Advertisement
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

17891012

Comments



  • First Up wrote: »
    Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?
    Literally no-one has ever said this should be the case, and your continued bad-faith arguments are a joke

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)





  • 28064212 wrote:
    Literally no-one has ever said this should be the case, and your continued bad-faith arguments are a joke


    Well if 100% accuracy is that important, then a lab is the only way to go. Unless you have an alternative?




  • First Up wrote: »
    So do you prefer the 211 - .6A formula or the 208 -.7A or any of the others knocking around? There's no shortage and all have their advocates and critics.
    Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

    Or just pick one because the benefits of starting a structured programme are too good to wait for the arguments over decimal points to be resolved?

    Nobody is insisting on a scientifically approved lab test here :confused:

    Previous posters have suggested using a field test that can be done at no cost or inconvenience but that are more importantly a lot more personalised and hence more likely to benefit someone who decides to give training by HR a go.




  • First Up wrote: »
    Well if 100% accuracy is that important, then a lab is the only way to go. Unless you have an alternative?

    I think this thread has been derailed enough at this stage. Nobody is insisting 100% accuracy is essential but the closer the better of course and a field test or a lab test are both preferable to an arbitrary formula.

    END OF.




  • ariana` wrote:
    Previous posters have suggested using a field test that can be done at no cost or inconvenience but that are more importantly a lot more personalised and hence more likely to benefit someone who decides to give training by HR a go.


    Previous posters have also criticised and questioned the accuracy of various devices including Apple and Garmin, none of which come cheap.


  • Advertisement


  • First Up wrote: »
    So do you prefer the 211 - .6A formula or the 208 -.7A or any of the others knocking around? There's no shortage and all have their advocates and critics.
    Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

    Or just pick one because the benefits of starting a structured programme are too good to wait for the arguments over decimal points to be resolved?

    I literally have no idea what you're talking about, HR zones ?

    As I previously said, get a accurate HR monitor, preferably one with a chest strap as these are the most accurate.
    Do your field test, I prefer using 800m reps.
    then work out your training zones.
    Its not hard or complicated.




  • Ceepo wrote:
    I literally have no idea what you're talking about, HR zones ?

    I talking about the various formulae for estimating HR max, of which 220 -A is just one.
    Ceepo wrote:
    As I previously said, get a accurate HR monitor, preferably one with a chest strap as these are the most accurate. Do your field test, I prefer using 800m reps. then work out your training zones. Its not hard or complicated.
    Nor is it an exact science. An estimated measurement for max HR using that or any other widely formula will get most us most of the way.




  • You need 2 pieces of data to identify your zones
    Max hr
    Resting hr

    Also good to know is your LTHR - The point at which you start accumulating lactic acid

    If you want 99% accuracy - book yourself into a lab. They will hook you up with a mask, put you on a treadmill, step up the speed iteratively until you max out. They will then establish the max hr you reached, pinch your finger or ear to get a blood sample and report back your LTHR, VO2 etc..

    Going to all the trouble and cost and they won't be able to tell you your resting heart rate! Resting hr is likely the most variable metric as you progress in fitness and as such your hr zones should move with it.

    Resting hr you can work out yourself
    Max hr you can work out in similar fashion to a lab - just harder to do on your own
    From there you can do some simple formula/math and work out your zones.

    Knowing your LTHR is a bonus as that a key value to use in tempo session to let you know if you are burning matches too quickly :)

    Using 220 - your age gets you in the ballpark of your max hr but being out by as little as 5bpm and you could be training much too hard too often, leading to overreaching/burnout or worse, injury. I certainly would not use that to set my zones.




  • First Up wrote: »
    I talking about the various formulae for estimating HR max, of which 220 -A is just one.

    Nor is it an exact science. An estimated measurement for max HR using that or any other widely formula will get most us most of the way.

    I'm really wondering what you are trying to achieve here, apart from you a statement about 220 -a and are trying to either convince yourself that you're right, or don't want to say that you may be wrong, either way it doesn't matter.

