nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Lazare

The thread title might be a bit misleading. I'm not here to guide beginners in HR training, rather I'm hoping you guys, you experts might help guide me, and other beginners thinking of switching to the method.

I've just gotten a Garmin strap, am good to go, all I need now is the smarts and the stats to use it properly.

I know I need to get an accurate MHR (maximal heart rate) in order to utilise training zones, I've got plans for that.

What else does a beginner need to know?

When I begin a marathon block, will I be able to get an accurate marathon pace heart rate that I can train to? Is that thing?

What are good HR training plans for multiple distances?

Basically, what are your tips and tricks?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

this is an article on the same concept (although focus on the aerobic base first before speed work)

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/training-in-the-grey-zone-how-to-avoid-the-zone-3-plateau/

basically, again, build up your aerobic endurance

over time you will be able to go faster (pace) at your maximum aerobic function heart rate

this also teaches your body how to burn fat for fuel

most people you see out doing general running are running anaerobically , and not actually achieving much in terms of getting more efficient

Casey78

glasso wrote: »

this is an article on the same concept (although focus on the aerobic base first before speed work)

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/training-in-the-grey-zone-how-to-avoid-the-zone-3-plateau/

basically, again, build up your aerobic endurance

over time you will be able to go faster (pace) at your maximum aerobic function heart rate

this also teaches your body how to burn fat for fuel

most people you see out doing general running are running anaerobically , and not actually achieving much in terms of getting more efficient

Zone 3 isn't a zone to completely avoid though.

If you are training for a Marathon then doing some runs in Zone 3 is recommended as Zone 3 should be around your Marathon pace and a lot of plans now have lots of Marathon paced runs included.

There are plenty of benefits to training in Zone 3 when required and when its managed correctly. Obviously going out and doing every run in Zone 3 isn't recommended of course.

[Deleted User]

Casey78 wrote: »

Zone 3 isn't a zone to completely avoid though.

If you are training for a Marathon then doing some runs in Zone 3 is recommended as Zone 3 should be around your Marathon pace and a lot of plans now have lots of Marathon paced runs included.

There are plenty of benefits to training in Zone 3 when required and when its managed correctly. Obviously going out and doing every run in Zone 3 isn't recommended of course.

I think that you can see that the point is that a human gets more value from polarised training

of course zone 3 heart rate will be used by the body in races but training in zone 2 (max aerobic endurance level) on one hand for endurance (and to turn body into a fat burner) and to a lesser extent in zone 4/5 for anaerobic speed work is much more effective.

that's why they say you don't need to and indeed shouldn't train in zone 3.

Casey78

glasso wrote: »

I think that you can see that the point is that a human gets more value from polarised training

of course zone 3 heart rate will be used by the body in races but training in zone 2 (max aerobic endurance level) on one hand for endurance (and to turn body into a fat burner) and to a lesser extent in zone 4/5 for anaerobic speed work is much more effective.

that's why they say you don't need to and indeed shouldn't train in zone 3.

I think it depends on what are training for.
If you are training for a Marathon and you aren't a novice doing your first that just wants to finish,then you need to do some training runs at Marathon pace, in my opinion.

Zone 3 is in or around Marathon pace so therefore you need to do runs in Zone 3 and you will get a benefit from these runs.

There are plenty of articles online by far more knowledgeable people than me that say you should be doing MP miles in training. MP miles and Zone 3 go hand in hand.

KSU

glasso wrote: »

that's why they say you don't need to and indeed shouldn't train in zone 3.

I think the point is more to avoid monopaced running in zone 3 rather than avoiding it entirely.

There are plenty of benefits beyond energy pathways to be had from each zone and of applied correctly to training a persons approach should touch on all paces to a varying degree at different points in build up.

Zone 3 training is something that is widely used in sub elite to elite 10k- marathon training again (though there was a lull post Maffetone/Daniels being widely available sources of information in 90s/00s

[Deleted User]

nevertheless, for most runners out there the benefits of low heart rate training (MAF) for the majority of training would be absolutely huge.

most runners that you see out there running are running purely on the basis of running pace and not getting anywhere near the improvement that they could be getting.

Casey78

glasso wrote: »

nevertheless, for most runners out there the benefits of low heart rate training (MAF) for the majority of training would be absolutely huge.

most runners that you see out there running are running purely on the basis of running pace and not getting anywhere near the improvement that they could be getting.

Dont think anyone would dispute most runners need to slow down. I was more disputing the notion that you shouldn't ever train in Zone 3.

