Originally Posted by
ericm979
Lactate Threshold HR is more useful than MaxHR. Training zones are based off LTHR. How do people get the zones from MaxHR? They use a study which relates people's LTHR to their Max. BUT, that is different for different people, and it's trainable. If you train the right systems your LTHR will go up while your MaxHR stays the same. If you base your zones off LTHR it'll take that into account. If you're using MaxHR your zones will be off.
Here's a test for LTHR:
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04...your-lthr.html
Fair enough, and, agreed. However, it sounded as though the OP was working with zones derived from a mathmatical MaxHR. If that was the case, zones determined from a tested Max would probably be more accurate than the aforementioned, but, less than from a lab based LTHR.
I contend that the ride based LTHR approximations "may" result in an underestimation of the actual value. Some of us may be good at riding "as hard as we can" for 30 minutes, but, a lot of us could probably go harder or at least more evenly than we do. I know Carmichaels "field test" uses shorter duractions and he claims that helps offset this.
I would be interested in learning from those of you who have had the opportunity to do a lab (blood sampled) LT test, how did those numbers compare with your ride based approximations?
Anyhow, my daily HR response to a given stimulus varies by more than the difference between approx. LTHR bands and those based on measured MaxHR. It's not so easy to notice such on the road. But, when doing the same interval workouts on a fluid trainer and matching ones gear choice and speed, it's pretty easy to see the days when your HR is up or down. Hence, the superiority of training with power. Which, one day I hope to have.
All this for a bloody hobby!