Heart rate
298 watchers
Dec 2023
5:39pm, 20 Dec 2023
43,411 posts
|
SPR
Most people's beat per mile will be lower at faster paces hence it shows nothing.
|
Dec 2023
5:41pm, 20 Dec 2023
27,418 posts
|
Dvorak
But why is that the case? Is it not because running faster is more efficient?
|
|
Dec 2023
5:42pm, 20 Dec 2023
43,412 posts
|
SPR
Maybe but then what do you do with that info?
|
Dec 2023
5:47pm, 20 Dec 2023
41,747 posts
|
Nellers
I get a lower b/km score on tempo runs, which tallies with the thoughts above. I guess I’m about 30-50 seconds faster per km on tempo runs and my hr is up by maybe 15 bpm. There’s just less time for the heart to beat in a fast km. I’ve tracked this as a weekly average since May as my running fitness improved and it’s been a pretty steady downward trend, which I have taken as proof of improving fitness. |
Dec 2023
5:56pm, 20 Dec 2023
4,923 posts
|
J2R
I disagree that it shows nothing, SPR. It shows nothing useful comparing between individuals, but it's a potentially useful training metric when seeing how one is progressing in terms of aerobic fitness (and/or running economy, which is presumably why you quote it for your shoe-testing runs).
|
|
Dec 2023
5:58pm, 20 Dec 2023
43,413 posts
|
SPR
In regards to comparing numbers, they aren't comparable with other people's as it's all based on your range (unless your range is exactly the same as someone else in which case you wouldn't need beats per mile to compare). If two people run exactly the same pace at 80% MHR but one has max of 160 with the other a max of 200, the beats per mile for the 160 max runner is going to be lower.
|
|
Dec 2023
5:58pm, 20 Dec 2023
27,419 posts
|
Dvorak
Well, that's a different question, SPR. But maybe there's another avenue for heart rate based training to go down? Instead of just an 80/20 approach, or focussing on easy running at sub 70% whr, there's a place for efficiency-based training. I suppose that on runs with "race pace" sections, such as those often done in marathon training, that is what people are doing, albeit coming at it from the other direction? To a degree, intervals could also be described as "efficiency-based" as well. |
|
Dec 2023
5:59pm, 20 Dec 2023
43,414 posts
|
SPR
I disagree that it shows nothing, SPR. It shows nothing useful comparing between individuals, but it's a potentially useful training metric when seeing how one is progressing in terms of aerobic fitness (and/or running economy, which is presumably why you quote it for your shoe-testing runs). It shows nothing that it is lower at faster paces. That's not the comparison you do. |
Dec 2023
6:02pm, 20 Dec 2023
16,124 posts
|
jda
I take fewer breaths and fewer paces per km at higher speeds.
|
|
Dec 2023
6:02pm, 20 Dec 2023
43,415 posts
|
SPR
Well, that's a different question, SPR. But maybe there's another avenue for heart rate based training to go down? Instead of just an 80/20 approach, or focussing on easy running at sub 70% whr, there's a place for efficiency-based training. I suppose that on runs with "race pace" sections, such as those often done in marathon training, that is what people are doing, albeit coming at it from the other direction? To a degree, intervals could also be described as "efficiency-based" as well. Beats per mile isn't a universal metric, it's not really showing anything scientific per se. It just allows runs within a certain range to be compared. I think it's actually a metric Fetch invented unless he saw it somewhere else. |
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
