Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by TrinityF » Sun, 30 Jul 1995 04:00:00


Does anyone want to talk to me about this? Sally Edwards
 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by LeePubli » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Quote:
>Subject: Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring
>Does anyone want to talk to me about this? Sally Edwards

OK, I'll bite.  (It's not every day that one can ask the master!)

Since I started using a monitor in January I've focused on using it for
running and have a pretty good grasp of ranges and rates for various types
of training and races.  I find the monitor especially helpful in races,
when I can watch my heart rate start to slack off and then know that I
have to "kick it up" despite a perception that I'm running as hard as I
ought to.  It really helps!

My questions now are about rates on the bike and the swim.  How much lower
should they be?  I'm a relatively stronger biker than runner, and yet it
seems to me that my heart rate is at least 10 bpm (7% or so) lower on the
bike at what I perceive as an equivalent effort as on the run.  Should I
expect lower heart rates riding than running?  If so, why?  How much lower
is "equivalent."  Ditto for the swim.  

--Lee Crumbaugh
(Still looking for a good tri-handle.  Tri-out?  Tri-ed and True?  I'll
claim that one for now...)

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Mark Mill » Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:00:00


writes:

Quote:

>Does anyone want to talk to me about this? Sally Edwards

Sally,

What do you think of John Doullaird's training program?

Mark

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Mike Llerand » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Mark:
While I'm not Sally, I wanted to comment that I have followed Douillard's
advice (more endurance training, extensive nasal breathing, more focused
yoga-oriented stretching techniques) for almost a year with excellent
results.  The biggest benefits have been the "intangibles":  I'm no
longer all "worked up" before races and have found myself "enjoying the
process" of training and maintaining a high level of fitness.  And (not
surprising) I'm having one of my most enjoyable seasons ever.
If you've read the book once, read it again and follow it for a few
months--maybe during your next off-season period.  I think you'll be
pleasantly surprised.
Mike Llerandi
 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Lance F. Bark » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Anyone know of a good hear rate monitor for male swimmers?  The chest-strap
kind keep sliding down off my chest

Lance F. Barker


Quote:

> >Subject: Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

> >Does anyone want to talk to me about this? Sally Edwards

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Greg Bo » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00


writes:

Quote:

>Does anyone want to talk to me about this? Sally Edwards

Yup!

Just bought a Polar Pacer two weeks ago because I've having dead legs at
races so I concluded I was overtraining. I did my own max heart rate test
by warming up with a 15 minute slow run and then doing two brisk 400m
intervals with full recoveries, followed by one fast 800m interval where I
gave it all I had in the last 100m. My heart rate at the end of this
interval was 179, which is 8 bpm less than the value I obtain using the
220-age formula (I'm 33).

When I use this measured value in the formula for calculating exertion
(I'm using the formula: (max - rest) * % exertion + rest) the values I
obtain for what should be my regular, day-in-day-out, training range
(60-75%) seem really low (my resting rate is 45). I'm sure if I keep
within this range I won't have dead legs at my next race, but at the same
time, going so slow affects my running style - it's more like a jog! I'm
spicing up my training with fartleks, intervals, and pace runs, but I'm
worried that running at 60-75% are just ending up as junk miles. Any
comments?

--

             voice: (604) 822 0899    University of British Columbia
             fax:   (604) 822 5949    2356 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC
                                      Canada, V6T 1Z4

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Mike Llerand » Thu, 03 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Greg:
What you are experiencing is exactly what would be expected if indeed
you were overtrained.

You have used the formula that I've seen recommended and that makes the
most sense (0% effort = resting HR), and you're arriving at the proper
numbers for 60% and 75%.  At first it will seem incredibly easy to blow
right past the 75% point--this is because your body is used to
overexerting beyond that endurance zone.

You'd do well to try and correct your overtrained state by forcing
yourself to stay in the 60-70% range for several months.  However, its
unfortunate that the timing is probably not right to start doing this now
with your key race of the season no doubt coming up shortly.

Try this:  After your last "big" race of the season, take about two weeks
off (no more).  Then begin your endurance base building, but wear your Hr
monitor and--no matter what--keep your HR under 70% (closer to 60%).  
You'll find after about 6-8 weeks that (#1) You'll be traveling faster at
60% than you are able to go now; (#2) you'll feel healthier; and (#3) you
won't have had the slightest injury-related set-back.

Til then, let your body rest in time for your late season races.

