly what you have referred to here "An LT run will typically be fairly hard or what people might call 'comfortably hard'. You know you could speed up a bit if you had to (but you wouldn't want to), you're dying for it to be over, and you're delighted when it is."
Maybe I just was having a good day as this morning running in to work found it tough to maintain 165.

Tunney I am not familiar with what you are referring to. I have a couple of sheets with a lot of info that mean v little to me, also a graph which charts VO2, HR and metabolic rate/response which I kind of understand.
I cant find where it refers to different thresholds, it says in one place at top of chart - HR @ Thac 165 beats/min.

The reason the tester told me to work on my endurance/aerobic capacity was because my BLa chart was a 'little too steep' in the early part of the test.

Racing Flat

Poncherello wrote: »

it says in one place at top of chart - HR @ Thac 165 beats/min.

Sounds like you are working at your lactate threshold then. It is bizarre therefore that you found it in any way easy. The last time I did a 40min tempo, it was with 3 other fellows and each of us admitted afterwards that we were dying to stop at 30mins but didn't want to be the one to admit it, each of us at times drifted out the back and had to work really hard to get back in touch, so from that point of view it was like a race. And at the end we all had to stop and bend over and get our breath for a few minutes before we could warm down and more than one of us said 'I am absolutely _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '. We were at 6.15 pace (windy day, hilly enough route in Phoenix Park) and our 10mile race pace is 6.00 pace.

dna_leri

Slightly off-topic here but does anyone know why all the maximum heart rate approximation formulas are based on somewhere around 220 bpm minus some calculation?

Is there a physiological reason why our heart rates could not be greater than 220?

And if my otherwise reliable HRM has recorded 210, 213, 218, 221 bpm during recent speed sessions - is it faulty or am I ?

jlang

No hard reason, and there are people who can go over 220. Seems it's a good estimate and supposedly fits for enough people that it's not a bad starting place until you actually push yourself to the limit.

I always have to ignore the max heart rate my watch records as it usually spikes up to 200+ in the first minute of running (gave me 227 once). When I download from the watch and look at the graph or raw data it's a steady ramp from rest rate up to 160 or whatever except for the single oddball reading. Maybe I had two beats close together but as I know I wouldn't be working hard at the time I prefer to ignore it as an outlier. Max HR figure from succeeding laps is generally fine.

tunney

dna_leri wrote: »

Slightly off-topic here but does anyone know why all the maximum heart rate approximation formulas are based on somewhere around 220 bpm minus some calculation?

Is there a physiological reason why our heart rates could not be greater than 220?

And if my otherwise reliable HRM has recorded 210, 213, 218, 221 bpm during recent speed sessions - is it faulty or am I ?

more than likely its interference with the unit. not faulty but some things interfere with the watches - 06 cars I find on the bike.