I don't like the MAF method though myself.
It doesn't take into account a runners Max HR. Picking an arbitrary number like 180 and subtracting your age is all well and good but depending on your Max Hr this figure could actually have you running too hard or even too slow at the resulting figure for that formula.

I prefer to use the Karvonen Formula with the zones that John L Parker set out in his book Heart Rate training for the Compleat Idiot.

No doubt MAF will and has worked for a lot of runners,but I dont like the concept personally.

As with everything the key is to find what works for you as we are all different animals.

[Deleted User]

yes I agree that the discussion about specific formulas etc (although there are adjustment factors on MAF - it's not just 180 less age) could go on and on but they all follow the broad principle of running aerobically to build up endurance so you can, as you make progress, run faster at the same aerobic heart rate.

for race days you run for your best time but the longer the race distance the more this applies (aerobic base).

it's not for 5k runners obviously but most recreational / enthusiast runners are not targeting 5k exclusively

ILoveYourVibes

Casey78 wrote: »

Dont think anyone would dispute most runners need to slow down.

I was always the opposite. I could run forever ...but couldn't sprint.:o

partyguinness

Casey78 wrote: »

Dont think anyone would dispute most runners need to slow down. I was more disputing the notion that you shouldn't ever train in Zone 3.

I don't like the MAF method though myself.
It doesn't take into account a runners Max HR. Picking an arbitrary number like 180 and subtracting your age is all well and good but depending on your Max Hr this figure could actually have you running too hard or even too slow at the resulting figure for that formula.

I prefer to use the Karvonen Formula with the zones that John L Parker set out in his book Heart Rate training for the Compleat Idiot.

No doubt MAF will and has worked for a lot of runners,but I dont like the concept personally.

As with everything the key is to find what works for you as we are all different animals.

Go and get your VO2 tested in a lab to see what your max is. That is what I did.

Funnily enough MAF geeks dismiss VO2 readings on the basis that you never train like that which is a very fair point.

Interestingly Garmin had my VO2 at 56 but my lab test came back at 49. Could I have pushed it more during the test? Perhaps- I mean if it was 100 metres to go to break my 5k PB then sure.

I went to see a sports trainer (although he is personally more into cycling) who goes over to Africa several times a year, worked with Olympians and does pre-season training/tests with Premier league clubs.

My max came in at 169 and he gave me a MAF rate of 136 to train with for 12 weeks. Using the 180 formula I should be at 139 as I am 41 but he put me down to 136 as my running has been sporadic over the previous 6 months.

Murph_D

partyguinness wrote: »

Go and get your VO2 tested in a lab to see what your max is. That is what I did.

Funnily enough MAF geeks dismiss VO2 readings on the basis that you never train like that which is a very fair point.

Interestingly Garmin had my VO2 at 56 but my lab test came back at 49. Could I have pushed it more during the test? Perhaps- I mean if it was 100 metres to go to break my 5k PB then sure.

I went to see a sports trainer (although he is personally more into cycling) who goes over to Africa several times a year, worked with Olympians and does pre-season training/tests with Premier league clubs.

My max came in at 169 and he gave me a MAF rate of 136 to train with for 12 weeks. Using the 180 formula I should be at 139 as I am 41 but he put me down to 136 as my running has been sporadic over the previous 6 months.

Garmin VO2 stats are useless. You'll get a better number from feeding your race results into the Jack Daniels calculator.

partyguinness

Murph_D wrote: »

Garmin VO2 stats are useless. You'll get a better number from feeding your race results into the Jack Daniels calculator.

Yeah. Although it was not too far off but no I wouldnt take any notice.

There is a guy that follows me on Strava and he posted a screenshot of his VO2 which is showing up at a very very impressive 61. Now the guy is in his 60s and like me just a recreational runner.

I was awfully tempted to tell him it is rubbish but I bit my tongue I didnt want to burst his bubble as he is very happy about it.

ariana`

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah. Although it was not too far off but no I wouldnt take any notice.

There is a guy that follows me on Strava and he posted a screenshot of his VO2 which is showing up at a very very impressive 61. Now the guy is in his 60s and like me just a recreational runner.

I was awfully tempted to tell him it is rubbish but I bit my tongue I didnt want to burst his bubble as he is very happy about it.

And in fairness wouldn't you say the trend is still a positive even if you ignore the numbers? So if his VO2 was 60 at the start of the year then he's going in the right direction even if the 60 should really have been 55 and the 61 should really have been 56...

Sam the Sham

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah. Although it was not too far off but no I wouldnt take any notice.

