Heart rates when training

Steve Holdoway said:

Hi Folks,

I've not long come back from fatland, and am back competing after a 10 year layoff. Now we've got
much better toys to play with, and I find it quite good to record my heart rate using a Polar S510.
I'm shifting form Tris over to running for the next few months, 'cos they're the next few events
that I'm doing.

I'm 43, and still have about 10kg to shift to get down to a decent weight ( I'm 5'10 and 90kg/200lb
at the moment ). Reading through the dirty mags for general fitness, they reckon I should be
training at a HR of 75% = (220-43)*.75, which is in the low 130's. I've just come back from my
daily hour's run, and my average rate is 161, or over 90%

IMO the 220-Age is pretty much useless. You need to search for some tests that will allow
you to tell what YOUR MaxHR and preferably
LT. Most people will have different ranges on the run, bike and swim so a test is necessary in all
three disiplines. My favorite book for determining these things is Joe Friels Traithlete's
Training Bible. It's simple, Complete and gives you pretty much everything you need to know to
get starrted with proper HR training.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Even on the bike, my HR is between 150-155. Should I be easing off, or just ignore the mags???

I surely would like to shift the weight... even if it's only to get a better BMI (:

Steve

Steve Holdoway said:

Hi Folks,

I've not long come back from fatland, and am back competing after a 10 year layoff. Now we've got
much better toys to play with, and I find it quite good to record my heart rate using a Polar
S510. I'm shifting form Tris over to running for the next few months, 'cos they're the next few
events that I'm doing.

I'm 43, and still have about 10kg to shift to get down to a decent weight ( I'm 5'10 and
90kg/200lb at the moment ). Reading through the dirty mags for general fitness, they reckon I
should be training at a HR of 75% = (220-43)*.75, which is in the low 130's. I've just come back
from my daily hour's run, and my average rate is 161, or over 90%

Even on the bike, my HR is between 150-155. Should I be easing off, or just ignore the mags???

Ignore anything that isn't based on your empirically determined MHR, LT, or race times. If it has
anything to do with your age, it's garbage for accurate training. There are 50 year olds in this
forum with MHRs over 200, and 20 year olds who max out at 170.

That said, training schedules based upon your LT - or estimated based on your max - are a good
thing. You can get similar pace estimates from recent race times. See, for example, "Daniels Running
Formula" (aimed not at triathletes, but you said you're going to be doing mostly running) or "the
Triathletes Training Bible".

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

Every thing that my betters have said before me is correct; however, remember, that the standard
formula is more often accurate than not. Definitely use Friel's method, but I'd be surprised if
there's a big differential.

That said, running at 160 is too high if you want to build better aerobic capacity and/or burn fat.
Slow it down - try to keep around 130 for most runs, and then once a week give it your best shot.

By the way, for losing weight and running, I've found that an excellent (and scientifically
grounded) books is Maffetone
(amazon.comsr=Open ↗
8-2/ref=sr_8_2/104-4106992-1353525?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Maffetone has been consistently
ranked as tri coach of the year (whatever that means).

Tom

"Steve Holdoway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi Folks,

I've not long come back from fatland, and am back competing after a 10 year layoff. Now we've got
much better toys to play with, and I find it quite good to record my heart rate using a Polar
S510. I'm shifting form Tris over to running for the next few months, 'cos they're the next few
events that I'm doing.

I'm 43, and still have about 10kg to shift to get down to a decent weight ( I'm 5'10 and
90kg/200lb at the moment ). Reading through the dirty mags for general fitness, they reckon I
should be training at a HR of 75% = (220-43)*.75, which is in the low 130's. I've just come back
from my daily hour's run, and my average rate is 161, or over 90%

Even on the bike, my HR is between 150-155. Should I be easing off, or just ignore the mags???

I surely would like to shift the weight... even if it's only to get a better BMI (:

Steve

Tom G said:

Every thing that my betters have said before me is correct; however, remember, that the standard
formula is more often accurate than not. Definitely use Friel's method, but I'd be surprised if
there's a big differential.

Bah.

Quoted message said:

That said, running at 160 is too high if you want to build better aerobic capacity and/or burn
fat. Slow it down - try to keep around 130 for most runs, and then once a week give it your
best shot.

