|
Oct 2022
11:13am, 24 Oct 2022
23,611 posts
|
Dave A
Morning. Following t’wifes post I thought I would poke my head in.
Recently I’ve started doing some hr bases running to ensure my easy runs are easy. I had been running to perceives effort for a few months post injury, but wasn’t seeing improvements I’d expect. Probably running a bit too hard.
So the runs I’ve been doing have been to Garmin zones based on max heart rate.
From looking in a heart rate thread a few years ago, possibly this one, there was mention of running to WHR, rather than max heart rate.
I have a basic and fuzzy memory of the difference.
Can someone explain the difference?
Also, pros and cons of both.
|
|
Oct 2022
11:23am, 24 Oct 2022
4,455 posts
|
J2R
Working heart rate as a method tends to more accurately reflect your level of fitness, because it uses your resting heart rate (which usually goes down the fitter you are). This is what's called the Karvonen method. Let's say your maximum heart rate is 180, and your resting heart rate is 50, and you want to find out what 70% of your working heart rate is. So you would take 180-50, which gives you 130, your heart rate reserve, multiply that by 0.7, giving 91, and add back in your resting HR, so 91+50=141.
|
|
Oct 2022
11:41am, 24 Oct 2022
19,428 posts
|
larkim
I like the idea of Karvonen, and in theory I use that as my guide, but the calc is pretty sensitive to getting the right RHR number. I know my "low" HR is about 47/48 when I'm asleep or very chilled in front of the TV, but Garmin consistently reports my RHR at about 52/53; which would bump my zones up by 5bpm compared the calc I'd done before I had a Garmin that tracked RHR regularly.
Perhaps I get it "right" by setting the zones based on the 47/48, and then often finding myself running towards the top of those zones, whereas if I used the 52/53 I'd be in the middle of the zones more often (though mentally I know I'd be a poor disciple to that and push the effors so that I was squeezing close to the top of the zones, just because I'm a poorly disciplined individual!)
|
|
Oct 2022
12:17pm, 24 Oct 2022
26,082 posts
|
Dvorak
Garmin is wrong. We kicked this about a few pages back. The reported RHR doesn't even conform to what their documentation states it should be.
|
|
Oct 2022
12:17pm, 24 Oct 2022
23,814 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I think on HR there are general principles, but there is an individual element that applies to us all and we need to find the sweet spot within the general principles.
Ignore any Max HR calcs and try to find your max through pushing yourself on hill reps or at the sprint of a 5k and then from there work out your zones and how they work individually
|
|
Oct 2022
12:20pm, 24 Oct 2022
19,433 posts
|
larkim
I didn't think we concluded it, at least not by concluding that a RHR which was the average low of a short period of time was definitely the right or wrong answer to the question "what is your RHR".
Is an instantaenous "low" recorded by a watch or a HR strap a better measure of RHR than a 1 minute average, for example?
|
|
Oct 2022
12:22pm, 24 Oct 2022
19,434 posts
|
larkim
That said, Garmin's "30 minutes" sampling interval is pretty long and probably too long to be worth much.
|
|
Oct 2022
12:25pm, 24 Oct 2022
23,815 posts
|
Bazoaxe
On RHR when I used to take it manually I got a lower number than my Garmin calculates if I wear that whilst sleeping. It seems to be an average rather than the lowest number it sees, but still higher than I expected
|
|
Oct 2022
12:27pm, 24 Oct 2022
26,083 posts
|
Dvorak
No, or my rhr would be 36  (I sometimes get some very odd readings a few minutes post-exercise).
But I reckon a reading for a minute taken manually (which my watch visually almost always corresponds with) is valid, and the figure Garmin Connect comes up with isn't.
|
|
Oct 2022
1:48pm, 24 Oct 2022
23,612 posts
|
Dave A
Thanks for that.
Im not after becoming a disciple, but having something as a guide will be useful.
With that, is there somewhere to look online that has training guidance or even a decent book?
|
