|
Jan 2021
8:02pm, 10 Jan 2021
370 posts
|
SteveC NordRunner
I don't know about typical but for me I think I have about 69, 79 89 and 95% of max. There's lots of leeway for error at the bottom end and IMO the 89 or so is the most important for threshold. Having said that, in recent times for anything hard I go by what my Coros watch defines as the heart-rate reserve method, based on resting heart rate and max HR. I try to stay away from the middle.
|
|
Jan 2021
8:19pm, 11 Jan 2021
994 posts
|
Muttley
I've been thinking. At what stage, or age, does the hrm become irrelevant?
I started using an hrm in my mid 30s, and obtained my max hr the hard way (annoyingly, it came out exactly the same as the discredited 220-age formula). And down the years I've done loads and loads of stuff at the aerobic level, as the training plans say.
25 years on, now 60, I can still trundle along happily and aerobically at the same hr, up to mid or top 130s. But I haven't seen higher hr rates anything like what they used to be for yonks, and I guess I've lost a beat per minute per year. So I reckon that my hr bands have flattened out at the top end while the aerobic segment is more or less unchanged. The bpm number is the same, but in theory it is much higher as a percentage of max than it was. Which leads me to thinking that calculating the bands is worth it only for younger types, say up to 40.
Also, what's the point of aerobic training and holding the pace down to heart rate, when if I haven't built a solid aerobic base by now, when the f--- will I?!
Should I just ditch the hrm, accept that I'm too old now for it to make any difference, and just as well run by the feel and for the pleasure? Just wondering ...
|
|
Jan 2021
9:31pm, 11 Jan 2021
21,726 posts
|
Dvorak
I can't answer your question fully, but, aged 56, I completely disagree with your basic premise. I reckon I've lost less thank half a beat per year off my max: given the same progression, even if you were right, I'd place my "irrelevancy point" somewhere in my 80s. If I'm still running at that age, I'll be pretty happy  , although might well still be keeping an eye on my whr.
Maybe your reckoning of your own stats is a bit awry ... and maybe (whilst not risking injury or collapse) you could try upping the pace a bit?
|
|
Jan 2021
8:28am, 12 Jan 2021
1,153 posts
|
puzzler
I thought the main purpose of a hrm was to generate quasi-random numbers that you could obsess over and create pretty graphs with, while discussing which of optical or strap give a more spurious degree of accuracy. Would you want to give that up? 😀
I use mine as a general gauge for level of fitness and for some of my faster runs when I want to use hr to calibrate effort. As you indicate, by far the most important use of a hrm is to teach you to run easy aerobic and you learned that lesson 25 years ago.
|
|
Jan 2021
8:36am, 12 Jan 2021
18,531 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I recently bought a new chest strap (polar) and am surprised to see that it is giving me results broadly consistent with the optical numbers. Makes me wonder if I should have saved the money for some super shoes.
|
|
Jan 2021
9:48am, 12 Jan 2021
17,098 posts
|
Chrisull
Bazo - yes sadly.
When I conducted the experiment wearing both watches, the optical generated seemingly crazy numbers, too fast when I was running slow, not fast when I was running fast. Yet came up with the exact same average at the run end... on more than one occasion.
|
|
Jan 2021
10:13am, 12 Jan 2021
32,920 posts
|
SPR
That's still pretty useless. Average isn't the only thing that matters. I doubt Baz is referring to just average though and that makes me wonder why he thought the optical numbers were wrong before.
|
|
Jan 2021
11:12am, 12 Jan 2021
4,293 posts
|
K5 Gus
Baz have you just done steady/easy runs since you got the new strap, or have you done any tempos or interval sessions ?
In my experience it is the harder sessions where the optical struggles most.
|
|
Jan 2021
11:13am, 12 Jan 2021
18,534 posts
|
Bazoaxe
SPR & Chris, its not just the average but the number that I see throughout the run which seem to be pretty consistent between Optical and Chest strap.
To answer SPR, I juts had a suspicion that the optical was a little bit higher than it was when I previously wore a chest strap but actually I reckon that the numbers are broadly similar and I would trust the optical more. I guess though I have seen occasional Optical Blips. The 2nd half of 2019 Abingdon Marathon being a good example where Optical recorded a much lower number than was correct. I do also see every so often a spell of higher HR than is correct on the Optical.
|
|
Jan 2021
11:14am, 12 Jan 2021
18,535 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Gus, good point. No effort runs yet but I plan to start those soon and so may see differences then. And actually Abingdon Marathon may be a good example. I generally didn't see issues with optical on sessions previously
|