Bah bah. In general, you're right - but in general, 220 - age is right. For any specific
individual, this advice is likely _wrong_. If his max HR is about 210, which isn't likely but also
isn't inconceivable, then 160 puts him in the 2 zone (extensive endurance), about the same effort
at which I run hour-long training runs with my HR 140-145.

Consider: I'm 27. One of my frequent running companions is 26. My MHR is about 185 (220 - 27 = 193).
His MHR is about 205. Running the same relaxed pace, my HR hangs out at about 130 and his hangs out
at about 155.

See, for instance, the very good discussion of heart rate in Daniels Running Formula. To quote a
little of it:

"Another area in which using specific rule-of-thumb HR can get a runner into trouble is using a
particular formula for determining max HR - 220 minus age, for example. I once tested a 30-year old
elite athlete who had an HRmax of 148 beats/min; ... I have also seen several world-class
50-year-old runners with HRmax in excess of 190."

It may also be that Steve's only measured his HR while running in the heat. If he's getting
dehydrated during those runs, or even just sweating a lot, that'll boost his measured HR.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:23:08 -0500, Dave Andersen <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

It may also be that Steve's only measured his HR while running in the heat. If he's getting
dehydrated during those runs, or even just sweating a lot, that'll boost his measured HR.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

-Dave

given that I live in the UK, then we don't really get 'heat' here ( for example, we broke the 100deg
barrier for the first time in recorded history a week or two ago ), I do sweat really heavily. I
tend to get through 3 t shirts in a 2 hour gym session.

Any ideas on how I can get that down as well??

I'm off to any online bookstore except amazon to see if I can find Mr. Maffetone's book!

Cheers,

Steve

maybe im just being tight at the moment and can't afford a HR monitor/going to get my VO2max tested, or i just dont like technology... but my fave way to guage how hard im working is just my own perceived exertion.

i have no idea what heart rates i train at, but im still in base training, so i just swim/bike/run at an intensity that will get me through the distance/time i want to go. how do you use a HR monitor when swimming? doesnt it get annoying (so you don't end up bothering) to check your HR all the time?

also, im just interested to find out how do you determine your lactate threshold? do you have to go to a special testing clinic to do all that stuff?

Su

lots of snips ....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Definitely use Friel's method, but I'd be surprised if there's a big differential.

Bah.

I'm not too sure about the bleating sounds.

Quoted message said:

Bah bah. In general, you're right - but in general, 220 - age is right. For any specific
individual, this advice is likely _wrong_. If his max HR is about 210, which isn't likely but
also isn't inconceivable, then 160 puts him in the 2 zone (extensive endurance), about the same
effort at which I run hour-long training runs with my HR 140-145.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that most mere mortals can get a MHR of 210. If one did, I'd really recommend
a controlled max stress test before they drop dead.

Quoted message said:

Consider: I'm 27. One of my frequent running companions is 26. My MHR is about 185 (220 - 27 =
193). His MHR is about 205. Running the same relaxed pace, my HR hangs out at about 130 and his
hangs out at about 155.

See, for instance, the very good discussion of heart rate in Daniels Running Formula. To quote a
little of it:

"Another area in which using specific rule-of-thumb HR can get a runner into trouble is using a
particular formula for determining max HR - 220 minus age, for example. I once tested a 30-year
old elite athlete who had an HRmax of 148 beats/min; ... I have also seen several world-class
50-year-old runners with HRmax in excess of 190."

Any formula is based on averages for a given population and as such should be seen as only a
rule-of-thumb. The average height in a room can by 175cm, but that doesn't mean that there isn't
someone at 190cm. This is why I recommended a) Friel's method for determinig specific HR limits, b)
the standard formula, and c) a max stress test. For the vast majority, the forumula or its different
permuations seems to hold up. My suggestion is further supported by Steve's assertion that he is
returning after a hiatus. That means, in my book, be conservative! He's 43, an at-risk age group. So
be doubly conservative.

Quoted message said:

It may also be that Steve's only measured his HR while running in the heat. If he's getting
dehydrated during those runs, or even just sweating a lot, that'll boost his measured HR.

