Heart rate zones and effective training

Supercell

I've been reading a lot about heart rates and training zones recently.
I've a Garmin 405 watch and have been recording my heart rates during my runs and am at a bit of an impasse as to the best way forward with my training in terms of exertion, I'd be interested n what the more experienced runners here have to say.

From reading on the internet there seems to be two main schools of thought regarding high heart rates whilst running (assuming no underlying medical condition) :-

1) Peoples heart rate zones can change by up to around 20 beats at the same age depending on fitness, physical make-up and genetics

2) People with high heart rates while running are over training leading to sub optimal results (ie in zone four or five on "easy" run days)

I was readin the other day (cannot find the article now) an article which the author reported that his coach ordered him to slow down into the correct cardiac zone for the specified run. Inirtially his times totally sucked but sure enough after 6 week (I think) or so he was running better times than ever , except his heart rates were perfectly in the zones that were "too low" before and he felt far better at the end of his runs than ever before.

So why is this bothering me?, well I run at a pretty slow pace as is and if I was to go strictly by the 220-age type formulas I'd be about 15 beats above where i should be, effectively i seem to train in the high four zone sometimes going into zone five. I wonder if my lactic threshold has simply risen due to me constantly grinding out the miles at that level?

In fact to get to my suggested zone level for a regular easy training run (zone three) i reckon it will be a very slow jog, probably with little more than a fast walk on the steep bits.

To give an idea on current easy runs of 5k my average heart rate has varied from 168 to 151 (where i was deliberately forcing myself to run slowly), I have yet to finish in the 140's where the heart rate guides say i should be (I'm male, almost 39). My resting rate is about 50.

So learned boards runners, what do you reckon?..suck it up and live with the slow pace - it will improve as the heart becomes fitter or ignore it, as long as I'm not dead on my feet at the end, progress will come.

cfitz

That 220 minus your age is a very very rough guideline. My max heart rate at age 19 was 218bpm.

Woddle

I would suggest finding your max, maybe do a 5k all out including a sprint at the end and upload your data and see what it recorded your max at, I was working of a max of 198 from a race I did back in May but recently reached a max of 199 so I now work of that and I'm 29 so that 220 minus age does not apply to me either, Krusty did an excel spread so have a look here and the numbers will change when you put in your details, I think he did the zones based on advanced marathoning by Pfitz and Douglas

tunney

Supercell wrote: »

2) People with high heart rates while running are over training leading to sub optimal results

Emmmm, complete and utter horse.........

A high heart rate on its own is meaningless out of context.

Woddle

tunney wrote: »

Emmmm, complete and utter horse.........

A high heart rate on its own is meaningless out of context.

If I'm guessing right I think he just worded it wrong, I think he's talking about training too much at higher intensity zone(HR)

Supercell

Woddle wrote: »

If I'm guessing right I think he just worded it wrong, I think he's talking about training too much at higher intensity zone(HR)

Yep, thats exactly what I meant, thanks. Have clarified that on my original post now, sorry for any confusion caused.

hot to trot

Bummer I spent ages posting yesterday only to find that a whole load of rubbish icons popped up and message wasn't posted.

220- your age is too simplistic for training because it doesn't give your WORKING heart rate. you will end up going far too slowly to train propery and you won't get the real benefit of training with a HRM.

Find your max -from running up and down hills or really pushing yourself. Subtract your resting heart rate (50 in your case) Take this in the morning while still in bed. It often measures nearly 10 beats less than druring the day when you are just relaxing int he chair.
MUltiply this by .70 (70%) or .85 (85%) then add back in your resting heart rate.

My max is 194 and doing it this way gives me a 70% of 150 and 85% is 165. This is much higher than doing a straight calculation which gives me a 70% of 135. If I used 220-age and then 70% I would end up with trying to run at 123 beats which I nearly get tying my shoes for God sake
Stick to the lower value for recovery and easy runs and push it to the 85% for the tempo and speed drills. After a few weeks you will find that you run faster and can still stay below 70% and you really have to work harder to get over the 85%.
Guidelines for races are 75% marathon
80% half marathon
85% 10K
90% 5K
95+% for 1 mile.

TFBubendorfer

hot to trot wrote: »

Guidelines for races are 75% marathon
80% half marathon
85% 10K
90% 5K
95+% for 1 mile.

That can't be right. According to that formula I should have run my last marathon at a average HR of about 152. I did it 10 beats higher, and I've run marathons at even higher HRs before.

hot to trot

It is a GUIDE for those who are new to training especially with a monitor, using the percentages of working heart rate.
YOu may be very fit and fast and used to performing at higher thresholds. This is a good general guide to get you started.
It would also be too low for my running if I used the straight calculation and those done my the HRM itslef, but not when I use the calculations taking my resting heart rate into account.

Supercell

Thanks guys, i think I'll go out and figure out what my real max heart rate is and take it from there.