Karvonen: modified or not ?
BURRI Julien
When you use the Karvonen method to calculate your target heart zones,
you find higher results than with the MaxHR method...
Some people recommend to lower the % of intensity when calculating with
Karvonen so you'll find the same zones than with the maxHR (which is
pretty stupid: you get the same results with the MaxHR method).
So here's my question: How to find if I get more benefit when using the
MHR or the K method for my target Heart zones without running for one or
two years ?
Which method did (do) you use ?
Thanks...
JB
Geneva, Switzerland
PS: yes, I determided my MHR with a stress test !!:)
Jim Casey
on lactose threshold. I use my HRM for LT training and for overdistance on
the bike and run. It works fine, and you never have to push yourself to max.
Dave Scott, Paul Huddle and Joe Friel have given training advise based on LT
rather than MHR, so it isn't just this amateur's opinion.
Here's another reason to ignore the formulas. I measured my max HR running,
and found that my max is much higher than either formula would predict based
on my age. I have been running since 13 years old, which seems to be a
factor in limiting the decline in max HR. So had I used the formula, I would
never have pushed hard enough, wondering what's wrong with my training.
Dicky
because it relies on your HR reserve in order to calculate your % aerobic
ranges.
If you know your real HR max then you need to discover your real HR Min.
Once you know those figures the rest is simple and because you can expect to
improve the reserve figures over time i.e. your HR Min will fall, then your
% aerobic numbers will also alter in line with this change.
Also as your aerobic conditioning improves your aerobic maximum which will
then get into that % area that used to be anaerobic while your anaerobic
range gets narrower.
Go for it big boy
Richard Corbett
BURRI Julien <bur...@etu.unige.ch> wrote in message
news:36A5D22B...@etu.unige.ch...
james...@my-dejanews.com
aerobic training was below 150 beats (he says way back Phil Maffetone advised
him to do this to build base). My question is, was this number based on
Mark's lt or was it a one-size-fits-all? I got the impression that the 150
was a universal (though I know people have different hr's--a guy I ran with
last year would have 180 while running 7 min. pace while I was 145/150--he
was a long-time swimmer, if that matters...). I'm currently training w/o a
heart rate monitor (the cab that hit me in nyc last year took care of
that...) but I have a good idea of what efforts produce 140/150 bpm. Does
anyone out there know if 150 is a good rule of thumb? I'm just curious.
Thanks. Jim
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Fred Huxham
threshold. It is not a good rule of thumb.
Looking at page 66 from "Training Lactate Pulserate" by Janssen (my favorite
book on the subject), a PR of 150 would be a Lactate 1 intensity workout for
someone with a lactate threshold of 173 bmp. It would however be a Lactate
3 intensity workout for someone with a lactate threshold of 154 bmp.
(Lactate 4 is your lactate threshold)
When people talk about their training regime, it would more useful if they
used the L1-L4 terminology. (Or if they were going to say they did all
their training below 150 at least mention what their lactate threshold was
so other people could figure backwards from that).
Fred Huxham.
fred at fredlabs dot com
----------
In article <7856l6$l2e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, james...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
Larry Himmel
fitness, and other factors. You need to determine your maximum and resting
heart rate then calculate your training zones. There are numerous formulas for
approximating MHR and the various training zones. Your best bet is to do some
reading up on the subject and find a training method that works for you. "The
Heart Rate Monitor Book" by Sally Edwards is a good starter.
Larry
>
>
>
Julien Burri
mailto: gri...@worldcom.ch
----------
Dans l'article <36A5F68F...@sabre.com>, Jim Casey
<jim....@sabre.com> a écrit :
>I struggled with this for some time, then decided to drop it, just focusing
>on lactose threshold. I use my HRM for LT training and for overdistance on
>the bike and run. It works fine, and you never have to push yourself to max.
>Dave Scott, Paul Huddle and Joe Friel have given training advise based on LT
>rather than MHR, so it isn't just this amateur's opinion.
>
>Here's another reason to ignore the formulas. I measured my max HR running,
>and found that my max is much higher than either formula would predict based
>on my age. I have been running since 13 years old, which seems to be a
>factor in limiting the decline in max HR. So had I used the formula, I would
>never have pushed hard enough, wondering what's wrong with my training.
