MHR and training zones
droadie
Posts: 75
New to HRM training. Thinking of getting a HRM.
Doing 4x 4 hour rides a week. What training zones, would you suggest, for maximum training potential of 60-80 mile rides? I was thinking, i should base the majority of my training, around zone 2, giving me enough recovery time.
Zone 1 65% of MHR (recovery rides)
Zone 2 65-72% of MHR (endurance events)
Zone 3 73-80% of MHR (high level aerobic activity)
Zone 4 84-90% of MHR (lactate threshold(LT,AT); time trialing)
Zone 5 91-100% of MHR (sprints and anaerobic training)
Lastly, do you find, the accuracy of the MHR formula(220 minus your age), close to actual recorded MHR with your HRM?
Doing 4x 4 hour rides a week. What training zones, would you suggest, for maximum training potential of 60-80 mile rides? I was thinking, i should base the majority of my training, around zone 2, giving me enough recovery time.
Zone 1 65% of MHR (recovery rides)
Zone 2 65-72% of MHR (endurance events)
Zone 3 73-80% of MHR (high level aerobic activity)
Zone 4 84-90% of MHR (lactate threshold(LT,AT); time trialing)
Zone 5 91-100% of MHR (sprints and anaerobic training)
Lastly, do you find, the accuracy of the MHR formula(220 minus your age), close to actual recorded MHR with your HRM?
0
Comments
-
Read this article, and you see what i'm getting at.
Get faster by riding slowly.
http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/fitness/ar ... owly-17447
If you do lots of riding, the majority in a lower zone could be more beneficial, so you recover better but still progress. What is your experience?
I see there is different standards. Some have 3 zones like the article and others have 5-6. Some mention zones without mentioning what classification they talking about. Zone 3 differs from another zone 3.
Another helpful article on the subject. Heart Rate Training
http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/fitness/ar ... ining-1022
A couple of paragraphs from it, that i thought were golden.Using your HR as a guide you can ensure that base training is slow enough to allow you to recruit more and more fibres. For example, data from elite athletes suggests that the majority of work during base training should be done at 55-80% of max HR. If you've never trained this way previously, 55% of max HR may feel like a ludicrously slow pace, but it should allow you to go far enough to recruit muscle fibres and capillaries that you would never normally have touched.
HR can also be used to check your aerobic level of fitness. For Friel, a good guide to knowing when you have recruited about all the muscle fibres you can is to cycle for a long time at a comfortable pace, say 75% of max HR. As long as the pace stays constant, so should your HR. If it drifts upwards throughout the ride, then you're not aerobically fit yet and should continue base training a little longer.0 -
Golden in what way?droadie wrote:A couple of paragraphs from it, that i thought were golden.0 -
55% max hr is what I reach just wheeling my bike out the door. What possible help is that range?-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0
-
droadie wrote:New to HRM training. Thinking of getting a HRM.
SNIP
Lastly, do you find, the accuracy of the MHR formula(220 minus your age), close to actual recorded MHR with your HRM?
No not at all! Its a statistical guideline not an individually accurate number. I am 49 and have a max of 191 On that formula my short intervalls would be over my calculated max HR!
If you're new to HRM doing a 20 minute hard but steady effort and taking tehaverage would be a better starting point adn avoid needing a max test, which you could do when you are fitter adn your heart is used to hard exercise. Do long rides staying under teh average you some to and short intervalls above....0 -
55% max hr is what I reach just wheeling my bike out the door. What possible help is that range?
Just think of all that training you've been doing putting your shoes on or getting your bike out of the garage!
As for going up the stairs to bed I'm virtually in the red zone! 0 -
The best guide to training levels I've seen is the one put forward by Dr Coggan - it's based on training with power, but has HR guidelines together with a very useful index of perceived effort:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx
Depends on your definition of "lots" - I reckon if you are doing less than 10 hrs training per week, you'd better spend proportionately more time at higher intensities (Levels 3 or 4) if you expect to see much improvement.droadie wrote:If you do lots of riding, the majority in a lower zone could be more beneficial, so you recover better but still progress. What is your experience?
Riders that can train for 25 hrs per week will spend proportionately more time at Level 2, but that doesn't mean they don't do higher intensity work as well.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Golden in what way?droadie wrote:A couple of paragraphs from it, that i thought were golden.
Well, the importance of doing enough slower base miles sounds key, even for future advanced training. Reserve, maintain more freshness, to turn it on more for other racing performance when needed, so to speak.
I have been riding flat out on 4 hour rides, which is great for muscle adaptation, strengh and endurance. I wondering instead, if i should slow it down, on these rides, and do some extra training at lactate threshold as well. I find regular hard rides, very slowly drains me over several weeks. I must be doing too much. Just i always want to ride super hard, when i go out.
