request for comments, particularly from the hardbodies

Quoted message said:

I'm 52. I am ramping up my miles, currently 35 per/wk, with a goal of
a fall marathon. I'm not really fast but for reference, today I ran
15 miles in 2.5 hrs. I have a year's solid base of training under my
belt and I'm lean, short and reasonably fit. To the point: I've read
a lot about heart rate and the importance of knowing said in order to
improve. Well using the rough formula of 220 - age = max X .80 = in my
case, 134. Unless I'm missing it, training theory says, I should
approach but not exceed ~134 for optimal improvement. Well...I bought
a Polar HRM yesterday and thought I'd see how I'm doing. After 3
miles, nicely warmed up and coming up a hill that rises 100ft over
1500ft, my heart rate is 195. I'm neither winded nor in any kind of
distress whatsoever. Checking the situation over the course of the
run, I'm pegged at 160 rising to 170 on hills and dropping to 150 on
downhills. According to what I've read, I shouldn't be able..or
shouldn't be doing this. But I feel just fine. Any commentary?

Your max HR is probably a lot higher than the standard formula would
indicate. I could try doin a max HR test.

--
Phil M.

mr.b said:

I'm 52. I am ramping up my miles, currently 35 per/wk, with a goal of a
fall marathon. I'm not really fast but for reference, today I ran 15
miles in 2.5 hrs. I have a year's solid base of training under my belt
and I'm lean, short and reasonably fit. To the point: I've read a lot
about heart rate and the importance of knowing said in order to improve.
Well using the rough formula of 220 - age = max X .80 = in my case, 134.
Unless I'm missing it, training theory says, I should approach but not
exceed ~134 for optimal improvement. Well...I bought a Polar HRM
yesterday and thought I'd see how I'm doing. After 3 miles, nicely warmed
up and coming up a hill that rises 100ft over 1500ft, my heart rate is
195.

Then your max heart rate is probably a bit higher than the 168 that is
predicted by the 220 - age "formula".

I suggest you work out what your real max is before trying to use it to set
training intensities.

Suppose you were to use 195 as your max heart rate -- it's probably a little more,
you need to actually get quite winded to hit your max, but it's certainly a better
estimate than 168! Then 80% of max is 156 beats per minute which is consistent
with what you're reporting in terms of perceived effort versus actual heart
rate.

For now, I'd say you should aim to stay around 150-160, though brief short term
excursions to around 170 when you hit steeper grades are acceptable.

That just applies for easy running. For intervals of course you'll be in the
90-100% range.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Quoted message said:

I could try doin a max HR test.

Been reading too much Lowtuc.

--
Phil M.

"mr.b" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm 52. I am ramping up my miles, currently 35 per/wk, with a goal of a
fall marathon. I'm not really fast but for reference, today I ran 15
miles in 2.5 hrs. I have a year's solid base of training under my belt
and I'm lean, short and reasonably fit. To the point: I've read a lot
about heart rate and the importance of knowing said in order to improve.
Well using the rough formula of 220 - age = max X .80 = in my case, 134.
Unless I'm missing it, training theory says, I should approach but not
exceed ~134 for optimal improvement. Well...I bought a Polar HRM
yesterday and thought I'd see how I'm doing. After 3 miles, nicely warmed
up and coming up a hill that rises 100ft over 1500ft, my heart rate is
195. I'm neither winded nor in any kind of distress whatsoever. Checking
the situation over the course of the run, I'm pegged at 160 rising to 170
on hills and dropping to 150 on downhills. According to what I've read, I
shouldn't be able..or shouldn't be doing this. But I feel just fine. Any
commentary?
Cheers

Here's a possibility - the heart rate monitor may not have a solid contact
on your chest. When I put on my hrm strap, if it is not very snug, with
plenty of moisture on the contacts, the movement of running gives me a fasle
high reading - sometimes in excess of 204 bpm. It's not until I really
start to sweat, that the contact becomes better, and is actually reading
heart rate.

"mr.b" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm 52. I am ramping up my miles, currently 35 per/wk, with a goal of a
fall marathon. I'm not really fast but for reference, today I ran 15
miles in 2.5 hrs. I have a year's solid base of training under my belt
and I'm lean, short and reasonably fit. To the point: I've read a lot
about heart rate and the importance of knowing said in order to improve.
Well using the rough formula of 220 - age = max X .80 = in my case, 134.
Unless I'm missing it, training theory says, I should approach but not
exceed ~134 for optimal improvement. Well...I bought a Polar HRM
yesterday and thought I'd see how I'm doing. After 3 miles, nicely warmed
up and coming up a hill that rises 100ft over 1500ft, my heart rate is
195. I'm neither winded nor in any kind of distress whatsoever. Checking
the situation over the course of the run, I'm pegged at 160 rising to 170
on hills and dropping to 150 on downhills. According to what I've read, I
shouldn't be able..or shouldn't be doing this. But I feel just fine. Any
commentary?
Cheers

What book/articles did you read about HRMs?

I've used one for the past 8 years, so I'll give you my 2 cents. I find the
HRM is useful for 2 things mainly. First, it helps you keep your pace high
on faster paced tempo runs. Second, it helps you keep your pace easy on
recovery or on longer efforts that you want to be easy.

The problem is that textbook zones will not work for everyone, even if you
know your true Max HR. For example, my early season zones may be very high
at first if I'm just getting back into training and the body isn't used to
running activity. They will then normally drop significantly for several
months while the muscles and connective tissues adapt again to the training.
And lastly my training zones will rise as I near peak form, particularly the
tempo pace HR.

In consequence, I use the HRM more as a feedback tool than anything else.
Any divergence from the current norm, based on perceived effort in
comparison to HR, indicates lack of rest or something else. I think one has
to work out their own zones to use a HRM effectively.

-Tony

mr.b said:

I'm 52. I am ramping up my miles, currently 35 per/wk, with a goal of a
fall marathon. I'm not really fast but for reference, today I ran 15
miles in 2.5 hrs. I have a year's solid base of training under my belt
and I'm lean, short and reasonably fit. To the point: I've read a lot
about heart rate and the importance of knowing said in order to improve.
Well using the rough formula of 220 - age = max X .80 = in my case, 134.
Unless I'm missing it, training theory says, I should approach but not
exceed ~134 for optimal improvement. Well...I bought a Polar HRM
yesterday and thought I'd see how I'm doing. After 3 miles, nicely warmed
up and coming up a hill that rises 100ft over 1500ft, my heart rate is
195. I'm neither winded nor in any kind of distress whatsoever. Checking
the situation over the course of the run, I'm pegged at 160 rising to 170
on hills and dropping to 150 on downhills. According to what I've read, I
shouldn't be able..or shouldn't be doing this. But I feel just fine. Any
commentary?
Cheers

You might consider a different book if they didn't mention that those
formulas may be off by as much as 20bpm or more. What's useful for
"optimal improvement" depends a lot on the person and their goals - as
well as the philosophy of the book's author. Some people can train
according to text books, others are the outliers. Training tends to be
part science and part gut feeling since most people weren't actually
part of the studies where they found all these wonderful things. Even
within a study, there's variability among responses, which get condensed
to "average" responses.

FWIW, when I was first learning, I finally figured out that max hr had
absolutely nothing to do with my training and most training was based
relative to LT/VT or VO2max or something else. As a beginner, they
suggest no speed work, then suggest a maximal effort to determine max hr
- which made no sense to me. What I did was estimate VT by going hard up
a hill at end of regular run and noting where my breathing became
labored, divided that by .9 to get the max hr estimate, then calculated
my zones off that. I've tweaked them a bit since then, and that method
is also a gross approximation frought with many assumptions. However, if
I used that method to est my max hr and got my resting hr, and used
Karvonen formula (heart rate reserve) and lined up those numbers with "%
of effort" column (2nd col) in the following chart, the "perceived
exertion" col (4th col), they line up reasonably. I have since found
other formulas that give good approximations to my max hr.
http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf

In reality, *I* (personal opinion) view efforts as a spectrum from easy
(low-end aerobic, 60-70% hrr) to medium (70-75% hrr) to high-end aerobic
(75-80% hrr), LT (80-85%), above LT (above 85% hrr). I'm just using
round numbers since I recognize the numbers are fuzzy and they do change
over time - age, training, weather, etc. Both max hr can change (aging,
training) and LT/VT hr can change with training. Breathing ability
changes along that gradient.

Most training gets done at conversational effort where I can talk in
complete sentences. I'll do some at med effort, but if I'm not running
easy, I'm most likely to be at high-end aerobic - can still talk, but in
phrases. I've found using that as a guideline after warmed up to be more
useful, esp. since hrm may have delayed response on hills. I use my hrm
primarily for logging data, but the run gets done by perception. I'm not
one of those talented people that can run, watch whats going on around,
AND look at a watch. And if I'm not distracted by a watch, I can pay
more attention to multiple body signals that I'm going to die at this
pace up that hill if I don't back off - long before hrm registers it.
(Sometimes I back off, sometimes I push just to see. Yep, my body's
usually right.)

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

mr.b said:

I'm 52...But I feel just fine. Any
commentary?

Thanks all for your input. Some valuable stuff there.
Cheers

It seems to me I heard somewhere that determined wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"mr.b" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm 52. I am ramping up my miles, currently 35 per/wk, with a goal of a
fall marathon. I'm not really fast but for reference, today I ran 15
miles in 2.5 hrs. I have a year's solid base of training under my belt
and I'm lean, short and reasonably fit. To the point: I've read a lot
about heart rate and the importance of knowing said in order to improve.
Well using the rough formula of 220 - age = max X .80 = in my case, 134.
Unless I'm missing it, training theory says, I should approach but not
exceed ~134 for optimal improvement. Well...I bought a Polar HRM
yesterday and thought I'd see how I'm doing. After 3 miles, nicely warmed
up and coming up a hill that rises 100ft over 1500ft, my heart rate is
195. I'm neither winded nor in any kind of distress whatsoever. Checking
the situation over the course of the run, I'm pegged at 160 rising to 170
on hills and dropping to 150 on downhills. According to what I've read, I
shouldn't be able..or shouldn't be doing this. But I feel just fine. Any
commentary?
Cheers

Quoted message said:

Here's a possibility - the heart rate monitor may not have a solid contact
on your chest. When I put on my hrm strap, if it is not very snug, with
plenty of moisture on the contacts, the movement of running gives me a fasle
high reading - sometimes in excess of 204 bpm. It's not until I really
start to sweat, that the contact becomes better, and is actually reading
heart rate.

And HRMs are notoriously subject to interference and static. Part of my
usual course runs under high tension lines, and on days with wind or low
humidity my readings may be 30 to 40 beats above what I can count
manually at the same time, and when the static gets too high the meter
gets swamped and the reading drops to zero.
--
Don Kirkman