Heart Rate Query

Silverback

I think I'm right in believing that we measure heart rate percentages based on the max we can achieve i.e. if max is 180 then 50% is 90, 60% is 108 etc. But this assumes that 10% is 18, which would leave even Chrissie Wellington light headed.

Why do we not calculate it on the interval between min (resting) and max?

So that if min(0%) was 50, max(100%) was 180, 50% would be 115, 60% 128.

But if min was 70 and max 180, 50%=125, 60%=136

It just seems to make sense to me that this would be a more accurate measurement or am I making life too complicated?

jonE

Possibly you may be trying to over complicate or use a different method to get the same answer.

suggest you write a book,give lots of examples,state how it has improved your well being and made you a pro athlete,make millions as it becomes the latest training method,and retire.

interesting thought but if you calculate the zones for hr,you may get a lower percentage but same HR.

TRIumphant

But it's Heart Rate percentage based on max, 100% being max, 0% being dead I assume. It's not based upon useable range.

largeade

Karvonen does it this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Karvonen_method

danridesfaster

Whats wrong with running until you almost fall over through lack of air, recording your hr and taking that number as 95%
i.e when i'm on my bike my hr can reach 212. When I run it can reach 218. This must be close to my hr max

ARobinett

Hello,

Can I add another question to this? I'm trying at the minute to work out my heart rate working zones to make training a little more accurate and quantifiable than just going on perceived effort and the 'until i'm bored' method.
I've read various methods of calculation for heart rate zones etc and am having trouble getting my heart rate to be as high as it should be when working at maximum preceived effort. According to various sources if i'm at what I perceive to be around 95% effort (almost on the point of falling over and sobbing, etc) my heart rate isonly just pushing 160bpm, but should be aorund 178-180. I've never even had my heart rate up to 200bpm despite other tri club memebers and forum users telling tales and horror stories about over 200bpm and higher sessions!
What i'd like to know is if you should adjust your heart rate zones based on what you perceive to be maximal effort heart rate and train to this or should I be getting the hell on with it and just work harder?
For info's sake, an example caculation from the linked website above is:

((HRmax-HRrest)x%effort)+HRrest = HR for that effort rate
(((220-27)-45)x0.9)+45 =178, but I am nowhere near that!

Any advice would be good.

largeade

I'm 42 with a running lactate threhold heart rate (LTHR) of 157 and a resting HR of 39. In the last 2 years the max HR I've witnessed is 173 sprinting up a 15deg hill after a 7 mile run at 90degC. That is very low compared to what the book says it should be, but I would have struggled to get it higher and I was no where near dizzy or puking. It doesnt matter though as maxHR is about how big your heart is and your genes, and whatever you think you are stuck with it.

As you can guess I much prefer lactate threshold calculated zones, i.e. your max hr holdable for an hour. They are easily measurable and I'm a numbers man. You can calculate LTHR by

a) running hard as for 50-60mins and take avg HR for the last 20mins
b) cycling a 60 minute TT (or 2 x 20min intervals with 5min rest) and taking your average HR for the last 20 minutes).

For the above the biggest problem is what defines trying hard. As recently as 9 months ago I was not trying hard enough, but I dont think that matters too much, base it on what you can do.

I got a LT HR table from some resource, but dont really use it any more
[code:2umvr864]
Zone
LT Zones Low High
Z1 65% 75%
Z2 75% 85%
Z3 85% 95%
Z4 95% 105%
Z5 105% [/code:2umvr864]

With running I follow the approach in this series of articles: http://chuckiev.blogspot.com/2007/08/ha ... -part.html . It advocates running well below ILTHR and provides benchmarks to track performance.

For biking I aim to spend any 1hr sessions at LTHR (3-5hrs per week), and for long rides 10 or 20 beats below that. As an event approaches you put threshold intervals into the long ride.

jamewah

As mentioned previously . . .

According to various sources if i'm at what I perceive to be around 95% effort (almost on the point of falling over and sobbing, etc) my heart rate isonly just pushing 160bpm, but should be aorund 178-180. I've never even had my heart rate up to 200bpm despite other tri club memebers and forum users telling tales and horror stories about over 200bpm and higher sessions!

I'm 35, 73 kg, resting heart rate 39 BPM and say I'm pretty fit compared to some (Oly PB 2:11, HIM, 5:03 to give a couple of examples)
I've monitored my heart rate from time to time during training over the years but just recently in prep for IMUK I've structured my training around my heart rate zones so I've been doing it on every session.

My max according to the sum 220 - 35 (my age) = 185
Which I would say is pretty damn high for me.
Four or five years ago when i did fell running, the most i got my heart rate up to was about 181 BPM and I was nearly dead with exhaustion !
So 5 years ago, say I was 30 years old. 220 - 30 = 190 I was 9 BPM's off my percieved Max.
I did a test last week, trying to obtain my max and only managed 173 BPM's (12 BPM's off my max)

The only time I've ever got my heart rate above 200 is when I've not moistened the HRM enough to start with and it gives a false reading, then a load of gob and it's reading correct again.

But I would also say at around 160 BPM I'm breathing pretty heavy and would have thought my heart rate would be higher than it actually was.
Which begs me to wonder if my HRM is acurate . . . So When I'm properly rested I'm going to conduct a manual pulse test with my HRM on and set my stop watch for a minute and my average should be what I count ? correct ?
I'll let you know the result