General fitness, health and nutrition ยท Public discussion

Heart Rate Help Please

Started by Scody ยท ยท Last activity ยท 12 posts ยท 711 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
5 July 2004
Last activity
5 July 2004
Original author
Scody
Posts
12
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
711
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1โ€“12 of 12
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Long Post, but I need help... ๐Ÿ™‚

    I am trying to be responsible with my training by sticking
    to a heart rate range schedule. I am reading Marathoning for
    Mortals by John Binham and Jenny Hadfield, and have decided
    to turn to my friends in rec.running to supply some advice.

    My training calls for the following percentages of my max HR
    during the corresponding training sessions: Monday: 65%-75%
    Tuesday(Xtrain): 60%-70% Wednesday: 70%-80% Thursday: 65%-
    75% Friday (Xtrain): 65%-75% Saturday: 60%-75%

    And here is my problem. I have been running off and on for
    the past four years, enough to get to a decent base of 7-9
    miles and sustain it before time and life stopped my running
    habit for a bit. Then I usually have to work back up.

    I've never had a HRM, I just got one for Father's day.

    On Saturday, I ran with my new toy, and was ASTONISHEED to
    find that during the run, at which time I was able to
    sustain a slightly labored conversation during the entire
    time, my heart rate appeared extremely high (150-160 almost
    the entire time). I was inclined to then find my max HRM,
    assuming that 220-32=188 (my age) may not have been accurate
    for me as a max HR.This morning, I jumped out and did a max
    stress test. I ran one mile at a medium pace, ran the second
    at a moderate pace, and then ran all out for about 1/4
    mile. I became quickly exausted on the final 1/4 mile... my
    HRM tells me that my max was 176.

    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs should
    be MUCH slower. .75*176 = 132, a far cray from teh 150-160
    that I was doing yesterday, but the 150-160 felt fine.

    What gives? was my 176 calculation way off? even so... the
    150-160 that I ran yesterday seems like a VERY high HR for
    somebody that can speak relatively well.

  2. scody wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    Long Post, but I need help... ๐Ÿ™‚

    I am trying to be responsible with my training by sticking
    to a heart rate range schedule. I am reading Marathoning
    for Mortals by John Binham and Jenny Hadfield, and have
    decided to turn to my friends in rec.running to supply
    some advice.

    My training calls for the following percentages of my max
    HR during the corresponding training sessions: Monday: 65%-
    75% Tuesday(Xtrain): 60%-70% Wednesday: 70%-80% Thursday:
    65%-75% Friday (Xtrain): 65%-75% Saturday: 60%-75%

    And here is my problem. I have been running off and on
    for the past four years, enough to get to a decent base
    of 7-9 miles and sustain it before time and life
    stopped my running habit for a bit. Then I usually have
    to work back up.

    I've never had a HRM, I just got one for Father's day.

    On Saturday, I ran with my new toy, and was ASTONISHEED to
    find that during the run, at which time I was able to
    sustain a slightly labored


    conversation

    Quoted message said:

    during the entire time, my heart rate appeared extremely
    high (150-160 almost the entire time). I was inclined to
    then find my max HRM, assuming that 220-32=188 (my age) may
    not have been accurate for me as a max HR.This morning, I
    jumped out and did a max stress test. I ran one mile at a
    medium pace, ran the second at a moderate pace, and then
    ran all out for about 1/4
    mile. I became quickly exausted on the final 1/4 mile... my
    HRM tells me that my max was 176.

    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs should
    be MUCH slower. .75*176 = 132, a far cray from teh 150-160
    that I was doing yesterday, but the 150-160 felt fine.

    What gives? was my 176 calculation way off? even so... the
    150-160 that I ran yesterday seems like a VERY high HR for
    somebody that can speak relatively well.

    I have been using an HRM for a few years now.

    There are things you MUST know about it.
    1. Forget that equation. I am 47 and do not have any
    problem hitting 200+ at the end of a 5k. Using the
    equation, 220-47 it would say I could only hit 173. Do
    some of your own test to find out what you can reach,
    like 2 hard miles followed by a tough up hill.

    2. You should get familiar with the term "Cardiac Creep" It
    is where your HR will gradually creep up running at the
    same speed.

    In other words, the number you get for training, out of a
    book, can only be approximations and should be treated
    like that.

  3. scody said:

    the run, at which time I was able to sustain a slightly
    labored conversation

    Conversational is not the same as "labored conversation". Me
    and my training buddies can carry out conversations during
    marathon paced long runs over hilly trails, but the
    intensity is well above normal aerobic training intensity.

