Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

First Up · 08-04-2021 9:30am

Ceepo wrote:

As a coach I wouldn't advise any athletes to use 220 method to get their training zones, nor know any other coaches that would.

That's fine but as a coach I'd hope you are encouraging the subject to run, not confront them with a reading list or waving formulae at him.

That's OK on a nerds forum like Boards but not on the track or in the park.

Ceepo · 08-04-2021 9:56am

First Up wrote: »

That's fine but as a coach I'd hope you are encouraging the subject to run, not confront them with a reading list or waving formulae at him.

That's OK on a nerds forum like Boards but not on the track or in the park.

Im confused by that statement.

If you're training by HR you will need to work out your training zone's whether using 220 formula or max hr test, the difference is you will have your individual accurate readings from max hr test.

Not sure about nerds either, from what I see, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience on this forum. Some posters have trained in physical/sports injury therapy, some have competed at a high level national and internationally, some have invested a lot of time and money educating themselves by completing coaching courses and attending coaching conferences etc.
Some have all of the above.

Now if you you want to call them nerds, that's your right. I would just say they probably know what they're talking about.

First Up · 08-04-2021 10:27am

Ceepo wrote: »

Im confused by that statement.

If you're training by HR you will need to work out your training zone's whether using 220 formula or max hr test, the difference is you will have your individual accurate readings from max hr test.

Not sure about nerds either, from what I see, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience on this forum. Some posters have trained in physical/sports injury therapy, some have competed at a high level national and internationally, some have invested a lot of time and money educating themselves by completing coaching courses and attending coaching conferences etc.
Some have all of the above.

Now if you you want to call them nerds, that's your right. I would just say they probably know what they're talking about.

After a good few years of it, I am familiar with the pace/gradient/distance and gait I need to get to whatever I want to reach for the day. I don't need to scrutinise a HR monitor every time and if I'm a few percent off, then so be it.

I don't doubt the nerds know what they are talking about. What makes them nerds is wanting to keep talking about it.

Ceepo · 08-04-2021 10:33am

First Up wrote: »

After a good few years of it, I am familiar with the pace/gradient/distance and gait I need to get to whatever I want to reach for the day. I don't need to scrutinise a HR monitor every time and if I'm a few percent off, then so be it.

I don't doubt the nerds know what they are talking about. What makes them nerds is wanting to keep talking about it.

But no one on here said you need to scrutinise every time.
They just said to do a simple test to give you an accurate starting point.

Laineyfrecks · 08-04-2021 10:33am

First Up wrote: »

After a good few years of it, I am familiar with the pace/gradient/distance and gait I need to get to whatever I want to reach for the day. I don't need to scrutinise a HR monitor every time and if I'm a few percent off, then so be it.

I don't doubt the nerds know what they are talking about. What makes them nerds is wanting to keep talking about it.

I really don't understand what you are getting out of calling people nerds? Seems quite childish to me... If you don't like the advice or agree with it that's your choice but you are not the only one who reads the forum.

Seve OB · 08-04-2021 10:40am

Jaysus
We are not nerds.
We are Geeks:

First Up · 08-04-2021 11:01am

Ceepo wrote:

But no one on here said you need to scrutinise every time. They just said to do a simple test to give you an accurate starting point.

I've seen references to VO2 tests in labs, as many as seven training zones and expensive Apple and Garmin monitors.

Not that simple and a lot more complicated than I think a beginner should be expected to take on.

Ceepo · 08-04-2021 11:36am

First Up wrote: »

I've seen references to VO2 tests in labs, as many as seven training zones and expensive Apple and Garmin monitors.

Not that simple and a lot more complicated than I think a beginner should be expected to take on.

Yes there's reference to individual people's vo2 lab tests, and some posters have gave there opinions on smartwatchs and specific heart rate monitor. Most of this was to give personal experience using heart rate monitor with chest straps v optical sensor and the difference in accuracy, some were questioning heart rate spikes etc.
The common thyme throughout this tread is that it doesnt need to be complicated.
Do a max heart rate test, work out your training zones and train accordingly.

While different training plans might have you doing specific work in training zone's, that is more specific to the plan you are following.

The 2 common points from the start.
1, Do a test to determine your max or vo2
2, Get and accurate heartrate monitor.

Without this vital information, you're not training to heart rate, you only think you are.

First Up · 08-04-2021 11:52am

Ceepo wrote:

Without this vital information, you're not training to heart rate, you only think you are.

