Heart rate zone calculation by GC

There's a lot of misconception about the 220-age as an indicator of max HR, but the reality is that it's often a good first step. Yes, some are higher and some are lower, but there are few outliers of any significance. For most of us they will do when starting out, but is likely to underestimate HRmax for adults over 40, which is not necessarily a bad thing for older people beginning exercise.

For more options take a look at this site - http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

It gives you a range numbers that you can look at individually or take the average of the numbers presented and that will provide a useful indicator to begin with. Compare with a maximal HR test at some stage and see what you get.

I get a result that is a few beats lower than what I can actually achieve but not by much.

This study presents another option - http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1126908

If you really want to know what your max HR is then you need to test for it either by yourself or in a lab.

I'm no exercise physiologist, but I've done a lot of reading on the subject. I think reliance on any age based formula is misplaced. For another take, see:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=41&rct=j&q=are%20formulas%20for%20mhr%20accurate&ved=0ahUKEwjxjsuMkMnKAhXGg4MKHYlkAVQ4KBAWCBkwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.asep.org%2Fasep%2Fasep%2FRobergs2.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEmkmektd3fOr1y4057aUzDS5xrjQ&sig2=66paaMYe0Y7hEUVa0QmmuA. See especially the conclusion.

I'd agree never to use 220-age. For example, I'm 47 so my theoretical HRmax according to this formula would be 173, whereas I can push 200 if I go flat out. in fact my LTHR is higher than my theoretical HRmax.

I know that having a few people who don't conform to a rule doesn't mean that the rule's not still useful in the majority of cases, but in the instance of 220-age I think that so many people fall outside of this to render it of little value.

If you're not wanting to do any mega stress testing, I'd say you'd still be better off going for a good hard (but sensible) run and adding about 15bpm to the highest bpm you record on the run; it's not going to be scientifically accurate, but it'll probably give you a more accurate HRmax and therefore training zones than 220-age.

Not to be a contrarian and I like numbers and graphs as much as anyone, but really, for most people using perceived effort to guide their training is probably sufficient. Do the majority of your workouts at a comfortable pace and mix in a few hard efforts, easy days and an occasional off day. There, done. In the 80s that's what I did with pretty good results. I think the real value of HR training is for those who have reached a high level of competitiveness and need (want) to make sure specifically designed workouts are doing what they're intended to do (or for those who for medical reasons have to keep their HR below a certain number). Perceived effort is certainly better than zones arbitrarily based on 220-age.

By the same token, you really don't need an activity tracker to tell you if you sit on your ass too much. For most of us, these tools are toys and, at best, motivational devices. But if it does that, I guess it's worth it.

Not to be a contrarian and I like numbers and graphs as much as anyone, but really, for most people using perceived effort to guide their training is probably sufficient. Do the majority of your workouts at a comfortable pace and mix in a few hard efforts, easy days and an occasional off day. There, done. In the 80s that's what I did with pretty good results. I think the real value of HR training is for those who have reached a high level of competitiveness and need (want) to make sure specifically designed workouts are doing what they're intended to do (or for those who for medical reasons have to keep their HR below a certain number). Perceived effort is certainly better than zones arbitrarily based on 220-age.

By the same token, you really don't need an activity tracker to tell you if you sit on your ass too much. For most of us, these tools are toys and, at best, motivational devices. But if it does that, I guess it's worth it.

I agree with all this, but at the same time, it's fun, and can make a boring run a bit more interesting, or at least provide a distraction. As many have said, I think the 220-age (or any other formula) is pretty useless. I am hoping to use the heart rate monitor to perhaps make my workouts more efficient for what I'm trying to accomplish. But even with the HRM, how is that accomplished?

I bought two books, one of which explains all about how to test your max HR by essentially exhausting yourself at each sport you want to know the MHR for. The other said that no one should ever do this, but instead should test your lactic threshold HR and base your zones on that. and then there is disagreement about where to set the zones and what zones do what. And then differences in recommended interval training, and on and on...

I guess the best thing to do is go running and have fun.