    That's what I don't like about "conversational pace" -- the
    term is too vague.

    Some questions:

    (1) Do you have any recent race performances ? If so, what
    are they ?
    (2) How fast are your training runs ?
    (3) Can you comfortably maintain 3-3 breathing on your
    training runs ? (breath in for three steps, out for 3)

    Quoted message said:

    during the entire time, my heart rate appeared extremely
    high (150-160

    Not unusual. Heart rate monitors are good for making
    yourself run slowly.

    Quoted message said:

    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs
    should be MUCH slower. .75*176 = 132, a far cray from
    teh 150-160 that I was doing yesterday, but the 150-160
    felt fine.

    Hard to tell. I don't think the HRM is that good as a
    gold standard. But you could be pushing the pace close
    to your LT.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflord

  4. scody said:

    Long Post, but I need help... ๐Ÿ™‚

    I am trying to be responsible with my training by sticking
    to a heart rate range schedule. I am reading Marathoning
    for Mortals by John Binham and Jenny Hadfield, and have
    decided to turn to my friends in rec.running to supply
    some advice.

    My training calls for the following percentages of my max
    HR during the corresponding training sessions: Monday: 65%-
    75% Tuesday(Xtrain): 60%-70% Wednesday: 70%-80% Thursday:
    65%-75% Friday (Xtrain): 65%-75% Saturday: 60%-75%

    And here is my problem. I have been running off and on for
    the past four years, enough to get to a decent base of 7-9
    miles and sustain it before time and life stopped my
    running habit for a bit.

    Is that 7-9 mi per day or per week or per ???

    Then I usually have to work back up.

    Quoted message said:


    I've never had a HRM, I just got one for Father's day.

    On Saturday, I ran with my new toy, and was ASTONISHEED to
    find that during the run, at which time I was able to
    sustain a slightly labored conversation during the entire
    time, my heart rate appeared extremely high (150-160
    almost the entire time).

    In "conversational" effort, you should be able to have an
    easy dialog with a running companion. "Slightly labored"
    might be slightly on the high side of "conversational"
    effort and starting to enter lower levels of LT zone. How
    long was your run? (time being more relevant than distance)

    I was inclined to then find my max HRM, assuming

    Quoted message said:

    that 220-32=188 (my age) may not have been accurate for me
    as a max HR.

    Good assumption that the forumula doesn't work for
    many people ๐Ÿ˜‰

    This

    Quoted message said:

    morning, I jumped out and did a max stress test. I ran one
    mile at a medium pace, ran the second at a moderate pace,
    and then ran all out for about 1/4
    mile. I became quickly exausted on the final 1/4 mile...
    my HRM tells me that my max was 176.

    How hard were you breathing at that point? There's a good
    chance you can't actually reach your max hr in training
    unless you're experienced. The way I got around this initial
    puzzlement with the formulas not working and beginners not
    supposed to do speed work (running fast to esimated max hr
    is speed work) was to estimate hr when breathing started
    becoming very difficult (uphill at end of 3-40 min run) then
    divide by .9 to estimate max hr. This point is toward the
    mid to upper end of the lactate threshold / ventilatory
    threshold (LT/VT) zone and is frequently near 90% of max hr
    (hence divide by .9). With LT training, that hr % for LT can
    be increased.

    If I use that estimate to determine my zones, the "feeling"
    in those zones is what the books describe, so I don't think
    I'm far off. [As a beginner, I only use 3 zones - easy,
    below LT, above LT.]. In some drills that I do with a group
    or on hard hill efforts (as in gasping for air - well beyond
    "comfortably hard"๐Ÿ˜‰, I have gotten within a couple % of
    estimated max. If I do some consistent LT work, my LT hr
    does move up a little. While this estimate of max hr may not
    be precise, it gives me reasonable estimates, and I do get
    the desired training effects. Not perfect, but a good first
    approximation for a recreational runner.

    Quoted message said:


    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs
    should be MUCH slower. ..75*176 = 132, a far cray from
    teh 150-160 that I was doing yesterday, but the 150-160
    felt fine.

    If your conversation was slightly labored, you might be a
    little on the fast side for long runs.

    Quoted message said:


    What gives? was my 176 calculation way off?

    That would be my guess - probably an underestimate.

    even so... the 150-160 that I

    Quoted message said:

    ran yesterday seems like a VERY high HR for somebody that
    can speak relatively well.

    but was it easy conversation? At your easy effort, you
    should be able easily talk (maybe sing or whistle). As you
    get closer to LT/VT, your conversation will get increasingly
    broken until you reach labored breathing near LT/VT.