Dave, I can't seem to figure out what your point is. But, I'm thinking that we are in agreement
(despite the bleating).

Tom

Perceived exertion is an excellent way to go. I replied to Steve about HRs because that's what he
asked about. And I would always recommend a HR monitor for anyone over 35 after a hiatus. In Steve's
case it seems more than justified since I believe he is running at a HR which may be too high.

Regarding swimming and the monitor: it's a problem. Sometimes I use my tri singlet, but that doesn't
work too well either.

To find your LT, I recommend Friel's method. For most people, the LT is near the VT (ventilatory
threshold): when your breathing first becomes labored. Also, and athlete will most likely where your
PE is about 15-17 or your within 5 heart beats of your maximal HR.

Tom

"su22" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

maybe im just being tight at the moment and can't afford a HR monitor/going to get my VO2max
tested, or i just dont like technology... but my fave way to guage how hard im working is just my
own perceived exertion.

i have no idea what heart rates i train at, but im still in base training, so i just swim/bike/run
at an intensity that will get me through the distance/time i want to go. how do you use a HR
monitor when swimming? doesnt it get annoying (so you don't end up bothering) to check your HR all
the time?

also, im just interested to find out how do you determine your lactate threshold? do you have to
go to a special testing clinic to do all that stuff?

Su

--
This forum is a gateway to the rec.sport.triathlon usenet newsgroup. Any

posts you make in this forum will be propogated to usenet.

...while I'm waiting for the book to arrive, can anyone tell me what Jim Friels method is???

Steve At risk and obviously older than I thought ):

Tom G said:

Perceived exertion is an excellent way to go. I replied to Steve about HRs because that's what
he asked about. And I would always recommend a HR monitor for anyone over 35 after a hiatus. In
Steve's case it seems more than justified since I believe he is running at a HR which may be
too high.

Regarding swimming and the monitor: it's a problem. Sometimes I use my tri singlet, but that
doesn't work too well either.

To find your LT, I recommend Friel's method. For most people, the LT is near the VT (ventilatory
threshold): when your breathing first becomes labored. Also, and athlete will most likely where
your PE is about 15-17 or your within 5 heart beats of your maximal HR.

Tom

"su22" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

maybe im just being tight at the moment and can't afford a HR monitor/going to get my VO2max
tested, or i just dont like technology... but my fave way to guage how hard im working is just my
own perceived exertion.

i have no idea what heart rates i train at, but im still in base training, so i just
swim/bike/run at an intensity that will get me through the distance/time i want to go. how do you
use a HR monitor when swimming? doesnt it get annoying (so you don't end up bothering) to check
your HR all the time?

also, im just interested to find out how do you determine your lactate threshold? do you have to
go to a special testing clinic to do all that stuff?

Su

--
This forum is a gateway to the rec.sport.triathlon usenet newsgroup. Any

posts you make in this forum will be propogated to usenet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It may also be that Steve's only measured his HR while running in the heat. If he's getting
dehydrated during those runs, or even just sweating a lot, that'll boost his measured HR.

Dave, I can't seem to figure out what your point is. But, I'm thinking that we are in agreement
(despite the bleating).

Tom

I live in Atlanta, so I get the point. Temperature and humidity have a bit to do with heart rate.

Your body is more activly pushing blood out to the surface of your skin, for cooling. This explains
why some people turn red during exercise.

If you are heavy/thick, the affects can be dramatic. The trick is whether you should try to account
for the "hot day effect" in your training. It would seem that your CV-system would be working
harder, but not your muscles.

rsquared

p. 86: Run Graded Exercise Test on Treadmill Preparation
1. use a treadmill that accurately displays speed and has a top speed exceeding your best one-mil
time or has variable incline.
2. an assistant is needed to record the information and operate the treadmill.
3. do not eat for 2 hours before the test. It's generally best if the previous day was light
exercise or a rest day. Warm-up for 10-20 minutes before the test. Note in your log what the
warm-up procedure was.
4. if at any time you feel lightheaded or nauseous, stop the test immediately. You are not looking
for a maximum heart rate on the test, but it's necessary to attain a very high effort level.

