|
Sep 2011
12:41pm, 30 Sep 2011
3,435 posts
|
Bazoaxe
This really just re-iterates what others have said.....I generally find that the faster I run, the lower the BPM number I see....however I can see a general trend and when I started back after training I was seeing high 1300 numbers, I am now in the low 1300s and even 1200s....my 80% runs being the high 1200s while my 75% runs will be low-mid 1300s. If I ran a 5k race all out, I would expect to see low 1200s, maybe even 1100.
So I can see progress, but need to ensure I compare like with like in terms of type of run and the undulations of the route.
|
|
Sep 2011
12:45pm, 30 Sep 2011
3,240 posts
|
GlennR
Leaving aside that it's undoubtedly non-linear at the extremes, to get any kind of consistent comparison you'd need to strip out the resting HR from the calculation. The reason beats per mile tends to be lower at faster paces is that there are fewer resting beats in a shorter time per mile.
|
|
Sep 2011
1:01pm, 30 Sep 2011
44,412 posts
|
Gobi
Actually Glenn if you are really screwed and inefficient at high speed it is possible BPM will be high at fast pace
|
|
Sep 2011
1:04pm, 30 Sep 2011
3,244 posts
|
GlennR
That's what I meant by 'undoubtedly non-linear at the extremes' Gobi. Similarly, if you're motionless BPM is infinite.
I am of mathematical bent, but even thinking about expressing this as a function is making my brain hurt.
|
|
Sep 2011
2:03pm, 30 Sep 2011
1,843 posts
|
daviec
I know I shouldn't really, but...
HR = 166+22*arctan(1.3v-12) gives a rough graph that I'd expect to see for me, where v is the speed of running in mph between about 6 and 12 mph. And I reckon as fitness improves the point where it shoots up would move to the rigth and become even steeper.
|
|
Sep 2011
2:04pm, 30 Sep 2011
17,180 posts
|
eL Bee!
So as a simple tool for us simple folk.......... not that helpful! 
|
|
Sep 2011
2:22pm, 30 Sep 2011
1,844 posts
|
daviec
This is how roughly how I reckon the shape of HR/pace would look. Almost linear at slow aerobic pace, then starting to rise rapidly at what I reckon would be your current LT pace, then maxing out as you go anaerobic. Aerobic improvement would see the graph stretch vertically downwards, and horizontally to the right. That would mean an improvement in pace for lower HRs and a higher max. LT training would push the vertical section to the right meaning you could run faster for longer.
|
|
Sep 2011
2:32pm, 30 Sep 2011
44,415 posts
|
Gobi
Blimey what did I start?
I need Rach to explain it all back to me
|
|
Sep 2011
2:34pm, 30 Sep 2011
1,845 posts
|
daviec
|
|
Sep 2011
2:35pm, 30 Sep 2011
44,419 posts
|
Gobi
Really impressed at the line of conversation
|
