Run Run Away

Question:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Since I can sustain that rate for at least 10 minutes, it can’t be above my anaerobic threshold.    I would be interested in your definition of AT (a term I do not like). Most people take AT pace to be the pace for a 10K or in the very fit, the pace that can be held for about an hour.  LT HR is often around 85% of max HR.

- – I may be using passe lingo, (it has been 26 years… ), but what I mean is rate at which you’re in severe oxygen debt. You can’t sustain this rate for more than a minute or so. Basically you’re just running on the stored oxygen & glycogen in the muscle. – - My understanding is likely out of date, but the definition of AT pace above makes little sense to me. What’s the physiological basis? – - Booker C. Bense —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBODqxjQD83u1ILnWNAQFNtwQAiIMlGro0FOuVDFfSV+PXcgQHz0iP8ILE aV+mU16FJJI44A8srEg8penGLrxSVRWg5IVYj8knY2RkLmJYO+SFcpn9cmXk/Mek AgCSvEzxlEg2Tb1+tITvlvadMs/QfXd9Jl4XyXPB/wusBoBj2oIM0oaecg06liD2 2umEo02vSlo= =UxMK —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– The reason using a heart rate monitor is a good idea is because most (probably around 90%) runners underestimate how hard they are actually running.  Then they wonder why their fitness never improves.  Using a heart rate monitor tells you exactly how hard your body is working.  I really only use a HRM for easy or recovery runs because, even though I’ve been running for 16 years, I’ll still run too hard without it. – - I’ve been running (training) for 26 years ( some years more than others ).  Anyway, I’m 38 and in reasonable shape these days. I bought a HRM last year ( bike nashbar cheapy ) mostly out of curiosity. I use it every once in a while. I have a question for other less young runners out there. Most methods for calculating my maximum heart rate suggest it should be about 190 max. However, I’ve done a couple "max out" tests by running up hills and I estimate my max heart rate at about 200. According to my HRM, when I’m running my easy hour+ run pace ( about 10 minute miles) I’m at 145.  For reasonably hard efforts ( climbing 500 -800 ft vertical in a mile or so ) my heart rate pegs at about 185. Since I can sustain that rate for at least 10 minutes, it can’t be above my anaerobic threshold.

    I would be interested in your definition of AT (a term I do not like). Most people take AT pace to be the pace for a 10K or in the very fit, the pace that can be held for about an hour.  LT HR is often around 85% of max HR. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - – These numbers make me suspicious, however everytime I’ve tested my HRM by taking my own pulse and comparing the rates it seems right on. I’m certainly no speed deamon these days, my last race was a 2hr half marathon. Anyway, are these numbers way out of line for a 38 year old? – - Booker C. Bense —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBODcIFgD83u1ILnWNAQFY4gQAuIf98Tw5y7748NHEf88cdkvAQIOK3I2q FcJ9FsuaDT5z7GNBnWOLLt/JDjeLeDe2BmiNn73Xld+t83FNzalT+rTHwMlqbTMb /Jnze3aPsMHZMLi4IFxxI9yzo9EltFOE531Vs9dUPkKV/WXjDprFL06ftQQCCk98 EfRrEmXY6bA= =QXUA —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Gavin Williams wrote I’ve been following this group for a while, and it’s great to see that other people have the same heart rates as me.  All the books say that 185 must be the max for a 30 year old. but I can maintain 185 for 40 minutes to 1 hour easily.  A 155 rate for me is hardly exercising at all!! —

Recently, I’ve been helping someone get into running, and he’s reached heart rates as high as 220 (and this is without going all the way to100% effort). He’s about 30 yrs old and his max heart rate "should" be only 190. I guess this shows that there’s a LOT of individual variation and that those formulas are only a very ROUGH guideline.

Response:

If a book states that the max HR for a person of a given age is a given value, I would take everything else with a large grain of sodium chloride. Most of the books I have seen give a formula (and there are several) for estimating max HR.  However, all of these formulae have rather large standard deviations (8-12 bpm). Sam, whose age predicted max is pretty damn close to actual max……. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm… well my max hr is 205 and I’m 45 years old (you can’t go by those calculations).  My easy runs are between 155-165.  185 (or 92% in your case) seems about right for a fairly hard but not all out effort. Jen I’ve been following this group for a while, and it’s great to see that other people have the same heart rates as me.  All the books say that 185 must be the max for a 30 year old. but I can maintain 185 for 40 minutes to 1 hour easily.  A 155 rate for me is hardly exercising at all!! —

Response:

