IMAT | How to find your maximum heart rate using a different approach – Mike Trees

Find this podcast on:

(Or search 'Trees Dlake' in your favourite player)

Use this approach to find your training zone

IMAT is your individual maximum aerobic training heart rate.

The original is from Mike Trees/@Run.nrg Post on Instagram

For those of you struggling to train with the Maff 180-age formula, this could be for you.

Dr. Maffetone’s 180-Age formula as a way to calculate maximum aerobic training heart rate is well known, but lots of runners complain it seems too low for them. This problem is particularly common with older runners.

A different formula for runners that is based on the same principles but in my view is more accurate and is based on your actual maximum HR.

It’s called :
Individual Max Aerobic Training heart rate or IMAT for short.

Your IMAT = MAX HR -40

For me, at 58 my (Maff )180-age heart rate is 123. This predicted Herat rate is based on the premise that my maximum heart rate should be 163. (Using the formula 220-age to find it). However, as my maximum HR is actually 173 and not 163, I do not fit the Maff 189- Age formula perfectly.

My IMAT heart rate is 173-40= 133HR, 10 beats higher than the Maff formula, but is more accurate as it is based on my known Max HR

This new formula is still based on Maff 180-age, as I respect it and try to follow this training theory, BUT if you know your max HR, I believe it is a much more accurate, INDIVIDUAL, and effective max aerobic heart rate to train to.

How to calculate Max HR in the field.

1. This is the best.
Warm up with a jog and then run 600m as fast as you can, then take 60secs rest and run 400m all out.
Take the highest recorded HR as your max.

2. Not as accurate.
Another way to calculate your Max HR is to use the max HR from your fastest ever 5km race/run.

Warning :
Unless you have pushed yourself to the limit and beyond, and could not walk another step after finishing do NOT use your 5km HR !!

Neither of these is as good as a lab test, but they are more accurate than taking 220-Age

If you like this formula please share this post with your friends.