"Ironman training and racing: If it's about heart, where's yours??"

If you'd care to reveal it, what's your current resting Heart Rate?
Resting Heart Rate:
(If you'd like to credit for an impressively low resting heart rate, be sure to identify yourself with your answers)

Do you monitor your heart rate during Ironman training?
Yes.
No.
If not, do you have a finely honed sense of how hard/easy you should go, or other approach. . .

How did you determine what your Maximum Heart Rate is? (i.e. what tests and/or formulas have you used?)

If known, how did you determine what your Anaerobic Threshold level is? (again, what tests and/or specific forumlas and equations do you use to determine this?)

Your Name or Email (always optional)


If you would still like to respond, fill out the form and press the Submit button.

The answer . . .

Summary:

Thanks to those responding. Impressively low resting heart rate awards go to Rory (in the 30's), Don, Paul (in the 40's) -- all well below the population average of the mid 70's.

Dilemma: If you use a standard formula for max heart rate (e.g. 220-Age) you're cautioned that this is an"average-ballpark-theoretical-guideline-estimate" type of result. Your own maximum heart rate (HR) may be very differentfrom the result of this formula. If so, then using HR training zones as a percentage of a maximum determined by a formula may not work for you. Solutions to this approach are (a) use other formulas to provide a better estimate, (see next link) and/or (b) go through a medical/physiological stress test to determine your own maximum HR.

An alternative training approach is to determine HR training zones as a percentage of your anaerobic threshold (AT). Your ATcan also be estimated from a formula. But once again this is an estimate that you're cautioned may not apply to you. You can have an ear-lobe pricked, and blood-lactate level analyzed, but this can be inconvenient.

Solution: Yes, formulas only provide estimates. If you're a particularly physiologically deviant type of specimen,then the results of a formula may really be inaccurate for you. But for more (rather than less) of us the formulas will probably provide an estimate that's close enough. Even if you went through a physiological test, those results are not going to be exactly consistent because it's influenced by what you ate, time of day, how you feel, etc. and therefore is itself also an estimate that can vary. While it might be slightly better than a common formula, you have to decide whether it's worth the trouble.

In my case, some formulas come pretty close to my physiologically tested estimate of my maximum heart rate. But rather than bore you with formulas that apply to me, see what the various formulas predict for you with Ed's awesomely comprehensive interactive heart rate calculator.