all posts post new thread

Barbell Karvonen Heart Rate Method

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Kenny Croxdale

Level 7 Valued Member
Old Target Heart Rate Method

This method does not take into account an individual's fitness level.

This method of 220 - Age X Percentage of Heart Rate Max is vague.

The link below provides everyone with a more specific Individualized Method.

Karvonen Method Formula Calculator

As we know, one of the key of determining cardiovascular fitness level is your Resting Heart Rate.

The greater an individuals cardiovascular fitness, the lower your resting heart rate.

Thus, The Karvonen Formula includes your Resting Heart Rate in its calculations.

Examples

Let's base the examples on an individual who is 37...

1) Old Target Heart Rate Method

a) 220 - Age X Percentage of Heart Rate Max

b) 220 - 37 age = 183 Heart Rate Max

c) 183 Heart Rate Max X 70% = 128.1 Beats Per Minute

2) Karvonen Formula

For this example, let's use a Resting Heart Rate of 65 Beats Per Minute.

a) 220 - 37 age = 183 Heart Rate Max

b) Subtract Resting Heart Rate

183 Heart Rate Max - Resting Hear Rate (let's say it is 65 Beats Per Minute)

183 - 65 = 118

c) 118 X 70% = 82.6

d) Add Resting Heart Rate Back In

82.6 + 65 = 147.6 Beats Per Minute for you to be in the 70% Zone. That due to the fact that you have a greater cardiovascular fitness level (65 Beats Per Minute Resting Heart Rate)

The Training Heart Rate Differences

147.6 Beat Per Minute - 128.1 Beats Per Minute = 18.9 higher than your Heart Rate Training needs to be because of greater cardiovascular fitness.

The Karvonen Calculator

The link to it, provided above, makes it quick and easy to calculate it rather than having to learn the formula.
 
Last edited:
This still relies on using 220-age in the calculation.

And all calculators are just that… calculations, or in the case of 220-age… an estimate. Good for most folks maybe, but not as accurate as a measurement.

If one wants to train based on HRMax then the most accurate way to do that is to measure HRMax. Often times not fun nor pretty, and maybe best done under medical supervision.

These days a lot of serious endurance athletes base their training on AeT. Which can also be roughly got by estimating (e.g. MAF, ventilatory markers) or by actually measuring it using a blood lactate step test or gas exchange test.
 
@Kenny Croxdale,

I confess this one is lost on me. I put in my age, 66, and my resting HR, 48. It estimated my max at 154 but my max is at least 179 since I've hit that on multiple occasions.

-S-
 
@Kenny Croxdale,

I confess this one is lost on me. I put in my age, 66, and my resting HR, 48. It estimated my max at 154 but my max is at least 179 since I've hit that on multiple occasions.

-S-
This is because it’s utilizing 220-age. Notoriously inaccurate for estimating HRMax. Mine is also around 179.
If you do the full calculation for you… it returns a training HR of 122. (For this mysterious 70% zone)

Now your MAF would be around 120-125 so I suppose it’s close enough for government work.

But… if you can easily pass the talk test at 125 then your AeT might even be a bit higher
 
I will try the talk test the next time I have the HRM on.

Change of subject:

Screenshot 2022-01-10 at 1.58.31 PM.jpg

That's from earlier today.

SW:
00:00 36 kg x 2h x 10
01:00 36 kg x 2h x 10

wait until HR in zone 1

04:00 36 kg x 2h x 10
05:00 36 kg x 2h x 10

wait until HR in zone 1 - took an extra minute

09:00 36 kg x 2h x 10
10:00 36 kg x 2h x 10

was in zone 1 again at 14:00 but took a long time to come down from 130's

avg = 125, max = 147

I confess that the thing I find funny about HRM readings is that I'm purposefully being more explosive than I need to be if the goal was just to swing the bell to parallel. So I could do this with a lower HR if I chose to.

-S-
 
So… is the goal:
To swing the KB to a certain height each time?
To swing the KB to a certain HR (range) each time?
Both?
Neither?
 
So… is the goal:
To swing the KB to a certain height each time?
To swing the KB to a certain HR (range) each time?
Both?
Neither?

I swing for explosiveness, and to a certain height each time.

I just look at the HR numbers (and without much understanding).