If you want to base a training plan around HR, then take it as seriously as you like (and can afford). I just don't think it's necessary for a beginner to take it much further than a mix of hard, easy, intervals and tempo runs.

A HRM might be interesting for some of that but it certainly isn't vital.

08-04-2021 12:10pm

First Up wrote: »

If you want to base a training plan around HR, then take it as seriously as you like (and can afford). I just don't think it's necessary for a beginner to take it much further than a mix of hard, easy, intervals and tempo runs.

A HRM might be interesting for some of that but it certainly isn't vital.

This is a thread specifically about Heart Rate Training. No-one has said beginners must train by heart-rate. The point that has been made (repeatedly) is that if you are going to train by HR, you must have somewhat accurate numbers to use. No formula gives anywhere like the accuracy that is required

Ceepo · 08-04-2021 12:15pm

First Up wrote: »

If you want to base a training plan around HR, then take it as seriously as you like (and can afford). I just don't think it's necessary for a beginner to take it much further than a mix of hard, easy, intervals and tempo runs.

A HRM might be interesting for some of that but it certainly isn't vital.

I don't disagree with using that mix of sessions and have point that out previously. I've coached plenty of athletes who don't use HR,
Where i do disagree is if you are to use hr, then you need to accurately get you max hr or get vo2 and not use 220 minus age.
This thread is about training with heart rate.
And again as I and others have pointed out, if you do want to train using HR, you need an accurate hr monitor (it doesn't have to be expensive) and an accurate max heart rate number, again it doesn't need to expensive lab test, a field test will do.

First Up · 08-04-2021 12:34pm

28064212 wrote:

This is a thread specifically about Heart Rate Training. No-one has said beginners must train by heart-rate. The point that has been made (repeatedly) is that if you are going to train by HR, you must have somewhat accurate numbers to use. No formula gives anywhere like the accuracy that is required

What's the thread title?

08-04-2021 12:48pm

First Up wrote: »

What's the thread title?

"Heart Rate Training - beginners guide". And?

First Up · 08-04-2021 12:55pm

28064212 wrote:

"Heart Rate Training - beginners guide". And?

Nothing else.

lulublue22 · 08-04-2021 12:57pm

First Up wrote: »

Nothing else.

A guide for those beginning to train by hr not a hr guide fir beginner runners.

ariana` · 08-04-2021 12:59pm

lulublue22 wrote: »

A guide for those beginning to train by hr not a hr guide fir beginner runners.

Exactly my understanding of this thread having followed it from the start... unfortunately it's been derailed in the last day or two by someone who seems to think we're all nerds :rolleyes:

First Up · 08-04-2021 1:01pm

ariana` wrote:

Exactly my understanding of this thread having followed it from the start... unfortunately it's been derailed in the last day or two by someone who seems to think we're all nerds

No, only those who think it involves a seven zone training plan.

Annie get your Run · 08-04-2021 2:12pm

To be honest I'm not really sure what the purpose of going around in circles here is.

This thread is for people who want to learn about training by heart rate. No one is suggesting that a beginner runner should train by heart rate. In fact it has been pointed out a few times that beginner runners should focus on running easy runs consistently and slowly building mileage before they bring in anything else.

If someone wants to begin training by heart rate they need to go and do a max HR test to determine their max HR so they can set up the zones properly from the start. There are a number of ways to do this and these have been posted several times throughout the thread. Advising anyone to use the generic age formulas for calculating max HR is not good advice, nor is it helpful to that poster. It really is that simple.

SeeMoreBut · 08-04-2021 4:04pm

And if someone wants to train to hr prepare to run slower than what you think your easy runs are.

Running slower than you think is easy is probably the reason why most give up on it from people I know who have tried it. I'm running 30 seconds a km slower than what I use to. This is bs

First Up · 08-04-2021 4:31pm

Annie get your Run wrote:

If someone wants to begin training by heart rate they need to go and do a max HR test to determine their max HR so they can set up the zones properly from the start. There are a number of ways to do this and these have been posted several times throughout the thread. Advising anyone to use the generic age formulas for calculating max HR is not good advice, nor is it helpful to that poster. It really is that simple.

I'm not arguing against any of that. It is important to know your max heart rate; I just don't think it needs to be measured to the nth degree, any more than your target HR for any type of run needs to be.

The 220-A approximation is a good enough guide for the sort of runs most of us include in our programme. And more importantly, it might get people trying it sooner than booking a lab test.

I said earlier that the last time I compared it with my HR after some uphill runs, the difference was 4 beats a minute. I tried it again during an easy park run at lunchtime today. The difference was 3 beats a minute.

