Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Heartrate and running

  • 26-10-2019 5:20pm
    #1
    WiseOldOwl
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭


    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?


Comments

  • #2
    IvoryTower
    Registered Users Posts: 3,825 ✭✭✭IvoryTower


    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


  • #3
    skyblue46
    Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    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?

    It's not likely to have actually been an easy run. What is your 5k PB? What pace were you running at today?


  • #4
    adrian522
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭adrian522


    Wrist based HR is not reliable at all, unless you are wearing a chest strap HR readings can be ignored.


  • #5
    WiseOldOwl
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭WiseOldOwl


    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?

    5k pb 24 something and average pace today 5:57/km. Slow for the old me but maybe not so easy for the new me! 😂


  • #6
    WiseOldOwl
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭WiseOldOwl


    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

    Yes I’m guessing the zones configured by the watch are just way off.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    WiseOldOwl
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭WiseOldOwl


    adrian522 wrote: »
    Wrist based HR is not reliable at all, unless you are wearing a chest strap HR readings can be ignored.

    That’s what I was hoping. Heart didn’t feel like it was jumping out of my chest or anything , felt fine .


  • #8
    rom
    Registered Users Posts: 5,135 ✭✭✭rom


    adrian522 wrote: »
    Wrist based HR is not reliable at all, unless you are wearing a chest strap HR readings can be ignored.

    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.


  • #9
    adrian522
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭adrian522


    They can be ignored, they are not accurate enough to base training off. If you want to do proper HR training you need a strap. If you just want a general idea it is fine, but you can't read too much into it.

    I use it myself but I don't have much faith in its accuracy. It can be + or - 10BPM

    https://trailrunnermag.com/training/why-you-should-be-skeptical-about-your-wrist-based-heart-rate.html
    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.”


  • #10
    WiseOldOwl
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭WiseOldOwl


    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.

    Yes I get weird spikes sometimes, like 150 bom climbing a stairs .


Advertisement