Heart rate zones

In this case they're probably talking about %HRmax but you should speak with the coach to clarify. I accept that some people do have high HRmax but I am a little sceptical of the 204. Was this obtained as part of a trial purposefully aimed at establishing your HRmax? When was your HRrest measured? How active are you?

As to which method is best, the answer is, it depends? There are perspectives on both sides of the divide.

The max 204 HR was from this weekend after running for 40 minutes on the treadmill at roughly tempo pace and then increasing the speed to 18kph for the last 2 minutes. It's not a one off as last night I maxed at 196 during a 3km track race (average HR was 185). And last week I maxed at 198 running up a hill in training. I believe the HRM-Tri straps are fairly accurate, certainly more so than OHR, so I don't have any reason to doubt the data.

Philip,

The 220 - minus age formula has a standard deviation of 13 bpm (which is why it is such a #$%^ predictor). So approxiamately 7% of 35 y.o's could be expected to have a maxHR of 204 or above.

Not that unplausible, and the OP has regular training data that suggests their maxHR is in this range rather than it being due to a measurement spike.

mcalista I agree the 220 minus age method is outdated and fairly useless. Out of curiousity, where did you get these numbers? The 13 bpm and 7%?.

Since there is no mention of 220-age I am unsure why it's been brought into the discussion. But, if you do want some more information then this might help about the validity of various equations - https://eprints.qut.edu.au/96880/

In general, any equation provides at best an approximation. The only way to properly determine HRmax is by testing for it properly.

Since there is no mention of 220-age I am unsure why it's been brought into the discussion.

Unsure? You said you were sceptical that 35 yr old Scott had a Max HR of 204. Mcalista was merely pointing out that using the 220 minus age method would put Scott at 185. If that method is indeed off by 13 bpm, then a Max HR of 204 is reasonable. That's how it became part of the discussion. Anyway, my question was where Mcalista referenced the 13 bpm and that 7% of 35 yr olds would have a Max HR of 204 or higher.

When running coaches speak of working to 85-90% of HR during high intensity interval sessions, are they referring to the percentage of max HR?

Just my guess, but I'd say they are talking about about % Max HR in this case. As a layman, I happen to think HR reserve is more useful, but I'm guessing not many runners know their max HR (hence the need for the 220 - age approximation), and even fewer know their resting HR (which can't be approximated afaik), so I'm guessing most people would be dealing with % max HR and not % HR reserve.

If you search for "85-90% max HR", there's a lot of references to anaerobic threshold training and 5-10k race pace, and they make it clear they're not talking about HR reserve, so it matches up.

where Mcalista referenced the 13 bpm and that 7% of 35 yr olds would have a Max HR of 204 or higher.

Statistics probably, (although I can't recall seeing a definitive figure for the error from 220-age). One standard deviation (SD) is approximately 68% of a normally distributed population sample, two SD ~ 95%. Therefore if 1SD is 13 bpm, ~95% of a population would be 26bpm either side of their estimated 220-age HRmax. In this case for 35y estimated HRmax for 95% of the population would lie between 211 and 159. But statistically speaking the range narrows to 172 and 198 for 68% of a 35y old population, putting the OP outside the 1SD range. We can do lots with statistics, hence why there's lies, damn lies and statistics.

In any case, there is no formula that can accurately estimate HRmax. Testing is the only way to do that and minimise the error.

But back to the OP. If you have faith in the reliability and validity of both your HRmax and HRrest then I'd suggest you use zones derived from %HRreserve. Your HRreserve is HRmax-HRrest. You then multiply that by the %age you want for your zone and add HRrest to that to get one end of the training zone. Repeat for the other end.

Formula is (HRmax-HRrest)*(n%/100) + HRrest

Or you can just put your HRmax and HRrest into Garmin, select %HRR and let Garmin spit out the zones. Or play around in sites like this http://www.fitdigits.com/personalize...ate-zones.html

mcalista I agree the 220 minus age method is outdated and fairly useless. Out of curiousity, where did you get these numbers? The 13 bpm and 7%?.

I agree that everyone is different. I am young at heart for my age (excuse the pun), which is probably down to genetics. If I was hitting 200bpm during a long run I would be worried, but hitting 200bpm on the final lap of a 10 1/2 minute 3km race when I feel like I'm about to throw up makes sense.

I'm not sure about HRR as it takes into account RHR which varies on the day depending on numerous factors and will fluctuate over time as you loose or gain fitness.

scotthunter2 Have you considered basing your zones on LTHR instead? Since you are posting in this forum I assume you have a FR935 which has the capability to detect your LT.

This would help you identify were your heart/bodyactually transitions from aerob to anaerob exercise which I believe would be the absolute most important point for utilising heart rate zones to obtain different effects from different training. Also, LT is trainable which means your zones could be updated according to your fitness progress over time.