Heart rate theory

This is with respect to cycling really but it's largely the same score with running, so here goes.

At my spin classes (which are more like group turbo sessions) we use Suunto heart rate monitors and their five-zone system which is calibrated by percentages of max heart rate.
I estimated my MaxHR a year or two ago by doing a sort of self-inflicted lactate threshold test, which gave me a LTHR of 165.
The Suunto zones put your LTHR at 85% of max, the border between zones 3 & 4. (Zone 4-5 border is 92%.)
So in order to set my zones I put my max at 194.

Now, I just did a class where I pushed v.hard and recorded an average HR of 178 (91% of estimated max) over 53 minutes.
Isolating the last 30 mins the average was higher, something like 181.
Now, I've got all sorts of Qns:

1. Does this mean I need to readjust my HR zones up? Accepted advice on how to estimate LTHR says knock about 5% off your 40-minute max effort HR - so that would put my LTHR at something more like 170-1. (So my max should be set somewhere around 200 on this system - even if that is not my actual max).
2. Other HR systems put your LTHR at more like 87-88% of max, and it varies between individuals, no? Could it just mean that my LTHR rather than being 85 per cent of my max, is actually 90% of my max? And is this a sign of fitness, i.e., do fitter people generally have a higher LTHR as percentage of max HR?
3. Does your LTHR change over time? Does it go up or down as you get fitter?
4. Could it just mean I was tired / had a bug and therefore had inflated HR? It was also hot in there: do the same efforts power-wise produce higher HRs in hotter conditions?
(5. Should I just save myself the bother and forget about bloody heart rates altogether?)

Phew. And thanks in advance.

Errr, why are you trying to estimate your max HR in such a roundabout way? Just test it directly...

And yes, training can raise your lactate threshold HR by a noticeable amount, its not a fixed percentage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elliptic

Errr, why are you trying to estimate your max HR in such a roundabout way? Just test it directly...

And yes, training can raise your lactate threshold HR by a noticeable amount, its not a fixed percentage.

---

Fair point - I should do a ramp test or the like.

Yeah, I go out once a year on the road bike and just go flat out to failure uphill then fall over dribbling on the verge :)

One thing I've noticed is max HR comes down over the years but threshold HR (when I'm fit) less so.

If you were under recovered or ill then more likely to see lower HRs not higher ones in my experience.

Why are you bothering with all that baggage Zoot? Can't you tell how hard you are working? No 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Why are you bothering with all that baggage Zoot? Can't you tell how hard you are working? No 5.

---

yes well, I don't when I'm out on the bike - just in these spin classes: they give you HR monitors
at each class and everyone's readout is displayed on a screen at the front.
You don't have to wear the HRM though I suppose. It does however give you something to concentrate on - I find indoor cycling a bit, er, mentally taxing otherwise.

any other HR geeks out there? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZootHornRollo

any other HR geeks out there? :wink:

---

Although I'm finding myself quite sceptical about it I've been following the Maffetone approach last winter during the aerobic base building phase of my training.
So I use the HRM to make sure that I'm not going over the point where Maffetone says you start becoming anaerobic which is 180 minus your age. in my case 144 Bpm.

My feelings are that this figure, 180, is deliberately set low, but it does reign you in and my speed at a low heart rate has increased by over a minute per mile. I don't feel the need however to use the HRM to run tempo or interval sessions as I just push as much as I can. There is also a lot of chat on the net about LT zones being a bit out dated as far as the science goes, I'll link to this later when I've got the time.

[QUOTE=Twister;491112]Although I'm finding myself quite sceptical about it I've been following the Maffetone approach last winter during the aerobic base building phase of my training.
So I use the HRM to make sure that I'm not going over the point where Maffetone says you start becoming anaerobic which is 180 minus your age. in my case 144 Bpm.

This is very interesting, it certainly puts a different complexion on training pace, if I used this system i would need to keep below 120bpm to stay aerobic.

Not sure my training partners would let me run that slow:confused: It might explain why I can't get a decent sequence of training sessions going though. Might try this out next winter.

[QUOTE=creaky;491303]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twister

Although I'm finding myself quite sceptical about it I've been following the Maffetone approach last winter during the aerobic base building phase of my training.
So I use the HRM to make sure that I'm not going over the point where Maffetone says you start becoming anaerobic which is 180 minus your age. in my case 144 Bpm.

This is very interesting, it certainly puts a different complexion on training pace, if I used this system i would need to keep below 120bpm to stay aerobic.

Not sure my training partners would let me run that slow:confused: It might explain why I can't get a decent sequence of training sessions going though. Might try this out next winter.

---

If you're going to try it, it's worth getting the book off Amazon "Endurance Training and Racing", there's a lot more to it than the simple explanation I gave.

You have also got to reduce your carb intake, because the point of this exercise is to run better off fat, Maffetone goes in to depth in his book about fat burning for fuel and cites the success of tri-athlete Mark Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Al...8triathlete%29) after following a low-carb high protein, high fat diet, and the Maffetone Heart rate protocol. Tim Noakes who wrote Lore of Running is now also on board with this strategy, and is a supporter of Maffetone.

We're just lacking some decent studies on this (there are none, but plenty of testimonials). Noakes is on to this apparently and is commencing studies at the moment.

Mark Allen's MAF pace when he won his last ironman in '97 was 5:10 min/mile (remember this is aerobic his BPM is 143).

I got mine down from 11:30 min/mile to 9:30 in 10 weeks, I'll be going back to it in the winter for sure.

twister said...Tim Noakes who wrote Lore of Running is now also on board with this strategy, and is a supporter of Maffetone.

got that book ,comprehensive or what?...Might get the book you suggest and have a read.

Thanks for mentioning this..always up for new approaches..keeps the mind involved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaky

twister said...Tim Noakes who wrote Lore of Running is now also on board with this strategy, and is a supporter of Maffetone.

got that book ,comprehensive or what?...Might get the book you suggest and have a read.

Thanks for mentioning this..always up for new approaches..keeps the mind involved

---

You've got to respect Noakes as a scientist when he publicly states that what he wrote about diet is wrong. The great thing about real science is its not static and set in stone. Personally I'd love to see more data, but on N=1 basis I've seen my hill climbing go from strength to strength this year as I gradually wean myself off the carbs. I'm now doing 4 hour slow runs pre-breakfast on a handful of trail mix, I hope to reduce this to no trail mix soon.

A quick google search brought this up. http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/Di...1173,66523.asp

[QUOTE=creaky;491303]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twister

Although I'm finding myself quite sceptical about it I've been following the Maffetone approach last winter during the aerobic base building phase of my training.
So I use the HRM to make sure that I'm not going over the point where Maffetone says you start becoming anaerobic which is 180 minus your age. in my case 144 Bpm.

This is very interesting, it certainly puts a different complexion on training pace, if I used this system i would need to keep below 120bpm to stay aerobic.

Not sure my training partners would let me run that slow:confused: It might explain why I can't get a decent sequence of training sessions going though. Might try this out next winter.

---

very very sceptical about this. 180 minus age is totally meaningless and for me would give an 'anaerobic limit' of 138, which is nonsense. I know my anaerobic threshold is around 170 bpm.
But as far as I know, theories about building base endurance over the winter at low hear rates aren't anything to do with aerobic / anaerobic - you're talking much lower levels. So 138 might well be about right as a max HR if I was going to adopt it - but that's not anywhere near my anaerobic threshold.

Is not the Maffetone approach just another way of saying that most runners do their slow runs too fast , and as a consequence, their fast runs too slow? We should do about 80% of our runs at guilty slow pace, 5-10% at eyeballs out phlegm on the face pace, and the rest at target race pace, but not target race distance.

I don't know if it's Maffetone, but one quite 'extreme' version of the base building idea goes something like this: that not only is the best way to train the aerobic system to do weeks and months at low intensities, but also that straying into higher intensities will spoil the effects of that training, so while you are training the aerobic system you should do no high intensity work at all.

A slightly less extreme version says that if you go above a certain HR within the same session, into sugar-burning territory, then that will negate or spoil the steady fat-burning system work you've been doing.

I dunno, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether these theories are widely accepted or 'fringe'.

All I know is that the racing cyclists I know - who are the fittest people I know - ride fast all the time and at bi-weekly chaingangs are training in the upper heart rate zones.

" I don't know if it's Maffetone, but one quite 'extreme' version of the base building idea goes something like this: that not only is the best way to train the aerobic system to do weeks and months at low intensities, but also that straying into higher intensities will spoil the effects of that training, so while you are training the aerobic system you should do no high intensity work at all.

