# Peak Training Effect (Ambit)



## jkm00

Hi,

As discussed in another thread I also have the 'problem' of hitting PTE 5.0 on almost every run I do.. I suspect that I do not fit the algorithm used and it could be interesting to tweak the settings to make PTE more useful for me. I normally work out 4-5 hrs/week and set activity class accordingly (7-7.5). For example on a morning run to work, 11km, pretty much as fast as I can but keeping below lactate threshold (I can't run slow), avg HR 172, max HR 183, PTE 5.0. When running 4 or 6k home in the afternoon I have not recovered. (Last half marathon avg HR 176, max HR 186, also PTE 5.0.)

When checking my settings I suspect I have set max HR too low, should it be something like 195 or 200 if I reach ~185 going uphill during a normal run? (Too lazy to do max HR test.. but maybe I should)

What would a 'normal' PTE value be for the above run? Should I adjust the activity class so that PTE ends up on 4 or 4.5?

Cheers,
/Joakim


----------



## scot

I bet you have hit the nail on the head, you have your max heart rate wrong. I know that, for me, my max heart rate is not close to the classical numbers and had to adjust to suit my body. Since PTE is partially based on knowing your MHR, you need to test for it. No matter what, the data that comes out of the watch is only as good as what goes in and if you want to use PTE to help plan workouts it is critical to have the MHR set right.

Also, running hard up a hill is not good enough. Max heart rate takes even more effort and will be the end of your workouts for the day (normally). Use any of the regular testing methods.

You also cannot use one MHR for multiple sports, cycling can and probably will be different than running. (probably higher)


----------



## shinew

My guess is that your MAX HR is way off. The PTE seems to work pretty well for me. Also what's your settings for each zone? I just got the Ambit and noticed that I had to adjust the Heart rate zones manually to fit my needs.


----------



## srwilson

scot said:


> You also cannot use one MHR for multiple sports, cycling can and probably will be different than running. (probably higher)


Maybe a little clarification here. Your Max Heart Rate (MHR) is not sport dependent. MHR is the maximum beats per minute your heart can beat, period. Once it is achieved (and you can keep the same level of exertion that requires it) it will plateau and not go any higher even if you increase your exertion level. MHR is governed by genetics. It is not like RHR (Resting Heart Rate) where fitness levels can affect the results.

Why are we limited and seem incapable of achieving the same number in all sports? I believe it could be several different things however one I can quickly think of is strength in the muscle groups required to function in a particular sport. Put simply, your body strength may be limiting the amount of exertion requiring MRH.

For me my available strength in my biking legs prevents me from being able to tax my system enough to require MHR, so I never achieve it. My legs give out first. However, since I'm mostly a runner, I have found that I can achieve a higher HR while running. My running legs can max my system out for need of blood flow.

AFAIK & FWIW...

-steve


----------



## martowl

srwilson said:


> Maybe a little clarification here. Your Max Heart Rate (MHR) is not sport dependent. MHR is the maximum beats per minute your heart can beat, period. Once it is achieved (and you can keep the same level of exertion that requires it) it will plateau and not go any higher even if you increase your exertion level. MHR is governed by genetics. It is not like RHR (Resting Heart Rate) where fitness levels can affect the results.
> 
> Why are we limited and seem incapable of achieving the same number in all sports? I believe it could be several different things however one I can quickly think of is strength in the muscle groups required to function in a particular sport. Put simply, your body strength may be limiting the amount of exertion requiring MRH.
> 
> For me my available strength in my biking legs prevents me from being able to tax my system enough to require MHR, so I never achieve it. My legs give out first. However, since I'm mostly a runner, I have found that I can achieve a higher HR while running. My running legs can max my system out for need of blood flow.
> 
> AFAIK & FWIW...
> 
> -steve


AFIAK it is very, very difficult to achieve your max HR, literally need to have your life threatened. Take your max HR for the year and if that was a really intense effort and you think you could not have gone harder add 5 to 10 bpm above that for your max HR setting. Then see how the PTE plays out. A 5.0 should only occur with an all out effort, I would say a race effort for a shorter more intense race.


