Run Run Away

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] Anyone else have Max HR stories? I wish I’d never opened up this Pandora’s box about my HR. I feel I am now cursed with this terrifying HR issue which causes me to be absurdly self-absorbed in HR navel gazing. Timothy Hummingbird Heart Carlson Join the hummingbird club. I had the same sort of problems when I got my HR monitor I had the same problems. This thread has been around rec.running a number of times and it is the fault of those books polar and legions of others put out. Somebody has got to write a book one of these days about HRM’s that puts a great big YMMV sign after those formulas. The problem is that nobody wants to tell you that there is EXTREME individual variation in everything having to do with HR’s, so much so as to make such formula almost completely meaningless.

Just to put  the variation idea in a good light, I seem to have alower heart rate. For years before I started running, even when I did little or nothing for fitness, I have received comments from nurses that I had a low heart rate. Now when I’ve tested it during running, my max seems to be around the low 170’s. I can’t seem to run fast enough to get it higher without really hurting myself. So variations exist on both sides of the equation. Keep on running,    ed     Contract Engineering Services for business and industry

Response:

Hummingbird club, eh?  Where do I send my dues…? I’m 29 and have an estimated max HR of 205. My resting HR gets as low as 55.  When I run at a 10 minute mile pace (trying for overdistance, according to "Serious Training for Serious Athletes") I sit at about 165. The disappointing thing is that when I recently ran a 2-mile trial I stayed at 205 for most of the run and still only came out with a time slightly faster than 8 minute miles.  I figure I must have 1) an undersize heart (stroke volume can be improved with time, I think) and 2) an almost complete lack of sprint fiber in the muscles concerned. More disappointing is that I had done some speed work once a week for about 7 weeks prior to the run.  Admittedly, I got sick with a cold and missed a week and a half in there.  Still, I would have thought I’d do better than that.  My strategy now is to lay a new foundation of solid slow distance for a while and only very occassional speed/form/strength work… Any advice? Hummingbirds of the world unite! -J

Response:

 If you really want to have a better barometer of how fit you are…have a real max VO2 test done.  Take those results as a much better indicator of your fitness.  

I’d say a better indicator of how fit your ancestors were.  I will never have the VO2 of Migel Indurain.  I measure the  fitness "improvement " of a runner by HIS running times and the reduction thereof. Bruce Bruce D. Wedding                        Have Compiler, Will Travel! Software Demi God                       Katy, TX, USA #1

Response:

I’ve been running in the Asics 2001 model for about 3 years, and I’m on my last pair.  unfortunately, they no longer make the 2001 and have replaced it with the 2010.  Does anyone know how the 2010 compare to the 2001?  Better?  Worse?  Similar?  

Note that I am a race walker, not a runner.  I tried the Asics 2010 and blew out the forefoot (which is blown rubber, not carbon rubber) in under 100 miles.  Maybe it is just the difference in styles between a runner and a race walker that caused me to burn out the outer sole quickly.  After all a race walker pushes off with his toes to get that extra bit of speed. Then again, maybe the 2010 really is bad.  I just know that if it was not for Shoe Goo II, I would not have gotten the shoe past 100 miles.  I have no experience with the 2001 so I cannot compare them for you. All I know is $80 went down the drain. Paul

Response:

The formula is (Max HR-Resting HR)*%  + Resting HR. I.E. for a max HR of 180 and a resting HR of 60:     (180-60)*70%+60= 142 for 70 percent of MHR. John Mize

Response:

        Be careful not to be a slave to your HR monitors.  I believe they are important to train with but MAX HR certainly isn’t the ultimate indicator of how fit you are (sorry but is sounds like you’re using it as a barometer).  Cardiac output (HR x SV) is an extremely important variable to consider.  You may have a high HR…but if you have a small(er) stroke volume…then you heart HAS to beat faster to pump more blood (as compared to someone who has a max HR of 180bpm but has 3x your SV). If you have a large SV and you have the ability to get your "ticker up there" then you obviously will have a larger cardiac output.   Stroke volume doesn’t change overnight…and its not the easiest thing in the world to have tested.  If you really want to have a better barometer of how fit you are…have a real max VO2 test done.  Take those results as a much better indicator of your fitness.  Keep in mind though that nothing exists by itself as the one true measure of overall fitness…and this especially applies to your max HR.  If you are really dying to know your SV then you can probably go and volunteer to have a catheder shoved in you aorta or you could sign up for a radioactive tracer injection and some funky nuclear medecine type testing…personally I don’t need to know that badly.

