Maximum heart rate, heart rate reserve, VO(2max)

Herbsman

We know heart rate can only give a very approximate indication of how hard we're exerting ourselves. While they are nowhere near an accurate method of measuring effort, it's obvious that they are to useful for helping us stick to a structured training plan. The rough estimates they provide are far from ideal but they might be better than percieved exertion and I've read a few forum members here extolling the virtues of heart rate zone-based training.

To state the obvious, that last paragraph was stating the obvious - but I have just ordered a heart rate monitor and was wondering what is the best way to use the information from it (is there a 'best' way to use inaccurate information other than throwing it in the bin?). So, I realise that no method of heart rate zone calculation is going to be an accurate indication of how hard I'm working, but is it better to work out zones using %HRmax or the %HRR (Karvonen) method? Or should I send it back to Amazon?

I've done a fair bit of searching and not come to any conclusion as to whether one method is more reliable than the other...

Karvonen's study findings have been questioned, due to the following: -The study did not use VO2 data to develop the equation. -Only six subjects were used, and the correlation between the percentages of HRR and VO2 max was not statistically significant.

(Swain DP. Leutholtz BC, King ME. el al. Relationship between % heart rate reserve and %VOi reserve in treadmill exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30(2):3 18-21.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Heart_rate_reserve

One study concludes that the Karvonen method is accurate at estimating net VO(2) (i.e. VO2 reserve?), but only used 9 subjects and was conducted over 35 years ago:

The results demonstrated that the KM's prediction of exercise intensity was not significantly different (P greater than 0.05) from measured intensity... Additionally, the % HR max procedure yielded large, significant overpredictions of exercise intensity... These results suggest that the KM yields a training HR that reflects exercise intensity within reasonable limits of accuracy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1235153


According to a study done on 46 subjects, VO(2max) in 'well trained men' can be estimated to within about 5% accuracy with the following formula:

VO(2)max = 15(HRmax / HRrest)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14624296

This one...

The intensity scale recommended by ACSM underestimates exercise intensity in elite cyclists. Prediction of %HRR by %VO2R is better than by %VO2max. Thus, elite cyclists should use %HRR in relation to %VO2R rather than in relation to %VO2max.

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/17277600

*yawn*

So, I know it's probably pointless even asking but I would appreciaZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

jgsi

To be brutally frank, use perceived exertion instead......but having the HR numbers are nice to create their own graphs and pretty pictures
even a 'champion' of HR training on here has jumped ship and started to use power instead.... snore mode off now..

danowat

JGSI wrote:

To be brutally frank, use perceived exertion instead......but having the HR numbers are nice to create their own graphs and pretty pictures

This, I barely even take any notice of HR during a race / ride these days, but its interesting to compare and contrast after a race / ride

BeaconRuth

JGSI wrote:

To be brutally frank, use perceived exertion instead......but having the HR numbers are nice to create their own graphs and pretty pictures
even a 'champion' of HR training on here has jumped ship and started to use power instead.... snore mode off now..

It's not always easy to judge sub-maximal training intensities by perceived exertion - it's never easy on the turbo and it's only easy on the road when you've gained some experience. (Maximal training efforts (i.e. hard intervals) aren't so hard to judge because they're, well, maximal.) So a HRM is very useful indeed as long as you understand its limitations and don't try to use it inappropriately. Admittedly it's hard to persuade people sometimes that what their HRM is saying is irrelevant and best ignored but that doesn't mean I'd recommend dispensing with it altogether. There's no such thing as a bad tool - but people use tools badly.

Don't worry about how you define your HR zones - it's not an accurate science if you're dealing with HR - just choose a method and stick with it.

Ruth

jgsi

I was trying to liberate the OP from the gaping bottomless pit of internet/published studies that usually contradict themselves, 1/2 the time

BeaconRuth

And I was trying to defend him from the over-zealous powermeter evangelists who say that if you haven't got a powermeter then don't even bother with a HRM, which was where I thought you were heading. A basic HRM and a lot of common sense got me a long way in cycling (well, in time trialling, anyway). For various reasons a powermeter didn't add much more (if anything) to what I was already doing - which was what I'd always suspected.

However, I agree that the OP needs steering away from the gaping bottomless pit you describe...........

Ruth

Herbsman

TBH when I started looking I didn't expect to find anything conclusive, and that "just choose a method and stick with it" might be the general consensus. I'm supposing that what matters is that it might help me train with more consistency?

In all honesty I hate the idea of using one - I think it will detract too much from the feel of riding a bike, which is what I love about riding a bike...

danowat

Herbsman wrote:

In all honesty I hate the idea of using one - I think it will detract too much from the feel of riding a bike, which is what I love about riding a bike...

Don't then, you don't NEED to, and riding by feel is a much better way to gauge effort during a race anyway.

The only time I find a HRM worthwhile is when I am doing low level base work, without it, I tend to go too hard.

nmcgann

BeaconRuth wrote:

And I was trying to defend him from the over-zealous powermeter evangelists who say that if you haven't got a powermeter then don't even bother with a HRM, which was where I thought you were heading. A basic HRM and a lot of common sense got me a long way in cycling (well, in time trialling, anyway). For various reasons a powermeter didn't add much more (if anything) to what I was already doing - which was what I'd always suspected.

However, I agree that the OP needs steering away from the gaping bottomless pit you describe...........

Ruth

+1 to that. (Hi Ruth!)

I'm not so dismissive of HR as a lot of power meter users seem to be (despite having 2 powertaps :roll: ). I have found that the time I can sustain at particular HRs hardly changes irrespective of the power output once I am reasonably fit, so it's still a very useful measure of how I am going and how long I can continue at that level.

In fact I have found HR a better parameter to work with in longer TTs (50s in my case) than power. The fitter I am the more power I output, but at the same HR for the same period.

BeaconRuth

Herbsman wrote:

I'm supposing that what matters is that it might help me train with more consistency?

?? What exactly do you mean by 'more consistency'?

In all honesty I hate the idea of using one - I think it will detract too much from the feel of riding a bike, which is what I love about riding a bike...

As Danowat says, there's no compulsion. You haven't really made it very clear what you're trying to achieve, though. If your aims are to, say, tour on a bike and ride sportives without being too competitive then I'd shelve the idea. If you're a racing cyclist who's reached a plateau and is wondering how to improve further then maybe understanding better roughly how hard you are training might help?

Ruth

BeaconRuth

nmcgann wrote:

+1 to that. (Hi Ruth!)

Hi Neil! Hope you're well and enjoying your season.

Ruth

Alex_Simmons/RST

As a coach who is pretty well known for being a strong advocate for using power meters I'd wouldn't dispense with HR as a guide to (sub-maximal) training efforts if someone wasn't using power. Indeed I have provided HR based training plans for hundreds of cyclists.

But if you are using a power meter, then HR is redundant.

For the OP - what matters is doing the training needed to achieve whatever goals you have set for yourself.

HRMs and power meters are only tools to help you and their use is multiple (although power meters have many more uses than HRMs) but for the rider seeking to improve basic fitness/cycling performance, then their main use is as a guide to intensity of effort (used along with perceived exertion), as that's the most important aspect to get right when out training.

But they don't pedal the bike for you.

You can certainly improve fitness by following a sensible training plan, using perceived exertion, HR or power.

Their other main use is to simplify keeping a riding log so you can track whether or not you are doing the training.

What HR won't do though is quantify how much fitness has changed, since it is not a measure of fitness. Power output is (whether or not you measure it).

nmcgann

BeaconRuth wrote:

nmcgann wrote:

+1 to that. (Hi Ruth!)

Hi Neil! Hope you're well and enjoying your season.

Ruth

Going well so far

I spotted you'd been playing in the mud...http://www.lvrc.org.uk/view_photo.asp?p=672

ut_och_cykla

Use % of max - as most 'one size fits all 'plans and ideas for plans are based on this.

But you do need to have a good idea of what your max is (not just a 220 -minus age).

An alternative is to do a 20 minute hard, well paced effort and HR average as your lactate threshold - above which you can do various intervals and below which you can do more distance. Perhaps get a book that explains the basics!
It is a useful tool if used wisely... but like all tools it won't do the job for you!

Herbsman

BeaconRuth wrote:

?? What exactly do you mean by 'more consistency'?

I meant putting out a consistent effort throughout the training session (specifically the long low-intensity ones). Ensuring that I don't go too hard up hills / into wind etc.

I know heart rate takes a while to increase and then stay at a particular level so no good for short intervals, but might help me pace myself during 2 x 20min and even 4 x 6min intervals?

BeaconRuth wrote:

You haven't really made it very clear what you're trying to achieve, though... If you're a racing cyclist who's reached a plateau and is wondering how to improve further then maybe understanding better roughly how hard you are training might help?

I don't think I've reached a plateau, but I do race and I am trying to train better to improve further. One one hand I think my training/racing calendar is working well, I have a mix of 1hr intervals, long moderate pace rides, rest days and recovery rides which I fit around races / work shifts and it seems to be doing the job well. On the other hand... well it's a new toy to play with. I suppose I can always sell it on eBay if I get bored of it or I don't feel that I benefit from using it

Herbsman

ut_och_cykla wrote:

But you do need to have a good idea of what your max is (not just a 220 -minus age).

An alternative is to do a 20 minute hard, well paced effort and HR average as your lactate threshold - above which you can do various intervals and below which you can do more distance. Perhaps get a book that explains the basics!
It is a useful tool if used wisely... but like all tools it won't do the job for you!

I would use the HRM to find out my maximum heart rate, no way would I use the age estimate when I have the means to measure it!

I have read a couple of books that cover heart rate zone-based training (a while back, well before I even considered racing but was developing more of a general interest in cycling) so am fairly clued up (ish) on how to incorporate it into training schedule... Just debating whether it's actually going to be of use or if I should just save my money and just go out and ride...

ut_och_cykla

Do both - ride without someties but use it to for example ensure you really rest on rest rides or really maintain a steady effort on longer intervals. If you get one that logs times in various zones r averages wearing it at a race might be illuminating - you don't have to look at the numbers till afterwards!!

BeaconRuth

Herbsman wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

?? What exactly do you mean by 'more consistency'?

I meant putting out a consistent effort throughout the training session (specifically the long low-intensity ones). Ensuring that I don't go too hard up hills / into wind etc.

Yes - this I think is where HRMs are at their best. They give some indication as to whether you're riding consistently during evenly-paced training.

I know heart rate takes a while to increase and then stay at a particular level so no good for short intervals, but might help me pace myself during 2 x 20min and even 4 x 6min intervals?

I think this is where you really have to understand that your HR is not showing how hard you are working at a given point in time. For identical training efforts your HR can be different within a given interval, for different intervals on the same day and for intervals done on different days. That doesn't mean there's no point in using a HRM, but there are probably more things you shouldn't conclude from what your HR does than things you can conclude from it.

BeaconRuth wrote:

You haven't really made it very clear what you're trying to achieve, though... If you're a racing cyclist who's reached a plateau and is wondering how to improve further then maybe understanding better roughly how hard you are training might help?

I don't think I've reached a plateau, but I do race and I am trying to train better to improve further. One one hand I think my training/racing calendar is working well, I have a mix of 1hr intervals, long moderate pace rides, rest days and recovery rides which I fit around races / work shifts and it seems to be doing the job well. On the other hand... well it's a new toy to play with. I suppose I can always sell it on eBay if I get bored of it or I don't feel that I benefit from using it

The best way it will help will be to give you an indication of whether your evenly-paced rides are at about the right pace and whether you're riding consistently (i.e. as you suggested). It might be that you could do your longer rides harder or that your should be doing them easier so that they're not so tiring. You haven't mentioned tempo rides - bread and butter to any racing cyclist - and HRMs are pretty good for pacing those.

Ruth

Herbsman

When you say tempo rides. You mean the kind of intensity I'd be riding at during a 1hr race? Obviously without the surges and sprinting, but a steady, fairly hard ride?

BeaconRuth

Herbsman wrote:

When you say tempo rides. You mean the kind of intensity I'd be riding at during a 1hr race? Obviously without the surges and sprinting, but a steady, fairly hard ride?

I mean an evenly-paced brisk ride of 1-2 hours. A HRM is ideal for pacing it - just aim to spend most of the ride in the range 75-85%maxHR.

Ruth

symo

Sorry to resurect Zombie thread here.

I have read 'around' and I seem to recall that the Karvonen method is best of determine zones, and there is a dead spot between 80-85% that is to be avoided for training. Could someone please comment on these if they would be so kind. I need to improve base level (zone2) riding, but I am interested as to the effect of intervals done starting from the the 80-85% zone.

doyler78

symo wrote:

Sorry to resurect Zombie thread here.

I have read 'around' and I seem to recall that the Karvonen method is best of determine zones, and there is a dead spot between 80-85% that is to be avoided for training. Could someone please comment on these if they would be so kind. I need to improve base level (zone2) riding, but I am interested as to the effect of intervals done starting from the the 80-85% zone.

There is no dead spot. There is a great deal of overlap between the different parts of the physiology that we are trying to train when we say we are working in a particular zone. The purpose of zones is merely to help guide your efforts so that you can try and maximise the benefits that you are trying to attain however that doesn't mean that if you come in little under that zone in a ride that you will have achieved nothing in respect of your goals - you most certainly will but the magnitude of the change just may not be as great.

As for methodology. There is no best system just some that some people find work for them better than others however I think you would be better just to chose one system and stick to it. Incidentally many now advocate lactate threshold based zones which are not Karvonen so the idea that this is the best system would have some seething. Every person that comes up with a system will necessarily say they have the greatest formula in the world however what all of this tells us is that consistent, focused training which seeks to progressively challenge you will yield excellent results because the only consistency of all those formulas is the structure of training programme that you need to build using them

Above 75% of maximum heart rate will have you working aerobically. At about 85% of max you will be working near threshold so around tempo. Great training as you can do this for a couple of hours or maybe more if you are particularly well attuned to those efforts. At around 88%-92% you are at threshold ie 1 hour tt pace so that they are only suitable for such efforts. The closer you get to maximum heart rate then the more useless HR is in guiding your effort. You will need to learn to go on feel.