There is a guy that follows me on Strava and he posted a screenshot of his VO2 which is showing up at a very very impressive 61. Now the guy is in his 60s and like me just a recreational runner.

I was awfully tempted to tell him it is rubbish but I bit my tongue I didnt want to burst his bubble as he is very happy about it.

The Garmin stat is rubbish if you think it's going to give you your VO2Max and let you use that to predict race times and the like.

Nevertheless, I believe you can compare VO2Max readings from Garmin devices with one another, so your friend's 61 is better than someone else's 55. They are also useful when looking at the evolution of one's own number.

partyguinness

ariana` wrote: »

And in fairness wouldn't you say the trend is still a positive even if you ignore the numbers? So if his VO2 was 60 at the start of the year then he's going in the right direction even if the 60 should really have been 55 and the 61 should really have been 56...

Well yes that is true as it is working from the same base but I just didnt want to plough in by saying it's probable 'only' say, 55 which of course is still very good.

IvoryTower

I like to use my garmin one to see progress alright. I notice it improves by a notch or two if I wear it all the time so it has resting hr etc

Murph_D

Sam the Sham wrote: »

The Garmin stat is rubbish if you think it's going to give you your VO2Max and let you use that to predict race times and the like.

Nevertheless, I believe you can compare VO2Max readings from Garmin devices with one another, so your friend's 61 is better than someone else's 55. They are also useful when looking at the evolution of one's own number.

Doubt this to be honest. If it’s wrong, It’s wrong, and best ignored.

Sam the Sham

Murph_D wrote: »

Doubt this to be honest. If it’s wrong, It’s wrong, and best ignored.

So a thermometer for which the scale has been lost (or erased) has no comparative value?

Swashbuckler

I had a vo2max of 61 two weeks ago. One long run where the HR monitor went funky and it dropped to 58. Useless.

shotgunmcos

IvoryTower wrote: »

I like to use my garmin one to see progress alright. I notice it improves by a notch or two if I wear it all the time so it has resting hr etc

I agree. I wear all the time so its constantly tracking hr, sleep etc on top of training.

Last year peaked at 59 for a sub 3. Best shape I was in for years. Then off the wagon. 49 by xmas. Starting on 50 in Jan it's now up and down 58-59. Sure I forget the HRM, use wrist hr sometimes and it drops down a notch.

Tracking the trend is interesting for ones own value. Maybe it's not perfect as a measure but it does tend up or down as you gain/lose fitness.

Important to put in accurate settings. I'm sure if you are really 60kg, run every day and enter 100kg at training level 2, then knock out a 17min 5k, Garmin will think you are marvellous.

Heart Rate can be a lot more erratic but over time it tends well and I've found it useful. Just ignore the spikes or that sometimes it takes a mile to realise you are not sprinting up a hill!

I do like that it asks you to accept a new LT value and it's also not far off.

ariana`

Swashbuckler wrote: »

I had a vo2max of 61 two weeks ago. One long run where the HR monitor went funky and it dropped to 58. Useless.

That's mental, i've never seen it drop by anything more than 1 and only when the little arrow has been point down for a few days so i have advance warning it's on the way down. Actually my vo2 stats moves very little, if i look at the last 6m it is almost a straight line with just the odd fluctuation of 1pt either way for a few days or maybe a week.... But i wear a chest strap so maybe that's why it's consistent.

In terms of trend my Runalyze stats seem to match my Garmin stats so that has given me some confidence in the trend although GC gives me a Vo2 max 7 higher than Runalyze :rolleyes:

***Edited to add that this made me think - am i doing something wrong that my v02 doesn't really change much

I mean i'm looking for improvement, right. It fell a lot November '18-Feb'19 when i had a lot of post-marathon sickness but by June '19 it was back up near it's peak and it's been steady ever since then

KSU

ariana` wrote: »

***Edited to add that this made me think - am i doing something wrong that my v02 doesn't really change much I mean i'm looking for improvement, right. It fell a lot November '18-Feb'19 when i had a lot of post-marathon sickness but by June '19 it was back up near it's peak and it's been steady ever since then

Wouldn’t worry Vo2 max is not a measure of performance so you can see dramatic improvements in racing ability without any such change to Vo2 max

If it was just about this figure Kenyans wouldn’t stand a chance vs Nordic Skiiers who on average tend to produce amongst the highest numbers on record

shotgunmcos

If you have 5 minutes and coffee to hand

The fittest of them all: endurance athletes
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 21, 2014 · UPDATED OCTOBER 10, 2014

