Max HR? That's all?

220 - (age * 0.7) This will likely give a more "realistic" max heart rate (about 194-195 for your age). Or better yet, get it tested. Obviously, if you have hit the 190's, then that is your max heart rate. Same goes for "resting heart rate" (needs to be tested FIRST thing in the morning, not just lying around watching football).

As far as your training "zone" There are various books/reasons to train in the 60-70% and 80% zones (for different reasons). Since you know your heart rate, I assume you have some sort of manual that came with your heart rate monitor. If not, check out Polar's web site for some useful info.

Good luck in your Duathlon - make sure you enter in the MTB division if that is what you are going to ride!

ptcruuzinfl said:

I have been actively mountainbiking for about 4 years now, with a few races under my belt during
this time. I have recently decided to take on a personal challenge and try a duathlon in the
spring, so I am actively training to increase my current fitness level.

By doing the calculation of 220 minus age, I'm getting a MHR of 184. Which for me has always been
an easy number to train around. Meaning, I'm able to run and bike comfortably with no real ill
effects. In fact, there have been times that I have pushed myself and reached the mid-upper 190's
(beit for a verrry short period, climbs sprints, ect / hard to recover after) Which leads me to my
questions...

Q1. Is the above formula really only a general guideline?

VERY general.

Quoted message said:

Q2. Could my calculated MHR(184) be slightly higher (189 +/-) based on my already established
fitness level?

Most/All MHR formulas are flawed. They all/most are based on some "population". If you
happen to not be part of that population then the formula is incorrect for you. A far better
method of figuring out your HR zones is via testing or experiance. There is a plethora of
various tests that will get you into a much more "personalized" zone than just about any
formula will. I personally use the tests in Joe Friels "Triathlete's Training Bible"

Quoted message said:

Q3. Am I causing more harm than good by doing this? Is it ok to always train at 90%-100%+ MHR?

Working at different percents of Max or different zones work different systems. In general
always working in one zone is not the most effecient method for overall improvement. Also
working to often at too high of intensity without sufficient recovery time can lead to
things like injury and overtraining.

~Matt

In article said:

ptcruuzinfl said:

I have been actively mountainbiking for about 4 years now, with a few races under my belt during
this time. I have recently decided to take on a personal challenge and try a duathlon in the
spring, so I am actively training to increase my current fitness level.

By doing the calculation of 220 minus age, I'm getting a MHR of 184. Which for me has always been
an easy number to train around. Meaning, I'm able to run and bike comfortably with no real ill
effects. In fact, there have been times that I have pushed myself and reached the mid-upper 190's
(beit for a verrry short period, climbs sprints, ect / hard to recover after) Which leads me to
my questions...

Q1. Is the above formula really only a general guideline?

VERY general.

Quoted message said:

Q2. Could my calculated MHR(184) be slightly higher (189 +/-) based on my already established
fitness level?

Most/All MHR formulas are flawed. They all/most are based on some "population". If you
happen to not be part of that population then the formula is incorrect for you.

That's not really the issue here, although it can be in some situations. The forumula almost
certainly derives from a liner regression analysis. The formula gives the estimated AVERAGE MHR for
all people of a certain age in the population being studied. The relevant point is that there is
quite a bit of variation about this average.

In general, if you use the proper statistical procedures to answer the question, "What is MY maximum
heart rate based on my age?" you'll get something called a prediction interval. This answer will
likely be something like, "Well, we can't tell you exactly, but there's a 95% chance that it's
between 161 and 207." [Yes, I know I'm slightly misrepresenting the interpretation of a PI to make
the explanation simpler.]

A wide range like that is useless for basing your workouts on MHR.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson