heart rate training

superbad50

hi guys ,

can some explain the methods behind heart rate training. i recently start using one and have been trying to keep my runs and cycles between 125 and 156. to get fitter should i be aiming at a particular heart rate zone or simply stick between the zones. also how much importance does the distance and time matter ?

My goals are to get fitter and to exercise to deal with stress and anxiety so just wondering should i be training within a certain heart rate zone

many thanks


andy

CosyAcorn

I have one but never really used it for long runs. I use it for interval type training (a few sets of 800 or 400m runs) I find it useful for tracking recovery times, mainly because you can see how long it takes for you're HR to go back down. I would be interested in how to properly use for longer runs too.

Hanley

For longer runs, if you're looking for aerobic development you're best to stick in the 125-155bpm range for like 45minutes+, the longer the better, 60-90 minutes would be great.

It's around that range where the left ventricle of your heart fills maximally and by training in that range for sustained periods of time you increase the size of the chamber, allowing an increased volume of blood to be pumped with each stroke, lowering the amount of beats per minute over time which is required to pump the same quantity of blood around your body, and making your heart work less hard.

Combine it with HIIT/more intense stuff, which tends to thicken the wall of the heart making it "stronger" and allowing it to pump more blood with each beat should leave you with both bases covered.

So essentially, both types of training work different things, so if you want to imporve everything, do both. As for structuring the training, anything I'd suggest wouldn't be as good as what the guys in the athletics, running and triathlon forum could point ya towards.

Hanley

Actually, for anyone interested, read this - http://training.sherdog.com/strength-and-conditioning/news/161060-the-lsd-vs-hiit-debate

Joel explains it far better than I can.

superbad50

Hanley wrote: »

For longer runs, if you're looking for aerobic development you're best to stick in the 125-155bpm range for like 45minutes+, the longer the better, 60-90 minutes would be great.

It's around that range where the left ventricle of your heart fills maximally and by training in that range for sustained periods of time you increase the size of the chamber, allowing an increased volume of blood to be pumped with each stroke, lowering the amount of beats per minute over time which is required to pump the same quantity of blood around your body, and making your heart work less hard.

Combine it with HIIT/more intense stuff, which tends to thicken the wall of the heart making it "stronger" and allowing it to pump more blood with each beat should leave you with both bases covered.

So essentially, both types of training work different things, so if you want to imporve everything, do both. As for structuring the training, anything I'd suggest wouldn't be as good as what the guys in the athletics, running and triathlon forum could point ya towards.

interesting , thank you very much hanley. i will check that article out. theres me thinking i was training correctly, ha -- far from

jimbobaloobob

Superbad have you established your resting heart rate? Maximum heart rate?
Apart from doing the 220-age method?

Mellor

Hanley wrote: »

For longer runs, if you're looking for aerobic development you're best to stick in the 125-155bpm range for like 45minutes+, the longer the better, 60-90 minutes would be great.

Is that universal, or would a higher or lower MHR make the optimal adjust withing that range.

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

Is that universal, or would a higher or lower MHR make the optimal adjust withing that range.

It's just what Joel Jamison says!!!

I know he referenced the recommendation somewhere, possibly in the 80+ page epic Sherdog thread, but essentially the guideline was that the younger and fitter you are, the more you should be towards the top end, and lower and fat was towards the bottom end.

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

For longer runs, if you're looking for aerobic development you're best to stick in the 125-155bpm range for like 45minutes+, the longer the better, 60-90 minutes would be great.

It's around that range where the left ventricle of your heart fills maximally and by training in that range for sustained periods of time you increase the size of the chamber, allowing an increased volume of blood to be pumped with each stroke, lowering the amount of beats per minute over time which is required to pump the same quantity of blood around your body, and making your heart work less hard.

Combine it with HIIT/more intense stuff, which tends to thicken the wall of the heart making it "stronger" and allowing it to pump more blood with each beat should leave you with both bases covered.

I didn't know any of this, nice post Hanley.

superbad50

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Superbad have you established your resting heart rate? Maximum heart rate?
Apart from doing the 220-age method?

no i haven't. how can i do this jimbo

Duck's hoop

Resting HR is easy - I'd get it in the morning, soon as you wake up. Do it over 5 days and average it. Monitor makes this a lot easier.

Max is more problematic. Basically you need to push yourself til you almost pass out and record your max. Push yourself as hard as you can and it's probably a few beats more than that.

Someone is bound to disagree though!

The Guvnor

Simplest thing to do imo is spring for a VO2 max test where you will get a number of markers such as:

1. RHR
2. MHR
3. HRR - HRResrve - difference between min and max.
4. 4MMol/AT point - Lactic acid kicks in about here.

There is acres of science in this area but whilst it is useful it is not cut and dry.

For example my heart rate is linear at 45 degrees - I do not get a spike.

In some cases my heart rate went down immeadiately after starting exercise.

ATM whilst I have a hear rate monitor I seldom use it.

