HR Training - confused? (Read 778 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! Confused
      Based on this article, I would say that not only have I been training in the wrong zones, but so have the majority of people that I train with!! I'm thinking he may have his own opinion here, as I've always seen it as % of max HR. Here is a link to marathonguide.com's HR calculator that goes against what this guy is saying in your article... http://www.marathonguide.com/FitnessCalcs/heartrate1calc.cfm
      Run long, run strong
        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...
          Hah! If you really want to cloud the issue, you can throw in Maffetone's calculation - which is comparatively simple! Take (180 - your age) and then you might subtract an additional 5 or 10 based on health problems and exercise history, or add up to 5 if you've been working out 5x/wk for 2 years... and then you make that your max training HR... (sorry, don't have a link for this handy...) There are lots of different calculations out there. You can get very precise on what your numbers are supposed to be, only to find out later that it was "all wrong" and your numbers are something else... only to find out later that those numbers were "all wrong" and really it's something entirely different. Almost enough to make an aspiring HR training runner throw up their hands in despair... I think the real moral of the story is find something that works for you and stick with it. If it's not working for you, fiddle with it. Smile

          Roads were made for journeys...

            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?
              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.
              I certainly prefer the look of the zones calculated by this method as it gives you a slightly higher HR for each zone. I have enough dificulty running slow enough as it is to keep below the different %ages and I'd rather not have to start walking.

              12 Monkeys

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

                Princess Cancer Pants

                  That's it! Now I am defintely NOT getting a HRM--I hate Math and I already have too much running-related stuff to obsess over as is. Tongue k

                  '17 Goals:

                  • Chemo

                  • Chemo-Radiation

                  • Surgery

                  • Return to kicking my own ass by 2018


                  She was not strong. She was valiant. Radiant. Brave and broken. The beauty she discovered in the aftermath was unparalleled to anything she had known before, because it had come at such a cost.

                  ~ Unknown

                    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.
                    Age is not an illusion
                      Your max HR may or may not be about 220 - your age... if it were true for all people, I'd be AT MOST 18 years old instead of 33..., since I hit 202 towards the end of my last 5K without any ill effects (other than not wanting to run any faster!). Hey... maybe it's true after all! Big grin Running DOES make you younger, right? Wink Seriously, though, everyone's different. Your actual maximum may be higher or lower than what the formula says... so you may need to tinker with your training zones too.

                      Roads were made for journeys...


                        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.
                          Hey guys thanks for that. I'm convinced that my calculations are pretty good - and also convinced that the best way of determining your max HR is to try to max out with a few hard intervals (rather than using a "one size fits all" calculation). Alternatively we could all leave the HRM and stopwatch at home and go out to enjoy our running for a while!! Cool
                            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. Dead 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. Shocked
                            E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com