|
Sep 2011
11:23am, 27 Sep 2011
4,611 posts
|
Nikaim
Going off this evening to do a new Max HR test as am not happy that my speed isn't improving any(in fact going backwards!) at 70% WHR, am hoping my max hr is higher than I originally thought, but am not convinced it will be. As somebody said earlier it is perhaps harder to acheive max hr the fitter you are, but as Parker says in the book hills should be the best way to acheive it.5 repeats of 2-300m and I know just the hill to do it on! 
|
|
Sep 2011
8:09pm, 27 Sep 2011
4,614 posts
|
Nikaim
Session done, didn't get anywhere near Max HR unfortunately, did the hill test exactly as Parker's book says, but only got to 177 when I am sure I am at least 182 perhaps higher. Maybe it goes to prove that as you get fitter the harder it is to achieve Max HR. The other factor could be that I have had a stressful day at work when it say's in the book to do it during a relaxed day so maybe I will try again when I have some time off work next month.
|
|
Sep 2011
9:18am, 28 Sep 2011
893 posts
|
DrDan
It's tough to hit your maxHR, especially when fit. It's getting the balance right of building up gradually so that you have enough left for the final 3 min push. Not easy. Too much too soon and there's too much lactate ... too long building up and you're too tired to push hard.
|
|
Sep 2011
9:42am, 28 Sep 2011
4,609 posts
|
Dvorak
I reckon that it is very hard to push to the absolute limit in the test, so test plus 5 (the Huff equation )is probably a reasonable rule of thumb.
|
|
Sep 2011
9:49am, 28 Sep 2011
44,367 posts
|
Gobi
So you believe that people are holding back Dvorak ?
Must say I have always got my highest scores in Races and I have been tested a lot of times.
The 5 beat rules doesn't work for me either
|
|
Sep 2011
10:30am, 28 Sep 2011
4,610 posts
|
Dvorak
That's my point Gobi, in a race you are more likely to push to that limit, possibly as your focus is on your performance and you will drag every last bit out of yourself for that. In a test, and without any suggestion of deliberately holding back, that is harder to do.
And then you are working off a 70% three of four beats lower than it should be and for people starting heart rate training and/ or who are slower, that can make a big difference.
|
|
Sep 2011
10:34am, 28 Sep 2011
3,311 posts
|
Jhuff
Dvorak,
Sounds logical to me
|
|
Sep 2011
11:00am, 28 Sep 2011
2,528 posts
|
paul the builder
Of course, the reverse applies too - if you *did* manage to reach your actual max, and then added 5bpm to it.... your easy-paced runs then aren't as easy as they should be. So I wouldn't advise arbitary additions for this reason.
|
|
Sep 2011
11:33am, 28 Sep 2011
44,370 posts
|
Gobi
I never truely follow the 70 % rule but use a mixture of HR and PACE
Dvorak/PtB - given that you only see a true racing MAX in those rare situations you then have to argue that actually using the TEST HR is more reflective of where you should train then
OR
do you train using paces worked out off the test until you race and get a higher max ?
I tested at 178 this year yet got 182 in a race 4 days later I chose to use the 182, having now seen 185 I will use that for the rest of the year having confirmed it was not a spike. In January I will run a HARD 5km and readjust according to that for a period.
Right or wrong it is safe to say I use a flexible max in the same way I use a flexible resting HR
I hit 178 on the bike in a hill climb but I ignore this as a cycling max as in my view I was basically run up the hill with a bike below me. I concluded it was unrealistic to guide the rest of my training on this number. When I move to winter turbo training I will again test myself and no matter what the result that max is what I will use for all indoor training as it feels like a true indication of what is right in that environment.
I feel a bit loopy :¬0
|
|
Sep 2011
11:50am, 28 Sep 2011
3,232 posts
|
GlennR
I'm with Paul. There's no reason to find an excuse to get your 'easy' paced runs as fast as possible. As Parker says: "or less."
|