>
Ok, thanks for your help...but I stil have a question: how did you determine
you LT ? From what I know the only way to discover it and train "around" it
is to make the Conconi test...
Am I wrong (again) ::)?
JB
Julien Burri
>because it relies on your HR reserve in order to calculate your % aerobic
>ranges.
>
>If you know your real HR max then you need to discover your real HR Min.
>Once you know those figures the rest is simple and because you can expect to
>improve the reserve figures over time i.e. your HR Min will fall, then your
>% aerobic numbers will also alter in line with this change.
>
>Also as your aerobic conditioning improves your aerobic maximum which will
>then get into that % area that used to be anaerobic while your anaerobic
>range gets narrower.
>
>Go for it big boy
>
>Richard Corbett
>
I just tried a 30' 70-80% - 30' 80-88% with the Karvonen method and was
pretty tired after that...
On monday, I ran a 1h40 in the 70-80% and felt great...
What do you think ?
JB
Andrew Coggan
> how did you determine
> you LT ? From what I know the only way to discover it and train "around" it
> is to make the Conconi test...
> Am I wrong (again) ::)?
I'm afraid so, but don't feel bad - probably 90% of the people out there
are in the same boat. The fact is that the Conconi test has not gained
acceptance in the world of sports
science, because a) it is difficult in many cases to demonstrate any
sort of "break point" in HR, and b) even when one is observed, it
doesn't necessarily correspond to LT. This is in fact not all that
surprising, since there is no a priori physiological reason to expect a
relationship between HR and lactate levels.
The only way of actually *measuring* LT is via blood sampling, although
in most people you can get a reasonable estimate from ventilatory
measurements. On a practical basis, though, simply knowing your
steady-state race pace and associated HR is probably just as valuable
for planning your training, if not more so...
Andrew Coggan
Sam Callan
series of increasing paced runs (each faster than the one prior to the
one before) after each a small amount of blood is taken from finger
tip (or ear lobe) and analyzed for lactate (HLa+) concentration.
These values are then plotted and depending on how LT is
determined or defined, a pace is figured and then HR (one would be
tracking that as well) can be determined also. Europeans have used 4
mmol/L as the LT (there are other definitions such as Onset of Blood
Lactate Accumulation--OBLA) while others use the point at which HLa+
increases exponentially. There is some art to go along with the
science.
Some alternative methods (I am not a fan of Conconi) include
using 10K or 15K time as the pace or the pace which you can maintain
for an hour. These will give you a ball park figure.
Julien Burri" <gri...@worldcom.ch> wrote:
>
>mailto: gri...@worldcom.ch
>
>----------
>Dans l'article <36A5F68F...@sabre.com>, Jim Casey
><jim....@sabre.com> a =E9crit :
>
>
>>I struggled with this for some time, then decided to drop it, just focusin=
>g
>>on lactose threshold. I use my HRM for LT training and for overdistance on
>>the bike and run. It works fine, and you never have to push yourself to ma=
>x.
>>Dave Scott, Paul Huddle and Joe Friel have given training advise based on =
>LT
>>rather than MHR, so it isn't just this amateur's opinion.
>>
>>Here's another reason to ignore the formulas. I measured my max HR running=
>,
>>and found that my max is much higher than either formula would predict bas=
>ed
>>on my age. I have been running since 13 years old, which seems to be a
>>factor in limiting the decline in max HR. So had I used the formula, I wou=
>ld
>>never have pushed hard enough, wondering what's wrong with my training.
>>
>
>Ok, thanks for your help...but I stil have a question: how did you determin=
>e
>you LT ? From what I know the only way to discover it and train "around" it
>is to make the Conconi test...
>Am I wrong (again) ::)?
>
>JB
Sam Callan
in Conconi's original research, only about the half had a discernible
"breakpoint". At best the attempts to duplicate have had mixed
results in that some some that there might be a break.
As Andrew Coggan noted in another post, there is no
physiological reason for HR to "break".
"Dicky" <corb...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>You can also plot the curve which shows the conconi rolloff point quite
>clearly.
>
>Richard Corbett
>
>Sam Callan <marat...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:36a6b76b....@news.mindspring.com...
Denny Anderson
>Hello all...
>
>When you use the Karvonen method to calculate your target heart zones,
>you find higher results than with the MaxHR method...
