Heart Rate: Correct Calculation

You're asking the wrong question! The vast consensus is that MaxHR is a poor basis for training ranges, due to any number of factors - it drops each year as you age, and it is very hard to find a real, repeatable max. On top of that, using a formula approach gives an answer that works for populations in general, but is almost always wrong for a specific individual. Almost every coaching system is based on some measure of maximum sustainable HR. Take a look at Friel's or Carmichael's books etc., they all suggest different ways to find max sustainable, essentially by doing a specific TT effort and looking at your avg HR. (The cynic in me says that the popularity of the formula approach is that you can do it in an armchair with a calculator, rather than putting in the effort on a bike...but as we know, anything useful requires some work!)

palewin said:

You're asking the wrong question! The vast consensus is that MaxHR is a poor basis for training ranges, due to any number of factors - it drops each year as you age, and it is very hard to find a real, repeatable max. On top of that, using a formula approach gives an answer that works for populations in general, but is almost always wrong for a specific individual. Almost every coaching system is based on some measure of maximum sustainable HR. Take a look at Friel's or Carmichael's books etc., they all suggest different ways to find max sustainable, essentially by doing a specific TT effort and looking at your avg HR. (The cynic in me says that the popularity of the formula approach is that you can do it in an armchair with a calculator, rather than putting in the effort on a bike...but as we know, anything useful requires some work!)

As a point of interest (perhaps?), you'll only tend to find that people prescribe training based on some sustainable HR figure in the US and Canada. In UK and Europe HR training tends to be prescribed based on HRmax, and certainly, for e.g., that is what British Cycling does.

Ric

SketchySmurf said:

Hey all,
This will probably be the first of many posts about cycling as I am a newbified cyclist. I've been riding for many years, but due to some joint injuries, it is pretty much going to be my only consistent form of exercise for quite some time. So...I want to get started on formally building my fitness on my existing ride and an indoor bike coming forthwith...

In terms of heart rate: I understand that there's the Karvonen formula which takes RHR into account and factors it back into the original calculation. Depending on what book you're reading, or what web site you visit some will have you begin by subtracting your age from 220. Others say 200. This is a really big swing. What's the consensus from the folks on this board?

I don't use the Karvonen formula for HR, as it does provide an interesting twist... that is, if your resting HR increases your training zones go up, when you really need them to go down...

However, back to the 220-age. For a group of people this is a good way to establish the group's mean HRmax, however, for an individual it's pointless as it has a standard deviation of something like +-15 b/min.

Thus, if you wanted to set training zones based on HRmax (which for e.g., we do at RST for those who don't have power meters) then you'd be best advised to go and do a HRmax test -- either in a lab, or via some field based testing. Whichever way you do it, you need to make sure you're fit and healthy (i.e., no reason why you can't take part in maximal exercise) and aren't suffering from any infections.

Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

I don't use the Karvonen formula for HR, as it does provide an interesting twist... that is, if your resting HR increases your training zones go up, when you really need them to go down...

Ric

That is an excellent point!

I have noted the same on various Heart Rate and Cardiology forums and gotten no particularly good answer. As a non-biker working toward fitness in the gym, I was using those Sally Edwards zones. Then I got wind of the Karvonen formula and found my zones bumped up 15bpm. The less fit you are using this formula, the higher HR you have to achieve to obtain training effect.

Now I'm using power (Polar Power unit and S725) and HR as a newbie biker. At this point, as the body isn't to fit, HR is a decent indicator of whether I'm working too hard or not hard enough, so that I can finish 1-2hr rides and still ride again tomorrow (age 47, 200lb). The power is more useful to analyze and compare rides to assess progress on repeats of the same rides, as well as in monthly field testing for performance monitoring.

Any thought on how to better use my Power/HR in-ride appreciated. Polar doesn't seem to have the averaging options PowerTap has, nor will they disclose their power display algorithm (I've asked), so using the display data isn't as useful as I had hoped.

On the subject of Resting Heart Rate, I've worn my HR monitor overnight and find my HR declines progressively over the night. Depending on how you choose to look at the data, you can get a different RHR.

Should RHR be the lowest 10% achieved in the last hour of sleep, or the average in the first 5min after waking, the average over the whole night of sleep, the lowest 10% over the whole night of sleep, etc?

Bret

cbjesseeNH said:

That is an excellent point!

I have noted the same on various Heart Rate and Cardiology forums and gotten no particularly good answer. As a non-biker working toward fitness in the gym, I was using those Sally Edwards zones. Then I got wind of the Karvonen formula and found my zones bumped up 15bpm. The less fit you are using this formula, the higher HR you have to achieve to obtain training effect.

Now I'm using power (Polar Power unit and S725) and HR as a newbie biker. At this point, as the body isn't to fit, HR is a decent indicator of whether I'm working too hard or not hard enough, so that I can finish 1-2hr rides and still ride again tomorrow (age 47, 200lb). The power is more useful to analyze and compare rides to assess progress on repeats of the same rides, as well as in monthly field testing for performance monitoring.

Any thought on how to better use my Power/HR in-ride appreciated. Polar doesn't seem to have the averaging options PowerTap has, nor will they disclose their power display algorithm (I've asked), so using the display data isn't as useful as I had hoped.

On the subject of Resting Heart Rate, I've worn my HR monitor overnight and find my HR declines progressively over the night. Depending on how you choose to look at the data, you can get a different RHR.

Should RHR be the lowest 10% achieved in the last hour of sleep, or the average in the first 5min after waking, the average over the whole night of sleep, the lowest 10% over the whole night of sleep, etc?

Bret

i don't track resting HR anymore. I'm not sure it tells us anything that we don't already know. For e.g., my normal resting HR is about 45 b/min. when i got flu two years ago i woke up and took my resting HR. It was about 90 b/min. However, i felt so awful, that i could barely get out of bed and didn't need to confirm that i felt bad via measuring my resting HR.

IIRC (and i may not) the S720 etc displays a random power measurement from the previous 5-secs as the latest power, but records the average of every 5-secs.

i would use it to both pace your workouts while training, and to analyse your data post exercise.

I would set up training zones based on power (answers partially your query at Topica) using our field test http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern, but you should read and understand the caveats and disclaimer prior to testing. Of course, other tests are available such as a TT. I feel that a MAP test (that we recommend) and a sustainable power / TT test in conjunction with the MAP is the best way to go.

Ric

I was half expecting a complicated answer and I thought I would be prepared to understand it, but unfortunately this leaves me with more questions than answers.

I am picking up a Cycle Ops indoor bike which will have power data (as well as HR and other metrics) so I am venturing a guess that I would build a base fitness level and then undergo a MAP, Power/tt test and go from there?

I didn't realize that hr has fallen so far out of favor...Any other voices out there?

SketchySmurf said:

I was half expecting a complicated answer and I thought I would be prepared to understand it, but unfortunately this leaves me with more questions than answers.

please ask the questions, and i'll try (and so will others) to respond

Quoted post said:

I am picking up a Cycle Ops indoor bike which will have power data (as well as HR and other metrics) so I am venturing a guess that I would build a base fitness level and then undergo a MAP, Power/tt test and go from there?

I didn't realize that hr has fallen so far out of favor...Any other voices out there?

I believe that if you have power data, then this is the way forward. You will see this sentiment echoed whereever there is someone knowledgeable about power output. Likewise, you will likely get a very similar response on the Topica list about ditching HR and using power. Sometimes, i use power and HR together, and sometimes i don't.

As to the way forward with testing, there's a variety of tests, e.g., MAP and my schema, or Andy Coggan's TT power/MLSS schema, and there's also the critical power paradigm (of which i'm not a huge fan, as it over estimates power once you go past about 60mins).

However, whichever way you go forward with testing -- you would need to use the zones that are associated with that test as they may not be interchangeable with other schemas (although mine and AC's zones/levels are very similar from two very different tests for the vast majority of people).

As to whether you should get some base fitness first prior to testing, i always think it's useful to track fitness from the beginning so that you can see exactly where you are, and then plan where to go, and over what time period.

It's important however, that prior to maximal testing you ensure that you are fit and healthy enough to undertake maximal testing. (i have done some work with cardiac rehab patients that under took VO2max testing, but, for e.g., that isn't something i'd advise such a patient to do by themself -- not that i any longer have anything to do with that side -- exercise science).

Ric

Ric: Thanks for your note, I wasn't aware of the "national differences." I was essentially paraphrasing from an article on training in VeloNews by Dario Frederick: "...max HR was thought to be the benchmark for HR training values. However this concept has been challenged since the 1970s. Max HR is no longer used [ed: obviously VeloNews is a US publication] ... because it can skew the accuracy of estimated training intensity by as much as 30%. Here's the problem: Max HR is difficult to accurately determine because it decreases with age and training, and it can vary significantly depending on your body temperature or even your level of fatigue. A more effective method...is to measure your...maximal steady state, and use it as a standard."
My point in quoting the article is because it raises, for me as an avid cyclist, but layman in terms of coaching, a number of questions. Effectively what I don't understand is the fairly basic disagreement (perhaps I should say variation) between respected coaches such as yourself, Dario, Ric Crawford, Michele Ferrari, Friel and Carmichael, to name a few. I would have thought that at this level of expertise there would be more agreement on something as basic as determining training zones, since I (and I'm not being sarcastic or naive) would assume you all read the same studies. It also leaves me puzzled when you mentioned in another thread that there are apparantly big differences between CTS and yourself, since again at this level of coaching I would expect more similarities than differences. Any thoughts? I guess given my background as a mathematician, I like to think there is a "correct answer" and this "quantum mechanics" view (that there are multiple correct answers all existing simultaneously) is frustrating!

SketchySmurf said:

I didn't realize that hr has fallen so far out of favor...Any other voices out there?

The basic problem with HR as a guide to training zones or for managing a training ride is that it varies widely as a function of power. One real-world example. I have been nursing an injury that prevents me from sustained seated efforts >200w, but I can do as many intervals as I want off the saddle. My rule of thumb is that my 40K MP corresponds to ~90%MHR, so I decided to get a quick benchmark on my 40K MP by gradually increasing my power until I hit 90%MHR. Since my last solid benchmark suggested that my 40K MP was ~275w, I expected that I would hit 90%MHR by maybe 300w or a little higher. Well, I got to 390w and my HR was only 87%MHR, so I abandoned my plan because I didn't want to hurt myself. Now, do I think my 40K MP is 390w+? No, I think the problem was with my HR. It was just being weird that day.

Geeze....all this stuff makes me wonder how people trained without heart rate monitors or power taps.

Yojimbo_ said:

Geeze....all this stuff makes me wonder how people trained without heart rate monitors or power taps.

I raced for 5 years with no bike computer at all. You can also race on a 20lb bike. Of course you can do it. But, why?

[quote="palewin"]Ric: Thanks for your note, I wasn't aware of the "national differences." I was essentially paraphrasing from an article on training in VeloNews by Dario Frederick: "...max HR was thought to be the benchmark for HR training values. However this concept has been challenged since the 1970s. Max HR is no longer used [ed: obviously VeloNews is a US publication] ... because it can skew the accuracy of estimated training intensity by as much as 30%. Here's the problem: Max HR is difficult to accurately determine because it decreases with age and training, and it can vary significantly depending on your body temperature or even your level of fatigue. A more effective method...is to measure your...maximal steady state, and use it as a standard."

There's two issues i see
1) power is better than HR -- so if you have power use that
2) All the points that Dario makes can be applied to sustainable heart rate as well...

For e.g., yesterday i decided to do a MAP test, there was a few minutes of suffering at the end and without having anyone to cajoule me on at the end i got within a couple of beats of my last known HRmax test. I was *under* my last known figure (a couple beats) -- however, i don't know if:
1) my HRmax has decreased
2) i didn't push myself enough at the end (most likely)
3) whether enivironmental conditions affected things

however, and i'm not 100% certain of Dario's test protocol, but i can TT at the same power output and my HR can vary by 10 - 15 b/min depending on previous training days and current state of fatigue

In other words neither test is perfect.

Peter Keen, the ex-head of British Cycling, and BC do use HRmax for training prescription

Quoted post said:

My point in quoting the article is because it raises, for me as an avid cyclist, but layman in terms of coaching, a number of questions. Effectively what I don't understand is the fairly basic disagreement (perhaps I should say variation) between respected coaches such as yourself, Dario, Ric Crawford, Michele Ferrari, Friel and Carmichael, to name a few.

Quoted post said:

I would have thought that at this level of expertise there would be more agreement on something as basic as determining training zones, since I (and I'm not being sarcastic or naive) would assume you all read the same studies.

Quoted post said:

It also leaves me puzzled when you mentioned in another thread that there are apparantly big differences between CTS and yourself, since again at this level of coaching I would expect more similarities than differences. Any thoughts? I guess given my background as a mathematician, I like to think there is a "correct answer" and this "quantum mechanics" view (that there are multiple correct answers all existing simultaneously) is frustrating!

Yojimbo_ said:

Geeze....all this stuff makes me wonder how people trained without heart rate monitors or power taps.

You can always try driving to a new location without a map. the map just makes things easier and quicker -- better than going round in circles and getting lost.

ric