-Mike Llerandi

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Andrew R. Cogga » Thu, 03 Aug 1995 04:00:00

One factor to keep in mind is that "overtraining" or "overreaching" or "chronic
fatigue" may impair your ability to exercise intensely so much that you may not be
able to reach your true maximum heart rate, at least not without a lot of motivation
(which can be difficult when doing a field test on one's own). Thus, although it is
quite possible that your max heart rate is 179 (the standard error of the estimate
of the 220-age formula is 11 beats/min, meaning that 2/3's of the population is
within 11 b.p.m. of the predicted), you might try repeating the test when you are
certain you are adequately rested. It also wouldn't hurt to drag a few friends along
to help motivate your effort.

Assuming that your max HR really is 179, then it seems that you are doing everything
right by the book in terms of setting your training intensity. The problem in using
HR as a guide to training intensity, though, is that it is mostly a reflection of
cardiovascular fitness, whereas endurance performance is more a function of muscular
fitness. That is, two individuals exercising at 75% of HR reserve (which is actually
what you've calculated using your resting HR in the formula) won't necessarily feel
the same stress, or achieve the same training effect. It sounds like that you've
slowed down because of the HR monitor, which is probably good if you have been
training too hard. On the other hand, I don't believe that a healthy athlete should
hold back from training they know they can recover from and that works for them just
because the intensity exceeds some "magic" target HR.

Andrew R. Coggan
exercise physiologist

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Fabien Picha » Fri, 04 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
>>Subject: Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Well I have a question about that.
My 220-age is 191. My REAL running max is 168 (on a 800m all out).
My REAL Bicycling max is 160. My resting heartbeat is 50.

If I train in the aerobic zone (dixit Polar explaination), I should be
between 108 (65%) and 125 (75%). It's painfully slow! It's a 9-10
min/miles! and my legs hurt like hell, they are like wood.

If I am racing on sprint races, I have my HR all the time in the 155-160
zone.

When I am running for 10+miles, I have my HRM in the 140-160 (85-95%,
anaerobic) zone, I find it just perfect. I can work after, I do not feel
exhausted...

What happening there? Am I just different or weird? The common zones do
not work for me, why? Why such low max? What am I doing wrong there?

Any idea?

Thanks -- Fabien
--

"Computers allow you to make more mistakes in a shorter period of time
than any other development in the history of mankind, with the possible
exception of handguns and tequila."

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by JohnD2 » Fri, 04 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Hi Sally--
You asked if anyone had any questions for you. I sure do. I have your
book, and I think it's great. I'm still getting the hang of training with
a heart rate monitor, and some questions have come up.  I'm 43 and have a
resting rate of around 170, I swim 3 times a week, usually a medium length
warmup and then intervals for about 2000 yards. I alternate running,
biking and skating every day. I compete in triathlons, running and
skating. Lately, I've worked up to where I'm starting to place in my age
group. I've trained hard all my life, and have a long history of injuries
to show for it.
Here are my questions:
1. When I do a hard/easy training schedule with one sport, that's easy to
figure out, but when I put four together and wind up working out twice a
day every other day, I'm not quite sure how to handle that. Should you
continue with each sport as if the others don't exist, or if I do a hard
swim in the morning, does that mean my lunchtime run should be easy?
Should a two workout day be an easy day for both sports, and the next day
(one workout) be hard?
2. Is it better to have a high maximum heart rate, or does it really
matter? Can the max be changed through training?
3. I have a high resting HR. If I figure the target HR percentages using
the "220 minus my age" method, I can get my HR into the moderate zone just
by thinking about running, and I never feel as if I've really worked out
very hard, even at the AT level. Is the "(220-RHR) x XX% + RHR" the best
approach for me?
4. I'm still haveing a hard time figuring out what my max HR is for a
given sport. I realize from your book that it will be different, but as
soon as I take the calculations and my own max tests into account (like
170 on a bike), I go out on a workout and spend ten minutes at 176 bpm
during a hill climb and I have to adjust everything upward. Is this just a
slow process of zeroing in on a max and I should plan to be always
adjusting it as new data arrives?
5. One last question that's been kicking around the newsgroup--how do you
keep the darn transmitter on when you're pushing off from the bank in a
swimming pool.

Again, thanks for the book! It's changing the way I work out.
John Daynes


or

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Jason Mayfie » Fri, 04 Aug 1995 04:00:00

: Well I have a question about that.
: My 220-age is 191. My REAL running max is 168 (on a 800m all out).
: My REAL Bicycling max is 160. My resting heartbeat is 50.

