I came across this yesterday, and it doesn't seem right... For me it says that 90% of my max HR is 202? Is this formula wrong? (bottom of page, #1-6) http://michaelscycles.net/site/page.cfm?PageID=231
is this HR formula right?
- Thread starter shming123
- Start date
The Karvonen Formula is just one of many ways to calculate training zones. It is neither wrong or right.shming123 said:
The 220 - age formula is flat out wrong as an person's heart rate can vary by + or - 15 BPM. It is a statistical average for large populations. You should only use it as a general guidline until you can do (i.e. are fit enough) an accurate Max HR measurement.
shming123 said:
subtracting your age from 220 isn't an accurate way to measure HRmax, there's a standard deviation of +/-15 b/min to that regression equation and it can only be used to calculate group means, rather than individual.
If you want to know your HRmax, the best way is via testing either in a lab or with a coaching group such as RST.
At RST we don't use the Karvonnen HR zones -- one of the issues with these is that if you are ill or fatigued and your resting HR increases, your zones will go up (rather than the need for them to be reduced).
Ric
To determine HR zones, can't you just multiply your max HR by whatever percent? Example, my max HR is 200. Can't I just multiply 200 x .8 = 160, so 160 bpm is 80% of my max? and you just do the same thing for other % or your max? max x .7 =70% of max, etc.. ?? This would seem the common sense way to do it, or do you have to do some formula?
shming123 said:
At RST we use zones of HRmax based on straight percentages.
Our zones are:
Recovery up to 70% HRmax
Endurance
Zone 1 75 to 77.5% HRmax
Zone 2 77.5 to 80% HRmax
Zone 3 80 to 85% HRmax
Intensive
Zone 4 85 to 87.5% HRmax
Zone 5 87.5 to 92.5% HRmax
Maximal
Zone 6 92.5 to 100% HRmax
However, with some riders we may simplify the zones by amalgamating them into the zone category, i.e., we have four zones: Recovery, Endurance, Intensive, and Maximal. In other words, Endurance zone is 75 to 85% HRmax, etc.
Ric
Edit: These are the 'old' Peter Keen zones
Schming123, Here's an online HR calc that is based on revised BCF/ABCC/WCPP training guidelines originally set forth by Peter Keen. They use a % of MaxHR.shming123 said:
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/heart_rate_zone_calculator_abcc_bcf.html
Personally, I've found Karnoven's formula to be too intense.
antoineg said:
Not really sure what AeT is, it appears to be a made up metric by triathletes?
You can't define LT by HR as it has nothing to do with it. LT is commonly defined within the literature as the workload that elicits a 1 mmol/L in lactate over exercise baseline levels (~ 2.x mmol/L) or at a fixed rate of 2.5 mmol/L. Thus LT is measured in power (watts) for cycling or speed (m/s or km/hr) in running. Thus, this is about 10 - 15% below ~1-hr TT power.
Whilst power at LT is an excellent predictor of performance, and is highly correlated to the power you can produce over an e.g., 1-hr TT, at RST we prefer to base zones on e.g., MAP which is correlated with VO2max and is the rate limiting mechanism. It's easier to ascertain MAP than LT.
If we have the option RST uses power based MAP zones, and if HR only is available we use zones based on HRmax, as developed by Peter Keen
Ric
LOL -- anaerobic threshold. You've never heard of the term AeT? That sort of blows my mind.ric_stern/RST said:
That's why I asked; many people do attempt to guess at it as a percentage of HR based on fitness level. For those who don't want to do more complex tests, a HR-based approach, in combination with RPE, may be better than nothing at all.ric_stern/RST said:
Interesting. I don't agree with that last statement (in bold) at all, unless you mean theoretically, in a lab setting. Out in a race setting LT (or AeTric_stern/RST said:
) is much more of a practical limiter of performance.
antoineg said:
obviously, i've heard of anaerobic threshold, but having seen a couple of articles by some tri people they appeared to be talking about a much lower intensity. Be that as it may, AT is an outdated idea that is no longer used.
Interesting. I don't agree with that last statement (in bold) at all, unless you mean theoretically, in a lab setting. Out in a race setting LT (or AeT
however, you want to say it, VO2max *is* the rate limiting mechanism, as we can only exercise at certain percentages over certain durations. For e.g., the upper limit of VO2 as a percentage of VO2max during a 1-hr TT is ~ 90%. This upper limit occurs in vastly different fitness groups (i.e., it's not just elite pros). So while there's some slack in moving TT power's VO2 around (e.g., if i did no TT specific training over the winter it may drop to ~85%), it *is* limited by VO2max
Ric
Huh? Depending on what measurements you use, and criteria you apply, AeT may be slightly lower than, equal to, or slightly higher than LT.ric_stern/RST said:
Huh? This is just flat-out wrong, incorrect, and misleading.ric_stern/RST said:
You have a debate/lecturing style that I've come to recognize. You get very specific and very precise very quickly in an attempt to prove a point.ric_stern/RST said:
A more generally correct statement would be that endurance cycling performance IN GENERAL is limited by lactate threshold. Some people, in shorter events, can exercise above their LT for some period of time. Once you move that duration out, however, that stops happening.
antoineg said:
i just checked a few triathlon coaches to ascertain what AeT is. I checked Mike Ricci and Gordo Byrn. AeT, according to them and all the other triathlon people i've seen is Aerobic Threshold. Never have i seen AeT (apart from just now with you) used to denote Anaerobic Threshold.
For e.g., http://www.trifuel.com/triathlon/triathlon_training/000435.php
No it isn't. No exercise physiologist or sports scientist would now use the term anaerobic threshold.
I've no idea what you mean by shorter events, or some period of time. However, as previously pointed out we e.g., TT for ~ 1-hr at a higher power than LT, as LT is about 10 - 15% less than TT power. MLSS respresents a much closer power to 1-hr TT power, but is still less than ~1-hr TT power. However, these and other metrics are all very closely related (i.e., if your LT is high, so is your MLSS). All that being said i agree that (e.g.) LT is a good determinant of performance (as is MAP), however, in endurance exercise, VO2max is the rate limiting mechanism.
Ric
Bah. I'm done with this forum.
Just because you aren't familiar with something, or don't agree with it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is incorrect.
I would encourage anyone reading this "cycling training" forum to take anything they read from you with a huge grain of salt.
Just because you aren't familiar with something, or don't agree with it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is incorrect.
I would encourage anyone reading this "cycling training" forum to take anything they read from you with a huge grain of salt.
antoineg said:
agreed, i wasn't familar with AeT. you suggested it was something it wasn't, and i disagreed after pointing you to a link. Please show me anywhere, where AeT is anaerobic threshold.
Ric
ric_stern/RST said:
Surely VO2max and LT are both limiters? Also, as an athlete becomes highly trained and advances in LT/Vo2max become incremental, other factors such as efficiency, lactate tolerance, glycogen sparing and ability to ride in more extreme aerodynamic positions will become important.
Roadie_scum said:
I'm not saying that those factors aren't extremely important (and limiting) as they are. it's just that the actual 'governor' of the system (so to speak, i think this analogy works) is VO2max.
ric
Similar threads
