Training HR?
09-29-06, 06:45 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 2,130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Training HR?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the correct formula for calculating training HR is:
220-your age x 80% = training hr. So in my case:
220 - 43 = 177 x 80% = 141. My training hr should be 141. In that case, if I am coming back from my rides with an average hr of 150, theoretically I should be getting the maximum aerobic workout from that ride. Correct?
220-your age x 80% = training hr. So in my case:
220 - 43 = 177 x 80% = 141. My training hr should be 141. In that case, if I am coming back from my rides with an average hr of 150, theoretically I should be getting the maximum aerobic workout from that ride. Correct?
09-29-06, 09:21 AM
#2
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Miller2
Correct me if I am wrong, but the correct formula for calculating training HR is:
220-your age x 80% = training hr. So in my case:
220 - 43 = 177 x 80% = 141. My training hr should be 141. In that case, if I am coming back from my rides with an average hr of 150, theoretically I should be getting the maximum aerobic workout from that ride. Correct?
220-your age x 80% = training hr. So in my case:
220 - 43 = 177 x 80% = 141. My training hr should be 141. In that case, if I am coming back from my rides with an average hr of 150, theoretically I should be getting the maximum aerobic workout from that ride. Correct?
10-08-06, 05:03 PM
#3
Knocking off the rust
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ICT
Posts: 349
Bikes: LeMond Tourmalet, Specialized Tarmac
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My max is in the low 190's and I'm 45. Others the same age can't get HR over 170 climbing Mt. Washington. So you really have to test yourself to find out what your max is.
BTW, I don't think there is a difference in performance potential between low and high max HR people. Or at least, I've seen no evidence that my unusually high max HR gives me any advantage...
BTW, I don't think there is a difference in performance potential between low and high max HR people. Or at least, I've seen no evidence that my unusually high max HR gives me any advantage...
10-08-06, 05:06 PM
#4
Hazardous biker
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
Posts: 602
Bikes: 2005 Santa Cruz Blur Classic
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you want real accuracy, do a stress test and a Lactate Threshold test.
RR.
RR.
10-08-06, 07:05 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by asgelle
Not correct. 220-age applies only to the average max heart rate for a large population. It has no relevance in predicting maximum heart rate in any individual. Therefore, anything based on that formula can't be applied to an individual only a population. So all 43 year olds might want to train at heart rates that average out to141 bpm, but there's no telling if that's correct for you.
Try the Carmichael field test (link below). It will give you a decent baseline, and you can use it to track your progress. Note that it's more than a little painful to do.
https://www.bikeforums.net/archive/in.../t-171587.html
__________________
Eric
2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)
Read my cycling blog at https://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
Like climbing? Goto https://www.bicycleclimbs.com
Eric
2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)
Read my cycling blog at https://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
Like climbing? Goto https://www.bicycleclimbs.com
