|
Jun 2017
7:35pm, 6 Jun 2017
312 posts
|
Brunski
Thanks Larkim, sounds a good run and a test I will try to do one day around a country park nearby. Would you say your max is around the 185-190 mark?
|
|
Jun 2017
7:38pm, 6 Jun 2017
11,391 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Brunski, when you are fit its harder to get near your max HR. The highest marks I see have been at the end of Parkruns. However its been a while since I saw a mark as high as I did when I decided on my current HR max about 3 years ago
|
|
Jun 2017
7:56pm, 6 Jun 2017
2,140 posts
|
larkim
I reckon my max is about 180, but I've never done a proper test. 220-age would give me 176.
|
|
Jun 2017
8:53pm, 6 Jun 2017
268 posts
|
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss)
Glad the heart rate stats are more realistic now with your new watch. A few on here will be sighing with relief that you're not such a freak afterall 
|
|
Jun 2017
9:32pm, 6 Jun 2017
33,464 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
I think most of us are higher than standard Age minus 220
|
|
Jun 2017
10:46pm, 6 Jun 2017
12,699 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
To be honest HoD, unless WE are not a representative study. I'd have thought 50% should be higher and 50% should be lower than that arbitrary 220-age?
And according to medical science, the results from oxygen test linked to exercise/heart rate my calcuated max would be 174.
|
|
Jun 2017
10:46pm, 6 Jun 2017
12,700 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
But I'm not 46
|
|
Jun 2017
11:03pm, 6 Jun 2017
13,711 posts
|
Dvorak
I read a good article recently (can't remember if it was a link on FE) about how the guy behind the original study really tried not to have people take that 220-age as any sort of generally applicable rule - but failed.
Fenners - in regards to the general population, I think we Fetchies are a completely unrepresentative study. Anyone posting on this thread, even more so.
|
|
Jun 2017
11:20pm, 6 Jun 2017
313 posts
|
Brunski
Haha SSLHP, not as relieved as me. I was starting to think up reasons why my HR hit these levels at times, but I just couldn't maintain anywhere near it.
Here's a few 'reasons' that I thought of (just so you can all laugh at/with me):
- My stride rate changes when I press harder meaning my oversized thighs need more oxygen (yes I think I put this approx 20 pages ago, and blogged about it too 😬😊)
- 15 plus years as a smoker meant I only had partial use of my lung capacity, but my heart could have given more (been quit around 9 years on the whole, with the odd blip...not even a puff for at least 4 years) - I kept this to my internal thoughts.
- I had a freaky heart and was about to collapse if I pushed too hard.
- I was a big of a soft runner (possibly the opposite as I think when I was running regular sub 18 5ks I must've really been touching it out to hang on toward the end).
Larkim - if your max is ~180 and you are running half's averaging 170 you are doing very well, I suspect it may be a few beats higher
Baz- That's good to hear about the max HR. I don't think I've ran properly rested with the new watch, so hopefully I'm not stuck at 159, I'd say for training purposes 165 is reasonable for now, until I see higher.
HoD - I was convinced I was higher than the 220 - age but that'd give me 179 and I'm nowhere near that.
Any decent marathon plans out there for people able to run 50-70 miles a week based on HR %age that anyone has stumbled across?
|
|
Jun 2017
10:23am, 7 Jun 2017
8 posts
|
DMZ
Morning folks - I'm relatively new to fetch, so if you don't know me, hello!
I have paid attention to HR in training for over a year now (I'm another fenix3 + HRM strap user), mainly out of curiosity and to check for example that I stay under 75% of max on easy runs.
I set my max at 192 bpm, because on two races (the same route, a 10k with a hill at the end) I hit 191 both times. However, in all other races and training I have never seen anything above 185 bpm. Hill reps, intervals, my parkrun PB (17:59) was 184 bpm.
I sometimes wonder if somehow the 191 readings were anomalous and that my max is less than 190. The garmin thinks my VO2max is 61 ml/kg/min, and the race predictor shows ridiculous predictions (2:40 marathon, 16:47 5k when my actual times are 2:58 and 17:59). If I reduce my HRmax perhaps these readings will become more realistic?
On the other hand, I sometimes think I'm just not fit enough to push myself to my HRmax outside of a stressful race with a hill - and perhaps if I train well consistently over years I might have a chance of reaching those race predictions. But that would mean I'm currently not getting the most out of my interval sessions where the HR should be up near 100% for the benefits.
I will run that same 10k race again in August, so will be interesting to see if I get the same high 191 bpm reading again. Both previous times look like genuine readings and not random spikes.
I tend to not worry about this too much, and just enjoy getting out and running, but thought I'd post in case any of you have any thoughts, or have similar experiences?
|
