Richard Cranium

I think the Carmichael "field test" protocol would serve most people's needs. Of course, there's room enough for people to "bungle" even that test.

I find it interesting that so many people are interested in finding their MHR, but have little or no interest in applying their findings in meaningful training routine scenarios.

This might be a good time to remind people, that for most of them, their MHR is a "moving target." Very few people ever reach a training status, coupled with the intense focus and will to demonstrate repeatable MHRs in identical testing protocols.


Why, stress so much attention to MHR, or HR%, if you routinely ride and train with absolutely no discipline?



Wow, what does this statement tell about this person's potential to use HR training feedback to their advantage?


I think all the attention given to the concept of "zone training" has diverted attention away from other more useful ways of interpreting HR data. Certainly, for those athletes who participate in highly structured training routines using Carmichael's zone training techniques, finding a working MHR is important.

For most of the rest of us, HR at lactate threshold and HR at aerobic threshold are the only two numbers of importance. It's the use of training techniques, that raise these two numbers that is of the most benefit.

Like MHR, Aerobic T and LT are moving targets, based on rest and fueling to some extent. But moving these numbers 1 or two beats, usually represent real progress. Extending the length of time spent at each of these thresholds produces benefits as well.

I genuinely have no idea what my Max HR is. But I have a very good idea of what my "red line" HR[LT] is and where my cross over from "cruise" zone to " HR[AT] "work zone" starts.