|
Feb 2017
7:54pm, 28 Feb 2017
33,188 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
New well replaced HRM arrived today
|
|
Feb 2017
9:11pm, 28 Feb 2017
377 posts
|
Dillthedog57
When I start at the low heart rates I really have to hold myself back to keep below the max, but after a couple of months I start having to actually work to maintain the heart rate. Definitely requires more effort to run at the same heart rate, but that reflects the big step up in pace
|
|
Mar 2017
2:20pm, 1 Mar 2017
197 posts
|
Brunski
Cheers SSLHP and Dill, I went out with a mate I used to run with the other day. We ran about 6 miles at about 8 min miling. I was really holding back, hardly breathing, and steady at around 115 bpm, whereas he was clearly pushing himself aerobically.
Now I'm only able to push myself to that level of breathing by racing really, the odd longer tempo gets me toward that, but not really.
As soon as I hit around 155 bpm I lose control of the HR and it starts getting a lot harder. Does this sound about where my threshold is? I feel like I've run a lot of mileage at what would be aerobic HR for my Now I'm running 60-80 mpw should I be able to hold this sort of HR for a marathon?
Last year I avearaged aroud 155 for the Marathon, in October. And around 165 for the HM I ran in April.
I definitely feel fitter now, I weigh less, I run more, but the thought of running a HM @ 160-175 bpm now fills me with dread. I honestly feel like I'll struggle to get it to 155.
What say others? My max is somewhere around 200bm, and I have a big range of HR (between 38-200), I regularly average around 180bpm for a 5k, peaking toward 200bpm.
|
|
Mar 2017
2:42pm, 1 Mar 2017
13,186 posts
|
Dvorak
8 min miling under 50% WHR. Wow. Jogger! 
155bpm would therefore only be about 72% WHR then and I would think you should still be running pretty easy at that. And run HM at a consistent "bit more", so it's a conundrum to me. How are those 5Ks feeling?
|
|
Mar 2017
2:52pm, 1 Mar 2017
5,066 posts
|
Huntsman
Brunski can you show me the data please which identifies your HR max as somewhere around 200bpm?
|
|
Mar 2017
3:29pm, 1 Mar 2017
5,981 posts
|
paul the builder
Brunski - you've obviously got some talent for this, and I want to see you do well. But I really think you're in danger of tying yourself up in knots by using HR data that is not trustworthy to drive (or at least contribute to) your training.
I'm not sure what your goals are for the next 6-12 months. But in lieu of trustworthy HR data you can train by pace - chuck recent 5k or 10 k race times in to a variety of running calculators (use a variety because they will all give different answers), and find your 'everyday' recommended pace, plus paces for tempos and different length intervals.
(Alternatively, change your HRM technology ;-))
|
|
Mar 2017
3:32pm, 1 Mar 2017
5,982 posts
|
paul the builder
One other point I meant to make - you said you were "really holding back" at 8m/m with your mate. Now that pace ought to be easy for you... but some runners fell like they're really holding back just because they've always been used to running at medium to hard effort levels (and therefore don't really know what 'properly' easy means). So HR can help with this, and that's one reason to stick with it (but only if you can believe the numbers).
|
|
Mar 2017
3:49pm, 1 Mar 2017
1,710 posts
|
larkim
Whilst I'm inexpert in these things, I think PTB has it right. If you can trust the data, then HR is a an enhanced measure compared to pace because it can help be more precise about effort levels, and arguably detect more subtle changes like impending / recovering illnesses etc.
But for most people, most of the time, pace is not a bad proxy for effort levels, particularly if you have some race experience under your belt which can direct you in determining your "10k" pace or "5k" pace for intervals etc. You should feel entirely comfortable using your recent 10k race pace as a benchmark if that was a genuine effort, and just base training paces off that.
The data you're putting out just doesn't seem to stack up with "normal" HR. Max at 200 but struggling to get to 155 for a half? That's 77% MaxHR. For me, my best guess at max is 180 and I know that running at 77% of that (140) feels really easy. If you want to persist with HR training (and there's no reason why you shouldn't) you need to get some reliable data about heart rates, might be worth spending some money with the local university science department or whoever locally can do proper treadmill based max HR test etc etc to get some data that you can trust.
|
|
Mar 2017
4:15pm, 1 Mar 2017
1,611 posts
|
RunningInCircles
larkim - Do not disagree in any way. Just a question really....
Is a treadmill test the best method of maxing out? HR max iirc from past studies is sport specific. Therefore, is running in an unnatural environment introducing a margin of error i.e. we do not train or compete on a treadmill. Would not a test under "normal" conditions be appropriate.
I know they will test a lot more (VO2max, lactate threshold etc...) so there could be a lot of value if you need that kind of data.
Just curious
|
|
Mar 2017
4:37pm, 1 Mar 2017
1,711 posts
|
larkim
Personally I've no idea really, just a perception that if you paid for a diagnostic session like that firstly you should be able to trust their equipment and secondly you should be able to trust their methodology.
If I was to do one of the traditional DIY maxHR tests I'm subject to my HR not working 100%, making mistakes with readings, making mistakes with the methodology etc etc. I've never had a test done, but that's just my perception!
I'm not aware of anything which says that your maxHR is anything other than your maxHR, whether running, cycling, rowing, etc etc. It is meant to be a physiological measure surely, irrespective of the discipline? I could be completely wrong about this of course!
|
