Hello everyone! 44 year old triathlete here currently focused on marathon training. I wanted to get your thoughts about Training Peaks determining my LTHR and what my average HR was completing a recent 10K time trial.

The training peaks reported an LTHR 5 beats lower than the average HR of the 10K.

Which is more accurate to use to determine HR zones?

Thanks,
Roland
kloofyroland wrote:
Hello everyone! 44 year old triathlete here currently focused on marathon training. I wanted to get your thoughts about Training Peaks determining my LTHR and what my average HR was completing a recent 10K time trial.

The training peaks reported an LTHR 5 beats lower than the average HR of the 10K.

Which is more accurate to use to determine HR zones?

Thanks,
Roland

10k is run considerably above LT, that is why it is such a brutal distance to run well.
MY LT is 168 and my 10k pace was 175-177
I'd agree unless the 10k race lasts close to an hour - then the HR for the 10k would be closer to LTHR. I've seen a HR of around 180 in my best 10k but I recently ran a half marathon with an avg HR of 174 - there is a fine line in between the two for me, so only a few beats difference, but going over that edge would mean doom in a half marathon.

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
Yes
If you are really fast, there is a significant difference between the LTHR and 10k HR, 10k HR higher.
But if you are slow, difference will go down, until zero (if you run 10k in an hour), or even the opposite if really slow.

Hopefully, TP take it into account to evaluate the difference ?
This is an interesting topic. Just read Friel's book on training with a power meter and he goes into (at length) the reason 220-age is no way to calculate max HR. And of course he is right since he has all the science behind it.

However, I'd be interested to know the ages of the posters here. It appears to me that unless you are an elite athlete, 220-age = (=/-) Max HR is pretty darned close.

I'm 54 with a LTHR of 159 and hitting 170 would be impossible to maintain for more than a couple of minutes. Or does this just prove I'm a puss?
Pathlete wrote:
This is an interesting topic. Just read Friel's book on training with a power meter and he goes into (at length) the reason 220-age is no way to calculate max HR. And of course he is right since he has all the science behind it.

However, I'd be interested to know the ages of the posters here. It appears to me that unless you are an elite athlete, 220-age = (=/-) Max HR is pretty darned close.

I'm 54 with a LTHR of 159 and hitting 170 would be impossible to maintain for more than a couple of minutes. Or does this just prove I'm a puss?
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
Yes
If you are really fast, there is a significant difference between the LTHR and 10k HR, 10k HR higher.
But if you are slow, difference will go down, until zero (if you run 10k in an hour), or even the opposite if really slow.

Hopefully, TP take it into account to evaluate the difference ?

I hope so too. It took me 52 minutes to complete the 10K and I was hitting negative splits. All the data gathered showed me performing well as I had slight increases in stride length and cadence per mile with slight decreases in GCT, and all the while my HR gradually climbing without blowing up. I finished it with a tiny bit left in the tank to possibly go another quarter mile.

Maybe I'll just take the middle ground and use average of the 2 numbers since LTHR simply a tool to set zones and to train more efficiently. I'll tie the new zones in with RPE and see if they feel right.
Pathlete wrote:
This is an interesting topic. Just read Friel's book on training with a power meter and he goes into (at length) the reason 220-age is no way to calculate max HR. And of course he is right since he has all the science behind it.

However, I'd be interested to know the ages of the posters here. It appears to me that unless you are an elite athlete, 220-age = (=/-) Max HR is pretty darned close.

I'm 54 with a LTHR of 159 and hitting 170 would be impossible to maintain for more than a couple of minutes. Or does this just prove I'm a puss?
At age 55 I ran my fastest 10k for a few years I hit 197 max heartrate, and averaged 171 for the race which I finished in 44:55, so not elite.
Pathlete wrote:
This is an interesting topic. Just read Friel's book on training with a power meter and he goes into (at length) the reason 220-age is no way to calculate max HR. And of course he is right since he has all the science behind it.

However, I'd be interested to know the ages of the posters here. It appears to me that unless you are an elite athlete, 220-age = (=/-) Max HR is pretty darned close.

I'm 54 with a LTHR of 159 and hitting 170 would be impossible to maintain for more than a couple of minutes. Or does this just prove I'm a puss?

I'd like to think I'm a good example of why that rule is BS. 27 years old and max. during multiple LT tests was 174 and highest I've seen on my Garmin in a race is 176.. I should be able to reach at least 10 bpm higher but I can't even if my life depended on it.
Total BS, and in both directions - yours is much lower, mine's much higher.

I'm 40 and it's still over 200.

I row occasionally with a bloke who's ten years older and still runs over 200. And he's a massive unit - 6'8" and 230 or so. Probably what HR is needed to supply that body!
altayloraus wrote:
Total BS, and in both directions - yours is much lower, mine's much higher.

I'm 40 and it's still over 200.

I row occasionally with a bloke who's ten years older and still runs over 200. And he's a massive unit - 6'8" and 230 or so. Probably what HR is needed to supply that body!

Yeah, that 220-age doesn't work for everybody and I never relied on it. Field tests are more accurate!

My recent 10K put me at 152bpm LTHR.