I'm no exercise physiologist, but I've done a lot of reading on the subject. I think reliance on any age based formula is misplaced. For another take, see:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=41&rct=j&q=are%20formulas%20for%20mhr%20accurate&ved=0ahUKEwjxjsuMkMnKAhXGg4MKHYlkAVQ4KBAWCBkwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.asep.org%2Fasep%2Fasep%2FRobergs2.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEmkmektd3fOr1y4057aUzDS5xrjQ&sig2=66paaMYe0Y7hEUVa0QmmuA. See especially the conclusion.

I am, but I do not know everything :rolleyes:. However, as a long-term coach too I am also aware that not everybody has access to the wherewithal to undertake lab testing. The links I posted are on populist sites that put together the different methods that have come out from well-researched studies so do have some foundation in reality. They are more than just a finger in the wind. The outcomes are not misplaced, just not as good as undergoing a max HR test in the lab (gold standard) or in the field.

Those of us practising are well aware of the limitations of the 220-age formula, but it is a useful starting point for anyone beginning a journey to better health and fitness.

I advise the athletes I coach to train by numbers but race by feel. In other words develop a feel for RPE so that they know within a few beats what their heart rate is. On the flat, they can also hold a pretty good pace too without the need for devices. But where the devices do help is in developing that feel. Most people start out way too hard and find it difficult to ease up. Training to numbers helps to develop the relationship between RPE and HR. And there are studies that show a close relationship between HR and RPE in well-trained athletes...and others that show to the contrary :confused:

There is no magic pill. There is a lot of contradictory advice. You, the individual, have to work out what works best for you, perhaps with the aid of a coach.

At the end of the day, whatever doesn't kill you will only make you stronger.

Oh, and one final thing DMJ_, I think for many of us, these devices are more than toys :D

it's fun, and can make a boring run a bit more interesting,
I guess the best thing to do is go running and have fun.

Yep. As the above post (#16) shows, training has a fair amount of art to it in addition to the science. I'm partial to Friel's method of using % LTHR for zones instead of MHR. MHR is static; LTHR is not. So if you just use %MHR there is no adjustment for when you get in better (or worse) shape. With LTHR your zones are adjusted to make sure you're constantly pushing on that number. Conversely, if you use %MHR, as you get in better shape what was once above threshold can fall below it, and a workout in that zone will no longer yield the desired result. Many forget that sufficient recovery can be just as important as the hard workouts. People being as they are, many won't let their easy workouts be easy enough without having the zones to tell them.

Although somewhat counter intuitive, I think its accurate that your zones will vary somewhat for different activities. I think this relates to the weight bearing (or non weight bearing) nature of the activity. Doesn't the Friel book you got discuss this? In any event, you do somewhat have to go by feel and by what works. Everyone is different with different strengths, abilities and goals. Given that, no one size fits all training prescription is going to work for everyone. An experienced and good (not necessarily the same thing) coach or even a knowledgeable friend can definitely help if you have access to one. But don't forget to have fun.

Those of us practising are well aware of the limitations of the 220-age formula, but it is a useful starting point for anyone beginning a journey to better health and fitness.

This is where I might differ with you. Even the studies that use good data present only an average. The standard deviations are so large that they don't really tell a particular individual anything. Anecdotally, it certainly appears that the formulas are more often wrong than right. Some of the posts above bear that out. I think someone is better off using RPE than a formula-- any formula. I agree with the rest of what you say.

Most people start out way too hard and find it difficult to ease up.

The best advise I give people for racing, especially marathons, it that it's real easy to start out too fast, but almost impossible to start too slow.

If you really want to know what your max HR is then you need to test for it either by yourself or in a lab.

BTW, I did test myself in a lab when I was 43 ( a long time ago). I got 207. Maybe that explains my aversion to formulas.

Having read all about MHR, HRR, FTHR etc etc I've settled on using a MHR of 173 based on my own figures from rides I have completed.

Having decided on this figure I'm confused by the training zones. Notwithstanding the different names given to Zones 1-5 there seems to be some variance on the percentages of MHR used.

Some use simple 10% increments, others use a formula, still others come up with a range of unidentified percentages.

I use 79-87% (I can't recall whether they came from) as my Zone 3 (Tempo) but usually ride comfortably at the top end.

What is the thinking on percentages to use for each zone?

I take 80-90% as tempo as well (have set it manually on my 910xt), but sometimes its hard to keep up the pace. Perhaps 168 BPM is not my 80%, but rather nearer to 90% (https://healthiack.com/heart-rate-zone-calculator#very-intense)