Test
5. Start at a slow speed such as 6 mph (9.6 kph) and increase by 0.2 mph (.3 kph) every minute
until you can no longer continue.
6. At the end of each minute tell your assistant how great your exertion is using the RPE scale
(place this where it can be seen):

6 7 very, very light 8 9 very light 10 11 fairly light 12 13 somewhat hard 14 15 hard 16 17 very
hard 18 19 very, very hard 20

7. your assistant records your speed, exertion rating and heart rate at the end of each minute and
increases the treadmill's speed to the next level (+0.2 mph, .3 kph).
8. The assistant listens closely to your breathing to detect when it first becomes labored marking
this point as "VT" for ventilatory threshold.
9. Continue until you can no longer hold the speed, and then slow the treadmill gradually to a
walking pace.
10. The data collected should look something like this:

Speed Heart Rate (bpm) Exertion
11.2 147 12
12.4 154 13
13.6 161 13
14.8 166 14
15. 172 15
16.2 179 17 VT
17.4 182 19
18.6 185 20

Enjoy!

Tom

"Steve Holdoway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

...while I'm waiting for the book to arrive, can anyone tell me what Jim Friels method is???

Steve At risk and obviously older than I thought ):

Tom G said:

Perceived exertion is an excellent way to go. I replied to Steve about

HRs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because that's what he asked about. And I would always recommend a HR monitor for anyone over 35
after a hiatus. In Steve's case it seems more than justified since I believe he is running at a
HR which may be too

high.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regarding swimming and the monitor: it's a problem. Sometimes I use my

tri

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

singlet, but that doesn't work too well either.

To find your LT, I recommend Friel's method. For most people, the LT is

near

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the VT (ventilatory threshold): when your breathing first becomes

labored.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, and athlete will most likely where your PE is about 15-17 or your within 5 heart beats of
your maximal HR.

Tom

"su22" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

maybe im just being tight at the moment and can't afford a HR monitor/going to get my VO2max
tested, or i just dont like technology... but my fave way to guage how hard im working is just
my own perceived exertion.

i have no idea what heart rates i train at, but im still in base training, so i just
swim/bike/run at an intensity that will get me through the distance/time i want to go. how do
you use a HR monitor

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

swimming? doesnt it get annoying (so you don't end up bothering) to check your HR all the time?

also, im just interested to find out how do you determine your lactate threshold? do you have
to go to a special testing clinic to do all that stuff?

Su

--
This forum is a gateway to the rec.sport.triathlon usenet newsgroup.

Any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

posts you make in this forum will be propogated to usenet.

Tom G said:

lots of snips ....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Definitely use Friel's method, but I'd be surprised if there's a big differential.

Bah.

I'm not too sure about the bleating sounds.

Quoted message said:

Bah bah. In general, you're right - but in general, 220 - age is right. For any specific
individual, this advice is likely _wrong_. If his max HR is about 210, which isn't likely but
also isn't inconceivable, then 160 puts him in the 2 zone (extensive endurance), about the same
effort at which I run hour-long training runs with my HR 140-145.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that most mere mortals can get a MHR of 210. If one did, I'd really recommend
a controlled max stress test before they drop dead..

I wouldn't say 210 is highly unlikely at all. I hit 201 in my last tri. There's a fellow
over in R.R that says he used to hit 200+ in every 5K he ran.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Consider: I'm 27. One of my frequent running companions is 26. My MHR is about 185 (220 - 27 =
193). His MHR is about 205. Running the same relaxed pace, my HR hangs out at about 130 and his
hangs out at about 155.

See, for instance, the very good discussion of heart rate in Daniels Running Formula. To quote a
little of it:

"Another area in which using specific rule-of-thumb HR can get a runner into trouble is using a
particular formula for determining max HR - 220 minus age, for example. I once tested a 30-year
old elite athlete who had an HRmax of 148 beats/min; ... I have also seen several world-class
50-year-old runners with HRmax in excess of 190."

Any formula is based on averages for a given population and as such should be seen as only a
rule-of-thumb. The average height in a room can by 175cm, but that doesn't mean that there isn't
someone at 190cm. This is why I recommended a) Friel's method for determinig specific HR limits, b)
the standard formula, and c) a max stress test. For the vast majority, the forumula or its
different permuations seems to hold up. My suggestion is further supported by Steve's assertion
that he is returning after a hiatus. That means, in my book, be conservative! He's 43, an at-risk
age group. So be doubly conservative.

