Heart rate
1 lurker |
300 watchers
Dec 2019
10:39am, 19 Dec 2019
598 posts
|
Cog Noscensme AHA
I saw that one a day or two ago Nellers and thought it was interesting but, as you say, well known these days. I think the one point that stuck with me was the little story about the elite athlete walking up the hill. I would never have thought of dropping to a walk to keep the HR in range. Too rigid in my thinking!
|
Dec 2019
10:56am, 19 Dec 2019
35,506 posts
|
Nellers
I’m the same Cog. Whilst I will definitely drop page dramatically uphill to manage hr I do that with a very shuffly jog, never a walk. I’ve mentioned it before but the rowing plans I’ve been working with all fall into that pattern. There’s a little bit of top end stuff each week, some threshold work, then everything else is at relatively easy, and definitely aerobic, intensities. Even training for a relatively short event like a rowing 2km (for me that’s 7-7:20 duration, for the top boys it’s sub-6) the majority are f the training is 45 minutes or longer steady state building the engine. Seems counterintuitive until you start seeing the results from so many who work this way. |
Dec 2019
11:08am, 19 Dec 2019
2,477 posts
|
J2R
I've been very influenced by Seiler in my training in the last 4 years. I switched to a polarized training regime and it's paid dividends (although I wasn't as far away from it before as some other runners might be).
|
Jan 2020
10:00am, 14 Jan 2020
30,714 posts
|
♪♫ Synge ♪♫
Just popping in to draw your attention to a poll on max HR and the 220-age formula. It's a bit rough and ready and should probably be enhanced to deal with age/gender too, but it's a start!  (Oh, and please ignore the blank option at the bottom!) |
Jan 2020
10:26am, 14 Jan 2020
47,109 posts
|
GlennR
Voted. FWIW, the 220 - age thing seems to fly around a lot, but there are a lot of alternatives. The Parker book uses a different formula (I'm at work at the moment so will have to check later) and that's perhaps the nearest thing we have to a canonical text on HR training.
|
Jan 2020
10:34am, 14 Jan 2020
3,454 posts
|
Molesy
Highest recorded so far this year is 37 higher than 220 - age but I've not pushed seriously hard yet, another 2-3 bpm on top of that is probably achievable.
|
Jan 2020
10:40am, 14 Jan 2020
68,358 posts
|
Gobi
220 - age is better thank nothing but true data rules I have seen 13 above in the last year, often see 9 - 11 I was 34 before my max heart rate went as high as 220 - age but now aging I am consistently able to function above . However I know I diabetic who has a max of 209 (repeated many times) and she is 40 |
|
Jan 2020
10:45am, 14 Jan 2020
47,112 posts
|
GlennR
Found it: 'John L. Parker, Jr. recommends using 205 minus one-half your age and adding five beats for women and long-time runners.' |
Jan 2020
10:52am, 14 Jan 2020
15,668 posts
|
Sharkie
The Parker formula is certainly closer to mine - 220 minus age is way off for me.
|
Jan 2020
10:52am, 14 Jan 2020
18,686 posts
|
Dvorak
If I could ban one exercise related thing it would be any mention of 220-age as the basis for determining maximum heart rate. You might have recently seen the Fitness Age calculator on the BBC recently, also mentioned on Fetch. The people behind it also have an improved max HR calculator, let's call it the Norwegian Formula. This gives me 177, as opposed to the nonsense of 165. Still well out, and the team themselves admit real figures are subject to wide variation from it and the only way to properly find out max HR is a maximal test. ntnu.edu |
Related Threads
-
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023
-
Jack daniels marathon plan help
May 2014
-
Polarized training
Apr 2024
-
Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate
Jan 2021
-
No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease
Jan 2021
-
Resetting Max Heart Rate
Dec 2020
-
Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal
Oct 2020
-
Heart rate zones
Jul 2020
-
Running Heart rate
Jun 2020
-
Heart Rate monitors
Jun 2020