Heart rate
300 watchers
Oct 2017
9:33am, 3 Oct 2017
83 posts
|
DMZ
J2R that's interesting. One thing I have noticed from wearing an HRM relates to Garmin's "performance condition". I have not seen any technical explanation of exactly how this number is calculated, but apparently it measures your pace, HR and HRV to make a "real time assessment of your ability to perform compared to your average fitness level". I can view the number on my watch whilst running, and I can also see a plot after the run on garmin connect. Now, on many runs the number ends up negative. It might start positive, perhaps say +3 or +4, but then after a few miles it's down to zero, and then steadily drops to say -5 by the end of the run. Or, sometimes it starts negative and just fluctuates a bit. But, on occasional runs, it stays positive for the whole activity. It might start at +3 or +4, rise to +5 after a few miles, drop back to +4 by the end. So there are two patterns - one where it goes negative and one where it doesn't. It does seem to be the all positive runs where I feel really fresh, able to push the pace, and race well. I wouldn't be surprised if these 'all positive' runs correspond with runs where I am able to 'access a higher heart rate/pace' for a given perceived effort, as you put it. The question of why/when some runs are 'all positive' and most are not, is a good one. Obviously, it would be advantageous to race on a 'all good' day. |
Oct 2017
9:39am, 3 Oct 2017
11,829 posts
|
Chrisull
I think J2R is saying something different here, he is saying that is has access to a higher heart rate, this isn't the same as simply running harder to get it. I've noted this myself, doing a heart rate test on some days compared to others, you can get it higher, and on other days I simply cannot, motivation being the same on either day. Here's a study on how HRMax can be altered by between 3-7% in training (and also detraining, you taper and it can go up too it seems). So if your HR max *can* (not does) increase by as much as 7% in training (so for me that would be 12 beats), then it would seem logical (although I must be wary of drawing a conclusion that is implied but not stated) that when you are fitter your would also have access to higher heart rates: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Separately just come across this article in the NYTimes from 2001 (so 16 years ago !!!) saying why the 220-age is a load of bunkum and why 208 - (0.7 * age) is a much better extrapolation for trained runners. Works out for 175 for me, which I've got to say feels pretty much bang on. I can do 174, I could do 176 a couple of years back. nytimes.com |
|
Oct 2017
9:40am, 3 Oct 2017
11,830 posts
|
Chrisull
cross post -was responding to flanker and fenners, not DMZ here.
|
Oct 2017
10:28am, 3 Oct 2017
1,979 posts
|
steve45
Quite aside from HRV when I use my chest belt HRM there is a distinct and obvious correlation in respect of my heart rate, pace and how I feel overall. This has worked well for nearly fifteen years--if I'm feeling good and running easily at what seems a good pace I can be sure that my HR is right within the levels required. If I feel lousy and my pace is poor then my HR is always higher than I would want it to be. Of course there are runs when I'm running faster (for me) and at a tempo pace but I feel overall good, on those occasions my HR would be high but I would be comfortable sticking with it. This sort of fits in with what DMZ is identifying but it's done without the tech.
|
Oct 2017
10:38am, 3 Oct 2017
30,949 posts
|
GlennR
Where I think HRV may be informative is in identifying cases where there is underlying fatigue but it doesn’t show up in the headline HR number. This can manifest itself in an inability to get the HR up, but by the time you notice that it’s too late to deal with it.
|
|
Oct 2017
10:42am, 3 Oct 2017
84 posts
|
DMZ
Steve 45, yes a runner doesn't need tech to know if he or she is feeling good and running well. The thing about performance condition is just a correlation that I have noticed and seemed to fit with what J2R was saying. What would be more interesting is if I can spot a pattern of training or other things that would help predict good or bad runs. At the moment it seems pretty random to me.
|
Oct 2017
12:48pm, 3 Oct 2017
737 posts
|
J2R
Chris, yes, that is my experience too, some days you can access the highest heart rates and others you can't, and motivation isn't the key, I've been equally motivated and psychologically prepared for all the races. Certainly fatigue is an element. If I'm suffering from fatigue, I can't reach that high HR zone (presumably brain as central governor kicking in to protect me). That doesn't explain all the variation satisfactorily for me, though. As regards HRmax, my understanding, though, Chris, was that when you're very well trained your HRmax actually goes DOWN a little, rather than 'that when you are fitter your would also have access to higher heart rates'. I recall Canute saying something about this, maybe in his blog or on the polarized training thread. And now, a terrible confession! That was a bad bit of science yesterday, with my little HR experiment involving cold water facial immersion. You may recall I said I went for a very easy run (around 115bpm) then dipped my face in cold water and subsequently took an HRV test with surprising results which I attributed to the cold water, having read a study on the subject that morning. Well, of course, there were two variables there, not one! This morning I took my HRV on rising and it was again low (once again unsurprising, with viral lurgy and stress-disturbed, unrefreshing night's sleep). Mid morning I went for another very easy run, around 3.5 miles, this time slightly faster, with an HR around 120bpm. About half an hour after coming in, I did another HRV test and got similar results to yesterday - not quite so striking, but still a marked improvement on the HRV reading from first thing. HRV up by 12 points from this morning and resting HR down at levels I had only had while asleep before. So it appears that a good part of the effect is not in fact from the cold water immersion, but rather from a very easy run - what would be termed 'active recovery'. That in itself is a very surprising finding for me. I would say that the cold water immersion clearly helped as well, though, just not as much as I assumed yesterday - the combination of the two things seemed to be key. (I did another cold water facial immersion after this second HRV test, followed by another test, and my resting HR went down another couple of beats but there was no change in my HRV this time). |
Oct 2017
1:35pm, 3 Oct 2017
13,666 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
Thanks J2R, that was my understanding that the HRMax goes slightly down in well trained athletes. But I can't find any reference material to back that up.
|
|
Oct 2017
2:42pm, 3 Oct 2017
11,835 posts
|
Chrisull
Fenners, I believe it can do either confusingly enough, depending on the person.
|
|
Oct 2017
5:36pm, 3 Oct 2017
740 posts
|
J2R
Chrisull, forgot to say, that '208 - (0.7 * age)' formula doesn't work out for me. It gives me 168, where my actual HRmax is probably 175-176 (not done a decent test for a while). I'm unconvinced any of these formulae will be accurate for a sizeable percentage of runners.
|
Related Threads
-
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023
-
Jack daniels marathon plan help
May 2014
-
Polarized training
Apr 2024
-
Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate
Jan 2021
-
No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease
Jan 2021
-
Resetting Max Heart Rate
Dec 2020
-
Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal
Oct 2020
-
Heart rate zones
Jul 2020
-
Running Heart rate
Jun 2020
-
Heart Rate monitors
Jun 2020