I finished Gordo’s TT (30min) and my average heart rate was 189. In Going Long this would equal out
182-188 178-181 171-177 162-170 152-161 <151 for active recovery. So my question is I am training for IMMOO and should my running for prep and base be somewhere between 152-161 or can it go to 170 which would be zone two. I am a MOP. Thanks for your help!
Regis
This does not really answer your question, but I would get a test done buy a physiologist or coach who knows how to test. IMO the 30 min TTs give you too high a number and are flawed test. For example, I can hold about 177 (Max is about 188) at my peak on the bike for 30 min without losing speed and blowing up, but my threshold was tested at 167-170 times by a physiologist and a coach using two different tests. The best (and most expensive) is VO2 max AND a blood lactate test. The general rule of thumb that I have read in a few books is that you LT is somewhere around 85% to 92% of your max.
I’d be interested to hear what others have to say.
Bump.
I was wonderin’ the same sorta thing. My run HR on a hard 4 or 5 miler (I haven’t done an actual 30m run TT, only bike) is usually in the mid to high-170’s for the 2nd half of it (of course, part of that is cuz my usual run course is uphill on the way back), wheras I was tested for LT twice on the bike on a Computrainer and it was 170 and 168 respectively.
So what are folks suggestions for a suitable run or bike TT time or distance to determine LT?
If you’re talking about the real, physiologic definition of LT (which usually = a 1mmol/L increase, so a blood concentration of about 2mmol/L), you should be able to hold that intensity for quite some time (couple hours+)
However LT (or AT) also is used a lot to describe blood lactate levels that accumulate during the maximum power output for a shorter time (60 down to 30minutes) - this is closer to 4-5mmol/L.
I don’t really care which definition of LT people use as long as it’s clear what they mean. If a training plan says to do a 30min TT to determine a LTHR, you should probably do that and not some other “LT” test because the two tests may be measuring 2 very different things.
As an aside, you should know that HR can vary a lot, and is not as good as measuring power output vs. lactate level. It’s also pretty common to have different LTHRs on the bike vs. running.
I did average just the last 20min of the run.
If you are confident that the LTHR number is correct then yes, zone 2 would be 162-170. That would be the top for you extensive endurance training.
I don’t have “Going Long” right in front of me so I can’t check your numbers.
From the Tri-Geek Spreadsheet this is what I got
121-161 zone 1
162-171 zone 2
172-180 zone 3
181-188 zone 4
189-193 zone 5a
194-200 zone 5b
201-208 zone 5c
jaretj
some of the responses I have got say those numbers are high but I am pretty sure my heart rate monitor works fine. I have taken some time off of training probably 2 months but still seem to be in decent shape probably not like I was for my half. I did’nt use a heart rate monitor for the training for that event. Do you think the maffetone 180-age and adjust depending on work out schedule is a better formula? Thanks for your help. Trying to have a great first ironman.
Can’t you also go by perceived exertion? If your HR is 170 but you’re panting and can’t talk, you’re probably going too hard for zone 2.
My first impression is that it seemed a bit high but I don’t know your age or exercise background. A second test in a month or so would confirm it. Make sure that you are well hydrated, that can make a difference of 5-10 beats/min.
I used the 180-age for my first year and found it to be low for me. I think generally it will be and a good place to start if you are unsure of you HR zones and want to be safe. If you have been training for at least 6 months you can add 5 beats to it.
HR is just an indicator of intensity and should be used as a guide, not as gospel. Sometimes you will need to go on perceived exertion. HR can be skewed by many things such as dehydration and core body temperature so you may have to adjust it up and down a few beats depending on the situation.
I find that my LTHR is very close to my HR during an Olympic tri. In fact, it was within 1 beat 3 times last summer.
Having only done 1 Ironman I used the training zones to make sure that I was training in the right zone for long slow distances only. For any other workouts (speed, ME, MS) I didn’t pay much attention to it.
Good luck in you training in IMMOO
jaretj
My age is 34. I did Florida’s Half Ironman in 6:20 and didn’t use a monitor. I have been exercising a couple times a week after about 2-3 month layoff. My last tri was a sprint in Sept. So do you think it would be ok to train around 160 or should I scale it back?
This is my opinion. I am not a trained coach, doctor or qualified to give advice in any way, remember that you are responsible for your own health and safety, but here it is.
Untill you can get a repeatable LTHR test, I would set zone 2 at 145 to 155 and not worry about zone 3,4,5 untill then.
Mike Ricci is in my opinion the best person to answer this question, maybe he will chime in.
jaretj
Have you thought about repeating the TT and seeing how close your average is when you take multiple measurements?
Seriously, since HR can vary a lot due to other variables besides how fast you’re going, people shouldn’t be doing a single test and using that as gospel to determine training zones.
When you say multiple measurements are you referring to another TT and see what the average is on that test to compare or is there other measurements your talking about?
I’m talking about a new TT to compare. What if you’re HR was higher than normal the first time because you were a little dehydrated or had too much coffee that morning?
HR training is OK, but I’d always keep tabs on RPE as well. I’m not convinced and HR zone is inhrently better than the “are you able to maintain a conversation” criterion for zone 1/2 type efforts. a HR of 170 one day may correspond to a HR of 165 another day…
Just wait about 2 days before the next text or should it be long? Same course or would you run a different course? I guess its probably best to run the same for comparison. For future test is it not recommended to perform these on a treadmill? I appreciate you help.
Regis
Well, take everything I say with a grain of salt… I’m sure others will jump in if I lead you astray
I don’t see wh a few days wouldn’t be enough time, as long as you’re totally recovered. A 30 min all-out TT would certainly qualify as a “quality” workout, so you shouldnt be doing too many of them too close together.
A treadmill would probably give you a more controlled test, but unless you’re going to be doing a lot of your trainign indoors, do the test outdoors on a course that approximates the kind of terrain/conditions that are close to the terrain/conditions where you’re going to do the bulk of you training. I’d do the same course as the first test if it reasonably meets this condition.
(how’s that for a run-on sentence?)
Thanks alot. I guess I will find out in a day or two if it is different. If it is just average the two?
Well, I guess to be really scientific you’d have to do 3 tests to identify any outliers, but for practical purposes, I’d just average the 2 
If I have any real advice, it would be to convince you that HR zones are not precise, so don’t stress too much if you’re over or under your zone by 2 or 3 beats as long as your exertion is appropriate to the particular workout.
The standard is the intensity or effort that you can hold for one hour - that more or less is your LT.
I tend to be more oriented towards pace so, If you do a 40K ITT in 60 minutes, your LT pace is about 40K an hour. If you do a 10 mile run in an 60 minutes your LT pace is about 6:00 min/mile.
I have had these numbers tested on me, and it’s pretty darn close. I am not sure if it needs to get more complicated than that for most.
Raising LT pace is perhaps the most important fitness parameter for the endurtance athlete. How is this done? The most straightforward way is spending more time, at, slightly above and slightly below that intensity.
Your mileage may vary!!
Fleck
Captain Van Oracle would beg to differ with that definition of LT…
Safer to call it CP60 (or something similar for those of us too cheap to train with power meters