>Some people recommend to lower the % of intensity when calculating with
>Karvonen so you'll find the same zones than with the maxHR (which is
>pretty stupid: you get the same results with the MaxHR method).
>So here's my question: How to find if I get more benefit when using the
>MHR or the K method for my target Heart zones without running for one or
>two years ?
>
>Which method did (do) you use ?
>
>Thanks...
>
>JB
>Geneva, Switzerland
>
>PS: yes, I determided my MHR with a stress test !!:)
JB
To save band width I will point you to the Run Free Home Page.
< http://home.connectnet.com/eoinf/index.html >
Once there click on the Heart Rate button. Follow the instructions.
The results of your input will be returned in terms of Karvonen
(HRReserve) pulse rate for Easy, AT (or LT, interchangeable), and
VO2max (for hard intervals intervals. There's ample discussion
accompanying the results so you can apply properly.
BTW - I much prefer to use Karvonen HR vs. Straight % of Max. But, if
one plots each on the same graph, the same effort has to be at a
specific HR. Therefore, it's a matter of the % of either HRR or Max HR
at which a specific HR occurs.
Example: Mr. A's Max HR = 180, Rest HR = 50. If his HR is 150, what is
the % of HRR and Max HR?
HR = 150 = (180-60)*P +60; Solve and P = (150-60)/(180-60) = 90/120
So that % HRR = .75 (75%).
Whereas %MaxHR = 150/180 = .833 (83.3%)
At 170 BPM then %HRR = 91.67% an %MaxHR = 94.44%
In both examples the efforts are obviously identical. It's the math
that's different!
Cheers and I HTH,
Denny Anderson
To ERR is human... to ZIN, divine!
<den...@execpc.com> Remove _mapSoN_ to reply
BURRI Julien
I read the book which was given to me with my Polar...:)
In fact, it was Sally herself that put the doubt in my tortured mind:
she gives both of the formulas without really saying anything about the
relevance of those.
And I also received a small training guide from a long distance runner
who says that Karvonen shouldn't be used because the formula gives too
high % zones..
I'd rather play Monopoly !!!:):)
JB
BURRI Julien
> Some alternative methods (I am not a fan of Conconi) include
> using 10K or 15K time as the pace or the pace which you can maintain
> for an hour. These will give you a ball park figure.
>
Well...after a fast search on the web, all I can say is that Conconi
does not have only fans...
The thing is that I may do this test in october (it's a gift of the
organisator of a "competition" here, in Geneva).
Once my LT is determined, what do you recommend to read about the way
of using it in my training ?
Thanks..
JB
BURRI Julien
>
> The 150 bpm is very dependent on a person's max heart rate and/or lactate
> threshold. It is not a good rule of thumb.
>
> Looking at page 66 from "Training Lactate Pulserate" by Janssen (my favorite
> book on the subject), a PR of 150 would be a Lactate 1 intensity workout for
> someone with a lactate threshold of 173 bmp. It would however be a Lactate
> 3 intensity workout for someone with a lactate threshold of 154 bmp.
> (Lactate 4 is your lactate threshold)
>
> When people talk about their training regime, it would more useful if they
> used the L1-L4 terminology. (Or if they were going to say they did all
> their training below 150 at least mention what their lactate threshold was
> so other people could figure backwards from that).
>
> Fred Huxham.
> fred at fredlabs dot com
>
Hello...
Do you know a site around here that would help me understand this
"levels" ?
JB
Larry Himmel
many variations and variables.
If you just want to get going, use the 220-age=MHR. It's not great but it will get
you going. Your five training zones will be: Fat Burning (50-60 % MHR), Cardio
(60-70 % MHR), Aerobic (70-80 % MHR), Anerobic (80-90 % MHR), and Red Line (90-100 %
MHR).
So if you're 30 years old, use 190 as your MHR. Your aerobic training zone will be
133- 152 BPM. That is where you'll train to bulid your fitness base.
Later on, you can look into a stress test or other method of getting a more accurate
MHR. Or you might want to use some of the other training methods that take LT, AT,
RHR, etc into account.
Hope this helps.
Dicky
have a lactate test simply does not exist. It is therefore more practical to
use HR Max and the Karvonen method for calculating one's aerobic range.
Richard Corbett
Fred Huxham <fr...@fredlabs.com> wrote in message
news:36a65bbb$0$16...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>The 150 bpm is very dependent on a person's max heart rate and/or lactate
>threshold. It is not a good rule of thumb.
>
>Looking at page 66 from "Training Lactate Pulserate" by Janssen (my
favorite
>book on the subject), a PR of 150 would be a Lactate 1 intensity workout
for
>someone with a lactate threshold of 173 bmp. It would however be a Lactate
>3 intensity workout for someone with a lactate threshold of 154 bmp.
>(Lactate 4 is your lactate threshold)
>
>When people talk about their training regime, it would more useful if they
>used the L1-L4 terminology. (Or if they were going to say they did all
>their training below 150 at least mention what their lactate threshold was
>so other people could figure backwards from that).
>
>Fred Huxham.
>fred at fredlabs dot com
>
Dicky
clearly.
Richard Corbett
Sam Callan <marat...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:36a6b76b....@news.mindspring.com...
> Determining lactate threshold (LT) technically requires a
>series of increasing paced runs (each faster than the one prior to the
>one before) after each a small amount of blood is taken from finger
>tip (or ear lobe) and analyzed for lactate (HLa+) concentration.
> These values are then plotted and depending on how LT is
>determined or defined, a pace is figured and then HR (one would be
>tracking that as well) can be determined also. Europeans have used 4
>mmol/L as the LT (there are other definitions such as Onset of Blood
>Lactate Accumulation--OBLA) while others use the point at which HLa+
>increases exponentially. There is some art to go along with the
>science.
> Some alternative methods (I am not a fan of Conconi) include
>using 10K or 15K time as the pace or the pace which you can maintain
>for an hour. These will give you a ball park figure.
>
>
>
Dana Laird
: I read the book which was given to me with my Polar...:)
: In fact, it was Sally herself that put the doubt in my tortured mind:
: she gives both of the formulas without really saying anything about the
: relevance of those.
I don't quote understand why people keep recommending Sally Edwards' HRM
books, other than possibily because there aren't any other options. You
are right to note that she doesn't say much about the relevance of any of
the simplistic instructions she gives.
Read her booklet that came with your HRM for a general intro, and then
stick around this newsgroup and keep asking questions, and you'll learn
far more than from any of the books out there.
(My HRM experience is that the Karvonen figures are the only meaningful
ones for me -- and even those are less valuable than my using the monitor
to learn and confirm what the different aerobic/lactate/anaerobic levels
feel like so that I can do good training _without_ the monitor. Still
considering the HRM's worth for pacing in a longer race.)
*Dana
Mike Tennent
>In rec.running BURRI Julien <bur...@etu.unige.ch> wrote:
>: I read the book which was given to me with my Polar...:)
>: In fact, it was Sally herself that put the doubt in my tortured mind:
>: she gives both of the formulas without really saying anything about the
>: relevance of those.
>
>I don't quote understand why people keep recommending Sally Edwards' HRM
>books, other than possibily because there aren't any other options. You
>are right to note that she doesn't say much about the relevance of any of
>the simplistic instructions she gives.
>
I believe Roy Benson has a small booklet out there that is supposed to be pretty
good. I wish I could give you the name of it, but I can't recall.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
'98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03
Dave Aggett
both times the curve was very smooth right up to black spots before my eyes. I
used an assumed value of 165 (based on a loose interpretation of my most
recent test) on the bike for all of my lactate threshold training last spring.
In my first race I averaged 172 for the bike leg and had a terrible race. I
spent the next 4 weeks using 172 on LT workouts and improved nine minutes over
the same distance/conditions in my next duathlon. Coincidence? I think
not.
David Aggett
In article
<36a6aa7c....@news.mindspring.com> marat...@mindspring.com (Sam
Callan) writes:>From: marat...@mindspring.com (Sam Callan)>Subject: Re:
Discovering LT>Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 04:19:47 GMT
> It is not "quite clear" at all for a lot of people. IN fact
>in Conconi's original research, only about the half had a discernible
>"breakpoint". At best the attempts to duplicate have had mixed
>results in that some some that there might be a break.
> As Andrew Coggan noted in another post, there is no
>physiological reason for HR to "break".