Photo courtesy of Sportsnet.ca Marit Bjørgen and four other top finishers from the Skiathlon gasping for air after all-out effort.
Photo courtesy of Sportsnet.ca
Marit Bjørgen and four other top finishers from the Skiathlon gasping for air after all-out effort.
https://www.norwegianamerican.com/the-fittest-of-them-all-endurance-athletes/

Swimmers, marathon runners, and cyclists get the most credit for being fit, but cross-country skiers outdo them all

Tom Rodgers
Arlington, Texas

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fittest of them all? You may never have this conversation with the quicksilver on your wall, but many athletes are waking up today in Sochi, Russia and asking themselves that question. Just what do we mean by fitness? Do we mean the strength found in weightlifting competitions? Do we mean the explosiveness found in American Football players or 100-meter sprinters? Or the balance and control of figure skaters and gymnasts?

In the current Sochi games, we have the most popular sports like downhill skiing, a mix of strength and speed; figure skating, mostly skill and presentation; speed-skating, which is similar to both distance running and cycling; and snowboarding, a test of balance not unlike surfing. If we define “fitness” in a medical way, we mean cardiorespiratory fitness, or the ability to process oxygen and turn fat into energy. Most doctors agree this kind of fitness makes you live longer and helps your brain resist aging.

Physiologists have a convenient single number that measures this fitness: VO2-max, which is the maximum rate of oxygen consumption as measured during incremental exercise, sometimes referred as “aerobic capacity.” It’s measured in milliliters of oxygen consumed per minute per kilogram of body weight (ml/kg/min). Size does matter when it comes to aerobic capacity, which is why most endurance athletes have lower body mass than larger athletes from sports emphasizing short-term bursts of strength and speed.

How do VO2-max numbers stack up across various sports? Male Olympic swimmers usually come in somewhere with a VO2-max around 70, top marathon runners something like 75, and pro cyclists as high as 88. In most of these sports, women tend to come in about 10 points lower than comparable men. Even though men weigh more than women, they have a higher percentage of muscle, and as you might have guessed, testosterone helps men burn oxygen rapidly.

But by far the highest VO2-max numbers come from cross-country skiers, who have tested as high as 96 ml/kg/min. What makes them the fittest athletes? The crosscountry events are some of the longest in the Olympics, up to 50 kilometers (31 miles), and they cover the toughest terrain, including steep climbs. Compared to other sports like swimming (mostly upper-body muscles), cycling (lower body without much upper body) and running (mostly lower body with arms swinging freely), cross-country skiers actively use their upper-body muscles to pole up hills and in the flats, and of course need strong hips and legs to move the skis. Because they use both the upper- and lowerbody in tandem, they must also engage core muscles in the abdomen and lower back, some of the largest in the human body.

I first became acquainted with top crosscountry skiers and biathletes via triathlon, where many European triathletes come from a cross-country skiing or biathlon background. I met Uros Velepec when he won the 2000 Ultraman Triathlon World Championship in Hawaii (about 2.7 times longer than the famous Hawaii Ironman triathlon) where I got fifth place overall. He then went on to become the coach of the Slovenian men’s national biathlon team. Many other long-course triathletes in North America train the aerobic engine in the winter on cross-country skis.

In the 2014 Sochi games, this conflagration of oxygen burned brightest for the Norwegian cross-country team on the opening weekend. The fire started with the women’s Skiathlon, a mixture of classic-style skiing for 7.5 kilometers on narrow trails with longer poles (resembles exaggerated walking or an indoor elliptical trainer); followed by a quick change of skis and 7.5 more kilometers using the newer freestyle method (looks more like skating on the snow).

On a multiloop course with wickedly tough climbs, a group of three Norwegians and one Swede broke away from the pack and fought ski-to-ski to the last 400 meters. Then Marit Bjørgen followed the breaking Swede Charlotte Kalla up the final climb, drafted in behind, then passed inside on the final turn to pull away for a clear win.

That left two other Norwegian women, Heidi Weng and Teherese Johaug, to fight for the bronze medal. Johaug had done most of the work breaking the wind while leading the original four-woman breakaway, so faded to the surging Weng who took the bronze.

If you need still more evidence that cross-country skiers process the most oxygen and put out the most energy at the finish, all four women collapsed flat into the snow and continued to pant rapidly for several minutes after the event. We’ve all seen this kind of thing in the old days when marathon runners and Ironman triathletes would collapse at or before the finish line, but modern training techniques and race nutrition have all but eliminated the dramatic collapse in these other sports. Not so in cross-country skiing, where the herculean effort requires the very last decimal of their remaining aerobic capacity.

Adding to the emotional fatigue, both Bjørgen and Weng said they were skiing hard for teammate Astrid Uhrenholdt Jacobsen, who heard on Friday that her brother and training partner had died. Bittersweet tears were apparent in the Norwegian dressing tent after the Skiathlon medals. The cause of death was not given. Jacobsen decided to go ahead with Tuesday’s cross-country sprint despite being in mourning.

You could see oxygen depletion again the following day in the men’s freestyle sprint, where the top finishers all collapsed at the line. Even in the more controlled exertion of the men’s biathlon, where competitors must freestyle-ski around a challenging hilly loop, then stop to fire a .22 caliber rifle at five tiny targets, the finish can get hairy. Biathlon is a sport where baseline fitness, or the heart rates experienced well below V02-max, are very important, because you must allow your heart rate drop from a near-maximal effort of 165-185 beats-per-minute (bpm) down to 120 bpm in only a few seconds–so that you aim steadily with the 3.5-kilogram (7.7-pound) rifle. Missed shots incur a 150-meter loop penalty, costing competitors about 25 seconds against the field.

In the Sochi sprint biathlon, the gold medal winner was a surprise. Forty-year-old Norwegian Ole Einar Bjørndalen, seeded well down in the field against younger competitors, won his 12th Olympic medal to tie the all-time record of Bjørn Erlend Dæhlie, the legendary Norwegian cross-country star who retired in 2001 after a back injury. In fact it was Dæhlie who set that record for the highest-ever recorded VO2-max of 96. Amazingly, this high number was recorded out of competition without yet reaching his peak fitness. Experts estimate his competition levels could well have been over 100.

As I write this article, more Norwegians are winning medals in men’s and women’s cross-country events, showing the depth of their talent, including some younger Olympians sure to win more medals in the future.

Right now in February 2014, if you want to find the highest average V02-max of any single building earth, look no further than the dormitory of the Norwegian crosscountry skiers and biathletes.

Sam the Sham

shotgunmcos wrote: »

I agree. I wear all the time so its constantly tracking hr, sleep etc on top of training.

Last year peaked at 59 for a sub 3. Best shape I was in for years. Then off the wagon. 49 by xmas. Starting on 50 in Jan it's now up and down 58-59. Sure I forget the HRM, use wrist hr sometimes and it drops down a notch.

Tracking the trend is interesting for ones own value. Maybe it's not perfect as a measure but it does tend up or down as you gain/lose fitness.

Important to put in accurate settings. I'm sure if you are really 60kg, run every day and enter 100kg at training level 2, then knock out a 17min 5k, Garmin will think you are marvellous.

I don't think that's true. I think it's the opposite.

I don't check or adjust my weight that often. But I do remember that one time I did check my weight and found I'd lost a kg or two, entered the new weight into Garmin connect and found that my VO2 reading next time I ran went up a couple of points. That suggests that lowering the weight raises the VO2. I know VO2 calculations include weight as a variable since it's millilitres of oxygen per kg of body weight per minute. If kg goes up, mL of oxygen per kg goes down.

partyguinness

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I don't think that's true. I think it's the opposite.

I don't check or adjust my weight that often. But I do remember that one time I did check my weight and found I'd lost a kg or two, entered the new weight into Garmin connect and found that my VO2 reading next time I ran went up a couple of points. That suggests that lowering the weight raises the VO2. I know VO2 calculations include weight as a variable since it's millilitres of oxygen per kg of body weight per minute. If kg goes up, mL of oxygen per kg goes down.

The VO2 measure with Garmin is primarily based on how often you hit say, 60-80% HR intensity.

If you decide to start a say, a 12 week aerobic programme of long slow runs and leave out intervals, speedwork and HIIT then your VO2 with Garmin will plummet because you are not hitting HR high threshold or even anerobic.

VO2 dropping doesnt necessarily mean you are losing fitness as such but rather that you are not doing a certain type of training. That is not necessarily bad depending on individual needs and targets.

The way VO2 is tested in a lab is nothing how you train in real life. While it is one interesting tool I wouldnt read into it too much.

ariana`

partyguinness wrote: »

The VO2 measure with Garmin is primarily based on how often you hit say, 60-80% HR intensity.

If you decide to start a say, a 12 week aerobic programme of long slow runs and leave out intervals, speedwork and HIIT then your VO2 with Garmin will plummet because you are not hitting HR high threshold or even anerobic.

VO2 dropping doesnt necessarily mean you are losing fitness as such but rather that you are not doing a certain type of training. That is not necessarily bad depending on individual needs and targets.

The way VO2 is tested in a lab is nothing how you train in real life. While it is one interesting tool I wouldnt read into it too much.

Interesting, this isn't my experience of it i have to say. I'm doing a base plan at the moment with very little running other than aerobic (a tempo OR strides once per week only) and my Vo2 max has held fairly steady throughout.

I find it will drop if my HR is relatively higher on like for like runs... So for example if last week i was doing my easy runs @ 10min/m with a HR of 135 bpm and this week for the same pace my HR is @ 140 bpm then Vo2 max on the Garmin may drop as i'm working harder for the same pace. And conversely if my 10 min/m suddenly sees me at a HR of 130 bpm then i may gain a V02 point. In my case it's usually a fairly temporary loss/gain. The only time i've seen it plummet is when I've been injured, repeatedly sick, run down etc for an extended period of time.

partyguinness

ariana` wrote: »

Interesting, this isn't my experience of it i have to say. I'm doing a base plan at the moment with very little running other than aerobic (a tempo OR strides once per week only) and my Vo2 max has held fairly steady throughout.

But even so, you are still doing tempo or strides once a week. It sounds like that is enough to hold steady.

I am currently finishing up a base aerobic program and tempo/strides etc is completely banned. I havent sprinted in months- it has helped that my usual track speedwork shut down 2 months ago due to C19.

I should be back to speedwork next month and hill sessions. It will be interessting to see if my Garmin based VO2 will start to rise- well, it should.

ariana` wrote: »

I find it will drop if my HR is relatively higher on like for like runs... So for example if last week i was doing my easy runs @ 10min/m with a HR of 135 bpm and this week for the same pace my HR is @ 140 bpm then Vo2 max on the Garmin may drop as i'm working harder for the same pace. And conversely if my 10 min/m suddenly sees me at a HR of 130 bpm then i may gain a V02 point. In my case it's usually a fairly temporary loss/gain. The only time i've seen it plummet is when I've been injured, repeatedly sick, run down etc for an extended period of time.

Interesting. My Garmin does not appear to be that sensitive but I guess as I am not mixing it up it has probably plateaued.

eyrie

ariana` wrote: »

Interesting, this isn't my experience of it i have to say. I'm doing a base plan at the moment with very little running other than aerobic (a tempo OR strides once per week only) and my Vo2 max has held fairly steady throughout.

I find it will drop if my HR is relatively higher on like for like runs... So for example if last week i was doing my easy runs @ 10min/m with a HR of 135 bpm and this week for the same pace my HR is @ 140 bpm then Vo2 max on the Garmin may drop as i'm working harder for the same pace. And conversely if my 10 min/m suddenly sees me at a HR of 130 bpm then i may gain a V02 point. In my case it's usually a fairly temporary loss/gain. The only time i've seen it plummet is when I've been injured, repeatedly sick, run down etc for an extended period of time.

Same - this is how it works for me too and it's fairly reliable - not the actual number, which I'm sure has no relationship to VO2 max, but as a relative measure of what kind of shape I'm in over a few days. Plus it's kind of fun!

partyguinness

eyrie wrote: »

Same - this is how it works for me too and it's fairly reliable - not the actual number, which I'm sure has no relationship to VO2 max, but as a relative measure of what kind of shape I'm in over a few days. Plus it's kind of fun!

Mine was 56 on Garmin up to February but I went to the lab and given 49 so I adjusted Garmin to 49 and have watched it slump to 44 since I took up slow runs- no tempo or speedwork whatsoever. In fact I have not sprinted in months.

But strangely I check it last night and it has gone up to 45.

eyrie

partyguinness wrote: »

Mine was 56 on Garmin up to February but I went to the lab and given 49 so I adjusted Garmin to 49 and have watched it slump to 44 since I took up slow runs- no tempo or speedwork whatsoever. In fact I have not sprinted in months.

But strangely I check it last night and it has gone up to 45.

Strange! I'm doing exclusively heart-rate based base building at the moment, all aerobic and well below tempo pace, and the vast majority of it very slow and easy. My number dropped a bit at the very start (for unrelated reasons, I think) and has since come back up. I'd expect if I continue and my heartrate starts to drop for the same pace that the number would go up, as that's what usually happens. I've never tried entering VO2 manually on Garmin though, I wonder if that's affected it for you?