Today, I decided see how close the Q&D format of 2 sets on the minute, new series on the 4-minute, would work out. Turned out OK to start the 2nd series but not the 3rd, so it was interesting to me in that way. It's a session I might repeat a few times to see if I can get back to Zone 1 at 8:00 instead of 9:00.

But why that goal? I couldn't tell you except that it seems an interesting thing to take note of how long it takes that result to happen and what, if anything, I feel differently about myself as a result, e.g., do I feel better conditioned if my HR recovers for the 3rd series faster? Does it take only until the next session for that to happen or will it take a few days or a few weeks? How often to I want to perform this session as my test because that's another variable.

Enquiring minds want to know ...

-S-
 
Following on from the thread on ADS, you make a point that I've always had in my mind is a good measure of fitness - or heart health perhaps more specifically - is recovery from intensity back to resting hr. It's a very old method of measurement - I did it at school probably over 40 years ago. It's not precise - but what is? - aside from being in a lab, as @offwidth said.
Thing is too, it's probably a better gauge for non endurance athletes as it is via interval training and it can be seen via hr graphs for in sessions
Another thing too - there is recovery in session, doing work and getting back to lower hr and doing it again - and then there is recovery after the session and then the following day for systemic recovery.
A way to experiment would be to do the session. Clock your rhr prior to the session and set a time immediately after the session and compare as you go along in weeks/months...
So say 5 minutes after your last set. Clock your rhr. How close is it to your rhr prior to session?
The same?
Reduce to 4 minutes. Repeat.

Let's say your rhr is 60 - do the thing you want to do.
For argument sake, in session hr goes 90 - 150.
Finish at 150 bpm. Set your clock for 4 minutes. Clock hr.

Let's say it returns to 80.

You have a baseline. It may or may not have a downward trend on every session because of other factors in the following days....

Check our heart rate recovery.

The quicker it returns to 'normal' the 'fitter' you are.

Define 'normal', 'fitter' and what that means to you is another thing....

In a basic way it is actually very accurately individualised to you because it is your heart rate that you are measuring and the time it takes you to return to your 'normal'.

As experienced as you are at swinging you can maintain your swings as a constant - you know your power output, how it feels, how high, when and when not to dial power up or down - so you can keep that the same. Just establish a baseline and keep the timing protocol the same.

Very simple and easy to track.

It's analogue to doing work and going again when hr reaches a predefined reset level. Over ten sets the latter sets will demand greater recovery in the beginning. Overtime, as you improve, the rests are the same for the same output....hr recovery is better. And by definition you have better aerobic function.

It is the same thing, over a session, rather than in session.
 
There are a lot of variables involved in RTRHR; but there are just as many in any other method. I recall, as @ali does, using RTRHR decades ago as a measure of ‘fitness’. I couldn’t even spell AeT back in those days…
That aside, I still think it is a valid indicator and pretty simple to use.
Another aside… back in the bad old days we didn’t have HRM’s either. At best you had two fingers and a sweep second hand watch; sometimes not even that…
 
I confess that the thing I find funny about HRM readings is that I'm purposefully being more explosive than I need to be if the goal was just to swing the bell to parallel. So I could do this with a lower HR if I chose to.

I swing for explosiveness, and to a certain height each time.

I just look at the HR numbers (and without much understanding).

Today, I decided see how close the Q&D format of 2 sets on the minute, new series on the 4-minute, would work out. Turned out OK to start the 2nd series but not the 3rd, so it was interesting to me in that way. It's a session I might repeat a few times to see if I can get back to Zone 1 at 8:00 instead of 9:00.

But why that goal? I couldn't tell you except that it seems an interesting thing to take note of how long it takes that result to happen and what, if anything, I feel differently about myself as a result, e.g., do I feel better conditioned if my HR recovers for the 3rd series faster? Does it take only until the next session for that to happen or will it take a few days or a few weeks? How often to I want to perform this session as my test because that's another variable.

This sounds exactly like my questions when I joined one of @Al Ciampa's earliest A+A swing protocol groups back in 2015.