Hmm… well my max hr is 205 and I’m 45 years old (you can’t go by those calculations).  My easy runs are between 155-165.  185 (or 92% in your case) seems about right for a fairly hard but not all out effort. Jen

I’ve been following this group for a while, and it’s great to see that other people have the same heart rates as me.  All the books say that 185 must be the max for a 30 year old. but I can maintain 185 for 40 minutes to 1 hour easily.  A 155 rate for me is hardly exercising at all!! —

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Since I can sustain that rate for at least 10 minutes, it can’t be above my anaerobic threshold.    I would be interested in your definition of AT (a term I do not like). Most people take AT pace to be the pace for a 10K or in the very fit, the pace that can be held for about an hour.  LT HR is often around 85% of max HR. – - I may be using passe lingo, (it has been 26 years… ), but what I mean is rate at which you’re in severe oxygen debt. You can’t sustain this rate for more than a minute or so. Basically you’re just running on the stored oxygen & glycogen in the muscle.

        This is pretty fast.  Most people use AT=LT which is often considered the pace one can maintain for a 10K to 15K or about an hour depending on fitness level.     The pace one can maintain for a min is pretty damn fast and would exceed VO2max pace.     LT is the point at which blood lactate concentration increases exponentially to an increase in work load (there are other definitions as well). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - – My understanding is likely out of date, but the definition of AT pace above makes little sense to me. What’s the physiological basis? – - Booker C. Bense —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBODqxjQD83u1ILnWNAQFNtwQAiIMlGro0FOuVDFfSV+PXcgQHz0iP8ILE aV+mU16FJJI44A8srEg8penGLrxSVRWg5IVYj8knY2RkLmJYO+SFcpn9cmXk/Mek AgCSvEzxlEg2Tb1+tITvlvadMs/QfXd9Jl4XyXPB/wusBoBj2oIM0oaecg06liD2 2umEo02vSlo= =UxMK —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Hmm… well my max hr is 205 and I’m 45 years old (you can’t go by those calculations).  My easy runs are between 155-165.  185 (or 92% in your case) seems about right for a fairly hard but not all out effort. Jen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– The reason using a heart rate monitor is a good idea is because most (probably around 90%) runners underestimate how hard they are actually running.  Then they wonder why their fitness never improves.  Using a heart rate monitor tells you exactly how hard your body is working.  I really only use a HRM for easy or recovery runs because, even though I’ve been running for 16 years, I’ll still run too hard without it. – - I’ve been running (training) for 26 years ( some years more than others ).  Anyway, I’m 38 and in reasonable shape these days. I bought a HRM last year ( bike nashbar cheapy ) mostly out of curiosity. I use it every once in a while. I have a question for other less young runners out there. Most methods for calculating my maximum heart rate suggest it should be about 190 max. However, I’ve done a couple "max out" tests by running up hills and I estimate my max heart rate at about 200. According to my HRM, when I’m running my easy hour+ run pace ( about 10 minute miles) I’m at 145.  For reasonably hard efforts ( climbing 500 -800 ft vertical in a mile or so ) my heart rate pegs at about 185. Since I can sustain that rate for at least 10 minutes, it can’t be above my anaerobic threshold. – - These numbers make me suspicious, however everytime I’ve tested my HRM by taking my own pulse and comparing the rates it seems right on. I’m certainly no speed deamon these days, my last race was a 2hr half marathon. Anyway, are these numbers way out of line for a 38 year old? – - Booker C. Bense —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBODcIFgD83u1ILnWNAQFY4gQAuIf98Tw5y7748NHEf88cdkvAQIOK3I2q FcJ9FsuaDT5z7GNBnWOLLt/JDjeLeDe2BmiNn73Xld+t83FNzalT+rTHwMlqbTMb /Jnze3aPsMHZMLi4IFxxI9yzo9EltFOE531Vs9dUPkKV/WXjDprFL06ftQQCCk98 EfRrEmXY6bA= =QXUA —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

