HR Training - confused? (Read 781 times)

Guys and Gals: I have been running at the wrong HR apparently! The article (quoted below) suggests that % HR should be of your working HR and NOT your max HR. All is explained below. "What Heart Rate To Train At There are three broad training zones: 60-75% - easy 75-85% - moderate 85-95% - hard But… don't fall foul to a common misconception: these aren't percentages of your overall maximum heart rate - they're percentages based on your working heart rate. It makes a big practical difference to a regular runner. It's easy to do, but it takes more explanation than most gyms want to deal with. Find Your Training Zone Like This: Find your maximum heart rate (220 - age) eg 206 Find your resting heart rate (laying still, soon after you wake up. Ideally take an average over a few days). eg 56 Subtract the resting rate from the maximum. This figure is your working heart rate. eg 206-56=150 Take whatever percentage of your working heart rate that you're aiming for (eg 60% for an easy run eg 150x0.60=90), and add it to your resting heart rate eg 90+56=146. The final figure is your personal target heart rate. Was anyone else aware of this? Or am I the only one? Does my Polar HRM account for this - or is it showing me a % of my max HR?? Grateful for your thoughts on it!

djdarrin - the link you sent tends to agree with the "working HR" calculation. If you look at their slightly more advanced calculation here: http://www.marathonguide.com/FitnessCalcs/HeartRate2Calc.cfm You will see that it also incorporates your resting HR... I think I am decided that this is the way to go - but still not sure that the %HR displayed on my Polar is equivalent to these zones...

Hey wingz - I'm not at all sure about your calculation there. I guess it is trying to give you a max training HR for easy runs. I'm now pretty convinced that the best HR training zones are as follows: Max HR = 220 - your age Rest HR = taken first thing in the morning Working HR = Max HR - Rest HR Training zone = % x working HR + rest HR. EG: Max HR : 220 - 35 = 185. Rest HR: 60 Working HR: 185 - 60 = 125 75% = (125 x 0.75) + 60 = 154 80% = (125 x 0.8) + 60 = 160 90% = (125 x 0.9) + 60 = 172 100% = (125 x 1.0) + 60 = 185 I think this is the way ahead, because it incorporates your resting HR and therefore takes account of your level of fitness and not just your age. Thoughts?

Purdy''s reported approach certainly seems more valid based on my perceived effort tat these HRs.

Now if you want to really cloud the issue Take 205 and subtract 1/2 your age and use that as your max HR. For me this comes to 176, exactly what I was able to get testing on the Treadmill. I Use Prudey's meathod along with my tested HR which conforms to the above formula.

Yeah, I have to agree that any of these formulas involving age are going to be pretty loose estimates... I think a better way to find your Max HR is to actually max out your heart rate! I've been following a schedule in Advanced Marathoning (by Pfitzinger & Douglas), which describes these things very nicely. They suggest runnning three 600 meter intervals, sllightly uphill, with very little rest in between.. by the last interval, you should be pretty close to Max (and probably feel pretty lousy too)! By the way, this book also discusses the heart rate question posed by Purdey, except they call these terms % Max Heart Rate and % Heart Rate Reserve. The first is the number we are all used to talking about (and I think it's safe to assume is the number that most things refer to). The second number is a little more accurate for each runner's abilities and is calculated just as others have described (MaxHR - Resting = HRR) I figure that using either the % of MaxHR or HRR is just fine... HRR might be a little more physiological, but MaxHR is a lot easier to keep track of. I am pretty sure that Polar software (and other sources) are using plain old MaxHR, unless otherwise specified.

One of my very favorite things about running (or not) is the fact that I can read three different articles, from three different Olympians who are all acknowledged experts in the field, and get three pieces of advice that absolutely contradict each other. When I retire, maybe I'll go get my own Ph.D. in sports medicine or something similar so I, too, can write articles that say exactly the opposite of what the last article you just read says.