Response:

I was in the same boat a while ago.  I had run for years in the 2001, and wasn’t very happy when they decided to "upgrade" them. I’m now in my 3rd pair (50-60 miles/week and no more than 450 miles/pair).  I like them just as much (if not better than) the 2001’s. Give them a try, I’ll think you’ll be happy with them. Good luck. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -HI Runners, I’ve been running in the Asics 2001 model for about 3 years, and I’m on my last pair.  unfortunately, they no longer make the 2001 and have replaced it with the 2010.  Does anyone know how the 2010 compare to the 2001?  Better?  Worse?  Similar?  I’m still mourning the loss of the 2001 but I have to get on with my life (and running).   Please, please, give me input!  Thanks. Ann

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – However, the simptoms you describe at the start of activity I have observed with great regularity myself, but I KNOW that my max heartrate is about 190 from ‘reliable’ readings when pushed to the limits in intervals/races/etc. Whenever I get  4-5 consecutive readings (taken at 5 sec intervals) of the exact heartrate there is a problem with the monitor. I have figured this out to be poor electrical contact with the skin in about 90% of the cases for me. If you are not sweating alot or using a conductive gel when you start out, the contact will not be great, and as you move you will have a good chance of not getting a reliable signal to the monitor. The Polar monitors will hold the last ‘reliable’ reading if they sense that the present pulses are too erratic to be reasonable. Hence, a pulse will be ‘locked’ in the display until enough (4-5beats) pulses in a row are consistant. I’ve had mine lock in on 210-215 as well, mostly at the start of a race, but I know from years of experience with my body that this is absurd. If, instead, the readings change reguraly like 209,210,212,210,etc., then you have ‘real’ readings. A max heartrate test is the only real way to know yours, but they involve a MAXIMUM effort in the end, and are NOT very pleasant to do. Hope this helps,                    Chuck

You know, this makes sense, particularly since I have never seen this happen with any other activity accept running, and that would = explain it since with the impact of running you are much more likely to get bad contact. But I still wouldn’t have been surprised if=  it did go to 210 because I did a fitness test where I was monitored up to AT HR and that was 172, and I’m not fit enough for that t= o be much more than 80% of MHR.

Response:

I love my Asics 2010!  I’ve been a diehard Nike fan for more than 12 years and have only recently switched to the 2010 but have never enjoyed running more.  Which is important right now as I’m training for my first marathon. If it means they don’t last as long but I stay injury free and enjoy my training I’m all for them! Megan

Response:

I’ve been running in the Asics 2001 model for about 3 years, and I’m on my last pair.  unfortunately, they no longer make the 2001 and have replaced it with the 2010.  Does anyone know how the 2010 compare to the 2001?  Better?  Worse?  Similar?  

        Although I haven’t used the gt 2001’s, I have been           running in the 2000’s (which are similar to the 2001’s)         for several years and         was quite dismayed at their discontinuation!  Mostly, I           run on trails — I found this shoe to be a great,         stable trail shoe, yet not heavy and cumbersome         when I opted to run on roads (like most other shoes made         specifically for trails!)… I was able to hang on for         a little while ordering the 2000’s from mail order places,         but I don’t think are they even available from these folks         anymore…(note: the 2001’s may still be available through         mail order)         so, alas, I decided to try the 2010… so far, they         seem to be pretty good…*very* lightweight compared         to the 2000’s, but not as good on the trails. I would         say if you are mostly a road runner, to give them         a shot, you’ll probably like them!         good luck,         Christine — * Christine A. Shields * National Center for Atmospheric Research * Boulder, Colorado

Response:

HI Runners, I’ve been running in the Asics 2001 model for about 3 years, and I’m on my last pair.  unfortunately, they no longer make the 2001 and have replaced it with the 2010.  Does anyone know how the 2010 compare to the 2001?  Better?  Worse?  Similar?  I’m still mourning the loss of the 2001 but I have to get on with my life (and running).   Please, please, give me input!  Thanks. Ann