    Dot

    --
    "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
    Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

  5. scody wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    Long Post, but I need help... ๐Ÿ™‚

    I am trying to be responsible with my training by sticking
    to a heart rate range schedule. I am reading Marathoning
    for Mortals by John Binham and Jenny Hadfield, and have
    decided to turn to my friends in rec.running to supply
    some advice.

    My training calls for the following percentages of my max
    HR during the corresponding training sessions: Monday: 65%-
    75% Tuesday(Xtrain): 60%-70% Wednesday: 70%-80% Thursday:
    65%-75% Friday (Xtrain): 65%-75% Saturday: 60%-75%

    And here is my problem. I have been running off and on
    for the past four years, enough to get to a decent base
    of 7-9 miles and sustain it before time and life
    stopped my running habit for a bit. Then I usually have
    to work back up.

    I've never had a HRM, I just got one for Father's day.

    On Saturday, I ran with my new toy, and was ASTONISHEED to
    find that during the run, at which time I was able to
    sustain a slightly labored


    conversation

    Quoted message said:

    during the entire time, my heart rate appeared extremely
    high (150-160 almost the entire time). I was inclined to
    then find my max HRM, assuming that 220-32=188 (my age) may
    not have been accurate for me as a max HR.This morning, I
    jumped out and did a max stress test. I ran one mile at a
    medium pace, ran the second at a moderate pace, and then
    ran all out for about 1/4
    mile. I became quickly exausted on the final 1/4 mile... my
    HRM tells me that my max was 176.

    That's probably not your max. You can only reach your max
    when very well rested, and even then you may find it hard to
    reach it on any given day. Also 2 miles medium/moderate then
    1/4 mile seems to me like you might not reach your max
    because 1/4 is a sprint. Do you know your 5k race pace? If
    so, try this: warmup one mile, then run one mile a bit
    slower than 5k race pace, then run 1 mile at 5k race pace,
    then run 1/2 mile building up to all-out. What you did with
    the 1/2 might have been anaerobic so quickly that the heart
    never got up as high as possible.

    Quoted message said:


    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs should
    be MUCH slower. .75*176 = 132, a far cray from teh 150-160
    that I was doing yesterday, but the 150-160 felt fine.

    What gives? was my 176 calculation way off? even so... the
    150-160 that I ran yesterday seems like a VERY high HR for
    somebody that can speak relatively well.


    Not necesarily. What pace do you train at daily? Eventually
    most people figure out that if they are going to be able to
    run (or cross-train in my case) daily, they need to set a
    moderate pace that is sustainable day after day. For me this
    pace is 140 to 150 HR. My max is about 190 for running. The
    more important number to base your training on is your
    anaerobic threshold (aka lactate threshold, LT). This is the
    effort level beyond which your legs start to feel heavy and
    your body can no longer neutralize the lactic acid buildup.
    Right now my LT is about 168, but when I'm on form it's
    closer to 175. Basically you should do most of your training
    about 20 beats less than your LT, and your speedwork around
    your LT. There are many ways you can find to estimate your
    LT. Basically its the highest effort level you can maintain
    for about one hour. So, go race a 10k hard, record your
    average HR for the 10k, subtract a few beats and that's
    close to your
    LT. Then subtract 20 and that's your aerobic pace for most
    training. Look for systems based on LT rather than Max
    HR, which is pretty useless in my opinion. If you like
    stress tests, look into conconi's test for determining
    LT; I'm planning on doing one within a couple of week
    and I'll post the results.

    - Tony

  6. my data maxHR=200 = by all out run / with warm up restHR=40
    70%=152 one formula used is 205-(half your age ) + 5,,, in
    your case this would mean 194 is your estmaxHR from just
    your info maxHR=194 restHR=?? 70% = 142= long slow dayZ most
    if not all formulas are in error. some are 10-15 pulses off.
    this one female runner i know had a est. HR of 190 her
    maxHR=215(running all out) . It be that way sometimes. if
    you are using 'heart monitor training for the compleat
    idiot' book( very good) i would use the all out run as
    maxHR. If you are using Mark allens formula , i would use
    142 for the 70%. If you are using your own program (maxHR by
    your own test?) just my 2 cents plodzilla

    scody said:


    Long Post, but I need help... ๐Ÿ™‚

    I am trying to be responsible with my training by sticking
    to a heart rate range schedule. I am reading Marathoning
    for Mortals by John Binham and Jenny Hadfield, and have
    decided to turn to my friends in rec.running to supply
    some advice.

