Preparing for an MHR test

You may also consider doing a Functional Threshold test ie, a sustained effort over 20-30 minutes and getting an average HR from that.

It is may be more meaningful than an MHR test. Even though the idea is based around power, it works very well for HR too:

peakscoachinggroup.comPowerTrainingChapter.pdfOpen ↗

I agree with Spunout.

Plus, you may be better served if you just note your max HR at VO2Max.

As a coach, that is the max hr value I have always used.

If you absolutely want to know your max HR over VO2Max, e.g. going anaerobic for as long as you can, to get those extra 3 or 4 beats over HR at VO2max, then make that test short. It could be 3 to 5 minute long, ramp up.

But again, I see no benefit in trying to monitor HR over VO2Max. Training over VO2Max is not even based on % HR.

Just to add a little -- where we coach riders without a power meter, we base training zones on HRmax. This is the same as British Cycling (who base their zones on HRmax).

Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Just to add a little -- where we coach riders without a power meter, we base training zones on HRmax. This is the same as British Cycling (who base their zones on HRmax).

Ric

How do you account for the fact that a certain % of HR max could be 5-8bpm below the person's Threshold or 5-8bpm above it? You can just assume that everybody's threshold is x% of their MHR.

WarrenG said:

How do you account for the fact that a certain % of HR max could be 5-8bpm below the person's Threshold or 5-8bpm above it? You can just assume that everybody's threshold is x% of their MHR.

More to do with the fact that we don't define people's "threshold" as a specific %, but as a range, which is fairly broad.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

More to do with the fact that we don't define people's "threshold" as a specific %, but as a range, which is fairly broad.

ric

As an example, Rider A has a MHR of 200 and his threshold when measured accurately is right around 170bpm, or 85% of MHR. Rider B has the same MHR and his threshold is right around 180bpm, or 90% of MHR. This shows a significant difference WRT to appropriate training. Telling Rider A to do some training at around 180bpm would be quite different from telling Rider B to do some training around 180bpm.

Since you have a HRM and it's easy enough to do some testing to get some better accuracy for their actual threshold, why not do this instead of using a less accurate estimate based on MHR?

ric_stern/RST said:

Just to add a little -- where we coach riders without a power meter, we base training zones on HRmax. This is the same as British Cycling (who base their zones on HRmax).

Ric

No offense Ric,

But I have nothing really good to say about British Cycling. It is an anchor around the neck of North American cycling, to be tied to the British System.

What are the Australians/NZ using??

I'm a newbie to the technical side of cycling, but I don't understand the point of the poster's question. So I do a MHR test and I find my MHR is say 175. What do I do with this figure - ramp up my Wattage on the intervals? With RD's guidance I'm training fairly near my FT as far as my interval training goes at a HR of around 134. This allows me to finish my session tired but achieved.
Sorry if I have misunderstood things here (I'm still learning), so I can't see what advantage there would be in knowing my MHR.
Incidentally, in the last 2 minutes of an interval session I increase my HR to 165.
I'm still fairly comfortable at that rate, but I don't feel I want to increase on that; or would there be some point in trying to reach my hypothetical MHR of 175?
I'll shut up now and stick with It's killing me but......😎

Sillyoldtwit said:

I'm a newbie to the technical side of cycling, but I don't understand the point of the poster's question. So I do a MHR test and I find my MHR is say 175. What do I do with this figure - ramp up my Wattage on the intervals? With RD's guidance I'm training fairly near my FT as far as my interval training goes at a HR of around 134. This allows me to finish my session tired but achieved.
Sorry if I have misunderstood things here (I'm still learning), so I can't see what advantage there would be in knowing my MHR.
Incidentally, in the last 2 minutes of an interval session I increase my HR to 165.
I'm still fairly comfortable at that rate, but I don't feel I want to increase on that; or would there be some point in trying to reach my hypothetical MHR of 175?
I'll shut up now and stick with It's killing me but......😎

You have figured out why MHR is pretty much a useless number for training. The intensity/power/HR/effort you can do for various durations is far more useful. Knowing that your effort was at x% of your MHR doesn't tell you anything useful for training. As a % of your threshold HR or power, or % of your VO2max HR or power, yes, but not % of MHR.