----------



## martowl

scot said:


> I bet you have hit the nail on the head, you have your max heart rate wrong.  I know that, for me, my max heart rate is not close to the classical numbers and had to adjust to suit my body. Since PTE is partially based on knowing your MHR, you need to test for it. No matter what, the data that comes out of the watch is only as good as what goes in and if you want to use PTE to help plan workouts it is critical to have the MHR set right.
> 
> Also, running hard up a hill is not good enough. Max heart rate takes even more effort and will be the end of your workouts for the day (normally). Use any of the regular testing methods.
> 
> You also cannot use one MHR for multiple sports, cycling can and probably will be different than running. (probably higher)


I disagree with this, your max HR is max, period. Your threshold HR will differ for different sports and is typically higher for running than biking as running is weight bearing and more effort.


----------



## or_watching

martowl said:


> AFIAK it is very, very difficult to achieve your max HR, literally need to have your life threatened.


Hi. 2 cents...
I won't say that tweaking MaxHR won't have a desired effect of making PTE mean what you want it to mean, but MaxHR has to make some common sense in this context. 
The physiologists who measured real people's MaxHR and turned the data into a PTE/EPOC model used a MaxHR achieved on a treadmill or sprinting up a hill, not by putting 385 HR-strapped Finns into a hungry Lion's cage. 

And AFAIK, these PTE values are just somewhat arbitrary (convenient for consumers) thresholds on the EPOC scale. EPOC and TRIMP both go as high as you are willing to punish yourself.

i.e., I dont think I should be adjusting my MaxHR and AC so that a 430 EPOC is 4.9 PTE. Probably at about 200 EPOC I really had achieved as much training effect as is reasonable. It just so happens I kept going for another 230 EPOC points - maybe not the smartest thing I've ever done. "Over-reaching" is Suunto's PTE 5 parlance IIRC.


----------



## eeun

As has been stated, you MHR is the maximum rate you heart can beat at. It's not that hard to measure/hit if you follow well trodden and often documented methods to achieve it. It is not dependant on any specific activity though it is often much harder to hit with one form of exercise over another. 

You threshold HR will be dependant on fitness and conditioning for different sports/activities. For example my HR rises more quickly when running than cycling but I find it easier to hit my MHR cycling than running. That's a conditioning issue as I ride masses but run rarely. 

PTE is related to a number of things including highest HR achieved at the time of the exercise, average HR, time in various zones etc etc..check out the reference section where I've added a link that explains VO2, EPOC, PTE and much more. 

To hit PTE levels into the 4s you need to be working very hard and it should be extremely hard to hit 4.5 and higher. It may be easier with say running over cycling or visa versa too. Suunto use complex algorithms to calculate it and it can give different results between say a T6D or an Ambit as I have found due to different algorithms. 

To my mind its pointless fudging the figures to achieve higher PTE levels. Get your MHR and RHR measured accurately. Set you VO2 max correctly along with your activity level and then just go do it.

where I find PTE useful is comparing results say on the spin bike for average HR, max HR achieved during the activity, calories burned, vO2 max and RPE all against PTE. It gives me a point of reference to work with. Oh and I've hit 5 only once and have a handful of 4.6 and above.


----------



## or_watching

eeun said:


> Set your VO2 max correctly...


Hi. 
I don't think I've ever set that...Just checking, where is that a setting?


----------



## srwilson

or_watching said:


> Hi.
> I don't think I've ever set that...Just checking, where is that a setting?


Yeah, I don't think you can set that in Movescount. The Activity Level you set gives you a Maximum performance capability like 12.7 METS. I'm thinking this comes from their bucket data. You probably already know this but you can multiply MET value by 3.5 and get your VO2max number. Anyway, in Firstbeat Athlete you could set your VO2 max separate from your Activity Level, if you knew what it was, and if not you got the canned value. I don't think that is possible in Movescount. So if you know your VO2max numbers you can set the activity level to a number that give you a met value that matches and disregard their description of a 6, 7, 7.5, 8 or whatever.

To me I really don't care so much if its all correct as long as I have a means to compare my efforts and they don't saturate.


----------



## eeun

or_watching said:


> Hi.
> I don't think I've ever set that...Just checking, where is that a setting?