Even though the formula is based on an average the spread is quite huge. My maxHr by age
should be around 185 as I've already stated I've hit 201 very recently. Assuming that I'm a
real rarity which I doubt I am and I'm a on the edge 3 sigma person. This would mean that
roughly 99.7 percent of all people would be less than 16 beats either direction from the
again formula. This would also mean that roughly 33.5 % of all people would be 8-15 beats
away from the 220-age fromula. Of course I'm doing these numbers from what I remember of
statitics, and have proudly shown here several times that math is not my strong suit. OTOH
being 10 beats off is a great deal while trying to train by HR. If my math is anywhere near
close ALOT of people are off by that far unless I'm more like a 5-6 sigma dude.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It may also be that Steve's only measured his HR while running in the heat. If he's getting
dehydrated during those runs, or even just sweating a lot, that'll boost his measured HR.

Dave, I can't seem to figure out what your point is. But, I'm thinking that we are in agreement
(despite the bleating).

Tom

Steve,

As the others said, the 220 - age is useless, because it can vary so much. My resting heart rate is in the mid 50's, yet when I do my slower training runs (5 min/km) my heart rate averages around 170. At my race speed (4 min/km) I average over 190 and crack 200 easily on the uphill sections. (This for 10 to 20km distances).

I am 35, and the 220-age formula predicts my max as 185, which is obviously wrong for me.

I simply use my heart monitor to control my speed on my slower runs (I have a tendancy to keep speeding up if I don't wear it), and to optimise my performance in a race (I know from experience what heart rate I can maintain over a particular distance in race conditions).

It is also good to monitor your progress. For example, compare your heart rate for 10km run that took, say, 50 mins against your heart rate the last time you ran 10km in 50 mins.

Alternatively, run 10km at a particular heart rate, and a month later run the same 10km at that heart rate, and see how your time drops. I find this to be a very good motivator.

Regards,
Harrow.

Tom G said:

lots of snips ....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Definitely use Friel's method, but I'd be surprised if there's a big differential.

Bah.

I'm not too sure about the bleating sounds.

I moo in my email. Doesn't always go over well with people. 🙂

Quoted message said:

It is HIGHLY unlikely that most mere mortals can get a MHR of 210. If one did, I'd really
recommend a controlled max stress test before they drop dead.

I dunno. At 43, I'd agree, but I've got a 20 year old cyclist friend who hits 210. Her resting
HR's nearly as low as mine, too. I'm kind of jealous. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Any formula is based on averages for a given population and as such should be seen as only a
rule-of-thumb. The average height in a room can by 175cm, but that doesn't mean that there isn't
someone at 190cm. This is why I recommended a) Friel's method for determinig specific HR limits,
b) the standard formula, and c) a max stress test. For the vast majority, the forumula or its
different permuations seems to hold up. My suggestion is further supported by Steve's assertion
that he is returning after a hiatus. That means, in my book, be conservative! He's 43, an at-risk
age group. So be doubly conservative.

I agree with (a), and (c), and certainly your suggestion that Steve be
conservative. But I don't agree with (b) -- I'd suggest that a much better
fallback for (b) is to base your training paces on a recent 5k or 10k race,
determine your HR when running those paces, and call it happy. If you wear
your HRM during a 10k, you'll probably see something very close to LT anyway.

a 5k or 10k is still a hard effort, so if someone's not in shape to race a 5k, then maybe some other
fallback is appropriate. But Steve's been doing hour-long runs at 160bpm, which suggests that a 5 or
10k race wouldn't be too awful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It may also be that Steve's only measured his HR while running in the heat. If he's getting
dehydrated during those runs, or even just sweating a lot, that'll boost his measured HR.

Dave, I can't seem to figure out what your point is. But, I'm thinking that we are in agreement
(despite the bleating).

Someone followed up on this well in another post. Thanks. 🙂

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

Tom G <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

lots of snips ....