    My training calls for the following percentages of my max
    HR during the corresponding training sessions: Monday: 65%-
    75% Tuesday(Xtrain): 60%-70% Wednesday: 70%-80% Thursday:
    65%-75% Friday (Xtrain): 65%-75% Saturday: 60%-75%

    And here is my problem. I have been running off and on
    for the past four years, enough to get to a decent base
    of 7-9 miles and sustain it before time and life stopped
    my running habit for a bit. Then I usually have to work
    back up.

    I've never had a HRM, I just got one for Father's day.

    On Saturday, I ran with my new toy, and was ASTONISHEED to
    find that during the run, at which time I was able to
    sustain a slightly labored conversation during the entire
    time, my heart rate appeared extremely high (150-160
    almost the entire time). I was inclined to then find my
    max HRM, assuming that 220-32=188 (my age) may not have
    been accurate for me as a max HR.This morning, I jumped
    out and did a max stress test. I ran one mile at a medium
    pace, ran the second at a moderate pace, and then ran all
    out for about 1/4
    mile. I became quickly exausted on the final 1/4 mile...
    my HRM tells me that my max was 176.

    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs
    should be MUCH slower. .75*176 = 132, a far cray from
    teh 150-160 that I was doing yesterday, but the 150-160
    felt fine.

    What gives? was my 176 calculation way off? even so... the
    150-160 that I ran yesterday seems like a VERY high HR for
    somebody that can speak relatively well.

  7. Quoted message said:

    Not unusual. Heart rate monitors are good for making
    yourself run slowly.

    I'll second this.

    I wear mine only on easy days. The monitor frees you from
    the tyranny of Testosterone (the thought that you have to or
    should be going balls out all the time). If it's hot, or
    you're tired or sick, it will slow you down even more--and
    just in time. Wearing one and trying to maintain a specific
    pace, because of all the variables involved, is futile and
    frustrating.

    Richard

  8. Tony wrote:

    Look

    Quoted message said:

    for systems based on LT rather than Max HR, which is
    pretty useless in my opinion.

    I agree. After I've learned more about training, I've never
    figured out why so much emphasis is placed on max hr, esp.
    in beginners' programs - other than perhaps for simplicity
    of math and not having to explain LT to people.

    Dot

    --
    "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
    Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

  9. Another measure which is a little more individualized is the
    heart rate reserve. It is based on your resting HR.

    MaxHR-RestingHR=HRR*intensity(.70) +RestingHR

    Research shows the Max hr method (220-age) starts to become
    less accurate over the age of 40. The standard of error
    isn't really that big.

    On 6/27/04 2:20 PM, in article mdEDc.35154$OB3.4125@bgtnsc05-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Roger 2k"

    Quoted message said:


    scody wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    Long Post, but I need help... ๐Ÿ™‚

    I am trying to be responsible with my training by
    sticking to a heart rate range schedule. I am reading
    Marathoning for Mortals by John Binham and Jenny
    Hadfield, and have decided to turn to my friends in
    rec.running to supply some advice.

    My training calls for the following percentages of my
    max HR during the corresponding training sessions:
    Monday: 65%-75% Tuesday(Xtrain): 60%-70% Wednesday: 70%-
    80% Thursday: 65%-75% Friday (Xtrain): 65%-75% Saturday:
    60%-75%

    And here is my problem. I have been running off and on
    for the past four years, enough to get to a decent base
    of 7-9 miles and sustain it before time and life stopped
    my running habit for a bit. Then I usually have to work
    back up.

    I've never had a HRM, I just got one for Father's day.

    On Saturday, I ran with my new toy, and was ASTONISHEED
    to find that during the run, at which time I was able to
    sustain a slightly labored


    conversation

    Quoted message said:

    during the entire time, my heart rate appeared extremely
    high (150-160 almost the entire time). I was inclined to
    then find my max HRM, assuming that 220-32=188 (my age)
    may not have been accurate for me as a max HR.This
    morning, I jumped out and did a max stress test. I ran
    one mile at a medium pace, ran the second at a moderate
    pace, and then ran all out for about 1/4
    mile. I became quickly exausted on the final 1/4 mile...
    my HRM tells me that my max was 176.

    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs
    should be MUCH slower. .75*176 = 132, a far cray from
    teh 150-160 that I was doing yesterday, but the 150-160
    felt fine.

    What gives? was my 176 calculation way off? even so...
    the 150-160 that I ran yesterday seems like a VERY high
    HR for somebody that can speak relatively well.