My error, I have a T6D as well as an Ambit. The T6D has settings for METS on the device and in Movescount. The Ambit does not. I'll add it to the Ambit 2.0 update requests. Sorry for the red herring.


----------



## jkm00

martowl said:


> AFIAK it is very, very difficult to achieve your max HR, literally need to have your life threatened. .


Maybe that's a good reason to test 'zombie run'.. (https://www.zombiesrungame.com/) 
Thanks for your input, seems like I need to push myself a bit to get some hold of my max HR..

Cheers,
/Joakim


----------



## scot

srwilson said:


> Maybe a little clarification here. Your Max Heart Rate (MHR) is not sport dependent. MHR is the maximum beats per minute your heart can beat, period. Once it is achieved (and you can keep the same level of exertion that requires it) it will plateau and not go any higher even if you increase your exertion level. MHR is governed by genetics. It is not like RHR (Resting Heart Rate) where fitness levels can affect the results.
> 
> Why are we limited and seem incapable of achieving the same number in all sports? I believe it could be several different things however one I can quickly think of is strength in the muscle groups required to function in a particular sport. Put simply, your body strength may be limiting the amount of exertion requiring MRH.
> 
> For me my available strength in my biking legs prevents me from being able to tax my system enough to require MHR, so I never achieve it. My legs give out first. However, since I'm mostly a runner, I have found that I can achieve a higher HR while running. My running legs can max my system out for need of blood flow.
> 
> AFAIK & FWIW...
> 
> -steve


No, you do have different max heart rates based on different sports. Your heart is a pump and depending on the forces acting on your body there are different circumstances in which it has to act which change its behavior. If you are standing up straight with an open chest, massive forces pounding on your legs that move through your entire body, a set of muscles contracting and relaxing and any number of things going on, your heart can pound at a certain rate. If you are leaning over almost parallel with the ground using a smooth but forceful rate of leg muscle use, the forces acting against the blood flow are completely different. Same thing if you are swimming, or walking or sitting on a recumbant bike and so on and so forth. At some point the heart reaches a max rate of beating based on this differing combination of events.

You can say "my heart can beat at 199, that is its absolute max if you take away the sport" but that is really a useless figure. What rate would your heart beat if out of your body? What about laying down, what about standing up? The rate itself is meaningless in a vacuum and only matters as it relates to the sport you are performing at the time and your current body condition.

If you are an untrained biker, sure you might not be able to hit max hr without training. If you are trained on both, MOST people will have a higher hr while biking, though if you are a true athlete at the pro level, this could reverse again as your MHR goes down due to massive training. I know that for me my max biking is 196, at least it was this year. Running is 188 or so.

Also, MHR isn't *dangerous* per se, unless there are other conditions and you are moderately trained (though that's a BIG unless). At some point your body just can't make it beat any faster in a healthy person, and that is all it means. You are not next to death, you are not running from the cops, and even if you try to push a bit harder your heart won't go any faster doing that sport. That being said your muscles will be screaming for energy and oxygen to use the energy and you will not be able to maintain for more than a very short time (depending on training level of course).

After a bit, you will bonk.


----------



## srwilson

scot said:


> No, you do have different max heart rates based on different sports.


Scot, 
Maybe I missed it but I think we are in agreement. I think you just said what I said. Your 'Current' Highest producible heart rate while engaged in any particular activity is dependent on several factors. Sport or activity HR can change and is influenced by many things as you (and I in my previous post) have very well pointed out. However this is not the same as your MHR.

Certainly if you wanted to determine your *Training Heart Rate Zones* for a particular sport you should examine your Highest Heart Rate producible in that activity and adjust accordingly. And I agree different sports or activities will not necessarily be the same. |>

To be clear, I wasn't pointing out any error in what you were saying per se; I was simply making a point about MHR.


All,
If anyone is interested, here is a link to one of my excel spreadsheets for estimating VO2Max or your Jack Daniel's Vdot training number. Be sure to use the results from a current race. 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1moGJ-qU_s2SGsxNG1RQWpudjg
(These VO2Max estimations are base on running, not on biking or any other sport results)

I find it useful to set my MET level in Movescount and I find that the Movescount Activity Level pretty much lines up with the results of the calculator.