It is HIGHLY unlikely that most mere mortals can get a MHR of 210. If one did, I'd really
recommend a controlled max stress test before they drop dead.

My Dad (66) is visiting me at the moment. He took up cycling a couple of years ago, and his heart
runs *really* fast.

We were riding along the other morning (gently, 'cos he's old :-) and he asked what my HR was.

"108." I said "What's your's?"

"222."

He logs all his training rides, and his *average* HR is always in the high-hundreds or low
two-hundreds. His doctor referred him to a specialist, who examined him and announced that his heart
ran fast (Duh!) but seemed to be OK, and he hasn't dropped dead yet (fingers crossed, touch wood,
all that).

mDava at bigfoot dot com

"Tom G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is HIGHLY unlikely that most mere mortals can get a MHR of 210. If one did, I'd really
recommend a controlled max stress test before they drop dead.

The standard error of the estimate for age-related max HR prediction formulae is typically around
10-11 beats/min. Using 220-age (which predict a similar value as more precise formulae, at least for
young subjects), approximately one-third of 20 year old untrained subjects would be expected to have
a maximal HR of 210 beats/min or greater. Your hysteria is therefore unfounded.

Andy Coggan

Oh no, not the fat burning myth again...

"Tom G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Every thing that my betters have said before me is correct; however, remember, that the standard
formula is more often accurate than not. Definitely use Friel's method, but I'd be surprised if
there's a big differential.

That said, running at 160 is too high if you want to build better aerobic capacity and/or burn
fat. Slow it down - try to keep around 130 for most runs, and then once a week give it your
best shot.

By the way, for losing weight and running, I've found that an excellent

(and

Quoted message said:

scientifically grounded) books is Maffetone

(amazon.comsr=Open ↗

Quoted message said:

8-2/ref=sr_8_2/104-4106992-1353525?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Maffetone

has

Quoted message said:

been consistently ranked as tri coach of the year (whatever that means).

Tom

"Steve Holdoway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi Folks,

I've not long come back from fatland, and am back competing after a 10 year layoff. Now we've
got much better toys to play with, and I find it quite good to record my heart rate using a
Polar S510. I'm shifting form Tris over to running for the next few months, 'cos they're the
next few events that I'm doing.

I'm 43, and still have about 10kg to shift to get down to a decent weight ( I'm 5'10 and
90kg/200lb at the moment ). Reading through the dirty mags for general fitness, they reckon I
should be training at a HR of 75% = (220-43)*.75, which is in the low 130's. I've just come back
from my daily hour's run, and my average rate is 161, or over 90%

Even on the bike, my HR is between 150-155. Should I be easing off, or just ignore the mags???

I surely would like to shift the weight... even if it's only to get a better BMI (:

Steve

"su22" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

maybe im just being tight at the moment and can't afford a HR monitor/going to get my VO2max
tested, or i just dont like technology... but my fave way to guage how hard im working is just my
own perceived exertion.

i have no idea what heart rates i train at, but im still in base training, so i just swim/bike/run
at an intensity that will get me through the distance/time i want to go. how do you use a HR
monitor when swimming? doesnt it get annoying (so you don't end up bothering) to check your HR all
the time?

also, im just interested to find out how do you determine your lactate threshold? do you have to
go to a special testing clinic to do all that stuff?

Su

--
This forum is a gateway to the rec.sport.triathlon usenet newsgroup. Any

posts you make in this forum will be propogated to usenet.

To have your LT determined you will need to have a lab draw blood (from a finger or ear stick).
However, you can do a good job of estimating by using 10K (or 15K) pace, depending on one's fitness
level or a 20km time trial on the bike. You can also figure the pace that you can maintain for an
hour. All these are estimates, but they are decent enough.

The real key is to have a good training plan.

There is nothing wrong with using perceived exertion.

Signed,

At times a Luddite.

as you wrote in your 'areo position'-Posting: just doing what feels good! I think that this is a
very good way to do triathlon. And probably mostly men tend to over-techolize the sport. And it
should be fun and feel good after all!!

But when it comes to the heart rate monitor, I would suggest that you try one (lend one for a
run) : I was quite shocked when I used it the first time. I felt good, had fun at aheart rate of
over 170....

Dani