Yes, what that will be may well be individual, no pure ramp will elicit max HR for me running or biking, I have to have intermittent efforts for that (incomplete aerobic recovery, but enough so I don’t give up on the legs) Try a a few different, if you really want to know.
2 Likes
Ah good idea, just checked that treadmill 1k I did. Got to 184 there, so that’s a starter for ten.
I suppose a series of all out 600s would achieve both your criteria and the 2x 3min.
——///
Set the max Hr to 184 (up from 180) into the watch zones.
Based on the same 161 LTHR it gives me a Z2 of 129-143. (Still seems a bit low, 145-150 is around my Z2 pace)
Based on max HR it says Z2 is 110-129 (my walking pace)
Maybe I should just set my maxHR up 5-10 bpm assuming I’d never have seen it in my training.
Seems reasonable to me. I would have thought 150 is definitely Z3.
ETA: I do my Z2 as just above where I feel I fisrt have to start breathing through my mouth. In the basis that VT1 is likely to be around to LT1.
@joex, not to be tried on your own.
In a warm environment, 5k on the treadmill with each k quicker than the last.
Get it right and the last k will reveal your max HR.
Last summer, got mine to 197.
7 Likes
Because on a population level it can give a good guide to threshold/zones. But the individuality variability is large that if you’re doing a threshold test anyway, I’m not sure how much more a accurate to the beat mHR is.
To the point I wouldn’t be doing a specific test for it because:
AND:
You’re bound to have been within a few beats of your max HR in the last few years (It doesn’t change much).
Eg that 184bpm from the 1k max effort will do if it’s accurate trace (ie also spent fair bit of time at 182-183 and not just a spike). If you can’t get it higher than that then when will you ever actually get it higher? Maybe you could squeeze out 185-186 from a different test protocol, but that’s not going to make any actionable difference to how you use it. The few beats higher from heat stress or caffeine, or being a few beats under from fatigue is going to make a bigger difference than test protocol there.
The October race very much suggests your threshold to be ~167 whilst racing cross-country in those conditions. That doesn’t necessarily correlate 100% to steady-state road running, in the same way SBR your HR will be different due to different demands. But, if that’s what you averaged for 42 minutes wit a fairly long plateau period then it’s a good estimate.
I don’t know what test you did yesterday, but I’m assuming it was along the lines of a 30 minute effort. Unless you have a good reason to believe it’s inaccurate (In which case why bother testing?) then surely that’s the best estimate of what your threshold is now.
This is a red flag, given most people over-estimate easy pace compared to other way round. Yes the LTHR might be in the mid-high 160s, but I still would expect you to have a lot of benefit from exercising in the 130-145 range, and trust the pace will come long-term.
Tangent, but you might find interesting as for reference given the numbers are similar (although I’m using cycling numbers to show the same point) - my max is 181, and my LTHR is set at 166.
Here’s my training HR for 2022:
But more importantly, my progression over the past 3 years of consistent aerobic training:
My FTP has increased about 5-10W over that time, but a 30W increase around IM power.
On a side note, but even more telling, is that you can see 166 isn’t accurate as my day-to-day threshold HR. Given that in the past 3 years I’ve pretty much never sustained it. My threshold power, which is accurate around 330-340, clearly continually gets me around 160bpm, which is where I think/know my threshold is from feel. But because every once in a while I’ll do a one-off session with a higher HR (eg in the heat) it’s used that value.
Finally, in the interest of fairness, yes my HR is much higher in absolute and relative terms when running with time spent in Z2 HR. But I don’t have a nice graph to show that my sustainable run pace is also decreasing from that (because it’s drowned out by the noise from how many hills I’ve done, or that I run much slower in the heat for same HR).
12 Likes
Great post @Chriswim
@joex Give the nasal breathing running method a try and see what that reveals for pace and HR.
1 Like
So there isn’t much point in him doing a max HR test then? 
End of a 5 k run has to be near max ?
4 Likes
I’m guessing he’s meaning 5k race pace and putting yourself in the bin for the last km.
2 Likes
Is there any other way of running a 3 mile blast ?
Max hr is going to be near at that… highest I can get is a rowing machine for 2 k ish, torture !!
I reckon a 3km race would be better. 5km is actually quite long at speed, and it’s easy for your legs to give way before your heart.
I used to love a 3km race back in the day.
1 Like
Its the 10km distance. Fucking brutal 
But I do love it.
1 Like
That’s my ultimate worst distance ever. I frickin HATE 10kms! Vile races!
2 Likes
Just had a look at a few of my track races this year and my 3000m got me to 184, which I’d say was my max. Mile race didn’t break 180, so that’s definitely too short.
3 Likes
Dunno, don’t ask me, I’m not a coach. I’m not even a sports scientist
1 Like
I think like a lot of things there are probably two realities here;
-
Actual max HR proven in a lab setting where they get you to a point where output increases but HR doesn’t
-
What everyone types into Zwift
I’ll freely admit I’m more likely the latter but I’d like it to be reasonably correct. I sprinted near the end of my 5K PB in Jan ‘21 which took my HR to 190.
I suppose even that is unlikely to be my actual max.
Ok so rather than retest I’m going to set max 190 and Lthr 167, and see how the systems respond. If they fight against it then maybe that indicates I need to review again or retest.
Nice post by the way.
Fair play, it’s a while since I deliberately did nose breathing and I’m doing plenty of aerobic runs so no challenge to see how that goes for a week. I’ve run harder than 150bpm nose breathing in the past and without snorting like an ox so shouldn’t be a problem.
Great post, many thanks Chris.
Somehow I’ve made everything worse on Garmin - running just below threshold is reported as zone 5 now. 
On the plus side, I’ve done some indoor and outdoor runs that feel right to confirm threshold is around that 167 number and will continue to monitor it and verify.
Forgot about the nose breathing after one run at 140bpm, will try again at 150bpm, my 6:00/km pace. This also has had the unhappy reminder that my club runs are just too variable effort to be structured work outs or steady easy pace. Average pace for the run might be okay but the hills and breaks mean the effort is up and down all the time.
1 Like
I’ve been restricting my HR to 135-145 on my runs, my max is around the 195 mark. I plan to continue this low HR base building for another 2 weeks (4 weeks in total). I’d say if your HR is gradually increasing during a run then your running too quickly. Ie the treadmill run you put up.
4 Likes