Hi, i’m looking for a reliable source of a table that shows the 5 HR zones as % of Max HR
and for each zone, i’d like the table to show the total calories (per Kg/Hr) as well as % of it that comes from fat
and % from carbs.
is there a reliable source for this information
i’ve seen these tables in the past but now i can’t find one.
thanks
page 120 as a function of % of VO2max
jaretj
.
Hi, i’m looking for a reliable source of a table that shows the 5 HR zones as % of Max HR
and for each zone, i’d like the table to show the** total calories (per Kg/Hr) **as well as % of it that comes from fat
and % from carbs.
is there a reliable source for this information
i’ve seen these tables in the past but now i can’t find one.
thanks
You are essentially saying that threshold power is the same for everyone. what a pro can do per hour for five hours is different from what amateurs can do.
Unfortunately, much of the information that you’re looking for is unique to each individual athlete and/or coaching/training system.
A traditional 5 HR zone system might look something like:
Z1 < 60% Max HR
60% Max HR < Z2 < 70% Max HR
70% Max HR < Z3 < 80% Max HR
80% Max HR < Z4 < 90% Max HR
90% Max HR < Z5 < 100% Max HR
Some systems/coaches use max heart rate reserve (Max HRR) in the equations above, where Max HRR = Max HR - Resting HR. Still other systems/coaches set up their zones as percentages of the HR corresponding to LT.
Regarding total calories and the relative percentage of fat and carbs burned in each zone, it will obviously depend on how the zone system is set up, but beyond that, it is very specific to the efficiency of the individual athlete; both biomechanic and metabolic. I’m sure that you can find resources reporting what’s typical for a sample population of athletes, but the only way to know where you stand is to get tested in the lab. I have a testing partner who has seen people rely almost entirely on carbs in Z2, and has seen others burn predominately fat well into Z5. Note that you can train yourself to become more metabolically efficient. It takes a lot of time, a lot of low intensity work to start, and an appropriate diet, but the long term benefit is that your body will learn to rely on its fat reserves more, and you will ultimately be able to sustain a higher effort for a longer period of time. If you have the time and are willing to commit to the process, I’d definitely suggest giving it a shot.
I perform this test as part of my employment. What I have learned after looking at thousands of tests is that there is HUGE variation in results. People pay for personal testing because the chart you’re asking for can be widely inaccurate.
Having said that, I will photograph the chart and and post it tomorrow night.
page 120 as a function of % of VO2max
http://books.google.com/...e%203.11&f=false
jaretj
- can you post a reproduction of the table?
- is there a formula that converts vo2max to %Max HR?
Unfortunately, much of the information that you’re looking for is unique to each individual athlete and/or coaching/training system.
A traditional 5 HR zone system might look something like:
Z1 < 60% Max HR
60% Max HR < Z2 < 70% Max HR
70% Max HR < Z3 < 80% Max HR
80% Max HR < Z4 < 90% Max HR
90% Max HR < Z5 < 100% Max HR
I’m sure that you can find resources reporting what’s typical for a sample population of athletes,.
Yes, this is what i’m looking for (just need the calories, %fat for each zone)
and i can’t find the data for a sample population.
help please
I perform this test as part of my employment. What I have learned after looking at thousands of tests is that there is **HUGE variation in results. **People pay for personal testing because the chart you’re asking for can be widely inaccurate.
Having said that, I will photograph the chart and and post it tomorrow night.
not to mention variation between different phases in training (e.g. pre season and after finishing aerobic base)
Yes, this is what i’m looking for (just need the calories, %fat for each zone)
and i can’t find the data for a sample population.
help please
Who do you think burns more calories per hour per kg? Me (a cat 4 with a 4.30w/kg FTP) riding 100% LTHR for an hour or a top pro riding 83% LTHR for an hour?
-
That is a book that has copyrights on it so I don’t think a reproduction of just the diagram would be a fair use of their material.
-
I don’t believe that Max HR is a reliable way of quantifying intensity. Velocity or HR at VO2 max is easy to find. It can be predicted with submaximal tests such as a 5K or 10K running race.
There is a calculator here that will tell you % of calories from fat for a given HR. I suggest putting in whatever age gives you the correct max HR rather than your real age:
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/fat-versus-carbohydrate-utilization-during-exercise-calculator.aspx
I’m sceptical, though, as it says that I only get 4% of my energy from fat in a 100 mile TT.
As for calories, if you are well trained, you could assume your FTP is 4W/kg, which would be about right for someone with average genetics, and work from that. So at e.g. 70kg that would be 280W which would be 280*3600/1000=1008 kcal per hour at threshold. You can work out the rest based on the % FTP for each zone.
if you are well trained, you could assume your FTP is 4W/kg,
The high end of Cat 3 is a sensible place for “well trained” ? Seems a little ambitious to me, especially for someone of “average genetics”.
Are you looking for an athletic population or the general population? As I stated before, these numbers vary as much as 25% fat / 75% carb burn for 140 bpm to 75% carb / 25% fat burn for two individuals of the same age / gender / weight.
Calorie burn is mostly driven by what the sample population weighs; a 200 lb person burns more calories than a 120 lb at the same effort.
I will post what we give our clients later today, although it does not give calorie burn at a given heart rate.
I perform this test as part of my employment. What I have learned after looking at thousands of tests is that there is **HUGE variation in results. **People pay for personal testing because the chart you’re asking for can be widely inaccurate.
Having said that, I will photograph the chart and and post it tomorrow night.
not to mention variation between different phases in training (e.g. pre season and after finishing aerobic base)
Yes, this is what i’m looking for (just need the calories, %fat for each zone)
and i can’t find the data for a sample population.
help please
Who do you think burns more calories per hour per kg? Me (a cat 4 with a 4.30w/kg FTP) riding 100% LTHR for an hour or a top pro riding 83% LTHR for an hour?
Good question, but I really can’t answer because if the top pro is the size of Mark Cavendish, he’ll burn less than Thor Hushovd. My analogy is that it takes more horsepower to move a monster truck at 100 mph compared to a Ferrari at the same speed.
I hope this helps.
Okay, so I rounded up by 0.1W/kg:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=2830698#2830698
Based on people I know who have power meters, it’s a pretty typical level for someone who has done a reasonable amount of focused training.
Good question, but I really can’t answer because if the top pro is the size of Mark Cavendish, he’ll burn less than Thor Hushovd. My analogy is that it takes more horsepower to move a monster truck at 100 mph compared to a Ferrari at the same speed.
I hope this helps.
it’s almost a rhetorical question. Cav might be an outlier as he’s a purely flatland sprinter, but it’s safe to assume that most can probably generate 5.7w/kg for an hour. You take 75% of that (what one should be able to sustain for 4-5 hours straight), and you get 4.28w/kg. While I’m going almost full tilt at LTHR to do 4.3w/kg, the pros are going at 82% LTHR to do 4.3w/kg, alas why the OP’s insistence on associating energy output with %HR is invalid. One of the benefits to getting stronger is that you require more energy to do the same workout, thus making it easier to shed weight if one is inclined.
Regardless the data you may be seeking, why is this important? Just curious. It seems a very dangerous tool to be using for pacing efforts, as it’s more likely to be misapplied than work right.