That's close enough for me but each to his own.

deconduo · 08-04-2021 7:32pm

First Up wrote: »

I'm not arguing against any of that. It is important to know your max heart rate; I just don't think it needs to be measured to the nth degree, any more than your target HR for any type of run needs to be.

The 220-A approximation is a good enough guide for the sort of runs most of us include in our programme. And more importantly, it might get people trying it sooner than booking a lab test.

I said earlier that the last time I compared it with my HR after some uphill runs, the difference was 4 beats a minute. I tried it again during an easy park run at lunchtime today. The difference was 3 beats a minute.

That's close enough for me but each to his own.

What's the benefit of training by HR vs PE if you have no idea what zone you're actually in? On average using the age formula you're going to be out by a full zone and some people will be out by 3-4 zones.

Seems pointless to use HR if you don't have your zones set up correctly as the data is just garbage, stick to PE instead.

Edit: Oh and no one is saying to start with a lab test, plenty of ways to do it yourself with progressive 800m or hill repeats or a 30 min all out run.

keith_d99 · 08-04-2021 7:44pm

First Up wrote: »

I'm not arguing against any of that. It is important to know your max heart rate; I just don't think it needs to be measured to the nth degree, any more than your target HR for any type of run needs to be.

The 220-A approximation is a good enough guide for the sort of runs most of us include in our programme. And more importantly, it might get people trying it sooner than booking a lab test.

I said earlier that the last time I compared it with my HR after some uphill runs, the difference was 4 beats a minute. I tried it again during an easy park run at lunchtime today. The difference was 3 beats a minute.

That's close enough for me but each to his own.

Each to their own you say ... but you have gone to good lengths to point out how reading HR from an expensive watch is obsessive?
I'm not an experienced runner ... I started a HR based 80/20 training plan programme after 12 months of running the wrong way (too fast) ... and getting injured along the way
HR zone alerts are a way of teaching me to run slow. I'm sure with experience it will come more naturally.

I didn't buy the watch for this specifically ... had it long before I took up running.

If that makes me a nerd than so be it coach!

First Up · 08-04-2021 9:10pm

keith_d99 wrote:

Each to their own you say ... but you have gone to good lengths to point out how reading HR from an expensive watch is obsessive? I'm not an experienced runner ... I started a HR based 80/20 training plan programme after 12 months of running the wrong way (too fast) ... and getting injured along the way HR zone alerts are a way of teaching me to run slow. I'm sure with experience it will come more naturally.

The accepted wisdom is that an easy run should be at 50%-60%, moderate at 70%-80% and a hard run at 90%-100%. That spread is close enough for the coaching manuals so why demand precision in MHR and then apply a spread like that when using it?

I didn't invent 220-A as a way to estimate MHR but not only is it widely used, it also gives me almost exactly the same numbers as an uphill field test. It's close enough to be good enough for me.

I've had a Polar monitor for years. Like you, It helps make me slow down on long easy runs but I don't use it much otherwise.

Seve OB · 08-04-2021 9:17pm

Jaysus if you dig anymore you are going to end up in Australia

Reg'stoy · 09-04-2021 1:46pm

For those having trouble with their strap connecting at the start of a run and want to avoid licking their straps, use some ultrasound gel

I bought some for a couple of quid on amazon (warehouse deal) I have been having some problems with high heart rate recorded at the start of a run, which I thought was lack of warm up but turned out (thanks to another boards member) to be my strap using cadence rather than heart rate until I sweat enough. As you can see below heart rate and cadence are the same at the start my recovery run yesterday

Used some gel this morning for an interval run and no spike at the start and as you can see tracked my pace fairly well

So the gel seems to work, just a little dab on the sensor panels (I use a 1st generation garmin HRM strap). I also take the strap into the shower with me after every third run or after a particularly sweaty run to clean it, I don't use soap just hold it under the shower head.

Ceepo · 09-04-2021 1:54pm

I thought it might be a good idea to share an objective view of HR from some of the athletes that I coach, while subjectively 220 might work for some, we can clearly see how limited if not how fundamentally flawed it is.

Sex Mx HR Age 220 formula
M 187 46 174
F 183 61 159
M 192 49 171
M 188 43 177
F 183 26 194
F 168 25 195
M 198 33 187

So you can see a broad range of ages and max HR.
If we took the two female athletes of similar age and use the 220 formula, you would have one seriously over training, and maybe the other under training.

partyguinness · 09-04-2021 2:46pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

For those having trouble with their strap connecting at the start of a run and want to avoid licking their straps, use some ultrasound gelhaving some problems with high heart rate recorded at the start of a run, which I thought was lack of warm up but turned out (thanks to another boards member) to be my strap using cadence rather than heart rate until I sweat enough. As you can see below heart rate and cadence are the same at the start my recovery run yesterday
.