I sometimes find that the heart rate depends on the exercise for example 125bpm might be easy on the treadmill but much harder on the bike etc. therefore despite using the zones it is important to also listen to your body as well.

Mack_1111

The Guvnor wrote: »

Simplest thing to do imo is spring for a VO2 max test where you will get a number of markers such as:

1. RHR
2. MHR
3. HRR - HRResrve - difference between min and max.
4. 4MMol/AT point - Lactic acid kicks in about here.

There is acres of science in this area but whilst it is useful it is not cut and dry.

For example my heart rate is linear at 45 degrees - I do not get a spike.

In some cases my heart rate went down immeadiately after starting exercise.

ATM whilst I have a hear rate monitor I seldom use it.

I sometimes find that the heart rate depends on the exercise for example 125bpm might be easy on the treadmill but much harder on the bike etc. therefore despite using the zones it is important to also listen to your body as well.

If you'r not going to get this test then your monitor is as superfluous as a snazzy top on a gym jock!!

As well as establishing your VO2 max you also need find out your lactate threshold (4MMol/AT point). This is the heart rate at which lactic acid will start to be produced in your muscles. This is your training bench mark NOTHING ELSE, by training just below your lactate threshold you push it up towards your VO2 max mark. Top endurance athletes have a lactate threshold quite close to their VO2 max, by staying aerobic for longer periods of time allows them to run marathons in rock star times.

Mellor

Mack_1111 wrote: »

As well as establishing your VO2 max you also need find out your lactate threshold (4MMol/AT point). This is the heart rate at which lactic acid will start to be produced in your muscles.

Just to clarify, the lactate threshold is when its produced at a rate faster than it can't be metabolised. Not when its simply produced.

Because of this it starts to accumulate, at 4MMol is normally used as a reference point for this accumulation.

flywheel

Hanley wrote: »

For longer runs, if you're looking for aerobic development you're best to stick in the 125-155bpm range

curious how you arrived at these figures?

Hanley

flywheel wrote: »

curious how you arrived at these figures?

I take it you didn't actually read the thread?

Hanley wrote: »

For longer runs, if you're looking for aerobic development you're best to stick in the 125-155bpm range for like 45minutes+, the longer the better, 60-90 minutes would be great.

It's around that range where the left ventricle of your heart fills maximally and by training in that range for sustained periods of time you increase the size of the chamber, allowing an increased volume of blood to be pumped with each stroke, lowering the amount of beats per minute over time which is required to pump the same quantity of blood around your body, and making your heart work less hard.

Mellor wrote: »

Is that universal, or would a higher or lower MHR make the optimal adjust withing that range.

Hanley wrote: »

It's just what Joel Jamison says!!!

I know he referenced the recommendation somewhere, possibly in the 80+ page epic Sherdog thread, but essentially the guideline was that the younger and fitter you are, the more you should be towards the top end, and lower and fat was towards the bottom end.

flywheel

superbad50 wrote: »

can some explain the methods behind heart rate training.

i'd point you towards Joe Friel:
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/

do a search for 'Heart Rate' on that site and you'll get a gold mine of accurate and practical info

as you mention running and cycling - if you are near a decent book store go check out his Training Bible series of books, he has one for Cycling and one for Triathlons...

Hanley

flywheel wrote: »

i'd point you towards Joe Friel:
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/

do a search for 'Heart Rate' on that site and you'll get a gold mine of accurate and practical info

as you mention running and cycling - if you are near a decent book store go check out his Training Bible series of books, he has one for Cycling and one for Triathlons...

Yeah.... what would Joel Jamieson know.

I'll have a look at this other guys "accurate and practical" info tho. Thanks.

Hanley

flywheel wrote: »

i'd point you towards Joe Friel:
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/

do a search for 'Heart Rate' on that site and you'll get a gold mine of accurate and practical info

as you mention running and cycling - if you are near a decent book store go check out his Training Bible series of books, he has one for Cycling and one for Triathlons...

Actually, maybe you can outline exactly what your problem is with Joel's recommendations?

Hanley

Ok.... I've done a REALLY quick skim of some of his stuff, and "zone 1 to 3" seems to be where the base level of training is established early in the season - ie aerobic development. And it seems to be done for time ranges similar to what I've said above. And I've seen a figure of 135-155bpm being quoted for those zones. Which is in the range of what I said Joel says above.

So.... am I missing something painfully obvious here or are you just trying to make an obtuse that correct heart rate training zones vary depending on sport?

Satanta

From what I can see in The Cyclist Training Bible, Joe Friel suggests that it is more important to determine your LTHR (Lactate Threshold Heart Rate). This is the point at which you become anaerobic. He states that this can vary depending on the individual, and can also vary for the same individual for different sports. Once you have determined your LTHR, you then look up your zones in the attached image (zones) to find your training HR zones. He also suggests on page 41 that that you should go by the RPE value until you determine your LTHR... which as Hanley pointed out means working in the zone 120-160 approx.

EDIT, I also found the same info on one of his blogs
http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/03/heart-rate-and-training.html

The key to using a heart rate monitor is determining your training zones. That is done by first finding your lactate threshold heart rate. This is much more precise than using max heart rate. It’s also more precise than using the formula 220 minus age to predict max heart rate. If you do that you had might as well guess. The formula is close to useless for individuals. It works fairly well with large groups of people. If you tested a large group you’d produce a bell-shaped curve. For those in the middle of the curve the formula would predict max heart rate rather closely. But there would be many people at the far ends of the curve, both high and low, for whom the formula is way off. Since you don’t know where you fall on the curve, the formula is mere speculation and likely to be 15 to 20 or more beats off. I’ve also never found any evidence that heart rate changes with age. I’m now 65 and have been using a monitor since I was 39. My lactate threshold heart rate on the bike has remained quite constant at about 152 all of these years. I have also been coaching one athlete for 7 years. His lactate threshold heart rate has not changed either. Bottom line: Forget about your age, using a formula of any kind and finding max heart rate. What you need to know is lactate threshold heart rate (LTHR).

PS I am not saying this guy is right or wrong. I started reading his book a couple of weeks ago after doing badly in a meaningless cycle race (it was actually a charity cycle but a few of us raced it) and want to do better next time.

Hanley

Satanta wrote: »

From what I can see in The Cyclist Training Bible, Joe Friel suggests that it is more important to determine your LTHR (Lactate Threshold Heart Rate). This is the point at which you become anaerobic. He states that this can vary depending on the individual, and can also vary for the same individual for different sports. Once you have determined your LTHR, you then look up your zones in the attached image (zones) to find your training HR zones. He also suggests on page 41 that that you should go by the RPE value until you determine your LTHR... which as Hanley pointed out means working in the zone 120-160 approx.

EDIT, I also found the same info on one of his blogs
http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/03/heart-rate-and-training.html


PS I am not saying this guy is right or wrong. I started reading his book a couple of weeks ago after doing badly in a meaningless cycle race (it was actually a charity cycle but a few of us raced it) and want to do better next time.

Well... yeah, I got that.

He uses % training zones based off an individuals LTHR, and those zones which target aerobic development, forming the base of a training cycle, roughly equal the numbers I said.

Now, it may be the case flywheel was agreeing with me and what Joel says, but the general tone of the post came across as quite snide, so perhaps I'm missing something here? Or being overly sensitive?

mushykeogh

Mack_1111 wrote: »

As well as establishing your VO2 max you also need find out your lactate threshold (4MMol/AT point). /QUOTE]

4Mmol can be an overestimation of AT, frequently 2Mmol can actually be the first breakpoint, particularly if the athlete is reasonably well trained.
Like heartrate the variation is huge, but the last few weeks ive been doing Vo2 incrementals till my eyes bleed and seen alot of guys break around the 2Mmol level at 80% + of max hr.

flywheel

flywheel wrote: »

Hanley wrote: »

For longer runs, if you're looking for aerobic development you're best to stick in the 125-155bpm range

curious how you arrived at these figures?

snide? that's awesome - I asked a quick question incase I had missed the OP giving data somewhere about his age or HR formula/testing...

lads you have to work on % when giving general guidance to someone, unless you have specific info about an individuals heart rate (and how accurate that info is) - Lactate Threshold and basing zones on this is a great way to work a training programme and then periodise it for a goal or event

--

i did like Joel's article in relation to base building / aerobic training and that it should not just be HIIT (a refreshing read compared to most who just recommend everyone slaugheter themselves while training), but i'd have much prefered to have seen % used compared to specific numbers and an understanding that there is sports specificity in HR training

flywheel

Hanley wrote: »

flywheel wrote: »

superbad50 wrote: »

can some explain the methods behind heart rate training.

i'd point you towards Joe Friel:
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/

do a search for 'Heart Rate' on that site and you'll get a gold mine of accurate and practical info

as you mention running and cycling - if you are near a decent book store go check out his Training Bible series of books, he has one for Cycling and one for Triathlons...

Yeah.... what would Joel Jamieson know.

I'll have a look at this other guys "accurate and practical" info tho. Thanks.

eh i was replying directly to the OP, i quoted him directly in my post so thought that was clear enough?

g'em

flywheel and Hanley can both of you reel it in please? You're just arguing at cross-purposes, room for everyone's opinions and all that.

flywheel

g'em wrote: »

flywheel and Hanley can both of you reel it in please? You're just arguing at cross-purposes, room for everyone's opinions and all that.

please expalin cross-purposes?

i gave helpful advice directed at the OP - and was called obtuse an snide? how do i need to reel it in?

g'em

I deleted your last post because - as a former Moderator you will be painfully aware - arguing with a Mod on-thread is not allowed. Besides, you've already PM'd me about it.

And seeing how you've reacted to nothing more than a mild warning on-thread only serves to tell me that this would, in fact, go down the route I'd have feared had it been left to continue. Now please, leave it be, and do not post any further on the thread.