Paul Eaton said:"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:One dark day on Usenet, [email hidden] (Paul Eaton) said
news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:How dangerous is it to go all out up a hill for MHR? Is there any
record of anyone coming to any harm doing this? I have not started
doing any speedwork maybe I should wait till I have done a few weeks
speedwork before going for MHR?
The way I arrived at max HR initially was to recognize that the LT zone
is about 80-90% of max hr. LT is usually around the same range as VT
(ventilatory threshold - there's some earlier posts on this under
google) = zone where breathing starts getting difficult. I take the hr
value where I start gasping as the upper end. Divide that by .9 to get
max hr, at least a conservative estimate of it. I've also seen max hr
forumlas that take conditioning into account as well as age (that is,
sedentary vs active, endurance trained vs not, etc). That formula gives
me an est of max hr within about 1-2 bpm of what I'm arriving at, so I
feel comfortable with it and my calculated zones match the verbal
descriptions of those zones.
To determine LT, I just paid attention to where my hr was when I
"sprinted" a hill at the end of a normal regular run (30-40 min) and
where I became breathless (starting to gasp). IMHO, it's easier to
determine this than max HR. You'll feel things getting harder and
harder, then suddenly you're gasping for air (at least beginners'
probably will be on hills). It's not quite as abrupt on the flats.
It's worked well for me. YMMV.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:As long as you don't have any existing cardiovascular problems then
going to max HR won't cause any problems. My cardiologist told me that
for the average person they'll just not be able to maintain that kind of
pace for more than a few minutes. For the elite athlete, he indicated
that they can maintain it much longer but will likely pass out if kept
up too long.
Hmm, when I'm excercising at 95%+ max hr (based on my calculations), I
start feeling like I'm going to pass out (and why I back off then).
Maybe that's an indication that my est max hr is close to actual 😉
Either that or it's the heat of the gym. HR does get in that zone during
races though (I disregard it then). But it's never gone above my
estimated max unless a bad connection or something when it goes above 200.
Quoted message said:
Apparently MHR is not trainable. I could understand that I have a
potential capped MHR that is no trainable,
As Phil mentioned, max hr is trainable, but I'm under the impression
that LT is easier to train.
Quoted message said:but I probably have not
demanded my heart to go to MHR for at least 20 years, how is it going
to be able to suddenly go to its maximum potential, surely there is
initially some training potential no matter how little? or for
training other systems to allow you to achieve MHR?
Yes. I'm guessing that unless someone has been training, they may not
be able to reach their max hr.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:What are the various zones for lsd, tempo, speedwork?
Long Runs (LSD)
73-83% MHR
65-78% HRR
10-20% slower than marathon race pace
Lactate Threshold (tempo)
80-90% MHR
76-88% HRR
15K to half marathon race pace
VO2 Max
94-98% MHR
93-98% HRR
3-5K race pace
These ranges are higher than most other examples I have managed to
find.
Aerobic 60-70% MHR (LSD Pace??)
Anaerobic threshold 70-80% MHR (LT Threshold/Tempo??)
The ranges Phil posted are consistent with the numbers I've seen in
assorted places (some variability), in particular LT about 80-90% of max HR.
Quoted message said:
Is it that if you are fitter, not only will you run faster at any
given HR, but ALSO you may shift up your HR ranges?
As you raise your LT as pct of max HR, you will be able to run
aerobically at a greater hr. That also pushes your maximal (above LT) to
a greater hr. My understanding is that LT is easier to train than max HR
(can't remember source) so you'd likely see changes in LT before max HR,
I think.
Quoted message said:
Most people appear to use % of MHR method, so why bother with the % of
HRR method?
As Phil mentioned, the HRR takes advantage of the larger working range
of the heart. To me, it makes more sense. I haven't figured out why
people use max HR.
Here's a different approach, using hr based on % of LT hr. As a total
newbie, I used the traditional hrm zones based on max or hrr. As I
learned more about training (I'm still very much a beginner, so take
with appropriate grain on salt for my experiment of one), I found most
training drills that I was reading were based on LT (approximated by
gasping for air) or VO2max and duration. Nobody seemed to care about max
hr or hrr so I stopped worrying about it also. (see caveat below)
One table that I found that describes zones in terms of LT is:
103.0% 106.0% Maximal
94.0% 102.0% Anaerobic
89.0% 93.0% Aerobic
82.0% 88.0% Weight control
65.0% 81.0% Low intensity
(can't remember where I got it, but someplace on web, I'm pretty sure -
so beware)
This doesn't have a no-man's land (too easy for some benefits but
increases recovery time) like some books do, but I'm not convinced of
the need to avoid certain zones in general (depending upon frequency of
running, etc). From the earlier books I used, like Benson's program with
PCCoach, I already had an idea where my hr zones should be, although I
had used a LT approach in determining them (somewhat circular argument,
I know).
I'm under the impression that LT is more trainable than max HR. For
beginners, it's probably equally stable until after a bit of LT or
harder work. But for more experienced folks, that are going to elevate
their LT as % of max hr of hrr, they should be moving their hr zones
upward for the harder efforts.
My experiment of one and adaptations to my training environment are the
main zones:
LT % Max HR% HRR%
Low Hi Low Hi Low Hi
106% 109% 95% 98% 93% 97% Over the top
103% 106% (Maximal from above)
99% 102% 88% 92% 83% 88% Anaerobic
95% 99% 85% 88% 78% 83% Aerobic speed
87% 91% 78% 81% 67% 72% Easy
84% 86% 76% 77% 63% 66% Recovery/tired
88% 79% 68% Groove, go-on-forever
I normally only train in the middle 3 zones. Basically, it's either,
easy, just below LT, or above LT (fartleks or hills may alternate
between zones). Easy corresponds to conversational effort, LT to having
trouble talking, above LT corresponds to "don't even want to think about
talking". Hills on long runs may tend to get up to about 82-83% of
max hr. Usually I can't even run in the recovery/tired zone. But if I
can, I usually can't budge my hr out of there, so it's generally not a
good sign for me (other people are efficient enough that they can run in
that zone, and I may be able to eventually also). "Over the top" is
where I end up when really pushing hard in a cross-training class or
occasionally on mt bike when trying to reach top of hill without
walking. I don't deliberately train there as a beginner, but sometimes I
just end up there. Similarly, I don't train in the "maximal" zone at all
- seem to pass right through there.
Caveat: I run trails, preferably hilly and/or single track. Up till now,
my summer training has been minimal because of field work, which leaves
me doing most of my training in Alaskan winter with no imminent race
goals, but things on the distant horizon and some intermediate stepping
stones. Most training programs are designed for road runners on
snow-free ground with near-term race goals. They worked for me for the
first 3 months, fell apart badly with the first snow. I also switched to
trails shortly after that. Since then, I've read a lot and experimented
a lot to find some guidelines that seem to work for me. I can now do
speed workouts on snowshoes 🙂 - harder effort *and* faster pace than
normal. But that wasn't possible 2 yr ago when "hard" meant "slow"
because of hills or snow.
The advantage to me of doing things relative to LT (or at least what I'm
calling LT - see earlier posts on LT/VT (ventilatory threshold)) is that
I don't have to look at a hrm (can't hear the beeps) when I'm
concentrating on effort, footing, watching for wildlife, etc. I do wear
a hrm (when it's batteries aren't dead) as a double check on effort and
to log data and learn from that. I may have days when I experiment with
something new where I may monitor the hrm closely (couple times a year).
Particularly for the short, steep hills that I run, the hrm responds too
slowly at critical points to depend on it to monitor effort.
Anyway, just a different perspective on hrm training.
Dot
