|
Jul 2007
11:05am, 29 Jul 2007
2,107 posts
|
Mudskipper
Praps I'm just a freak 
|
|
Jul 2007
11:08am, 29 Jul 2007
1,098 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
I'm measuring my resting HR the next few morning to get an average. I'm certain it'll be lower than when I last measured a couple of years ago.
BUT, What about the maximum? Does that change with time? I know the 220 minus age rule and that would say mine is 191, but I hit 199 in my first race a year ago. Should I still take that as the maximum or do I need to measure that again?
|
|
Jul 2007
11:13am, 29 Jul 2007
542 posts
|
eL Bee!
LOL
aren't we all!!!
Some people find that their HRs climb quickly and then settle
I'm in the other group who take a couple of miles for it to reach the point I'm aiming for.
I see that most of your running has a significant degree of verticality in it, and if you are running on fells and training on that kind of terrain, then the rules are necessarily a little different!
|
|
Jul 2007
11:20am, 29 Jul 2007
9,452 posts
|
Mud, did you use the method explained in the article to work out your 70% WHR?
Also, maybe you are running a bit fast? It does feel ludicrously easy to start with... You could also look at the contact between HRM strap and skin. I wet mine with salt water because it goes mental for teh first couple of miles otherwise until the sweat make sgood contact.
Max heart rate does not change Keefy, it's your genetics that determine that. You MAY see higher or lower. The highest you see is your new max heart rate basically. Are you sure you hit 199 though? SOmetimes you can see a high reading when it doesn't contact correctly as described above. Maybe you should measure it and your resting again just to make sure your numbers are right?
|
|
Jul 2007
11:22am, 29 Jul 2007
9,453 posts
|
elBee, mine takes a while to get up to speed too.
|
|
Jul 2007
11:22am, 29 Jul 2007
543 posts
|
eL Bee!
KB - the 199 is your max - until you test it to 'vomiting point'
If you were above the formulaic theoretical number, then your max is going to be higher than it. And unless you pushed yourself to near collapse in your race - your max may be slightly higher than the 199.
For now I'd say use the 199 as your max, and when you get an opportunity - do a more formal max test
|
|
Jul 2007
11:24am, 29 Jul 2007
2,108 posts
|
Mudskipper
LOL eL Bee. The 'verticality' is something I can't really avoid around here so most of my running is up and down (and muddy) but after the recent poor showings at local races I need to do something and using the HRM does seem the most obvious to keep a check on what is happening.
|
|
Jul 2007
11:25am, 29 Jul 2007
777 posts
|
Girlie
KB- I thought a max was a max, so if 199 was the highest number you have seen, then use that until you see something higher.
Now guys, I have just come back from a very pleasant 8 miles with WW. We both went at a leisurely pace, together, he dictated it, so we ran closer to his 70%, although not over. He avg at 66% I managed 56%!! I have never seen mine that low before! Naturally I am very at the first time i've sone a true sub 70% run!
The pace was a leisurely 12:55/mi( very slow to the greyhounds amongst us, but fine for us plodders!) although it didn't feel that slow.
What puzzles me though is why can't I do that for the same route when I'm on my own? 8 miles is the distance I have the battle against the hrm!
This week is dropback week, so trying not to do too much, but was thinking of doing another 8 this week, same route, to see if I can do it on my own.
Not sure what to do on Tuesday, should I do a 6 mile mp run( 3 miles @ MP, 1.5 each side as warmup/cool down) or should I stick to sub 70% runs of between 6-8 miles? Long run will be 10, probably on Thursday or Saturday.
|
|
Jul 2007
11:30am, 29 Jul 2007
544 posts
|
eL Bee!
Mudskipper - where is it that you've been losing time? The updulates, or the downdulates?
Or are you having a "finding it all pretty difficult" phase at the moment?
|
|
Jul 2007
11:31am, 29 Jul 2007
1,099 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
Ok guys. I think 199 probably was correct because it would regularly get to 192 during intervals.
I don't use this method at the mo but am thinking of using it on my easy Mon and Wed runs for the next few weeks. I'm just curious to record the data for the meanwhile and see if I see my heart rate/pace becomes more efficient (if that is the right word).
A reminder of the percentages and calculations of working rate would be appreciated as I don't want to go through 366 pages to find out ;o) Pleasy weasy.
|