I use mine always.  I find it most useful for speedwork type stuff. Especially tempo runs.  I usually aim for a heart rate of 162-164 bpm(87-88% of my max hr) and increase by 1 bpm every four or five minutes.  It frees me from running measured routes.  When I do run measured route with this (after about 20 minutes of warm up time), my time per km using this formula stays withing 3 seconds start to finish.  I’m starting to think of using it more for shorter interval type speedwork so I can escape from the track in getting ready for Boston(I have to, in a week or two they’ll all be under a foot or two of snow). My km repeats start with a hr of around 166 after the first minute and build to about 172 by the end of them (currently around 3:45/km).  The increase of about 1 bpm per repeat seems to hold true if I keep the time constant.  Again there’s a 20 minute warm up run. Long runs and HRM are more problematic.  I really don’t buy running them as slowly as many would advocate.  I generally use it to keep my pace down to about 150 for the first 90 minutes or so.  It too gradually creeps up.  Probably the most useful information is the rate at which it creeps up.  I think this is a marker of my dehydration level.  On a cool day (when all the drinking fountains still hadn’t been drained for the winter), at the same pace it goes up slowly, maybe hitting 158-160 aty the end of three hours.  If its hot, its running 166-170 by the end. Believe me, I’m not moving anywhere near the speed of my tempo runs, nor do I feel I’m putting out an equivalent effort at this rate. I’ve found the HRM useful in the longer races.  Near the start it is useless.  After four or five miles, I use it to try to maintain an even effort pace, especially if the race is hilly.  Used it in Chicago.  By the time I could look at it (eight miles into the race- I can’t believe how many people swarmed the front of the pack for 7 minute miles- eight miles of dodging slower runners), it stayed pretty consistently around 162.  For the first time I didn’t hit the wall and ran a significant PB for me.  About 5 weeks before I used it on a hilly half and kept it around 167 for the race and did very well. Thats what I’ve found so far.  I do like my toys so I’m a little biased though.  BTW, the Diamond Rio is my best toy, bar none. David Before you buy.

Response:

– - I’ve been running (training) for 26 years ( some years more than others ).  Anyway, I’m 38 and in reasonable shape these days. I bought a HRM last year ( bike nashbar cheapy ) mostly out of curiosity. I use it every once in a while. I have a question for other less young runners out there. Most methods for calculating my maximum heart rate suggest it should be about 190 max. However, I’ve done a couple "max out" tests by running up hills and I estimate my max heart rate at about 200. According to my HRM, when I’m running my easy hour+ run pace ( about 10 minute miles) I’m at 145.  For reasonably hard efforts ( climbing 500 -800 ft vertical in a mile or so ) my heart rate pegs at about 185. Since I can sustain that rate for at least 10 minutes, it can’t be above my anaerobic threshold.

The 190 "estimate" is just that. Your "actual" means you aren’t an average person. Actual trumps estimate! 10 km races typically result in a heart rate around 90-94% of maximum. The number that I’ve seen most often (in literature) is 92% MaxHR (= or – a little). Your 185 BPM for 10 mins is 92.5% of your max. In a 10 km race, if trained properly, you could possibly have maintained this rate for 40 or more minutes. Finally, I think you were above LACTATE threshold (which is in the region of  87% MHR), but not above anaerobic threshold, which is more like the upper 90’s percentile. – - These numbers make me suspicious, however everytime I’ve tested my HRM by taking my own pulse and comparing the rates it seems right on. I’m certainly no speed deamon these days, my last race was a 2hr half marathon. Anyway, are these numbers way out of line for a 38 year old?

Seems like the HRM was working just fine. HTH, Denny

Response:

The other thing I use my heart rate monitor for is judging my health/stress. I take my heart rate every morning b4 getting out of bed.  If it is unusually high, I either go easy or take the day off.  Been following this simple routine for years, and it works like a charm. dave

Response:

Agree.   I got a Polar to keep from over training on long runs and easy runs.  plus I love it for fartlek and intervals on the trail where I run. I dont miss the track at all.  It keeps me from overtraining on these high intensity days too. Best thing since stretching! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yep, I use it (when I remember) and my husband uses his faithfully. Not only is it helpful to keep from running too hard on easy days but its interesting when I find out that I’m not running as hard as I thought I was! Also great for tempo runs. Jen The reason using a heart rate monitor is a good idea is because most (probably around 90%) runners underestimate how hard they are actually running.  Then they wonder why their fitness never improves.  Using a heart rate monitor tells you exactly how hard your body is working.  I really only use a HRM for easy or recovery runs because, even though I’ve been running for 16 years, I’ll still run too hard without it.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– The reason using a heart rate monitor is a good idea is because most (probably around 90%) runners underestimate how hard they are actually running.  Then they wonder why their fitness never improves.  Using a heart rate monitor tells you exactly how hard your body is working.  I really only use a HRM for easy or recovery runs because, even though I’ve been running for 16 years, I’ll still run too hard without it.

- – I’ve been running (training) for 26 years ( some years more than others ).  Anyway, I’m 38 and in reasonable shape these days. I bought a HRM last year ( bike nashbar cheapy ) mostly out of curiosity. I use it every once in a while. I have a question for other less young runners out there. Most methods for calculating my maximum heart rate suggest it should be about 190 max. However, I’ve done a couple "max out" tests by running up hills and I estimate my max heart rate at about 200. According to my HRM, when I’m running my easy hour+ run pace ( about 10 minute miles) I’m at 145.  For reasonably hard efforts ( climbing 500 -800 ft vertical in a mile or so ) my heart rate pegs at about 185. Since I can sustain that rate for at least 10 minutes, it can’t be above my anaerobic threshold. – - These numbers make me suspicious, however everytime I’ve tested my HRM by taking my own pulse and comparing the rates it seems right on. I’m certainly no speed deamon these days, my last race was a 2hr half marathon. Anyway, are these numbers way out of line for a 38 year old? – - Booker C. Bense   —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBODcIFgD83u1ILnWNAQFY4gQAuIf98Tw5y7748NHEf88cdkvAQIOK3I2q FcJ9FsuaDT5z7GNBnWOLLt/JDjeLeDe2BmiNn73Xld+t83FNzalT+rTHwMlqbTMb /Jnze3aPsMHZMLi4IFxxI9yzo9EltFOE531Vs9dUPkKV/WXjDprFL06ftQQCCk98 EfRrEmXY6bA= =QXUA —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Most threads in here usually end up talking about split times and such but I don’t see too much reference of heartrates anymore.

You must not have looked very hard. and search for keywords "Heart Rate". Returns about 300 posts. I havent been up to date on sports science lately.  Do the principles of logging resting HR and training in specific zones still apply?

The group is split on the effectiveness of heart rate training. It is certainly not an outdated way to train. Some runners believe in "listening to your body" and that gizmos, such as heart rate monitors, are a waste of money. Others are sold on the concept of training in specific heart rate zones. Here are some links about heart rate training: http://www.heartzone.com/fitness.htm http://www.runwashington.com/tips/46.html http://www.runwashington.com/resources/43.html http://home.connectnet.com/eoinf/heartrate.html http://www.polar.fi/ http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm.htm http://teamoregon.com/publications/pulsrate.html You might want to check out some new books on heart rate training, such as Roy Benson’s "The Runner’s Coach."    -Phil

Response:

I train by heartrate every day. dave – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found an old book of mine titled "Training Lactatce Pulse-Rate" by Peter Janssen from 1987. It mainly focuses on using heart-rates for training properly. Most threads in here usually end up talking about split times and such but I don’t see too much reference of heartrates anymore. This book I find neat because of all the real charts of marathoners and cyclists plotting their heart rates over races. The book deals alot with lactate levels in the blood too but I ws just curious if this was taken seriously anymore. I read a thread where the author said that  …nowadays we know better that low intensity exercise doesn’t focus more on fat burning… but this author mentioned the opposite so now I was wondering if the rest of his stuff was outdated too? or was the author of that post just misinformed himself? I havent been up to date on sports science lately.  Do the principles of logging resting HR and training in specific zones still apply? Has anyone here done the Conconi test? Its easier to do on a bike because of bike computers measuring speed easier. I have a older HRM that records the heart rate every 15 seconds for and hour or every minute for 4 hours.  Time to dig it out and see if it still works. Gnight all

Response:

Yep, I use it (when I remember) and my husband uses his faithfully. Not only is it helpful to keep from running too hard on easy days but its interesting when I find out that I’m not running as hard as I thought I was! Also great for tempo runs. Jen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reason using a heart rate monitor is a good idea is because most (probably around 90%) runners underestimate how hard they are actually running.  Then they wonder why their fitness never improves.  Using a heart rate monitor tells you exactly how hard your body is working.  I really only use a HRM for easy or recovery runs because, even though I’ve been running for 16 years, I’ll still run too hard without it.

Response:

The reason using a heart rate monitor is a good idea is because most (probably around 90%) runners underestimate how hard they are actually running.  Then they wonder why their fitness never improves.  Using a heart rate monitor tells you exactly how hard your body is working.  I really only use a HRM for easy or recovery runs because, even though I’ve been running for 16 years, I’ll still run too hard without it.

Response:

HR is till a great training tool, but the key is to know how different HR’s correspond to different speeds at different perceived exertion levels. It gets pretty complicated to know exactly where you expect your HR to be under all the differnt circumstances you encounter while running. Mainly I use my HR monitor for my long and easy runs to keep myself from going too hard. I also like to use it for short races (5 or 10k) because it tells me exactly how hard I can get away with running. I know I can hold about 170-178 bpm for a 5k, so if I’m at that HR it doesn’t matter waht my splits are–I can’t get away with going any faster til the last 1/2 mile or so. Wes

Response: