Max HR Test (Read 911 times)

I recall I did one of these a while back, one which I think was recommended by Jeff? I have had a look in my workkout logs, but cant make out from my comments what the actual workout entailed. Something along the line of 2x (10......). Anyone shed any light on this?

Run test protocol:

After a 15 minute warm-up of easy running, finish with a few quick 20 seconds bursts to get your heart rate in the correct training zone

• The 30 minute TT begins.
• At 10 minutes into the test, hit the 'Lap' button on your heart rate monitor, to get the average heart rate over the final 20 minutes of the test.
• The average for the final 20 minutes is your Lactate Threshold or LT.
• You should finish knowing you gave it everything you had.

15 minutes easy cool down.

Assuming you are training by heart rate, I wouldn't use Max HR for training purposes, as it's not really a useful number.  I believe using Lactate Threshold to be a better value, and the field test is fairly simple and straightforward (warm up, run for 30 minutes at a pace/effort level that you could sustain for about an hour or so, and use the average heart rate for the last 20 minutes of the run).

 To say that HRmax is not useful for training purposes is a bit of a stretch. I agree that knowing your LT HR is useful, but that doesn't eliminate HRmax as a valid basis to determine your training zones.

BTW, the method you describe above seems a bit subjective (running a a pace that I can maintain for 60 minutes... what if I don't know what that is?). The method Burnt Toast describes is less subjective, as you're trying to do your 30 minute pace in exactly 30 minutes. But undoubtedly, the two methods would give you different answers.

Sorry for my naivete but what would be the benefit of knowing the latcate threshold over the max heart rate? I was under the impression that this could be found from the hr max? For my lact threshold runs I have been doing cruise intervals using the time prescribed by daniels. For me about 7:10 pace. They r early helping me and aren't too taxing.

There's at least 3 methods for estimating training "zone" heart rates - each uses a different reference point and set of percentages to theoretically end up with same numbers, assuming they're looking at same zones. HRmax and HRR are probably the two reference points referred to most in online groups, but people sometimes confuse what % to use for training zones. LT HR is another and is the approach used by Joe Friel and others.

HRmax is relatively constant, but LT HR supposedly changes a bit with training - whether it's detectable or not or large enough to make much difference, I'm not sure. I look at the HR stuff as being a gradient, and the zones are really like colors of a rainbow - where does red become purple. There's differences but fuzzy.

My original HR training was from a pgm by Benson, some reading in Burke, then more recently in Friel's Total Heart Rate Training. At the time, Benson suggested not using HR training for work above LT, partly because HRM respond too slowly and the work portions are short - actually, part of that is your heart itself. (Where I run steps for about 30 sec, then total recovery, the HR is higher while I'm walking down the steps.)  He uses pace for those efforts. He also recommends not using pace for aerobic efforts. You use one or the other, depending on goal of workout. Whether he's changed that thought with different gadgetry, I'm not sure. I see he has a new book out.

At the time, I was new to running but when I realized most early work is going to be aerobic (below LT), it made more sense to me to figure out LT HR and go from there - assuming LT HR is near upper end of "comfortably hard", when it starts getting difficult to talk beyond one syllable. The number that I've used is what I average when I raced a race, which ended up being about 1 hr. I arrived at it another way, but everything lines up.

Also keep in mind that elites have been shown to be able to train and race above HRmax as estimated in a lab setting. (I'd have to look for the reference)  But most recreational runners may not get that close to HRmax. LT HR, OTOH, is well within reach of most folks. Or at least a reasonable approximation to it.

I generally run hilly trails in cooler temperatures, so pace is pretty useless and cardiac drift isn't a big deal. For *me*, using HR as an estimate of cardio effort seems reasonable. It says nothing about muscular work.

Sign up for a local 5k.

 

Put on your HR monitor.

 

Race it. Hard.

 

Find your maximum heart trate during the entire race.

 

Should be close enough.

Yeah, but  make sure you put in a very hard effort near the end of the race - e.g. sprint the last 200m flat out.

Sorry for my naivete but what would be the benefit of knowing the latcate threshold over the max heart rate? I was under the impression that this could be found from the hr max? For my lact threshold runs I have been doing cruise intervals using the time prescribed by daniels. For me about 7:10 pace. They r early helping me and aren't too taxing.

Here is a HR zone calculator that uses your tested lactate threshold. Input your LT to get the HR zones for tyour training if you want to start training using HR. Triathletes and Cyclists tend to use HR or power for training and not paces.

Here is a HR zone calculator that uses your tested lactate threshold. Input your LT to get the HR zones for tyour training if you want to start training using HR. Triathletes and Cyclists tend to use HR or power for training and not paces.

Burnt Toast:

This is interesting but it didn't show how to get LT heart rate?  So do they expect you to have LT HR to begin with?  Kinda fancy to have all those terms (muscular endurance pace) but, if we are playing with pre-determined LT HR, muscular endurance AT LT would come out with that particular LT anyways and sub-LT would come out lower than LT that YOU provide anyway.  Fancy terms, but, as far as I'm concerned, wouldn't do much good anyways, would it? 

Formulae for figuring out max heart rate don't work, because it's such a variable thing amongst individuals - and not able to be reliably predicted in terms of other things you can measure.

You can get a pretty good measure of it empirically - i.e. doing the right kind of stress test and then measuring your heart rate. Running flat out for 300m from fresh doesn't do it... we know that you'll get a higher figure if you run fast (say for 5k) and then sprint.

Max heart rate means the max you can get it to for a very short period of time - nobody can maintain their max for sustained periods.

Of course what it's really useful for is another question... but clearly there is some reasonable correlation between effort and % of max heart rate. Some people are dead keen on training by heart rate at least some of the time, including some of the very best (apparently Paula Radcliffe, for example), whereas others are not.