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] Anyone else have Max HR stories? I wish I’d never opened up this Pandora’s box about my HR. I feel I am now cursed with this terrifying HR issue which causes me to be absurdly self-absorbed in HR navel gazing. Timothy Hummingbird Heart Carlson Join the hummingbird club. I had the same sort of problems when I got my HR monitor I had the same problems. This thread has been around rec.running a number of times and it is the fault of those books polar and legions of others put out. Somebody has got to write a book one of these days about HRM’s that puts a great big YMMV sign after those formulas. The problem is that nobody wants to tell you that there is EXTREME individual variation in everything having to do with HR’s, so much so as to make such formula almost completely meaningless. I’ve never done a maximal test to check it out, but I too have similar reasons to expect that my MHR is much higher than the formulas suggests. From what I’ve heard about it is it just random individual variation. I have often wondered what causes this variation and whether there were any advantages or disadvantages to having a MHR so much higher than average, but aparantly nobody knows. Cardiologists only have experience with sick people. I do have interesting experience with the HRM to share–which incidently is also one of the reasons that I suspect this 41 year old heart has a MHR of at least 210–and I have often been curious to know if others have had this experience. If I start off too quickly when I am not well enough warmed up–I think also this is particularly common if I am tired–a funny thing happens. My HR will ’stick’ at a moderate value like 125 or 135 for a minute of 2 dead constant like there was something wrong with the monitor–which is what I thought at first. Then it will jump up to something high like 170 and ’stick’ there, again constant not varying by a single bpm. And then it goes down to something more reasonable like 140. Most of the time it will then settle to something close to this, maybe gradually increasing as I go faster, but sometimes it will pull the trick again but at higher values before settling down. I used to kind of worry about this that maybe it meant something was wrong, but it’s done it enough times now without anything disastrous happening that for the most part I’ve quit worrying. I was a little surprised when it did this one day and and chose 210 for the high value, but I did have other reasons to suspect that my MHR was at least that high, and I didn’t feel bad or anything. Anyway, pencil in YMMV in large letters in all those books that have formulas for MHR’s, and then ignore the formualas.

I’ve had a Polar Vantage XL for two years now, and it has been very useful in that you can play back your heatrate for a given workout and analyse it, but never have to be limited by looking at the display when you run. I have run competativly for about 25 years, and have found it to mirror my feelings very well.  However, the simptoms you describe at the start of activity I have observed with great regularity myself, but I KNOW that my max heartrate is about 190 from ‘reliable’ readings when pushed to the limits in intervals/races/etc.  Whenever I get  4-5 consecutive readings (taken at 5 sec intervals) of the exact heartrate there is a problem with the monitor. I have figured this out to be poor electrical contact with the skin in about 90% of the cases for me. If you are not sweating alot or using a conductive gel when you start out, the contact will not be great, and as you move you will have a good chance of not getting a reliable signal to the monitor. The Polar monitors will hold the last ‘reliable’ reading if they sense that the present pulses are too erratic to be reasonable. Hence, a pulse will be ‘locked’ in the display until enough (4-5beats) pulses in a row are consistant. I’ve had mine lock in on 210-215 as well, mostly at the start of a race, but I know from years of experience with my body that this is absurd. If, instead, the readings change reguraly like 209,210,212,210,etc., then you have ‘real’ readings.  A max heartrate test is the only real way to know yours, but they involve a MAXIMUM effort in the end, and are NOT very pleasant to do.  Hope this helps,                     Chuck – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

I used to have a formula for figuring a heart rate suited to each person individually.  It required taking your resting heart rate, first thing each morning before ANY movement, for three days running.  Then you worked this formula and it would tell you what you ought to be at 60%, 80%, etc. Like you, I get a ridiculously high heart rate with relatively little effort.  Hey, if I breathe more deeply my heart rate goes up!  I found that using the formula allowed me to monitor my exercise levels much more effectively. At any rate, I’ve lost that formula in the course of 3 years of international travel. Does anyone out there have it?

Response:

The 220-age formulas aren’t very accurate. Your maximum HR has alot to do with your genetics and your level of fitness.

Response:

I doubt you’ll reach the dizzy heights of 210 as a max HR.  I use a Polar monitor and can reach my max of 189 without feeling like I’m expolding.   It’s just that my heart won’t go any faster.  If I try to put in even more effort though it does get tough although this may also be a little to do with the mind.

I don’t that 210 max HR is anything to worry about.  My max is 206. — Sigurdur I Bjornsson     Tel. (354) 5884530       For PGP public key

Response:

Dear Lucy Edens: Please fax me tables from Coach Benson’s book! And tell me where I can buy the book. PS: I discovered that some of my high heart rates came from wearing warmer clothing than was necessary. I did not feel discomfort, as I grew up in Florida, but it did send the HR rocketing. Last weekend, I wore a singlet and shorts on a 22-mile run at 8:16 pace on a 62-degree day and my HR average was 170 — variation 167 to 174 most of the way — with a maximum of 186 on the last lap at 7:45 pace. I still think my max is somewhere between 205 and 210. If not training for marathon, you can bet I would go out and test it right now, but do not want to tinker unnecessarily with the machine right now. Thank you! Timothy Carlson.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After reading most of the charts where you subtract your age from 220 or the more sophisticated formulas where you factor in your resting heart rate, I thought my Max HR was oh say in the 182 to 187 range for the 46-year-old recreational runner and triathlete I am. Whoa! On a 16-miler — admittedly I had been working on a stressful deadline for three days before — done at for me a slow pace — about 8:48 per mile — the damn thing looked like the control panel at Chernobyl. It started at 160 and by the end I was running at 185-187. But at the end of the week, I did a tempo run for my upcoming marathon at 7:42 pace — a 47:30 10K time for the 6 miles of tempo run, about 5 minutes over my 10K PR  – and the darn thing started steaming up from 165 and ended up at a momentary high of 196!!! After those six miles of tempo I finished off with five miles of 8:30 miles at 172 HR with no discomfort. What is going on here? I have a resting heart rate now of 42 to 44. Anyone else have Max HR stories? I wish I’d never opened up this Pandora’s box about my HR. I feel I am now cursed with this terrifying HR issue which causes me to be absurdly self-absorbed in HR navel gazing. Timothy Hummingbird Heart Carlson

TG, Welcome to the Club!  I acquired my HRM in June ‘95 convinced it was my ticket to the fast lane.  I promptly spent the next 6 weeks in lateral recumbency on the sofa every evening reading books with titles like Training, Pulse, and Lactate, etc.  I also spent this time doing some painfully slow runs believing I was the poorest conditioned athlete in the whole world.  THEN … I went to Coach Roy Benson’s Running Camp, where he teaches effort based training using HRM’s … Viola.  I discovered that I, like you did not fit into that 90 to 95% population for which the HRM formula’s are derived from and for.  I am probably 2 standard deviations from norm in regard’s to my max HR.  According to the 220-your age formula, my max should be 186.  After spending a week with Coach Benson I suspect my max is in the 202 to 206 range.  Suddenly, I had to *really* start to work hard to get my HR up to those higher % effort training zones.  Just goes to show ya that everyone is an individual!   One thing that I believe is helpful is to buy Coach Benson’s Training book because he has tables in there to help you.  He is somewhat unique in that he is a COACH who has adapted the science to fit the animal, so to speak.  The tables in his book are designed to help you accurately determine your Max HR without attampting a full 100% effort.  He does this looking at a number of factors including Road race times (ie. 5K, 10K, 1/2 marathon, etc.), plus using timed runs on a track for a prescribed distance at a set heart rate.  It is actually quite easy to do.  We found out that many ‘campers’ did not fit the standard formula because we tended to be chronically fit individuals, and since max HR formula’s are derived from the general population. Anyway good luck and happy beeping (if your monitor has that function). E-mail me if you like more specific info or if you would like me to FAX you a copy of the tables from Coach’s book. Lucy

Response:

After finding several coaches who refused to answer any more of my questions about running until I got a heart rate monitor, I finally broke down and bought one of those techno-nerd enablers. The first day I strapped one on, it scared the hell out of me. After reading most of the charts where you subtract your age from 220 or the more sophisticated formulas where you factor in your resting heart rate, I thought my Max HR was oh say in the 182 to 187 range for the 46-year-old recreational runner and triathlete I am. Whoa! On a 16-miler — admittedly I had been working on a stressful deadline for three days before — done at for me a slow pace — about 8:48 per mile — the damn thing looked like the control panel at Chernobyl. It started at 160 and by the end I was running at 185-187. Blowup time. Call 007! Good grief! After some rest, the rates went slightly down, but running just fast enough to keep from falling on my face — a 9:11 pace which I never run, got me down to about 149 average for my next workout, a recovery 5-miler. But at the end of the week, I did a tempo run for my upcoming marathon at 7:42 pace — a 47:30 10K time for the 6 miles of tempo run, about 5 minutes over my 10K PR  – and the darn thing started steaming up from 165 and ended up at a momentary high of 196!!! After those six miles of tempo I finished off with five miles of 8:30 miles at 172 HR with no discomfort. What is going on here? Now, I’ve been running for 5 years now and ran before that and I’m running slower paces for longer runs than I used to — I used to run a 44-minute 10K once or twice a week as training. I bike a lot, I swam about 100 miles this year and have run 1100 miles so far in ‘95. I have a resting heart rate now of 42 to 44. After a week of watching this damn thing, my estimate of my max heart rate has risen from 187 to 196 to 202 to 210. In fact, I’m going out to me steepest bike hill and run it three or four times and see what I come up with. I’d be willing to bet fairly serious cache it’s at least 210. That 196 reading came with LITTLE IF ANY REAL DISCOMFORT. Admittedly I was running in light sweats on a 64 degree day, but I am from Florida and have always run in warmer than usual clothes and do well in the heat. Is this possible? Does my Polar Accurex II need calibration? Or have physical trainers and writers and coaches purposely printed exceedingly conservative numbers so they will not face lawsuits from runners/the general public? Anyone else have Max HR stories? I wish I’d never opened up this Pandora’s box about my HR. I feel I am now cursed with this terrifying HR issue which causes me to be absurdly self-absorbed in HR navel gazing. Timothy Hummingbird Heart Carlson

Response:

I doubt you’ll reach the dizzy heights of 210 as a max HR.  I use a Polar monitor and can reach my max of 189 without feeling like I’m expolding.   It’s just that my heart won’t go any faster.  If I try to put in even more effort though it does get tough although this may also be a little to do with the mind. I’m 36 and I’ve been training for a few months only.  Hope this helps.

Response:

I too went through the same scenario. According the ol’ max heart rate chart, mine should be 180 (I’m 40). After doing some running in my target training zone, and feeling like I was out for a stroll, I got on a treadmill and did progressive intervals and found my max was more like 203! Since then, I also finished the second run segment of a duathlon, and my monitor showed 206 at the finish. This is now what I calculate my zones off of now. I’ve also now become a heartrate monitor disciple! I don’t leave home without it! Happy running…….

Response:

:I doubt you’ll reach the dizzy heights of 210 as a max HR.  I use a Polar :monitor and can reach my max of 189 without feeling like I’m expolding.   :It’s just that my heart won’t go any faster.  If I try to put in :even more effort though it does get tough although this may also :be a little to do with the mind. : :I’m 36 and I’ve been training for a few months only.  Hope this helps. : Why shouldn’t Timothy Carlson reach a heart rate of 210? The estimation of Max heart rate = 220 – age ist just an ESTIMATION. It was arrived at after taking a huge cross section of the whole population and averaging their maximal heart rates. Since things like these tend to be distributed according to the Gaussian bell-shaped distribution, virtually every maximal heart-rate between, say 120 and 270 is possible. Anyway, this should be in the FAQ by now, I think. The only definition of maximal heart rate I find sensible is: Maximal heart rate = the highest heart rate a person can achieve. not MHR = the age of your grandfather when he married multiplied by your shoe size (USA measure) or anything like that. —                             Ulrich Porsch             Wer spricht vom Siegen, "Ubersteh’n ist alles  

Response: