Training & Nutrition - Friel's LT test...didn't mess this up did I

So I just did my 30 min time trial and my average of the last 20 mins was 172

I believe Friel says this is not likely to change unless your very new to cycling/in poor shape or you did control your Variables properly

after this test I was pretty exhausted I do not feel I colud have held a faster pace.... took me a few mins to feel recovered and start to breath normally again

I did however shift gears and spin a high RPM (105-110) at time for me and other times a bit below 90 as I moved around my rear cassette

Shifting would not matter would it?

I also did not hold a paticular speed?

but I pushed like someone was on my rear wheel and I was trying to drop them for the whole 20 mins

Shifting and variations in speed don't matter as long as your perceived exertion remained the same. It seems like you did it right.

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? I was just going to post about this myself. I did this test three times recently. My LT came in as 173 twice and 172 once, so I think it is fairly accurate.

I am 41 years old, so by the various MHR calculations, my MHR is about 180. That means that my LT is 96% of MHR and that my LT is 92.1% of my VO2MAX. What I can't believe is that would put me in the "elite athlete" category. I am pretty good shape, but I don't think of myself as elite.

MHR calculations are pretty much useless. I'm 51 and the max I've seen on the bike is 192. Running it's a few beats higher.

MHR calculations are pretty much useless. I'm 51 and the max I've seen on the bike is 192. Running it's a few beats higher.

Somewhat variable and individual. I understand that, but there seems to be some real science supporting that individuals do have maximums and that the maximums decline with age, however not in a purely linear fashion.

Londeree and Moeschberger (1982) 'Effect of age and other factors on HR max' - Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 53(4), 297-304

Miller et al (1993) - 'Predicting max HR' - Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25(9), 1077-1081

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2007; 39(5):822-829

In the last two years of HRM data that I have, I have only gone above 180 BPM 6 times, and for brief moments. The highest was 186 (ok, I had a 276 and a 252, but I am throwing those away as static). I do tend to think my max is around 180.

Are you saying there is no correlation between LT and MaxHR for VO2MAX, or that MaxHR doesn't exist?

Are you saying there is no correlation between LT and MaxHR for VO2MAX, or that MaxHR doesn't exist?You need to measure you MaxHR for it to be accurate. It's no more difficult to measure MaxHR than LT HR.

You need to measure you MaxHR for it to be accurate. It's no more difficult to measure MaxHR than LT HR.

Ok, that I get, given the citations above tend to rely on averages and individuals can be outliers.

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? I was just going to post about this myself. I did this test three times recently. My LT came in as 173 twice and 172 once, so I think it is fairly accurate.

I am 41 years old, so by the various MHR calculations, my MHR is about 180. That means that my LT is 96% of MHR and that my LT is 92.1% of my VO2MAX. What I can't believe is that would put me in the "elite athlete" category. I am pretty good shape, but I don't think of myself as elite.

I'm 29 will be 30 in October

I am 41 years old, so by the various MHR calculations, my MHR is about 180.
ignore the various mhr calculations. those such as 220 - your age may be accurate for some, but incredibly inaccurate for others.



Somewhat variable and individual. I understand that, but there seems to be some real science supporting that individuals do have maximums and that the maximums decline with age, however not in a purely linear fashion.
yes, but not much you can do about it, so don't overanalyze it.



In the last two years of HRM data that I have, I have only gone above 180 BPM 6 times, and for brief moments. The highest was 186. ... I do tend to think my max is around 180.
max is max. if you've recorded 186 more than once, that's probably closer to your max, what you might call achievable max, but not your true max. it wouldn't be 180. true max is something you probably don't want to find out. that's a gun-to-your-head, have-the-paramedics-ready number. it's more relevant for training that you've tested several times for your LT and have come up with 173.

[COLOR=blue]max is max. if you've recorded 186 more than once, that's probably closer to your max, what you might call achievable max, but not your true max. it wouldn't be 180. true max is something you probably don't want to find out. that's a gun-to-your-head, have-the-paramedics-ready number. it's more relevant for training that you've tested several times for your LT and have come up with 173.