I was also wondering how much these formulae can be off.  Using 220-age,
I come out with a supposed max of 197.  However, running all-out (last
1/4 mile of a 5K) I've hit 208 several times.  Is it really possible that
it could be this high?  The highest I've ever managed to hit on the bike
is 191.  My resting HR is 46, so this just seems to be a VERY large range
to me.  Is this really possible, or is my Polar maybe a bit nuts?

Tri-Slug (If it's not already taken...)
--
Jason Mayfield
Arlington, ***ia

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Andrew R. Cogga » Sat, 05 Aug 1995 04:00:00

     The questions that have been posted illustrate the reason why heart rate can
only be used as a guide, not an absolute. In no particular order, the answers are:

1) Maximum heart rate varies considerably within the population. The common formula
of 220-age (which, BTW, is not the only one around) has a standard error of the
estimate of 11 beats per minute. Thus, 68% of the population has a max HR of w/in 11
bpm of that predicted by the formula, and 95% have a max HR of w/in 22 bpm of the
formula. This means that 5% of the population will be different from predicted by
more than 22 bpm!

2) Max HR per se has little or no predictive value as an indicator of endurance
performance ability, at least across individuals. Both the fastest and the slowest
persons in any given race may have the same max HR. In fact, max HR actually tends
to decline slightly (0-10 bpm) with strenuous endurance training. One exception to
this generalization that max HR is not that important, though, is the effect of
aging, where the decline in max HR is one of the major factors accounting for the
age-related decline in VO2max.

3) One way to determine your true maximum HR is to be tested in a laboratory under
carefully controlled conditions. Even then, it is not uncommon for athletes to
occasionally exceed this value (by a few bpm) in competition, because of greater
motivation. If a greater discrepancy is seen, then either 1) the lab test was not a
true maximum (there are other ways of assessing this), or 2) the higher values are
artifactual. Although the Polar and other HR monitors are highly accurate, it has
been reported that they may occasionally provide incorrect data when HR is changing
rapidly. Ideally, one would like to see HR reach a near-plateau, maybe increasing by
only 1-2 bpm over a 1-2 min period, to be certain that max HR has been reached.
Realize, also, that just like your performance, there is some biological variability
in max HR, so that it may vary by a couple of bpm one way or the other from day to
day.

4) Finally, several r.s.t.ers have commented that when the attempt to train within a
specified HR zone, the pace is much slower than what they are used to training at.
This illustrates the danger of placing too much faith in one's HR as a guide to the
optimum training intensity. Some individuals can routinely train at high HR's, and
probaby benefit from doing so. Others have a difficult time forcing their HR up
unless challenged in competition. HR is only one of a number of factors that one
should use in gauging training intensity, and it is my opinion that blind faith in
the HR monitor and training "zones" may be worse than not using a HR monitor at all.

Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.
Exercise physiologist

Quote:

> (stuff deleted)

> Is it better to have a high maximum heart rate, or does it really
> matter? Can the max be changed through training?
> I have a high resting HR. If I figure the target HR percentages using
> the "220 minus my age" method, I can get my HR into the moderate zone just
> by thinking about running, and I never feel as if I've really worked out
> very hard, even at the AT level. Is the "(220-RHR) x XX% + RHR" the best
> approach for me?
> I'm still haveing a hard time figuring out what my max HR is...(stuff deleted)

 
 
 

Heart Zone Training-Heart rate monitoring

Post by Mike Llerand » Sat, 05 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Fabien (& Jason also):

Your mutual starting point is using 220 minus your age as your max, which
can lead to very strange results for some people.  It is a good
approximation for most, however.

Actually, it is far better to learn what your Anaerobic Threshold HR is
(and, more importantly, your speed at Anaerobic Threshold) for each sport
and to use this as a basis for calculating the HR intensity zones.  Your
max and other intensity levels can be estimated if you use the assumption
that your AT is about 88% of your max.

How do you find out your AT HR?  You can get a stress test done, or
you can perform a Conconi test on yourself.  There are too many details
involved with this for me to list in a post (I wouldn't do the subject
matter justice), but I can direct you to Peter Janssen's book "Lactate,
Heart Rate, whatever" (I don't have it in front of me, but it's listed
among the HR books sold in the magazine ads).  Dave Scott's regular
training articles earlier in the year in Inside Tri covered the topic
pretty well, also.

Best of luck to both of you-
Mike