Heart rate
300 watchers
Nov 2018
9:22am, 28 Nov 2018
6,095 posts
|
larkim
I know the VO2 max calcs on Garmins are generally not gospel (or garbage even!), but it's been interesting to note that my figures have crept up recently through a period when I've done a lot of "grey area" running - broadly around MP+10s per mile, the pace that I enjoy more and can normally sustain across runs up to 13/14 miles or so without too much challenge. I'm not doing this as part of any structure etc, it's just that that is the default position for me when I'm not trying to stick to a schedule, rightly or wrongly. I'm not advocating doing a lot of this running, but just observing that it is odd that the algorithm in the watch would tend to encourage runners to this type of activity (if you're a slave to your watch / gadget). It could be that I'm in the lee of a marathon and getting some of those post-marathon benefits too, but I did think it was noteworthy as the watch is now reporting me over 60 for the first time in a long time. |
Nov 2018
9:49am, 28 Nov 2018
2,942 posts
|
steve45
Good to find you here as well hillstrider! You're three years older than I am and my max HR (but only last checked two years ago and needs to be done again) is knocking on the door of 170. There's no way I would want to keep at such a pace for more than a minute--I simply don't want to damage myself/heart.(?) I can run for a few miles at 152/155 but I would be feeling it! Yes, like Gobi has said, sounds like an error on your HRM--mine periodically goes way above my maximum and then suddenly drops back down. I'm not using it at the moment and for a while am just running to the pace I feel is comfortable although it has made me overall slower in quite short time.
|
Nov 2018
9:58am, 28 Nov 2018
65,465 posts
|
Gobi
Larks - I shall humour you with this My Garmin vo2 tracks close to my tested number and strangely responds to specific events in my training. No gray here |
|
Nov 2018
10:54am, 28 Nov 2018
6,096 posts
|
larkim
It's interesting, because on looking back VO2 max for me has never before exceeded 60, and using Runalyse I can see the progression / change run by run and its definitely noticeable that for me running about 7:40 pace at an average of around 150bpm seems to have more impact on the calculated VO2 max compared to running 8m30 at low 130s. And that runs counter to what I'd expect to see. If others find VO2 max tracks well to proper physiological measurements then I think I need to understand the way my Garmin is responding a little better as I really don't feel as if I'm in tip top VO2 form. It's not a huge leap (if at all interested, see the progression here runalyze.com ) but if it is accurate it might reset some of my expectations for road running performance over the winter. |
|
Nov 2018
10:56am, 28 Nov 2018
6,097 posts
|
larkim
Or am I being a bit dense, in that low HR endurance running isn't particularly relevant to VO2 max, hence its the inclusion of more, faster running that is triggering VO2 max development?
|
Nov 2018
11:14am, 28 Nov 2018
13,559 posts
|
Chrisull
larks - I'd say the latter. Low HR endurance running has other benefits than VO2Max (mitochondrial development, muscle strengthening, helping burn fat rather than carbs, not burning yourself out). If you want to specifically target VO2 Max improvements you should run in the zone just above (or just below) your Vo2 Max pace/intensity. I'm not saying it doesn't improve your VO2 max , because any activity that goes aerobic will help BUT it will be definitely sub-optimal. This is where the 30/30s Billats came in, where mathematician/runner Veronique Billat came up with a mathematically very efficient way of improving your VO2 Max. Basically by running 30 seconds at your *current* mile pb pace (not sprint pace), then doing a jog recovery for 30 seconds, she calculated that at least half the recovery was also spent in the zone for VO2 max improvement as well. running.competitor.com |
|
Nov 2018
11:16am, 28 Nov 2018
13,560 posts
|
Chrisull
Note that it isn't quite mile pb pace (I apply it to me, because most of the time 5.5x is my fastest mile capability), for you, you'd probably get a fair bit further in the 6 minute time trial.
|
|
Nov 2018
12:12pm, 28 Nov 2018
6,099 posts
|
larkim
Yep, I know you're a fan of those. Might be something to experiment with over the winter to tie into the XC and shorter road racing that I'm doing.
|
Nov 2018
12:28pm, 28 Nov 2018
13,677 posts
|
Bazoaxe
larkim, I would be interested to know how you do that run by run thing on runalyse My VO2 max seems to move between 53 and 56. Bizarrely it started at 56 after one sub 9mm easy run then dropped to 53 after mostly easy running. It got back to 56 when I got faster at parkrun, but has slipped back to 53 again in the last 10 days after a rubbish parkrun (wind and alcohol related) and more easy running I do treat the number with suspicion as it cant really know that, but its interesting to track. |
Nov 2018
12:38pm, 28 Nov 2018
29,597 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Doesn't it just do a calculation based on "you ran a bit faster" = higher VO2? I think it's probably very simplistic (the watch one I mean. The full, in a lab, measuring your breathing, your bloods etc. is accurate, obv.)  G
|
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