A slightly less extreme version says that if you go above a certain HR within the same session, into sugar-burning territory, then that will negate or spoil the steady fat-burning system work you've been doing. "

If there is any evidence for this I would like to see it - to me, for what it is worth, it makes no sense in evolutionary terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twister

So I use the HRM to make sure that I'm not going over the point where Maffetone says you start becoming anaerobic which is 180 minus your age. in my case 144 Bpm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZootHornRollo

very very sceptical about this. 180 minus age is totally meaningless and for me would give an 'anaerobic limit' of 138, which is nonsense. I know my anaerobic threshold is around 170 bpm.

---

Two different thresholds involved here.

(1) aerobic or lactate threshold (the lower one) below which the anaerobic contribution to your total effort is essentially nil.

(2) anaerobic threshold (the upper one) above which the anaerobic contribution becomes unsustainable (you can't process the accumulating lactate fast enough).

Zoothorn you're talking about (2) the Maffetone formula gives you (1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZootHornRollo

All I know is that the racing cyclists I know - who are the fittest people I know - ride fast all the time and at bi-weekly chaingangs are training in the upper heart rate zones.

---

Traditionally many racing cyclists will also have spent three or four months over the winter doing long steady aerobic base mileage. Of course to get value from that takes a *lot* of training time...nowadays in cycling if you haven't got that time the focus is moving towards higher intensity / shorter duration methods ie. interval training programmes of the Carmicheal variety.

[QUOTE=Twister;491387]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaky

If you're going to try it, it's worth getting the book off Amazon "Endurance Training and Racing", there's a lot more to it than the simple explanation I gave.

You have also got to reduce your carb intake, because the point of this exercise is to run better off fat, Maffetone goes in to depth in his book about fat burning for fuel and cites the success of tri-athlete Mark Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Al...8triathlete%29) after following a low-carb high protein, high fat diet, and the Maffetone Heart rate protocol. Tim Noakes who wrote Lore of Running is now also on board with this strategy, and is a supporter of Maffetone.

We're just lacking some decent studies on this (there are none, but plenty of testimonials). Noakes is on to this apparently and is commencing studies at the moment.

Mark Allen's MAF pace when he won his last ironman in '97 was 5:10 min/mile (remember this is aerobic his BPM is 143).

I got mine down from 11:30 min/mile to 9:30 in 10 weeks, I'll be going back to it in the winter for sure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twister

You've got to respect Noakes as a scientist when he publicly states that what he wrote about diet is wrong. The great thing about real science is its not static and set in stone. Personally I'd love to see more data, but on N=1 basis I've seen my hill climbing go from strength to strength this year as I gradually wean myself off the carbs. I'm now doing 4 hour slow runs pre-breakfast on a handful of trail mix, I hope to reduce this to no trail mix soon.

A quick google search brought this up. http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/Di...1173,66523.asp

---

Simplest introduction I've heard to this approach was from a podcast by the Talk Ultra guys. Search iTunes store for Talk Ultra podcasts and theirs should come up. It's Talk Ultra Training 40:30:30 Diet (or something to that effect). Doesn't go in to as much detail as Noakes, being only a 30 min discussion, but outlines the principles and theory behind it. Have to say I've used since in prep for longer runs and not once since had a problem with 'bonking'; a symptom of an over-reliance on carbs as a fuel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZootHornRollo

I don't know if it's Maffetone, but one quite 'extreme' version of the base building idea goes something like this: that not only is the best way to train the aerobic system to do weeks and months at low intensities, but also that straying into higher intensities will spoil the effects of that training, so while you are training the aerobic system you should do no high intensity work at all.

A slightly less extreme version says that if you go above a certain HR within the same session, into sugar-burning territory, then that will negate or spoil the steady fat-burning system work you've been doing.

I dunno, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether these theories are widely accepted or 'fringe'.

All I know is that the racing cyclists I know - who are the fittest people I know - ride fast all the time and at bi-weekly chaingangs are training in the upper heart rate zones.

---

There was a training film in the run up to the Lympics following the rowers, saying that their success is built on the '000,000s of km's they do on their lake: all low level stuff; which is then supplemented by more intense sprint, interval & TT type stuff (not to mention specific strength training).

To be fair, I've been sceptical about the Maffetone approach, the 180 - age + (other stuff) formula is a bit, well, meh. The book is not referenced and has mild anecdotes (from his friends) and his big trump card the Tri Athlete Mark Allen. It's shaky as far as science goes, but a lot of people were raving about this on some of the barefoot minimal forums so I gave it a go. Over 3 months running at MAX 145 BPM (which at the start meant walking hills) I went from 11 min/mile average to just under 8.5 min/mile average. What does this mean? I don't know. I went back to speed work (hills and intervals) in the last 2 months and dropped the HRM totally and felt "stronger" after this period.