Of course use at your own risk!!! 

-steve


----------



## kopis007

srwilson said:


> Yeah, I don't think you can set that in Movescount. The Activity Level you set gives you a Maximum performance capability like 12.7 METS. I'm thinking this comes from their bucket data. You probably already know this but you can multiply MET value by 3.5 and get your VO2max number. Anyway, in Firstbeat Athlete you could set your VO2 max separate from your Activity Level, if you knew what it was, and if not you got the canned value. I don't think that is possible in Movescount. So if you know your VO2max numbers you can set the activity level to a number that give you a met value that matches and disregard their description of a 6, 7, 7.5, 8 or whatever.
> 
> To me I really don't care so much if its all correct as long as I have a means to compare my efforts and they don't saturate.


Dear srwilson, I know exactly my VO2 max (46,5) and MET (13,3). What number I have to set (based on your suggestion above) for Activity Level in Movescount for Ambit (now I use AL 6)? Thank you in advance for your answer.


----------



## srwilson

kopis007 said:


> Dear srwilson, I know exactly my VO2 max (46,5) and MET (13,3). What number I have to set (based on your suggestion above) for Activity Level in Movescount for Ambit (now I use AL 6)? Thank you in advance for your answer.


Kopis007, If your MET value is 13,3 then you should be in Activity Class 7.5. When you slide the Activity Class slider you should see the Met value change right below the slider.









Your Welcome ;-)


----------



## pjc3

srwilson said:


> Kopis007, If your MET value is 13,3 then you should be in Activity Class 7.5. When you slide the Activity Class slider you should see the Met value change right below the slider.
> 
> View attachment 863149
> 
> 
> Your Welcome ;-)


Just be aware, the calculated MET value changes with age so your Activity Class may not be 7.5 to correspond to MET 13.3.


----------



## srwilson

pjc3 said:


> Just be aware, the calculated MET value changes with age so your Activity Class may not be 7.5 to correspond to MET 13.3.


Pjc3, Yes you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out

Sorry Kopis007, you need to watch the MET value as you slide the slider. Your age will affect where they match and depending on your age it may not be on the 7.5 class.


----------



## eeun

srwilson said:


> Pjc3, Yes you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out
> 
> Sorry Kopis007, you need to watch the MET value as you slide the slider. Your age will affect where they match and depending on your age it may not be on the 7.5 class.


Yeh at 7.5 my mets figure is 13.7. I'm pretty old, and grey these days and to be honest I don't see that changing for the better on either count!


----------



## kopis007

2 srwilson, eeun: Thank you guys for your help. I'm 53 years old, so I set AC to 7,0 (12,9 METS; AC 7,5 is too much - 13,5 METS). Now I know I will have correct (or better nearly correct) readings from my lovely Ambit. Thank you again!


----------



## Dale Matson

"You threshold HR will be dependant on fitness and conditioning for different sports/activities. For example my HR rises more quickly when running than cycling but I find it easier to hit my MHR cycling than running. That's a conditioning issue as I ride masses but run rarely."
What I haven't heard from anyone is how the perceived level of effort also affects your maximum and average heart rates. For me this is sport specific and even when my fitness level is the same for all my sports, my perceived level of effort is variable. For example, when I am swimming it seems like I am working hard even when my heart rate is 30 bpm lower than the same perceived level of effort running. This also may related to form/efficiency in each sport. I don't understand how PTE takes into account duration of exercise as a contribution to PTE. It only seems to understand duration as affecting recovery time. I consider my base fitness level on the length of my long run, not the maximum heart rate I achieved during the long run. Frankly I shoot for an average and maximum heart rate being similar during a long run.


----------



## bruceames

I've been using the coach feature in First Beat Athlete to monitor what my target PTE should be and it's been very effective. I have been a part time runner for the best 20 years, running only about 6 months a year. The reason is because I run in preparation for long hikes in the summer and by the time October comes around I am burnt out. The reason I think I'm burnt out is not because of the long hikes but rather because I have been letting my PTE get too high on my runs and thus overtrain. Since start the coach program, I decided to back off my average HR about 10 beats a minute and now I find I enjoy running a lot more. Kinda how I used to enjoy it back in the day. 