    I've highlighted why ANY, repeat ANY, generic max hr formula is fundamentally flawed, no matter what way you want to look at it, can it work out for some, maybe, but its almost always to wide of the mark, example is a 61yo female with a max 183, or female 23yo max 168.
    Yes of course even doing a field test you maybe 1,2 or even 3 beats out, but that won't effect your training zones to any great degree, but you can see how it would effect the training zones of the above examples.
    Using HR can never be an exact science, as there's other variable's to take to account. But what you should be doing is to mitigate any inaccurate parts of the equation you can.

    Using different Hr zones is a different argument, some coaches like a simple 5 zone system, while others may use 6 or even 7 zones,
    That is up to the athlete or coach or both.




  • Ceepo wrote:
    I've highlighted why ANY, repeat ANY, generic max hr formula is fundamentally flawed, no matter what way you want to look at it, can it work out for some, maybe, but its almost always to wide of the mark, example is a 61yo female with a max 183, or female 23yo max 168. Yes of course even doing a field test you maybe 1,2 or even 3 beats out, but that won't effect your training zones to any great degree, but you can see how it would effect the training zones of the above examples. Using HR can never be an exact science, as there's other variable's to take to account. But what you should be doing is to mitigate any inaccurate parts of the equation you can.


    The word flawed has no place in this. There is no "wrong" way to train and I'm surprised that a coach would bring such a negative concept into it.

    Of course some training methods are better than others. Of course some HR measures are more accurate than others. Who cares and what does it matter?

    This thread should be encouraging runners to incorporate mixed pace sessions into their training, not scaring them off. I don't care if they use 220-A or anything else, as long as they have something to work with.


  • Advertisement


  • First Up wrote: »
    The word flawed has no place in this. There is no "wrong" way to train and I'm surprised that a coach would bring such a negative concept into it.

    Of course some training methods are better than others. Of course some HR measures are more accurate than others. Who cares and what does it matter?

    This thread should be encouraging runners to incorporate mixed pace sessions into their training, not scaring them off. I don't care if they use 220-A or anything else, as long as they have something to work with.

    I never mentioned "wrong", I said flawed.

    I'm sure it would matter to the examples I gave earlier.




  • I have to say, i'm really enjoying the challenge of trying to stay in Zone 2 for my easy runs. Breathing through my nose and out through my mouth if its pushing into the 150s and slowing down. it helps with my concentration too.




  • Sorry just a quick question - I've been training pretty consistently since the turn of the new year. I was very sedentary and unfit before hand. I had a max HR in Jan + Feb of 188 (M33) but I've seen this trickle very slowly down and at the moment when maxing out I can only get to 183.

    Im assuming this drop in max HR is to do with getting fitter (my resting HR has also gone down) but my question is do I need to redo my training zones based on my "new" max HR or how does it work?

    Thanks




  • Sorry just a quick question - I've been training pretty consistently since the turn of the new year. I was very sedentary and unfit before hand. I had a max HR in Jan + Feb of 188 (M33) but I've seen this trickle very slowly down and at the moment when maxing out I can only get to 183.

    Im assuming this drop in max HR is to do with getting fitter (my resting HR has also gone down) but my question is do I need to redo my training zones based on my "new" max HR or how does it work?

    Thanks
    Max HR doesn't change that quickly, and isn't really affected by fitness level (unlike resting HR, which is). It's more likely one of two things: bad readings, or inability to reach your max HR. The former is self-explanatory, your readings are only as good as the equipment used to make the measurement. For the latter, increased fitness actually makes it more difficult to reach your max - an unfit person can reach their max much "easier" than a fit person can: a severely overweight person could reach their max going up a couple of flights of stairs; an elite athlete like Eliud Kipchoge may only be able to reach their max with an extremely specific test catered to their individual ability. They're two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)





  • 28064212 wrote: »
    Max HR doesn't change that quickly, and isn't really affected by fitness level (unlike resting HR, which is). It's more likely one of two things: bad readings, or inability to reach your max HR. The former is self-explanatory, your readings are only as good as the equipment used to make the measurement. For the latter, increased fitness actually makes it more difficult to reach your max - an unfit person can reach their max much "easier" than a fit person can: a severely overweight person could reach their max going up a couple of flights of stairs; an elite athlete like Eliud Kipchoge may only be able to reach their max with an extremely specific test catered to their individual ability. They're two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously

    Ok Cool thanks for the response - I'll just have to stop being soft and push harder!

    This is prob why my "relative effort" on Strava is getting harder and harder to maintain above recovery week




  • Ok Cool thanks for the response - I'll just have to stop being soft and push harder!

    This is prob why my "relative effort" on Strava is getting harder and harder to maintain above recovery week
    Don't overdo it! Reaching your MaxHR is difficult, and shouldn't really be done regularly, especially by relative beginners. There's not a lot between the two values you have, so it wouldn't involve any changes that are too drastic anyway. When it comes to running, it's always worth erring on the side of caution. The consequences of training too easily are much less severe than the consequences of training too hard (at least until you reach elite levels)

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)





  • Yesterday I attempted a max HR test and failed to reach my max I was only able to do one lap on the hill and reached a max of 180 personally I blame the pizza I had at lunch time for slowing me down anyway as a positive my Garmin auto detected my LTHR as 173, I've read this value is usually occurs around 90% or max HR, so can I assume my max HR is 190?
    This vaule correlates with both the 220-age and the newer 211-(0.65*age) formulas posted above considering I'm almost 31.




  • Yesterday I attempted a max HR test and failed to reach my max I was only able to do one lap on the hill and reached a max of 180 personally I blame the pizza I had at lunch time for slowing me down anyway as a positive my Garmin auto detected my LTHR as 173, I've read this value is usually occurs around 90% or max HR, so can I assume my max HR is 190?
    This vaule correlates with both the 220-age and the newer 211-(0.65*age) formulas posted above considering I'm almost 31.

    Questions if I may.
    If you don't think that you reached your max HR, how do you think Garmin was able to give you an accurate LTHR.?




  • Ceepo wrote: »
    Questions if I may.
    If you don't think that you reached your max HR, how do you think Garmin was able to give you an accurate LTHR.?

    Sorry I should have added I did the built-in Garmin LTHR test in July and the result was nearly identical so I'm quite sure the result is as accurate as possible.




  • Yesterday I attempted a max HR test and failed to reach my max I was only able to do one lap on the hill and reached a max of 180 personally I blame the pizza I had at lunch time for slowing me down anyway as a positive my Garmin auto detected my LTHR as 173, I've read this value is usually occurs around 90% or max HR, so can I assume my max HR is 190?
    This vaule correlates with both the 220-age and the newer 211-(0.65*age) formulas posted above considering I'm almost 31.

    Forget the formulas, they won't tell you anything meaningful.

    It does sound like your max is probably in the 185-195 range but why not do the test again to confirm? It really is the only way to do it, and if you want to train by HR you need to know this info.


  • Advertisement


  • Arghh have picked up a little niggle 6 weeks into a 12 week plan for a 10k (Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 plans)

    Hip Flexor it feels like (had it before).

    Any tips? Take a the week off and repeat this week again next week?




  • keith_d99 wrote: »
    Arghh have picked up a little niggle 6 weeks into a 12 week plan for a 10k (Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 plans)

    Hip Flexor it feels like (had it before).

    Any tips? Take a the week off and repeat this week again next week?

    HR thread probably not the best place to ask. Main forum, random running questions.




  • keith_d99 wrote: »
    Arghh have picked up a little niggle 6 weeks into a 12 week plan for a 10k (Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 plans)

    Hip Flexor it feels like (had it before).

    Any tips? Take a the week off and repeat this week again next week?

    If you had it before, what did you learn from it then?




  • I have a question about HR training, if anybody can help? Apologies if its a basic/stupid question :)

    I usually run by feeling rather than HR but I've tried some HR-based training but run into some weird issues. Might be related to my HR monitor being wrist based though (Garmin Fenix 5 Plus).

    My easy pace is about 8:30 and my avg HR would usually be around the 160-165. I say it's my easy pace because it's the pace where I'm most comfortable, breathing is very easy and feel like I could run forever. If I run a bit faster, say 8:00 my HR doesn't actually increase by much if at all, and I've finished faster runs with an avg HR of about 158. When I go on a really, really slow run like 12:00, my avg HR is higher than those, coming in about 166-168 and sometimes if I glance at my watch the HR is in the 170's which only ever happens in faster runs if I'm on a tough hill. That all makes no sense to me, so I just continue to run based on feeling rather than HR. Could there be another explanation for this besides the watch inaccuracy theory? I don't really want to shell out for a chest strap tbh, more so because I just think it would be uncomfortable.

    At the moment I'm doing approx 35-40 miles per week, only been running consistently for about 2 years, not doing any speedwork -- just trying to build up base mileage without getting injured (again).




  • The first issue sounds like you have settled to running in zone 3 or the so-called grey zone, which is just above zone 2, which often feels not too hard in comparison to the next zone.

    As for the second issue about your heart rate being higher when you run slower. It sounds to me like a case of optical heart rate, cadence lock, wherein the watch locks onto your cadence rather than your actual heart rate. Ideally, you should wear the watch as tight as possible and about two finger widths up from your wrist bone.

    The most accurate way. I found of making sure my HR zones were correct was to buy a chest strap and do the inbuilt Garmin lactate threshold heart rate test. However, I mainly just use my heart rate strap indoors on the treadmill when I run outside most of the time I wear a Polar OH1 which is an optical sensor that you place somewhere on your arm and is more accurate than the one built in to a Garmin watch.




  • To add to the previous response, you really need to know what your maximum is to work out the zones, everyone is different.

    For example my easy pace would be 8:30 - 8:45 and my average HRM would be 121ish.

    I had the same thoughts as yourself about HRMS being uncomfortable I wore it once and it wasn't great but just kept wearing it, now I feel funny running without it.

    I will say having had a garmin and wahoo, I find the wahoo more comfortable and prefer the method of how it fastens.

    You can pick a HRM up on adverts for €30 odd.




  • I disagree somewhat with the post above about needing to know your maximum heart rate I believe your lactate threshold heart rate is a better measure because it is easier to reach during a reparable test plus your watch when paired with a chest strap HRM will guide you through the process of determining it.

    https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/fenix5/EN-US/GUID-1B0C9B93-01CD-4A0C-A30F-B815C0347159.html

    Any chest hrm will do personally I have a polar H10 and find it very comfortable.




  • I disagree somewhat with the post above about needing to know your maximum heart rate I believe your lactate threshold heart rate is a better measure because it is easier to reach during a reparable test plus your watch when paired with a chest strap HRM will guide you through the process of determining it..

    Ya, you could also use your lactate threshold, the point I was more trying to make is you need figures to work off to get your various zones.




  • longrunn wrote: »
    I have a question about HR training, if anybody can help? Apologies if its a basic/stupid question :)

    I usually run by feeling rather than HR but I've tried some HR-based training but run into some weird issues. Might be related to my HR monitor being wrist based though (Garmin Fenix 5 Plus).

    My easy pace is about 8:30 and my avg HR would usually be around the 160-165. I say it's my easy pace because it's the pace where I'm most comfortable, breathing is very easy and feel like I could run forever. If I run a bit faster, say 8:00 my HR doesn't actually increase by much if at all, and I've finished faster runs with an avg HR of about 158. When I go on a really, really slow run like 12:00, my avg HR is higher than those, coming in about 166-168 and sometimes if I glance at my watch the HR is in the 170's which only ever happens in faster runs if I'm on a tough hill. That all makes no sense to me, so I just continue to run based on feeling rather than HR. Could there be another explanation for this besides the watch inaccuracy theory? I don't really want to shell out for a chest strap tbh, more so because I just think it would be uncomfortable.

    At the moment I'm doing approx 35-40 miles per week, only been running consistently for about 2 years, not doing any speedwork -- just trying to build up base mileage without getting injured (again).

    The most likely reason for these strange figures is the optical sensor’s general uselessness. You simply can’t use it reliably for HR training. In fact I’ve turned mine off so I only get a HR reading with the chest strap. I know you don’t want to buy one but if you’re serious about HR training you will. The ‘watch inaccuracy theory’ is pretty much proven fact by now!

    Best of luck with it and keep us posted.


  • Advertisement


  • Thought this was interesting. Stephen Scullion talking about HR training. From about 12:47min into the video.

    https://youtu.be/0E4hZbhBvmA


Advertisement