I have been trying to source something like that. I asked at my local runing shop last year and the young girl (it actually was her first day on the job as I asked) kept showing me energy gels.

Same problem with massive spikes at the start- even last night. First 5 minutes up at 190 bpm when is should be around the 120s. It settles down after a mile or so- annoying.

Never had it on my Garmin HRM strap which died in January but I replaced it with a Viiii on the recomendation of my coach and its has happened a few times.

Unknownability · 09-04-2021 3:10pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I have been trying to source something like that. I asked at my local runing shop last year and the young girl (it actually was her first day on the job as I asked) kept showing me energy gels.

Same problem with massive spikes at the start- even last night. First 5 minutes up at 190 bpm when is should be around the 120s. It settles down after a mile or so- annoying.

Never had it on my Garmin HRM strap which died in January but I replaced it with a Viiii on the recomendation of my coach and its has happened a few times.

I had the exact same issue and also bought the gel which has helped, I like you have a non garmin hrm and find another solution is to absolutely drench the strap in water prior to running and that stops the spike.

First Up · 09-04-2021 3:18pm

Ceepo wrote:

I thought it might be a good idea to share an objective view of HR from some of the athletes that I coach, while subjectively 220 might work for some, we can clearly see how limited if not how fundamentally flawed it is.

So do you prefer the 211 - .6A formula or the 208 -.7A or any of the others knocking around? There's no shortage and all have their advocates and critics.
Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

Or just pick one because the benefits of starting a structured programme are too good to wait for the arguments over decimal points to be resolved?

09-04-2021 3:20pm

First Up wrote: »

Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

Literally no-one has ever said this should be the case, and your continued bad-faith arguments are a joke

First Up · 09-04-2021 3:28pm

28064212 wrote:

Literally no-one has ever said this should be the case, and your continued bad-faith arguments are a joke

Well if 100% accuracy is that important, then a lab is the only way to go. Unless you have an alternative?

ariana` · 09-04-2021 3:29pm

First Up wrote: »

So do you prefer the 211 - .6A formula or the 208 -.7A or any of the others knocking around? There's no shortage and all have their advocates and critics.
Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

Or just pick one because the benefits of starting a structured programme are too good to wait for the arguments over decimal points to be resolved?

Nobody is insisting on a scientifically approved lab test here

Previous posters have suggested using a field test that can be done at no cost or inconvenience but that are more importantly a lot more personalised and hence more likely to benefit someone who decides to give training by HR a go.

ariana` · 09-04-2021 3:33pm

First Up wrote: »

Well if 100% accuracy is that important, then a lab is the only way to go. Unless you have an alternative?

I think this thread has been derailed enough at this stage. Nobody is insisting 100% accuracy is essential but the closer the better of course and a field test or a lab test are both preferable to an arbitrary formula.

END OF.

First Up · 09-04-2021 3:36pm

ariana` wrote:

Previous posters have suggested using a field test that can be done at no cost or inconvenience but that are more importantly a lot more personalised and hence more likely to benefit someone who decides to give training by HR a go.

Previous posters have also criticised and questioned the accuracy of various devices including Apple and Garmin, none of which come cheap.

Ceepo · 09-04-2021 4:13pm

First Up wrote: »

So do you prefer the 211 - .6A formula or the 208 -.7A or any of the others knocking around? There's no shortage and all have their advocates and critics.
Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

Or just pick one because the benefits of starting a structured programme are too good to wait for the arguments over decimal points to be resolved?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about, HR zones ?

As I previously said, get a accurate HR monitor, preferably one with a chest strap as these are the most accurate.
Do your field test, I prefer using 800m reps.
then work out your training zones.
Its not hard or complicated.

First Up · 09-04-2021 5:08pm

Ceepo wrote:

I literally have no idea what you're talking about, HR zones ?

I talking about the various formulae for estimating HR max, of which 220 -A is just one.

Ceepo wrote:

As I previously said, get a accurate HR monitor, preferably one with a chest strap as these are the most accurate. Do your field test, I prefer using 800m reps. then work out your training zones. Its not hard or complicated.

Nor is it an exact science. An estimated measurement for max HR using that or any other widely formula will get most us most of the way.

shotgunmcos · 09-04-2021 6:31pm

You need 2 pieces of data to identify your zones
Max hr
Resting hr

Also good to know is your LTHR - The point at which you start accumulating lactic acid

If you want 99% accuracy - book yourself into a lab. They will hook you up with a mask, put you on a treadmill, step up the speed iteratively until you max out. They will then establish the max hr you reached, pinch your finger or ear to get a blood sample and report back your LTHR, VO2 etc..

Going to all the trouble and cost and they won't be able to tell you your resting heart rate! Resting hr is likely the most variable metric as you progress in fitness and as such your hr zones should move with it.

Resting hr you can work out yourself
Max hr you can work out in similar fashion to a lab - just harder to do on your own
From there you can do some simple formula/math and work out your zones.

Knowing your LTHR is a bonus as that a key value to use in tempo session to let you know if you are burning matches too quickly

Using 220 - your age gets you in the ballpark of your max hr but being out by as little as 5bpm and you could be training much too hard too often, leading to overreaching/burnout or worse, injury. I certainly would not use that to set my zones.

Ceepo · 09-04-2021 6:41pm

First Up wrote: »

I talking about the various formulae for estimating HR max, of which 220 -A is just one.

Nor is it an exact science. An estimated measurement for max HR using that or any other widely formula will get most us most of the way.

I'm really wondering what you are trying to achieve here, apart from you a statement about 220 -a and are trying to either convince yourself that you're right, or don't want to say that you may be wrong, either way it doesn't matter.

I've highlighted why ANY, repeat ANY, generic max hr formula is fundamentally flawed, no matter what way you want to look at it, can it work out for some, maybe, but its almost always to wide of the mark, example is a 61yo female with a max 183, or female 23yo max 168.
Yes of course even doing a field test you maybe 1,2 or even 3 beats out, but that won't effect your training zones to any great degree, but you can see how it would effect the training zones of the above examples.
Using HR can never be an exact science, as there's other variable's to take to account. But what you should be doing is to mitigate any inaccurate parts of the equation you can.

Using different Hr zones is a different argument, some coaches like a simple 5 zone system, while others may use 6 or even 7 zones,
That is up to the athlete or coach or both.

First Up · 09-04-2021 7:55pm

Ceepo wrote:

I've highlighted why ANY, repeat ANY, generic max hr formula is fundamentally flawed, no matter what way you want to look at it, can it work out for some, maybe, but its almost always to wide of the mark, example is a 61yo female with a max 183, or female 23yo max 168. Yes of course even doing a field test you maybe 1,2 or even 3 beats out, but that won't effect your training zones to any great degree, but you can see how it would effect the training zones of the above examples. Using HR can never be an exact science, as there's other variable's to take to account. But what you should be doing is to mitigate any inaccurate parts of the equation you can.

The word flawed has no place in this. There is no "wrong" way to train and I'm surprised that a coach would bring such a negative concept into it.

Of course some training methods are better than others. Of course some HR measures are more accurate than others. Who cares and what does it matter?

This thread should be encouraging runners to incorporate mixed pace sessions into their training, not scaring them off. I don't care if they use 220-A or anything else, as long as they have something to work with.

Ceepo · 09-04-2021 8:18pm

First Up wrote: »

The word flawed has no place in this. There is no "wrong" way to train and I'm surprised that a coach would bring such a negative concept into it.

Of course some training methods are better than others. Of course some HR measures are more accurate than others. Who cares and what does it matter?

This thread should be encouraging runners to incorporate mixed pace sessions into their training, not scaring them off. I don't care if they use 220-A or anything else, as long as they have something to work with.

I never mentioned "wrong", I said flawed.

I'm sure it would matter to the examples I gave earlier.

Beanstalk · 13-04-2021 11:52am

I have to say, i'm really enjoying the challenge of trying to stay in Zone 2 for my easy runs. Breathing through my nose and out through my mouth if its pushing into the 150s and slowing down. it helps with my concentration too.

Reality_Check1 · 18-04-2021 6:15pm

Sorry just a quick question - I've been training pretty consistently since the turn of the new year. I was very sedentary and unfit before hand. I had a max HR in Jan + Feb of 188 (M33) but I've seen this trickle very slowly down and at the moment when maxing out I can only get to 183.

Im assuming this drop in max HR is to do with getting fitter (my resting HR has also gone down) but my question is do I need to redo my training zones based on my "new" max HR or how does it work?