The only time I ever consider my MHR is when the race is very, very hard (like in the final sprint) I can see that yes, I was making a maximum effort, or probably not a maximum effort, and even when I do hit my MHR I know that it's a bit easier to do that with all the adrenalin that gets released during that kind of effort.

Thanks Warren. I think what you're saying is, I'm not as dumb as I thought I was. Haven't got my head round all this jargon yet, but will do one day.🙂

WarrenG said:

You have figured out why MHR is pretty much a useless number for training. The intensity/power/HR/effort you can do for various durations is far more useful. Knowing that your effort was at x% of your MHR doesn't tell you anything useful for training. As a % of your threshold HR or power, or % of your VO2max HR or power, yes, but not % of MHR.

The only time I ever consider my MHR is when the race is very, very hard (like in the final sprint) I can see that yes, I was making a maximum effort, or probably not a maximum effort, and even when I do hit my MHR I know that it's a bit easier to do that with all the adrenalin that gets released during that kind of effort.

What test should I therefore be doing with my HR monitor to assess where my threshold HR is?

As for power meters - there's no way I can afford one of them.

I'm starting to get all of this but still not there...

I too just got a heart rate monitor and did my own test of MHR. I think there is a purpose of knowing this, so when I'm riding in the future and want to go hard (or recover), I know where I am in relation to my limit.

I can therefore set my HRM to beep if I'm outside of a zone, say when I feel like I'm going hard but my heart rate is low. Maybe the value of this isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I can't see how it's a bad thing.

noonievut said:

I'm starting to get all of this but still not there...

I too just got a heart rate monitor and did my own test of MHR. I think there is a purpose of knowing this, so when I'm riding in the future and want to go hard (or recover), I know where I am in relation to my limit.

I can therefore set my HRM to beep if I'm outside of a zone, say when I feel like I'm going hard but my heart rate is low. Maybe the value of this isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I can't see how it's a bad thing.

The reason I posted my original question is because I am following advice given in one of Chris Carmichael's books. It says that you need to know your max HR in order to accurately work out the relevant zones in which you should be training according to your goals.

Therefore it seemed logical to me to want to know one's MHR if you want to train in, for example, the lactate threshold zone (80-85% of MHR).

That's the reason I made the original post. By knowing my MHR, Carmichael says I'm in a better position to set upper and lower limits to train in the right zone.

Spunout said:

I have nothing really good to say about British Cycling.

Hey, they do pretty well on the track!

Spunout said:

It is an anchor around the neck of North American cycling, to be tied to the British System.

?

I don't seen any real relationship between the training approaches practiced by North American cyclists and those used/advocated/adopted by the British.

Back to the question at hand: in general, prescribing training intensity based on metabolic fitness (i.e., LT, or some surrogate measure thereof, such as "functional threshold power"😉 is more logical than prescribing exercise intensity based on cardiovascular fitness (i.e., VO2max, or some surrogate measure thereof, such as percentage of maximal heart rate or heart rate reserve). That isn't necessarily always the case, e.g., you could certainly argue that training aimed at increasing cardiovascular fitness should be based on VO2max, not LT. Despite such minutiae, however, in reality it really isn't all that important which approach you use, since 1) when expressed as a percentage of VO2max, LT falls within a fairly narrow range in trained cyclists, i.e., 75-85% of VO2max), and 2) the precise intensity at which one trains isn't nearly as crucial as many tend to believe, and in fact can't be controlled all that precisely anyway unless you do all of your training on an ergometer (or staring at your powermeter every second of a ride).

sergen said:

The reason I posted my original question is because I am following advice given in one of Chris Carmichael's books. It says that you need to know your max HR in order to accurately work out the relevant zones in which you should be training according to your goals.

Therefore it seemed logical to me to want to know one's MHR if you want to train in, for example, the lactate threshold zone (80-85% of MHR).

That's the reason I made the original post. By knowing my MHR, Carmichael says I'm in a better position to set upper and lower limits to train in the right zone.

I think there are other Carmichael books that use road tests to establish training zones. Your actual LT zone may be within 80-85% of MHR, or it may be outside that range, and in that case, your training probably wouldn't be as effective.

I'd suggest getting a book, one of Carmichael's if you like them, that uses the road tests for establishing your training zones. I suspect that a book based on road tests may be slightly more advanced (and more useful to you) than one based on % of MHR.