|
Jul 2009
6:05pm, 2 Jul 2009
446 posts
|
chirunner
HR rules seem to go to pot in the heat 5miles at 80oC and a strong wind got my HR up to 160 at just over 7mm pace (about 10-12 higher than usual).
Over time my HR aerobic rate has been trending up if I look at my running logs from 2007 I kept the vast majority between 120 and 130 bpm, during 2008 the vast majority were between 130 and 140bpm. the first half of this year my HR rates have been climbing up to135-145 and now over the past month I am running between 140 and 160. With better running form I pay zero penalty from hard running in my legs so it is simply the tiredness factor to deal with that can be sorted by managing the overall training mileage.
Having been a "devout follower" of Mr Hadd since I started I would hope that my excuse for running at higher HRs all the time is that I have moved my aerobic threshold up so that up to 85% of max remains fairly aerobic.
|
|
Jul 2009
9:30pm, 2 Jul 2009
5,530 posts
|
SPR™
My HR doesn't seem to be affected by the heat
|
|
Jul 2009
11:48am, 5 Jul 2009
620 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Good morning.
Just starting to monitor HR during training and looking for some advoce re Max HR.
The max I have recorded during hill 'tests' has been 182, although to be fair I didnt quite push myself to the max so think it is higher.
I have seen 189 recorded once which was in the forst mile of a run which I guessed was a blip. Today I recorded 200, again in my first mile.
Question is ,can I trust this 200 reading, or should I use 182 as my max as thats the highest I have pushed it ?
|
|
Jul 2009
11:59am, 5 Jul 2009
248 posts
|
Loca
I would say that the 189 and 200 at the start of a training run are blips. Maybe sensors on transmitter belt are not wet enough or battery on way out?
i got my max towards the end of a hilly 10k race. Have not got near that by doing a max HR test on a hill, I just can't push myself enough unless in a race situation. I would go for a few beats higher than 182 to start with (say 185), if you don't think you were working to the max. Then try wearning it on your next race and see what you get.
|
|
Jul 2009
12:32pm, 5 Jul 2009
621 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Thanks Nelly. I have been assuming 189 until today as that seemed to be just above what I had seen and believable. 200 is quite a bit higher hence why I was unsure.
I had wet the sensors before going out and it is a new battery only 2 weeks old.
Dont have a race until a half marathon on 6th september, although I do have 2 weeks holiday in turkey when I guess the heat may push my HR a bit higher !
|
|
Jul 2009
8:45pm, 5 Jul 2009
6,394 posts
|
Ultracat
Just read the thread title and info and apparently Gobi lurks sometimes, do you Gobi?
Can you answer question for me, I have the Parker book did the calculations based on MaxHR of 167 and resting HR of 52. Says 70% for me is 132, a more comfortable rate is around 125 which is 65%. Try to push it up a bit or just stay at around 65% for general runs, thankyou.
|
|
Jul 2009
9:34pm, 5 Jul 2009
9,519 posts
|
eL Bee!
UC - staying around 65% is fine.
70% (according to St Parker) is the Ceiling for those runs 
Less is more in this case.
Let the 'I'm jealous that you can RUN at that HR' begin :):)
|
|
Jul 2009
9:39pm, 5 Jul 2009
652 posts
|
clare1976
I did my first proper marathon training LSR to heart rate today and did 18 miles, avg pace 9:29, 66% HR. Very pleased with this and didn't feel too bad afterwards - definitely works for me keeping the effort level down as at times I felt like I could run forever :-). It was only late on from 16-18 that I struggled to keep to sub-70% and battled between slowing down to keep the HR down and just wanting to push on and get home, ignoring the HR. I guess it will become easier to stick within the limits as my endurance improves.
|
|
Jul 2009
8:11am, 6 Jul 2009
6,395 posts
|
Ultracat
thanks el bee, going for longish run today so will see try to stick around 125 average, uphill its easy to get to 130 but downhill never done it yet. Trying to stop myself going too slow.
|
|
Jul 2009
9:00am, 7 Jul 2009
4,343 posts
|
Boingy
Hello all.
I've been following a P&D marathon training plan, which is pace based, but while still keeping an eye on my HR. A couple of things have become apparent. Firstly, if I use my max/min HR measured about a year ago to calculate my training bands, it shows that my pace at about 70% WHR hasn't really shifted in 12 months, which is a bit disappointing ! The second thing though, is that I've measured my resting HR a couple of times this week, and it has dropped from 43bpm-ish in February, to about 38bpm this morning. In theory this is good news !
This has kind of confuzzled my poor brain though. If I calculate my training bands based on my new RHR, this shifts my 70% HR down a couple of beats, which makes my apparent pace based on HR even worse ! (ie. where I thought a certain run was done at 70%, it was actually done at 72%, which means my 70% pace will be slower). Now I know this is small beer, but I'm a little confused as to whether this demonstrates and improvement in performance, or degredation, and whether I should be changing my training at all ?
What do you think ?
|