Thanks

18-04-2021 6:29pm

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Sorry just a quick question - I've been training pretty consistently since the turn of the new year. I was very sedentary and unfit before hand. I had a max HR in Jan + Feb of 188 (M33) but I've seen this trickle very slowly down and at the moment when maxing out I can only get to 183.

Im assuming this drop in max HR is to do with getting fitter (my resting HR has also gone down) but my question is do I need to redo my training zones based on my "new" max HR or how does it work?

Thanks

Max HR doesn't change that quickly, and isn't really affected by fitness level (unlike resting HR, which is). It's more likely one of two things: bad readings, or inability to reach your max HR. The former is self-explanatory, your readings are only as good as the equipment used to make the measurement. For the latter, increased fitness actually makes it more difficult to reach your max - an unfit person can reach their max much "easier" than a fit person can: a severely overweight person could reach their max going up a couple of flights of stairs; an elite athlete like Eliud Kipchoge may only be able to reach their max with an extremely specific test catered to their individual ability. They're two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously

Reality_Check1 · 18-04-2021 8:38pm

28064212 wrote: »

Max HR doesn't change that quickly, and isn't really affected by fitness level (unlike resting HR, which is). It's more likely one of two things: bad readings, or inability to reach your max HR. The former is self-explanatory, your readings are only as good as the equipment used to make the measurement. For the latter, increased fitness actually makes it more difficult to reach your max - an unfit person can reach their max much "easier" than a fit person can: a severely overweight person could reach their max going up a couple of flights of stairs; an elite athlete like Eliud Kipchoge may only be able to reach their max with an extremely specific test catered to their individual ability. They're two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously

Ok Cool thanks for the response - I'll just have to stop being soft and push harder!

This is prob why my "relative effort" on Strava is getting harder and harder to maintain above recovery week

18-04-2021 11:16pm

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Ok Cool thanks for the response - I'll just have to stop being soft and push harder!

This is prob why my "relative effort" on Strava is getting harder and harder to maintain above recovery week

Don't overdo it! Reaching your MaxHR is difficult, and shouldn't really be done regularly, especially by relative beginners. There's not a lot between the two values you have, so it wouldn't involve any changes that are too drastic anyway. When it comes to running, it's always worth erring on the side of caution. The consequences of training too easily are much less severe than the consequences of training too hard (at least until you reach elite levels)

19-04-2021 2:57am

Yesterday I attempted a max HR test and failed to reach my max I was only able to do one lap on the hill and reached a max of 180 personally I blame the pizza I had at lunch time for slowing me down anyway as a positive my Garmin auto detected my LTHR as 173, I've read this value is usually occurs around 90% or max HR, so can I assume my max HR is 190?
This vaule correlates with both the 220-age and the newer 211-(0.65*age) formulas posted above considering I'm almost 31.

Ceepo · 19-04-2021 7:48am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yesterday I attempted a max HR test and failed to reach my max I was only able to do one lap on the hill and reached a max of 180 personally I blame the pizza I had at lunch time for slowing me down anyway as a positive my Garmin auto detected my LTHR as 173, I've read this value is usually occurs around 90% or max HR, so can I assume my max HR is 190?
This vaule correlates with both the 220-age and the newer 211-(0.65*age) formulas posted above considering I'm almost 31.

Questions if I may.
If you don't think that you reached your max HR, how do you think Garmin was able to give you an accurate LTHR.?

19-04-2021 1:05pm

Ceepo wrote: »

Questions if I may.
If you don't think that you reached your max HR, how do you think Garmin was able to give you an accurate LTHR.?

Sorry I should have added I did the built-in Garmin LTHR test in July and the result was nearly identical so I'm quite sure the result is as accurate as possible.

Murph_D · 19-04-2021 1:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yesterday I attempted a max HR test and failed to reach my max I was only able to do one lap on the hill and reached a max of 180 personally I blame the pizza I had at lunch time for slowing me down anyway as a positive my Garmin auto detected my LTHR as 173, I've read this value is usually occurs around 90% or max HR, so can I assume my max HR is 190?
This vaule correlates with both the 220-age and the newer 211-(0.65*age) formulas posted above considering I'm almost 31.

Forget the formulas, they won't tell you anything meaningful.

It does sound like your max is probably in the 185-195 range but why not do the test again to confirm? It really is the only way to do it, and if you want to train by HR you need to know this info.

keith_d99 · 05-05-2021 1:23pm

Arghh have picked up a little niggle 6 weeks into a 12 week plan for a 10k (Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 plans)

Hip Flexor it feels like (had it before).

Any tips? Take a the week off and repeat this week again next week?

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Comments