Max pulse and training zones
Last week I performed a max pulse test in the good company of my cousin Johan Håård who is a sports science enthusiast and a great running coach. This resulted in a max pulse of 178 which is quite low result for a fit 28 year old.
Assessing validity of results
It’s however important to consider that this measurement is made during a demanding training period involving daily aerobic training. It’s sound to assume that my heart is a bit tired and would have a higher max pulse after a period of recovery. I had also been doing a lactate test just before the max pulse test was done, which might have affected the results further.
A lower heart rate than average for a particular age group could also have to do with how well conditioned the individual is. According to Zavorsky G. S. (2000), VO2max and HRmax are inversely correlated, since a well trained person’s heart is able to pump out more blood volume per beat. So perhaps I’m excused?
One can see that in the beginning of this training period I managed to run at heart rates of 180 for considerate amounts of time, with a max reading of 181. Not being able to reach these BPMs deliberately is indeed an indication that my heart is currently in a fatigued state. And so 181 BPM is the closet to my maximum heart rate I have managed to come. I will use this value for the calculation of my training zones.
Norwegian training zones
Knowing ones max pulse is valuable because it can be used to determine different heart rate “zones”. These zones have been used to structure the training regime for the very successful Norwegian runners of the Ingebrigtsen family, which has been gathering attention in sports science. According to Kelemen, B. et al (2023) the zones used for structuring training session used the following heart rate intervals:
| Intensity Zone | Type of training | Lactate (mmol/L) | % HRmax | Physiological adaptation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Easy and moderate continuous running | 0.7-2.0 | 62-82 | Recovery and improved running economy |
| 2 | Threshold training | 2.0-4.0 | 82-92 | Increase v AT and VO2max |
| 3 | Intense aerobic intervals | 4.0-8.0 | 92-97 | Increase VO2max |
| 4 | Anaerobic training, mainly at 800 m and 1500 m pace | >8.0 | >97 | Increase anaerobic capacity |
| 5 | Sprint | Increase speed |
My training zones
Converting the % values into absolute values using my max heart rate of 181, the following table is attained:
| Intensity Zone | Type of Training | Absolute HR (bpm) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Long runs and distance runs | 112 - 148 |
| 2 | Threshold training (> 4:00 min/km) | 148 - 166 |
| 3 | Intense aerobic intervals (< 4:00 min/km) | 166 - 176 |
| 4 | Anaerobic training, mainly at 800 m and 1500 m pace | > 176 |
In this table I have omitted category “Sprint” since I see no reason to focus on this in my training at moment being. I also don’t understand the adaptation motivation “Increase speed” which is very ambiguous. I’d like to mention too that I judge the “easy and moderate continuous running” zone to be directly translatable to “long runs and distance runs”, and where the target HRs for these types of training sessions can be found at each end of this intensity zone, more or less.
This table makes a good reference for assessing the quality of all types of training sessions present in the training plan.