4 hours is just the right amount of time i like to ride, i like to base my training around that.
How long can a fit rider maintain lactate threshold? and what's a good distance. Is it based on 1 hour of riding?
Recently, the last couple of weeks, i have been training, flat out 40 miles a night, which has been great. Bit too early to say, but cycling shorter everyday has more benefits it feels, legs are becoming a machine
. Quads have exploded in size. Maybe, its the shorter intense rides allowing for better recovery, i don't know. Maybe i am better suited to the shorter intenser ie. TT. 0 -
Slightly thick question :oops: as I'm crap at maths. How do you work out percentages of your max heart rate? Is there an online calculator where you can punch yuor numbers in and get a figure for let's say 82%? Or is it a really simple formula?-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0
-
I found other day from hospital, i have a very low resting heart rate, it was 40-42. They were shocked it was so slow, and thought problem, which then surprised me. They suggested i have strong heart for middle age. I done about 300 miles a week constantly and intensely over 8 months without fail, before then no exercise. I looked it up and anything under 50 is athlete. So i am encouraged.0
-
Max heart rate divided by 100 x percentage.
192 (for example) divided by 100= 1.92 x 82=157.4
Or use a calculator with percentages 0 -
Mine's 39.....................still a shite bike racer thoughdroadie wrote:I looked it up and anything under 50 is athlete. 0 -
Or pehaps more simple just multiply by 0.82inseine wrote:Max heart rate divided by 100 x percentage.
192 (for example) divided by 100= 1.92 x 82=157.4
Or use a calculator with percentages 0 -
Cool, so the resting heart rate plays no part in the calculation?-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0
-
It does in the Karvonen Formula, but there's no reason to think that it's a "better way" of setting HR training zones than just taking a simple percentage of MHRphil s wrote:Cool, so the resting heart rate plays no part in the calculation?0 -
Bronzie wrote:
It does in the Karvonen Formula, but there's no reason to think that it's a "better way" of setting HR training zones than just taking a simple percentage of MHRphil s wrote:Cool, so the resting heart rate plays no part in the calculation?
I use the Karvonen Formula. I wouldn't say trained to HR zones, I just fine it easier when looking at rides to compare with other rides when I can see how long I spent in each HR zone.0 -
ut_och_cykla wrote:droadie wrote:New to HRM training. Thinking of getting a HRM.
SNIP
Lastly, do you find, the accuracy of the MHR formula(220 minus your age), close to actual recorded MHR with your HRM?
No not at all! Its a statistical guideline not an individually accurate number. I am 49 and have a max of 191 On that formula my short intervalls would be over my calculated max HR!
If you're new to HRM doing a 20 minute hard but steady effort and taking tehaverage would be a better starting point adn avoid needing a max test, which you could do when you are fitter adn your heart is used to hard exercise. Do long rides staying under teh average you some to and short intervalls above....
How much over? I read of real results +-10 beats either side of that formula. Yes it too dangerous to rely on a common formula. I find out my proper MHR, in a way you suggested. I thinking with a HRM i be able to train more intelligently,productive and reduce over training.
I estimate mine around 180 for my age. I remember it went to 210 when i did some intensive cycling work a couple of years ago at gym, i got freaked out it was that high. The machines are not aways accurate but i suspect it right, as it was a form of HIIT.0 -
I found these for anyone new on the subject.
BCF TRAINING GUIDELINES
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html
HR online calc
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/b ... c_bcf.html0 -
Ok so i learnt MHR never changes whatever your level of fitness.0
-
Sound to be more accurate taking resting heart rate into consideration.Below is an example of the Karvonen formula for a 23 year old person with a resting heart rate of 65 beats per minute (*to get your resting heart rate, take your pulse for one full minute when you first wake up in the morning or after you've resting for a while). This formula also includes an updated calculation of maximum heart rate (the previous formula was 220 - age, which has now been shown to be inaccurate):
206.9 - (0.67 x 23 (age)) = 191
191 - 65 (resting heart rate) = 126
126 * 65% (low end of heart rate zone) OR 85% (high end) = 82 OR 107
82 + 65 (resting heart rate) = 147
107 + 65 (rhr) = 172
The target heart rate zone for this person would be 147 to 172.
220 - 23 (age) = 197
197 - 65 (resting heart rate) = 132
132 * 65% (low end of heart rate) OR 85% (high end) = 85.8 OR 112.2
85.8 + 65 (resting heart rate) = 150 112.2 + 65 (rhr) = 177
The target heart rate zone for this person would be 150 to 177
For this person to work in his 'fat burning' zone, he would need to stay around 150 beats per minute or lower. To work within his 'cardio' zone, he would need to work at 150 bpm or higher.
Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator
http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm0 -
What makes you think its more accurate? For starters both use a formula to guess HRmax :?
When I used HR to determine my training zones I used my threshold HR. Makes a lot more sense to me than using HRmax (and I actually know my HRmax from a lab test).More problems but still living....0 -
As you are now discovering, there are many ways to set training zones using HR - it's best to decide on one to use and stick to it rather than get too involved in "which is better".
Training with HR is not a precise science anyway - better to focus on being in the right ballpark and the bigger picture rather than sticking religiously to set zones for every ride.0 -
Wrong choce of words then .I will do a real test anyways.
How about this for your maximum heart rate.
It should feel like your last effort on this earth. If you don't see Elvis and St Peter and hear lots of harps you haven't tried hard enough!'IF you must use a formula though, my personal experience is that the 205,6 formula works the best - and I've seen this over and over again when compared directly to Karvonen and then tested the max HR threreafter.
Take 205.6 and subtract the result of 0.685 * age0 -
This guy claims to understand the 3 zone HR training scheme - I'm not convinced:
http://www.cyclosport.org/article.aspx?id=1343
:?0 -
from the article.Just a point of correct - you do burn fat across all three zones, but you will burn more fat in zone 1.
I have a theory. Fat burns better in a oxygen environment. So when the body is moving, although slower. The body is in a balance to burn fat effectively. When the body is taxed, reduced oxygen, fat burns less. High intensity burns more total calories but i believe this is due to raising metabolism so high, it keeps iraised long after.0 -
me neither!Bronzie wrote:This guy claims to understand the 3 zone HR training scheme - I'm not convinced:
http://www.cyclosport.org/article.aspx?id=1343
:?
Karvonen formula was very popular for a while but I think most fitness articles talk in terms that dont take resting HR into account nowadays. And as someone has already pointed out heart rate zones are just zones and broad guidelines. If you're just starting out on tehroad to fitness 220- age is a good start but you'll quickly find that it doesnt always aply.0 -
Bronzie wrote:
Training with HR is not a precise science anyway - better to focus on being in the right ballpark and the bigger picture rather than sticking religiously to set zones for every ride.
Well not used a HRM ever but relying on efforrt and feel. I will have better idea of how hard my heart is working to each effort. But still ride mainly based on feel. I am doing too much, too often. I am going to try what the article suggested, concentrate on slower miles with hill efforts and 10% at higher intensity zone. If i go slower, l need to ensure, i not going too slow, a HRM will surely help.0 -
ut_och_cykla wrote:
me neither!Bronzie wrote:This guy claims to understand the 3 zone HR training scheme - I'm not convinced:
http://www.cyclosport.org/article.aspx?id=1343
:?
Karvonen formula was very popular for a while but I think most fitness articles talk in terms that dont take resting HR into account nowadays. And as someone has already pointed out heart rate zones are just zones and broad guidelines. If you're just starting out on tehroad to fitness 220- age is a good start but you'll quickly find that it doesnt always aply.
I've got to disagree with this. At 52 with a max of at least 190 bpm, the formula would be 32 bpm out. It's not even in the right ballpark. For a beginner to start out using the 220- age formula would be totally ridiculous. I do agree that when you have got used to the feel of the zones, you can tell where you are with them, by the way you feel.0 -
Nickwill wrote:ut_och_cykla wrote:
me neither!Bronzie wrote:This guy claims to understand the 3 zone HR training scheme - I'm not convinced:
http://www.cyclosport.org/article.aspx?id=1343
:?
Karvonen formula was very popular for a while but I think most fitness articles talk in terms that dont take resting HR into account nowadays. And as someone has already pointed out heart rate zones are just zones and broad guidelines. If you're just starting out on tehroad to fitness 220- age is a good start but you'll quickly find that it doesnt always aply.
I've got to disagree with this. At 52 with a max of at least 190 bpm, the formula would be 32 bpm out. It's not even in the right ballpark. For a beginner to start out using the 220- age formula would be totally ridiculous. I do agree that when you have got used to the feel of the zones, you can tell where you are with them, by the way you feel.
For me the more interesting side of all this is that this formula is supposed to provide safe limits for exercise, particularly those that very unfit and obese however there are lots of people for whom they fall below the average (averages are just that so if you have those that are high then you have to have those that fall below) so how useful is this formula in reality. It could be setting unfit & obese people up to exercise at levels which could be dangerous in their current physical state which is quite the opposite of how this formula is often used.0 -
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspxBronzie wrote:The best guide to training levels I've seen is the one put forward by Dr Coggan - it's based on training with power, but has HR guidelines together with a very useful index of perceived effort:
Thanks for that, useful guide0