The takeaway... I'll go back to a period of 3-4 months of very low intensity work this winter and not obsess too much about the heart rate, I'm going to try and run "by feel" as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elliptic

Two different thresholds involved here.

(1) aerobic or lactate threshold (the lower one) below which the anaerobic contribution to your total effort is essentially nil.

(2) anaerobic threshold (the upper one) above which the anaerobic contribution becomes unsustainable (you can't process the accumulating lactate fast enough).

Zoothorn you're talking about (2) the Maffetone formula gives you (1).

---

I beg to differ here elliptic.
I have done a field test and my lactate threshold HR is around 170-75 - the HR that I average during a 60-min maximal effort.
I'm not sure how 'anaerobic threshold HR' differs - but according to you it's higher.
Training 'below lactate' is standard and it can include some pretty high level aerobic effort - i.e., in my case HRs from 150-170.
In any zone system that I know of, what Maffetone is saying is to train right down in zone 2 - nowhere near lactate HR at all.

As for your second point, yes quite possibly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZootHornRollo

I beg to differ here elliptic.
I have done a field test and my lactate threshold HR is around 170-75 - the HR that I average during a 60-min maximal effort.
I'm not sure how 'anaerobic threshold HR' differs - but according to you it's higher.

---

Okay the term "lactate threshold" probably just confuses the issue as it seems to get applied to both... but Maffetone is definitely referring to the lower (aerobic) threshold.

Your one-hour max test gives "functional threshold" which is upper (anaerobic) threshold more or less (output power level at one-hour pace is the key benchmark for many of the power-based bike training systems eg Coggan, Carmicheal, Friel).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZootHornRollo

In any zone system that I know of, what Maffetone is saying is to train right down in zone 2 - nowhere near [upper] lactate HR at all.

---

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.... long slow distance (and lots of it) :)

OK gotcha now.

Anyone into this? The idea behind it, I understand from limited reading - to read in depth it would seem you have to buy access or a book - is that if you have a diet relatively low in carbohydrate (compared to a normal training diet) and run more slowly to start with ( at a speed determined by a laboratory test that analyses O2 uptake and CO2 output), you will in time increase your body's use of fat as a fuel and eventually be able to run faster for longer as fat stores are of course huge compared to glycogen stores. As a short cut, people can do without the test and just aim at a particular heart rate for age - about 20 below what most people do most of their training at.

The cynical part of me says this is all nonsense and is only being promoted as there is money to be made, and in America in particular, weight to be lost.

Does anyone know of any studies into this approach?

I thought that was the general idea of starting out with long slow base miles- so that you became more efficient at lipid hydrolysis rather than carbohydrate. Ok, so when you begin it will be really really slow, but then you get a faster baseline whilst burning fat, rather than carbs... eventually your "fatburning" slow speed becomes as fast as other peoples "carb burning" speed, and hey presto you're a super-duper long distance runner.

Unfortunately, no, I don't know of any studies... at least, certainly not any high quality ones.

I had always thought that starting off with slow running was to let the bones/joints/ligaments/tendons get used to the process - but metabolic changes will also take place.

The Heart Rate Theory thread looks at all this from a slightly different point of view.

I think it would be worth joining the threads together if that can be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaky

twister said...Tim Noakes who wrote Lore of Running is now also on board with this strategy, and is a supporter of Maffetone.

got that book ,comprehensive or what?...Might get the book you suggest and have a read.

Thanks for mentioning this..always up for new approaches..keeps the mind involved

---

To say Tim Noakes is on board is not quite the right emphasis - he certainly follows a low CHO diet himself but freely admits he has pre-diabetes; part of his article on carbohydrates is as follows:

" Not for everyone

However those who can metabolise carbohydrates efficiently and who have always been lean despite eating a high carbohydrate diet may not benefit in any way from this eating plan. I would not advise any athlete who is lean and quite happy with his or her weight and performances to change to this eating plan since it might not make a difference and might even be detrimental."

Some of the foods he avoids are the obvious western society processed substances such as sugar, sugary drinks - including sweetened fruit juices, breakfast cereals, cakes/sweets/desserts, oils high in omega 6, artificial sweeteners ....... though he also avoids some potentially low GI foods such as porridge.

He also directly addresses a lot of his low CHO advice to other pre-diabetics, and those who are overweight.