    I have been using an HRM for a few years now.

    There are things you MUST know about it.
    1. Forget that equation. I am 47 and do not have any
    problem hitting 200+ at the end of a 5k. Using the
    equation, 220-47 it would say I could only hit 173. Do
    some of your own test to find out what you can reach,
    like 2 hard miles followed by a tough up hill.

    2. You should get familiar with the term "Cardiac Creep"
    It is where your HR will gradually creep up running at
    the same speed.

    In other words, the number you get for training, out of a
    book, can only be approximations and should be treated
    like that.

  10. However, you are still using the estimation for HR max in there!
    "CFK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Another measure which is a little more individualized is
    the heart rate reserve. It is based on your resting HR.

    MaxHR-RestingHR=HRR*intensity(.70) +RestingHR

    Research shows the Max hr method (220-age) starts to
    become less accurate over the age of 40. The standard of
    error isn't really that big.

    On 6/27/04 2:20 PM, in article mdEDc.35154$OB3.4125@bgtnsc05-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Roger 2k"

    Quoted message said:


    scody wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    Long Post, but I need help... ๐Ÿ™‚

    I am trying to be responsible with my training by
    sticking to a heart


    rate

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    range schedule. I am reading Marathoning for Mortals by
    John Binham and Jenny Hadfield, and have decided to
    turn to my friends in rec.running


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    supply some advice.

    My training calls for the following percentages of my
    max HR during the corresponding training sessions:
    Monday: 65%-75% Tuesday(Xtrain): 60%-70% Wednesday: 70%-
    80% Thursday: 65%-75% Friday (Xtrain): 65%-75%
    Saturday: 60%-75%

    And here is my problem. I have been running off and on
    for the past four years, enough to get


    to a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    decent base of 7-9 miles and sustain it before time and
    life stopped my running habit for a bit. Then I usually
    have to work back up.

    I've never had a HRM, I just got one for Father's day.

    On Saturday, I ran with my new toy, and was ASTONISHEED
    to find that


    during

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the run, at which time I was able to sustain a slightly
    labored


    conversation

    Quoted message said:

    during the entire time, my heart rate appeared
    extremely high (150-160 almost the entire time). I was
    inclined to then find my max HRM,


    assuming

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    that 220-32=188 (my age) may not have been accurate for
    me as a max


    HR.This

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    morning, I jumped out and did a max stress test. I ran
    one mile at a


    medium

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    pace, ran the second at a moderate pace, and then ran
    all out for about


    1/4

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    mile. I became quickly exausted on the final 1/4
    mile... my HRM tells


    me

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    that my max was 176.

    So... my question is... it appears that my long runs
    should be MUCH


    slower.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    .75*176 = 132, a far cray from teh 150-160 that I was
    doing yesterday,


    but

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the 150-160 felt fine.

    What gives? was my 176 calculation way off? even so...
    the 150-160 that


    I

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ran yesterday seems like a VERY high HR for somebody
    that can speak relatively well.

    I have been using an HRM for a few years now.

    There are things you MUST know about it.
    1. Forget that equation. I am 47 and do not have any
    problem hitting


    200+

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    at the end of a 5k. Using the equation, 220-47 it would
    say I could


    only

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    hit 173. Do some of your own test to find out what you
    can reach, like


    2

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    hard miles followed by a tough up hill.

    2. You should get familiar with the term "Cardiac
    Creep" It is where


    your

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    HR will gradually creep up running at the same speed.

    In other words, the number you get for training, out of
    a book, can only


    be

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    approximations and should be treated like that.

  11. Dot said:

    I agree. After I've learned more about training, I've
    never figured out why so much emphasis is placed on max
    hr, esp. in beginners' programs - other than perhaps for
    simplicity of math and not having to explain LT to people.

    Heart rate is important from another perspective. It's a
    simple way to set a safety limit that almost everyone can
    understand.

    Middle-aged couch-potatoes tend to stop running right after
    they run too fast for a mile or two, and have a heart attack
    trying. Keeping the HR down helps to keep the fools and
    idiots alive.

  12. Steve Hansen said:

    Heart rate is important from another perspective. It's a
    simple way to set a safety limit that almost everyone can
    understand.

    Middle-aged couch-potatoes tend to stop running right
    after they run too fast for a mile or two, and have a
    heart attack trying. Keeping the HR down helps to keep the
    fools and idiots alive.

    So the idea is to keep their heart rate *UP*, right ?

    (-;

    --
    Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflord

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users ยท 0 guests ยท0 bots ยท0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.