From my experience (from that and what was learned after):
  • Correct that there's no point in manipulating your effort for a lower or higher HR peak. Just do what you do well. x number of swings, x number of snatches, etc. with a challenging load, appropriate explosiveness, and good technique. The number of reps that you choose to do (5, 10, etc.) may affect how well you get the intended PCr depletion... But that's another story. Anyway, the peak HR just is what it is, and isn't necessarily meaningful in itself.
  • The peak will be after the effort; i.e. 5-10 seconds after you set the kettlebell down.
  • Active rest and recovery breathing helps bring the HR down faster. You get better at this with practice. Whether or not that ultimately helps with inter-repeat recovery is debatable, but it's generally thought that it does.
  • Quicker HR recovery over time is a good sign of increased fitness (most would say aerobic fitness).
  • If you are using the HR monitor to guide you during a session, waiting until it drops to a pre-determined number (for you, probably 100-107 is the right ballpark) as your signal to do the next repeat is probably the best use of it. This would be for A+A.
  • HR tracks over time, i.e. to guide your overall training but not necessarily during a session, can also be useful. Mainly looking for a lower HR overall and a quicker drop after repeats for the same work (or more work with same HR dynamics) as you become fitter.
As you said, doing the same thing periodically and comparing the HR dynamics and how you feel can be informative.

Edit/Add: How all this relates to the Karvonen method I have no idea.... so this may or may not be related to the thread's original topic.
 
[*]Active rest and recovery breathing helps bring the HR down faster. You get better at this with practice. Whether or not that ultimately helps with inter-repeat recovery is debatable, but it's generally thought that it does.

I've found this one the most interesting. When my HR is high and simply isn't ready to come down yet, there isn't much I can do about that, however, when my HR starts to drop, I find I can make it drop more quickly through controlling my breathing.

And good stuff in the rest of your post and thank you for that. All this is, at least for me and for now, "interesting" but not something that'll change my training, at least not yet. There are too many variables, e.g., I'm about to do the same session today as I did yesterday, but it's later in the day, and yesterday I'd had a protein bar and a cup of coffee about a half-hour before and I could tell they weren't altogether digested yet. So if today is the same as yesterday, that would actually be a surprise to me as I'm expecting better circumstances around my training session to yield a better result. I'm soon to find out ...

-S-
 
@Anna C, as predicted, didn't need the extra minute's rest to get back to Zone 1 by 08:00, slightly lower average but higher max, so either better recovery or just a better time of day, more likely the latter, I think.

-S-
 
@Anna C, as predicted, didn't need the extra minute's rest to get back to Zone 1 by 08:00, slightly lower average but higher max, so either better recovery or just a better time of day, more likely the latter, I think.

-S-

Yes... There are many confounding variables with HR!

When using a recovery HR as a guide when to go again for a next repeat, I would usually do about 6 repeats using the clock for guidance, then assess how recovered I was feeling after the 6th or 7th repeat, looking for that "recovered and ready" feeling somewhere between 1:00 and 2:00 since the previous repeat, and whatever my HR was then that would be my "recovered" HR for the day.

For example, here I was using about 108 as a recovery HR target:

1641925734174.png

Whereas the next day, my HR was running lower for whatever reason (often does when not fully recovered) and I was using about 95:

1641925787599.png


My training log says these sessions were:
3/12/19: Snatches: Total 20 NR as (5 snatches R, rest, 5 snatches L, rest, at 20, 20, 20, 24, 24, 28, 28/24, 20, 24, 20) for 100 total snatches in 26 minutes.
3/13/19: Snatches: Total 34 NR as (5 snatches R, rest, 5 snatches L, rest, at 20, 20, 20, 24, 24, 28, 28, 20, 20, 24, 28, 20, 20, 24, 20, 24, 20) for 170 total snatches in 46 minutes
 
@Anna C, very interesting. Since my sessions are, with rare exception, going to be shorter, I don't think I could do what you did in terms of finding a recovery HR for the current session. I did dip into the 80's between my first and second series, but I'd be lying if I said they were my best effort - they were effectively a warmup, certainly "good enough, but the second and third series were better. It was 6 sets, but Q&D style so only 3 series, and at least for me and at least for now, there is no way my HR lowers after a set of 10 when doing the next set on the minute.

Also very interesting to see the red line be inaccurate in the graph below - it looked right in portrait mode, but my memory didn't deceive me - in the Polar app, if I move the slider, I get as low as 84 BPM but it doesn't show that here.

EC3C77E8-32DC-4FE5-8ECB-ABE152BC58A0.png

-S-
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom