Would 180-age be the most accurate without getting a lab test done?
Would 180-age be the most accurate without getting a lab test done?
First, you must answer, what is the "max aerobic threshold"? I've heard of "Aerobic Threshold" and "Aerobic Capacity" and "VO2max".
What are you looking for?
And what do you want, heart rate?
The problem (I guess question not problem) I have with that formula is:
How can this work for say-
I am a 52 year old VERY fit- 40-50 mpw, healthy diet, 52 resting pulse.
Now, take an obese, sedentary 18 year old.
Would his 162 and mine 128?
It seems wrong.
runn wrote:
The problem (I guess question not problem) I have with that formula is:
How can this work for say-
I am a 52 year old VERY fit- 40-50 mpw, healthy diet, 52 resting pulse.
Now, take an obese, sedentary 18 year old.
Would his 162 and mine 128?
It seems wrong.
That's understandable, but I'm 22 and fit...perhaps it would be useful for me. I am looking for a heart rate to determine my max aerobic threshold so I can fully develoe my aerobic capacity.
There isn't really such a thing as aerobic threshold. It's just a name given to an arbitrary effort which approximates a pace where slow and fast twitch fibers are being used. This would be around marathon pace. Yes this is a good pace to train at in terms of a good use of your time, as long as you don't overdo the amount of running at this pace each week.
To fully develop your aerobic capacity, all you have to do is train regularly at different paces. There is a lot more to running than aerobic capacity though.
runn wrote:
The problem (I guess question not problem) I have with that formula is:
How can this work for say-
I am a 52 year old VERY fit- 40-50 mpw, healthy diet, 52 resting pulse.
Now, take an obese, sedentary 18 year old.
Would his 162 and mine 128?
It seems wrong.
I've been struggling with this question/debate too!
I wish I could give me scientific advice for an answer that is black and white, but I truly feel from most research I've done and from a lot of personal experience with myself and other athletes that trying to monitor the perfect training effort and/or HR is next to impossible when you try to do it in terms of numbers and remain consistent on a daily basis. SO many things can affect HR and perceived effort in a training session:
sleep
stress
nutrition
hydration
age
sex
temperature
humidity
weather
clothing/shoes
weight
caffeine
meds
I could go on and on. The SMALLEST thing can completely change your HR. For example if you are running feeling extra stressed, little things can occur - you might clench your fists into balls or run with your shoulders/back extremely tight. Or if you are on a bike you might be gripping the handle bars like crazy. This type of resistance spikes your HR like crazy and you wouldn't even know what is causing it. A nice relaxing trail run on rolling hills might feel great one day when it's 65 and dry outside, but the next week it's 75 and humid and wet from the rain. You feel like sh*t don't you? Other days I will swear the weather is the same, the conditions are the same, I basically have the same training outfit on, but for whatever reason my HR of 155 feels SO much harder than last week. Or maybe it's the opposite - maybe I'm average 15s/mile faster and my HR is 145-152 instead of 155+.
According to my sex/age and the Karvonen method, my tempo HR (not easy but not a max HR) is about 156. However, I don't feel like I'm doing much of anything until I'm 168-174ish and even then I can hold that for at least 60 mins.
I feel like with all the technology out there we should have a better grasp on HR. But it's just such an individual part of training that I think there is truly not a magic formula or range you can follow. The only time I REALLY pay attention is on recover days. I won't allow myself to go over 152 or so. Other than that, I will pay attention and record different fluctuations but I don't freak out if I'm different from one workout to the next as long as I know the effort is there. It's just a matter of understanding what the different efforts should feel like and how they should stress or not stress your system.
Ugh. That was a terrible post. You know what, I don't know jack about HR either and I don't think I'll ever truly understand the fluctuations... or how to spell for that matter.
That's a lot of reasons why not to use a heart rate monitor and train by feel instead. But if you can't feel, then maybe you need one.
J.O. wrote:
That's a lot of reasons why not to use a heart rate monitor and train by feel instead. But if you can't feel, then maybe you need one.
Please describe in detail the feel we should go for to hit aerobic threshold in training.
You mean approximate Marathon pace? You will have to find out for yourself through trial and error.
champ clamp wrote:
Would 180-age be the most accurate without getting a lab test done?
You have to define max AT first - there are different definitions depending on the terminology used (not all the same).
Maffetone uses the 180-age formula (+/- 5-10bpm). This is supposed to be the level for recovery/normal (easy) runs. It's not for harder (Tempo/Threshold) runs. It might be better to use this only if you also have a ballpark figure for maxHR. For a lot of people (including me) this can work for easy runs, but it isn't appropriate for everyone. For example for 20yo, this means 180-20 = 160bpm. But if one person's max HR is 180 and another 220 (at the same age), then that is (non HRR) 89% and 73% (rounded) of HRmax for these athletes - that can be a huge difference, and involve different effort levels (and likely pace) if the individuals had the same performance levels (i.e. 5km time).
J.O. wrote:
You mean approximate Marathon pace? You will have to find out for yourself through trial and error.
Dude, perhaps you can understand the catch-22 you present here. First you say, "there is no formula... you have to go by FEEL." So then when I ask you to describe the feel one should go for, you say "You have to find out yourself through trial and error."
If YOU have figured all this out, it should be very simple for you to describe how one of these runs feels TO YOU. That might be helpful to the OP, since none of your posts thus far have been helpful in him achieving his original goal of finding the proper effort/pace for an aerobic threshold run. Otherwise, you're either an unhelpful d*ck, or you don't know yourself.
So what does it feel like TO YOU?
It feels comfortable at first and gradually gets harder, just like any other run.
So he has to learn the feel for himself, I can't explain it or teach it to him.
Neliah2507 wrote:
Ugh. That was a terrible post. You know what, I don't know jack about HR either and I don't think I'll ever truly understand the fluctuations... or how to spell for that matter.
Your answer to HR fluctuations is found in the dynamic systems theory! I mapped distance runner's kinematics as chaotic systems to "explain" intensity increases during uphill running. I do lecture a bit on this in my graduate exercise phys class and use examples in my statistics class. Remember that applied statistics quantify variability in an attempt to explain it for given data.