# Come Take a Walk With Me

#### hedgie

##### New Member
93 + 4 = 97
Pt: 10+ 4 = 14

@halfnormal did you do the standard formula 180 - age hr training? If so how long did it take you to get to your normal pace.

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
Are you talking about what your heart rate should be at? It's 220 - age times whatever percentage intensity you want to work out at (e.g., a 20 year old at 80% intensity would have a target hr of 160 = 200 x 0.8). This isn't particularly accurate, though. Instead, you want to know your resting heart rate. Either check it for a whole minute when you wake up or do that after you lay down doing nothing for 15-20 minutes. That's your heart rate when you're completely at rest. You subtract that from your max heart rate to get your working heart rate. Take the percentage of that and then add your resting heart rate back in to get an appropriate target. In other words

MHR = 220 - AGE
WHR = MHR - RHR
THR = WHR x P + RHR

Say our 20 year old has a RHR of 50 bpm. Then instead of the 160 THR for 80 percent intensity, they would have 170 (= 85% of MHR instead of 80% based on generic algorithm).

#### hedgie

##### New Member
It is interesting there was a famous triathlete Mark Allen that used it and you can google his thoughts on it.

It's 180 - age then plus or minus 5-10 beats for medical conditions, amount your currently training, etc.

I don't know how arbitrary the number is. Supposedly you can get an expensive test done on the treadmill to get the appropriate aerobic heart rate. It's interesting theory I was curious if anyone else had done
it or researched it.

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
That calculation sounds questionable to me. The one I'm referencing is standard theory (and tested). The generic algorithm is only accurate for some 50-75% of the population I believe, which means that people have a RHR such that the MHR x P is about equivalent (within error) to the more precise measure. The reason the other one is more accurate is because you base your WHR off of the difference of your MHR and your RHR, not just the MHR. Your RHR is expected to be what is always required for normal bodily operation. The rest is what you're pushing in training. Therefore, you remove and then add back in the RHR as the algorithm dictates. As halfnormal pointed out, when you go in for a clinical test, they're usually measuring your VO2 max. It measures how much oxygen you can effectively take in while breathing (optimally). It's a measure of your fitness, but it can be used to orient your training program, too.

For comparison as I gave examples. the 180 - AGE algorithm for a 20 year old would match the 80% intensity THR that the generic algorithm determined (160), but this still doesn't take into account how intense someone wants to work out (80% seems high for distance running to me) or what their fitness is (based off their RHR--it's correlated with fitness because more fit = lower RHR. E.g., Lance Armstrong has an RHR of like less than 30! It's ridiculous).

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
Just use the youtube tag quark added with the video ID. The forum doesn't take HTML tags.

#### Dason

97 + 1.75 = 98.75

pt: 13.5 + 1.75 = 15.25

#### hedgie

##### New Member
100.75 + 2 = 102.75

Pt: 14 + 2 = 16

Thanks Brian and halfnormal. So what is the properly advocated hr training? You ideally have the vo2 max test done. Then, how is one supposed to train in the zones. All I have read on the topic was Phil Maffeatone and Mark Allen discussing running at a slower pace which would be about 65-75% of a max hr based on those formulas. Their theory was to build an aerobic base.

I have read around a bit on the topic but there are so many ideas not always backed by evidence.

Last edited:

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
Your exercise intensity is determined by your fitness level. Generally long distance running is lower intensity (60 to 80 percent). High intensity work outs tend to be higher, such as intervals or sprint training. Where in those ranges you are depend on how hard you can run on your routines.

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
(1) About that VO2 max testing video, that's insane! That dude was amazing and that's gotta suck running with a headset on like that only breathing through your mouth.

(2) I'll do it later, but if anyone wants, go through and make a summary of everyone's mileage to date in one post. It gives us a "benchmark" of sorts to refer back to and to make sure the community total is accurate.

106.5 + 1.5 = 108 miles

PT: 20.5 miles

#### hedgie

##### New Member
108 + 2 = 110

PT: 16 + 2 = 18

That VO2 video was crazy! Thanks half normal and bryangoodrich. So where are the better marathoners or ultra runners on the 60-80% are marathoners running close to 80%? I know thats arbitrary just curious.

Last edited:

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
I would think a seasoned athlete would be around 70-80 percent. I don't know my RHR, but it usually is around 50-55 when I'm deconditioned (which I still consider myself). I was low 40s when I last ran a marathon. Using the algorithm (30 yrs old) and I tend to be around 165-175 when I finish my run (and feel like I'm going to die), then 170 - 50 = 120 which is 85% intensity. Yikes. Of course, that's toward the end of my bout when I would expect it to peak. Regardless, I think I'm on the higher end (75-80). When I'm not deconditioned, I'll probably run lighter. Right now that would be at 5.5 mph (usually do 6.0 right now), but I want my marathon pace to be my "easy" intensity. But this is just me. Everyone is different and it changes depending on their fitness and ability. Running is always hard for me. I'm a big guy. Even when I ran the marathon, a lot of it was high intensity, but being a big guy I had a good ability to deal with higher intensity workouts, which kept me going. That is ultimately what someone who competes trains for: to be able to push themselves to the limits of their aerobic abilities while still being able to not tire out. The alternative is just to work well within your aerobic energy system (full oxygen intake) and just have the body mechanics capable of going the duration. I mean, anyone should be able to walk a marathon without significant damage to their body! It is an achievement to do it, but doing it in under 4 hours is another beast. So goals are everything.

110 + 3 = 113

Pt: 18 + 3 = 21

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
Well, you made a total off of the personal totals, but I ran the extra 0.03 miles to round out the total. I just left it off my personal total.

#### bryangoodrich

##### Probably A Mammal
aw, that sucks

I believe you. I was just looking back at his post and couldn't figure out where the error was! It must have changed before I looked at it lol

My ankle is hurting bad today. Wanted to get 2 miles in to build up to my 2.75 this Sunday. May just bike instead.

#### hedgie

##### New Member

hedgie has since edited his post (back me up here, hedgie)...originally he skipped a couple of total posts and thought the total was 103 or something. he has now updated the posts to reflect starting from 108.

so now all is well--except that i didnt add my miles yesterday...i thought it would be confusing to add them while i was adding the totals.

i'll lump them with whatever i do today.