Hopefully I can become a year round runner now (although I will back off a little because of winter), and become more fit than ever in the coming season.


----------



## bruceames

Dale Matson said:


> "You threshold HR will be dependant on fitness and conditioning for different sports/activities. For example my HR rises more quickly when running than cycling but I find it easier to hit my MHR cycling than running. That's a conditioning issue as I ride masses but run rarely."
> What I haven't heard from anyone is how the perceived level of effort also affects your maximum and average heart rates. For me this is sport specific and even when my fitness level is the same for all my sports, my perceived level of effort is variable. For example, *when I am swimming it seems like I am working hard even when my heart rate is 30 bpm lower than the same perceived level of effort running.* This also may related to form/efficiency in each sport. I don't understand how PTE takes into account duration of exercise as a contribution to PTE. It only seems to understand duration as affecting recovery time. I consider my base fitness level on the length of my long run, not the maximum heart rate I achieved during the long run. Frankly I shoot for an average and maximum heart rate being similar during a long run.


That's why I love running more than other sports. The perceived effort is much less for the same HR. I was doing a stationary cycle and after 40 minutes my average HR was only 117. It seemed as much work as if I did my normal 30 min run with an average HR of 155. Plus it was much more boring.


----------



## bowesmana

bruceames said:


> That's why I love running more than other sports. The perceived effort is much less for the same HR. I was doing a stationary cycle and after 40 minutes my average HR was only 117. It seemed as much work as if I did my normal 30 min run with an average HR of 155. Plus it was much more boring.


If you've only done one or two cycle classes, then I would persevere for a few more. Instructors often say that your first few classes, you should just try to enjoy it rather than try too hard, many people get put off at first. My running average HR is generally a little higher than bike, but now my bike average HR is close to the running one.

Also try some different instructors, there are many instructors, but few good ones and certainly they can be boring. I've found it a great way to cross train for my trail running and currently with a torn hamstring, I can cycle a bit but not run and it's a saving grace while getting over the injury to get some leg work until I can get back to the hills again.

Just turn the little red dial... There's a lot of variation you _can_ get from being on the bike, don't give up!


----------



## bruceames

The stationary cycle I used was a home bike. It would have been more boring if I wasn't watching TV. But you're right, I'm not used to it and, like running, I'll get to enjoy it once I get used to it. The thing I don't like is that it's a reclining cycle, so it take more effort to bear down on the pedals. Oh well, it'll be useful during the cold/rain days, or when I don't feel like driving to the gym.


----------



## eeun

Dale Matson said:


> What I haven't heard from anyone is how the perceived level of effort also affects your maximum and average heart rates. For me this is sport specific and even when my fitness level is the same for all my sports, my perceived level of effort is variable. For example, when I am swimming it seems like I am working hard even when my heart rate is 30 bpm lower than the same perceived level of effort running. This also may related to form/efficiency in each sport. I don't understand how PTE takes into account duration of exercise as a contribution to PTE. It only seems to understand duration as affecting recovery time. I consider my base fitness level on the length of my long run, not the maximum heart rate I achieved during the long run. Frankly I shoot for an average and maximum heart rate being similar during a long run.


RPE does not affect HR per se and can vary considerably based on how rested you are, if you're off colour at all, time of day, temperature and of course the activity you are doing. FirstBeat explain's how PTE works in their white paper on the subject. For PTE to be high you need both sufficient duration and intensity (high HR) and don't forget it's a peak measurement not an overall one. It's well known that swimming typically produces an RPE higher than most other sports. You are correct that as you become more conditioned and effective at any sport your RPE will tend to drop at any given HR and as your fitness improves you'l need to work much harder to achieve the same RPE. You should try using MAF tests as a good gauge of your fitness.



bruceames said:


> That's why I love running more than other sports. The perceived effort is much less for the same HR. I was doing a stationary cycle and after 40 minutes my average HR was only 117. It seemed as much work as if I did my normal 30 min run with an average HR of 155. Plus it was much more boring.


I find it the other way around, for me every running step is hard as you have to shift your body weight every step.


----------

