WiseOldOwl wrote: »
Getting back to running after 4 month break. Average heartrate of 168 on an easy 5k today. Unfortunately I didn’t have a HR on watch when I was running regularly so I can’t compare. Watch also showing I was in zone 5 for 24 mins which I’d imagine in impossible. I’m 46 year female,average resting HR 64. Any thoughts?
skyblue46 wrote: »
It's not likely to have actually been an easy run. What is your 5k PB? What pace were you running at today?
IvoryTower wrote: »
168 after a 4 month break sounds normal to me, maybe not zone 5 though, you would have to find out your max hr to configure zones correctly
adrian522 wrote: »
Wrist based HR is not reliable at all, unless you are wearing a chest strap HR readings can be ignored.
An August 2017 study in the Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Journal had even more disheartening findings. Fifty athletes spent time on the treadmill, elliptical and stationary bike, and correlation varied from 0.75 to 0.92. As that study concluded: “Electrode-containing chest monitors should be used when accurate HR measurement is imperative.”
rom wrote: »
Disagree. I find it very good. Though it does show random numbers now and again like 180 on an easy run when it should be sub 140 etc and then drops to 140. Saying that they can be ignored is not true. Taken with a pinch of salt would be true.