heart rate monitor

leana

hi guys, i've been doin a little bit of running for the past few months and did my first sprint tri last week. i had no structure to my training before and today decided to start using a heart rate monitor for a run.

i wanted to do my run at 70% of max heart rate (185) but i found that i had to run really slow to keep it down around 130bpm. i did about 5k and it took me about 32mins and at the end of it i felt very fresh and could have run another 10k.

is this normal, i feel like i'm just being lazy.

P

Pherekydes

If your MHR is about 185 then 70% would be about 145-150. 130 is way too low. It would represent about 55-60% so that's why you felt so fresh.

How did you calculate your MHR? Do you know your resting HR?

leana

i used 220 minus my age(35). giving me a max heart rate of 185 and 70% of 185 is 129.5bpm.

my resting heart rate seems to be around 60

P

emerald007

I use a heart rate monitor all the time, but i don't change my pace as per my heart rate. I think its better to use the heart rate as an indicator of the amount of work your doing at the time or post a run when you look at the graph. I'd glance at my heart rate every now again, but more to see if i should be increasing my pace. I'd recommend you train to how you feel at the time, or at least in terms of mins per km and just consider the heart rate monitor as an extra stream of information to confuse the whole training equation.

notnem

I use the Garmin 50 and find it very handy. I don't use any of the complicated features, just the heart rate monitor and the stop watch.

Pherekydes

leana wrote: »

i used 220 minus my age(35). giving me a max heart rate of 185 and 70% of 185 is 129.5bpm.

my resting heart rate seems to be around 60

P

220-age is a very crude indicator of MHR. Many trained athletes will have a MHR of 190+ well into their forties. That aside, if your RHR is 60 then your working range is

185-60 = 125

70% of 125 = 87.5

87.5 + 60 = 147.5

This is your actual 70% figure.

130 represents 56% which, as you've found, is too low to give much of a training benefit.

stevie_b

i wouldn't take the 220-age indicator as being accurate either. if i was to go by this my max hr supposedly would be 195. my resting hr is usually between 39-42, and over the last couple of weeks training and racing my max hasn't been over 174...... my zones would be completely wrong if i based them around a max of 195

tunney

Pherekydes wrote: »

220-age is a very crude indicator of MHR. Many trained athletes will have a MHR of 190+ well into their forties. That aside, if your RHR is 60 then your working range is

185-60 = 125

70% of 125 = 87.5

87.5 + 60 = 147.5

This is your actual 70% figure.

130 represents 56% which, as you've found, is too low to give much of a training benefit.

I'm not familar with the methods you've used to calculate training zones. Can you elaborate please.

Pherekydes

tunney wrote: »

I'm not familar with the methods you've used to calculate training zones. Can you elaborate please.

MHR minus RHR = Working range

Working range multiplied by required percentage plus RHR = figure required.

Here's a link explaining zones and how to calculate them.

stevie_b

Pherekydes wrote: »

MHR minus RHR = Working range

Working range multiplied by required percentage plus RHR = figure required.

Here's a link explaining zones and how to calculate them.

i think it's the karvonen method (if i remember right). it's probably a more accurate estimate, but it's still only an estimate.

leana

thanks very much guys, Pherekydes that link is very helpful thanks very much

P

**Timbuk2**

220-age is inaccurate, and therefore so is the ((MHR-RHR) x 70%) + RHR) figure.

For example, going by 220-age my maximum heart rate should be 191. It is actually 204 (this is the highest figure I've ever gotten when I felt like I was giving my absolute all - so I assume it's my MHR as it is certainly close). My RHR is 46.

If you ever reach a HR over 185 you should assume that the higher figure is your MHR. Disregard any faulty readings (e.g. 300 or something).

Pherekydes

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

220-age is inaccurate, and therefore so is the ((MHR-RHR) x 70%) + RHR) figure.

220 minus age may be coincidentally accurate for some people.

The formula is as accurate as the figures you plug into it.

When tailoring one's training with a HRM, one should endeavour to ascertain one's RHR and MHR to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

**Timbuk2**

Pherekydes wrote: »

220 minus age may be coincidentally accurate for some people.

The formula is as accurate as the figures you plug into it.

When tailoring one's training with a HRM, one should endeavour to ascertain one's RHR and MHR to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

True. But it's also true that some people's MHR stays the same no matter what age they are. There is no rule to say that it goes down by one bpm every year.

RHR can change, depending on the person and their fitness level, but in general MHR doesn't vary.