Heart rate training zones.

ben@31

Do you know much about using your heart rate for fitness training?
Tonight I used a heart rate monitor when out for a run ( I swim, cycle and run) and for the first time tried to keep my heart rate low enough to be in the aerobic training zone. Rather than run at a race pace. But when I got back I didn't feel challenged and did not get that endomorphine rush. It felt far too easy and like I wasn't doing enough.

A friend suggested that maybe I need to max out and recalculate my heart rate training zones from there, like a re-calibration.

I want to keep improving my fitness rather and train much smarter rather than running an anaerobic race pace every time.

Any suggestions? Thanks.

imposter2.0

Using %MHR is no more or less reliable than using %LTHR in all honesty. I wouldn't say MHR is 'dated'...

ben@31

Madasahatterly,

How would you calculate your lactate threshold zone ? From what I remember is it just under your max heart rate?

As for buying a power meter, looking at the price of them sends my heart rate sky high. I may need to sell a kidney or 3.

imposter2.0

Luke has said in his post how to calculate LTHR. You do need some kind of reasonably reliable reference point though, otherwise your target zones risk being way off...

BigFatBloke

madasahattersley wrote:

Wouldn't bother maxing out and finding zones like that. The general rule is do a 30 minute all out time trial on the bike and take your average HR for the final 20 minutes as your LTHR (Lactate Threshold HR) and then calculate zones based on that. Using max HR is quite dated and unreliable.

Better still, buy a power meter!

Better than that just train by feel.

fujisst

Go to a lab and get tested.
They'll give you all your zones, and it'll be done with accuracy.
Much cheaper than a power meter, and more precise than going by feel.

Barbarossa

For running, I set my LTHR as the average for the last 20min of a 10k at race pace (on the flat). It will probably be different to your cycling LTHR. Training zones here. I think that the advantage over MHR is that it is at the effort you would be racing at, so much more relevant.

BigFatBloke

fujisst wrote:

Go to a lab and get tested.
They'll give you all your zones, and it'll be done with accuracy.
Much cheaper than a power meter, and more precise than going by feel.

Feel should always comes first.

Heart rate is a response to the effort made and it is a delayed response and not only by a few seconds - it is also slow to drop after you cease or lower the effort. Your heart rate at your maximum sustainable effort for a given duration will vary day to day. Heart rate is interesting but you should not train to it, you should train by feel. Heart rate data is of interest retrospectively, but as a guide to training intensity in real time it is imprecise.

There is no need to train strictly in zones anyway.

imposter2.0

BigFatBloke wrote:

There is no need to train strictly in zones anyway.

which is why HR is ok as a rough guide.

OverTheHillAt21

You may find your maxhr is lower cycling than running (on the flat), although in recent years the highest I have hit in any discipline was cycling out of the saddle up a very steep hill on a heavy mtb.

I had my LT tested at UEA on a treadmill a few years ago but not sure they do that testing anymore. Up here in Glasgow you can get a lactate profile/VO2 max combined test at Hampden (in case anyone is looking!).

As BFB says though, learning to know by feel what pace you should be training at or racing at is a very useful skill.

BigFatBloke

OverTheHillAt21 wrote:

You may find your maxhr is lower cycling than running (on the flat), although in recent years the highest I have hit in any discipline was cycling out of the saddle up a very steep hill on a heavy mtb.

I had my LT tested at UEA on a treadmill a few years ago but not sure they do that testing anymore. Up here in Glasgow you can get a lactate profile/VO2 max combined test at Hampden (in case anyone is looking!).

As BFB says though, learning to know by feel what pace you should be training at or racing at is a very useful skill.

I know many will not agree but I think 'FEEL' is a skill many fail to learn because they rely on heart rate or watts. I know Alex Simmons has said that training with power can enhance peoples 'feel' but to my mind feel is something innate in most people and it can be honed considerably but if you start out riding to heart rate and or power you never hone the skill properly.

In my view, too many riders become fixated by one set of numbers which are a response to effort and another set of numbers which are a result of the effort, rather than paying attention to what matters, which is the effort and how it feels and how the effort is produced. Too much emphasis on the measurement and not enough on the production.

But that is just my personal opinion and I doubt many agree with me.

Does a wolf need to measure his heart rate and power to decide if he can maintain his pace when hunting?

wavefront

BigFatBloke wrote:

Does a wolf need to measure his heart rate and power to decide if he can maintain his pace when hunting?

If it did, he might catch his prey more often

imposter2.0

wavefront wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

Does a wolf need to measure his heart rate and power to decide if he can maintain his pace when hunting?

If it did, he might catch his prey more often

Exactly - and if all the wolves signed up to Strava, they could then see who was the fastest at catching prey...

BigFatBloke

madasahattersley wrote:

Imposter wrote:

wavefront wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

Does a wolf need to measure his heart rate and power to decide if he can maintain his pace when hunting?

If it did, he might catch his prey more often

Exactly - and if all the wolves signed up to Strava, they could then see who was the fastest at catching prey...

Then when they do a hunt with a really big TSS they can take it easy for a few days then taper to get some really hot hunting form and catch something really big, but only twice in one season :idea:

I just shot the bloody wolf.