Thanks. I agree. I guess I was actually more concerned about whether I am pushing things too far for a guy my age and when I started looking at those comparisons I saw that I had the same LT to V2MAX as Greg LeMond, so I know it is not true. I think you are right and that my max heart rate must be significantly higher than 180.

In thinking more about it, I think the numbers are showing it a few beats high. In riding steady, I feel like I can go forever at 170, working hard, but no burn. By 176 I am getting noticeable lactate buildup in the legs and can tell that I am anaerobic. I perceive that I am slightly anaerobic at 173 as well, so my guess is that 170 is really a better number.

Somewhat variable and individual. I understand that, but there seems to be some real science supporting that individuals do have maximums and that the maximums decline with age, however not in a purely linear fashion.

Londeree and Moeschberger (1982) 'Effect of age and other factors on HR max' - Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 53(4), 297-304

Miller et al (1993) - 'Predicting max HR' - Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25(9), 1077-1081

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2007; 39(5):822-829

In the last two years of HRM data that I have, I have only gone above 180 BPM 6 times, and for brief moments. The highest was 186 (ok, I had a 276 and a 252, but I am throwing those away as static). I do tend to think my max is around 180.

Are you saying there is no correlation between LT and MaxHR for VO2MAX, or that MaxHR doesn't exist?

There is a correlation between LT and Max HR but it is an individual thing based on fitness and genetics. Max HR is hard wired for each individual and does decline with age though it seems people that remain active lose that top end less than sedentary people as they age.

Somewhat variable and individual. I understand that, but there seems to be some real science supporting that individuals do have maximums and that the maximums decline with age, however not in a purely linear fashion.

Londeree and Moeschberger (1982) 'Effect of age and other factors on HR max' - Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 53(4), 297-304

Miller et al (1993) - 'Predicting max HR' - Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25(9), 1077-1081

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2007; 39(5):822-829

In the last two years of HRM data that I have, I have only gone above 180 BPM 6 times, and for brief moments. The highest was 186 (ok, I had a 276 and a 252, but I am throwing those away as static). I do tend to think my max is around 180.

Are you saying there is no correlation between LT and MaxHR for VO2MAX, or that MaxHR doesn't exist?

I think the message is that the common formulas for computing max HR based on age are not generally accurate. I can't think of anyone who has posted on BF that theirs lines up with MHR=220-age, or any of the other similar forms. There's another exercise physiology paper by Robergs who tried to unearth the origins of that accepted rule, and found the foundation to be quite sketchy. Then he searched for available databases, and found a decent curve fit, (I'm sure I'm not going to quote this exactly right), something like MHR=205.6-0.6*age. This was a better fit than the old equation.

My age is 55, so my conventional prediction is 165. Based on the second formula, my prediction is 172.6. Based on an LT test I did 18 months ago, my LT is around 162, and my max HR is at least 182 (we saw 182 on the instruments, since we were looking for my peak power. I don't know if I could have gone faster, only that at that time my max was at least 182. It should have been either 166 or around 174.

But I do not believe that there is no maximum HR for an individual. It appears to be the case that it's really hard to predict. If you really need to know it, it needs to be measured. I don't think I really need to know it, since I do know my LT heart rate.

But I do not believe that there is no maximum HR for an individual. It appears to be the case that it's really hard to predict. If you really need to know it, it needs to be measured. I don't think I really need to know it, since I do know my LT heart rate.

I guess I don't need to know it and just need to assume it is higher than the formulas suggest. I was only concerned that I might have been working too close to it, but I think my LT tests were pretty accurate, so my max must be higher.

I was only concerned that I might have been working too close to it, but I think my LT tests were pretty accurate, so my max must be higher.Regardless of what your MaxHR is and provided you don't have any known heart problems there should be no worries about working too close to you Max. Your body will naturally regulate your effort such that it will be impossible to work for any length of time close to your Max.