UKC

I've taken up running again after a long layoff, and I've always just gone out for a set time or distance, and not really worried about training properly. I want to take a more structured approach, and hopefully get fitter faster, so it was suggested I get a heart rate monitor to check my progress, and help with the training. However I'm a bit confused (no change there then) about training with a heart rate monitor.

I'm 34 with a resting pulse of 60 BMP and I'm running mostly to improve my general hill fitness.

I've worked out (with the help of the manual) that my maximum heart rate is 214-(0.8*34) = 186 BPM

The manual then says that I need to base the training zone % on my heart rate reserve, which is my max heart rate minus my resting rate which gives:

70% training zone (for easy/recovery runs) should be (186-60*0.7)+60 = 149 BPM
80% training zone {for normal runs) should be (186-60*0.85)+60 = 161 BPM
95% training zone (for hard, short intervals) should be (186-60*0.85)+60 = 180 BPM

I've been running long enough now that my normal runs (3x a week with) are around 10 K in length, and running them at around the 161 BPM, I'm able to maintain a steady pace of around 6 minute k's, leaving a me a little short of breath but able to comfortably hold a conversation etc.

Ignoring heart rates and training zones, I'd run 10 K in around 50 minutes, and would be out of breath to the level of only just being able to hold a conversation.

Have I got my training zones right, as it feels like they're a little slow? Any tips/tricks to make better use of the monitor?

In reply to Dan_S: i doubt your max is as low as that - that guesstimate is notoriously flaky. Try running 3 hills of 3 mins lengh , walk down flat out ( and i don't care if you grindto a halt or puke). That will give you closer to max, then adjust your numbers.

Hrm's are not easy to use well

In reply to Dan_S:


The main thing to remember is that this is just a rule of thumb. Your maximum heart rate is just that - whatever the highest rate your heart reaches when beasting yourself.

Work this out by running full pelt up a short, steepish hill for 100m or so, then jogging down. Do it again and again until you're ready to vomit/black out. Record your maximum HR and use that instead.

I'm 38 and usually get a max HR around 190, so it varies and doesn't always fit the formula. Resting HR is 39, but again, make sure you record that first thing in the morning before you've even got out of bed and are really relaxed - even just sitting in a chair during the day will give you a higher reading.

Once you've calibrated the levels, your other numbers should get more accurate.

Max HR is not meant to change much, but resting HR will get lower as you get fitter, so be sure to test it every so often. It can also give you a warning that you're overtraining if its higher than usual.

All that said - I don't use my HRM very scientifically. I glance at the HR when running to see if perceived effort is close to what I'm really pushing out but that's about it.

In reply to Dan_S:

Just run.

In reply to Dan_S:

If you have a bike you can do a ramp test quite easily and that should provide you with a baseline to work from. Also worth a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_protocol

In reply to Dan_S:
Hi Dan,

HRMs are useful for two main things: sticking to a given level of intensity in-workout, and measuring progress over time.

I'd advise stick with the estimate for now (it's safe) and update it whenever you get a definitive higher peak HR in-workout. Any decent HRM will record both average and peak HR. My Suunto invites me to update whenever it logs a new peak: I'd be surprised if that feature wasn't available on other makers' products.

HR zones nearly always feel slow to people, especially for the easier workouts, and even once the peak HR is quantified. My 'easy' sessions invariably end up around 80%HRR + RHR... I have to make a conscious effort to stick to a slow pace on recovery days, and I find a HRM invaluable for that.

NickB is spot on, basically, just go running - but the HRM is fantastic for measuring progress over time. If you record your workouts (distance, time, average HR and peak HR) you can refer back easily after a period of training and see how you're doing without needing to put in an all-out race-pace effort.

ETA: For similar sessions - ideally over the same route - at a given pace, you can expect average HR and quite likely peak HR, to have dropped somewhat. Conversely for sessions over a similar distance at a given HR, your pace should have improved over time.

HTH,

Luke

In reply to Dan_S: I am not sure how much max rate varies. Certainly I saw mine rise when I was very fit to be circa 215 from 200ish when I was nearly 30, but whether it really rose or just my ability to stress it to max improved I do not know. It does show that the various 2** - your age or whatever formula are extremely conservative as most of the better runners I knew could go 200+

In reply to Dan_S:

Hey Dan, your max HR is 220 - your age so I think you're a little out. I've struggled with training zones and staying in them to the detriment of enjoying my running. I tend to go with what feels comfortable and use a peceived exertion rate which I use 1 - 5 (1 being not at all out of breath and 5 being unable to talk and more or less gasping for breath) as I run aiming for 3 on long runs and 4 on shorter ones (5 on speed work). With HR I do measure it but look at my average at the end of the run and ensure that is within the relevant zone. Mostly use it to measure recovery rate which is the true measure of fitness. Should be aiming to get back to 120 bpm asap then back to resting asap (although this never happens when still active in the day) Good luck.

In reply to Dan_S:

Dan

I use HR all the time and I find it incredible useful as a pyschological crutch, especially for intervals or long, hard efforst (i.e. without a HRM I constantly think 'there is no way I can sustain this - it really hurts -stop, or slow down' but with a HRM I know by the HR and experience that I can sustain this effort and so I keep going). 'Just run' doesn't really work for me.

I would ignore Max HR and do a Lactate Threshold Heart Rate (LTHR) Test - basically warm up, then run a 30 min time trial as fast as you can. Your average HR over the last 20 mins of the 30 min time trial is your LTHR (you might need to give a little bit of thought as to how you are going to get the average HR for just that 20 mins out of your HRM).

Note that I wouldn't try the above test until you have a few hundred km's in your legs (which it sounds like you do) as otherwise you might just end up injuring yourself.

From the LTHR figure you can then get your training zones using:

Zone 2 85% to 89% of LTHR
Zone 3 90% to 94% of LTHR
Zone 4 95% to 99% of LTHR

(btw, I have seen different internet sites set Zone 2 differently i.e 80% to 85% of LTHR rather than 85% to 89% (with Z3 then becoming 85% to 94%). See what the figures come out as and use your judgement as to which you prefer). I reckon the zones you have calculated for your theoretical max HR will come out about right, but you never know.


For more info, try the following websites:

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/11/quick-guide-to-setting-zones....
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04/determining-your-lthr.html

In reply to Dan_S:

How often would you advocate retesting Lactate threshold as that really does move around, and pretty quickly too. I would agree though that it's a very good 'thing' to measure heart rate and exertion levels against as for most people it's what affects their race performance most

You need to know your real Max for one thing. Rules of thumb are quite good but can be well out if you're either end of the distribution. I tried HR training for a bit, but it really didn't suit me. OTOH I was talking to a mate at the end of a trail marathon Saturday who often goes off too hard. This time he had a plan ...came 5th. Worked for him.


Probably easy gains before you need to get technical and take the fun out of it. Unless technical is part of the fun for you

In reply to wbo:


I think you are supposed to do it every 3/4 months, but it is quite an uncomfortable test to do(I always feel like puking at the end) and so I always find a reason not to do it. For me it is probably every 6 months, if not yearly - which reminds me, I should probably do it again soon... However, I am never going to win anything and so it is not really a matter of life or death if my zones are a few bpm off, but I still find them very useful.

In reply to SteveRi:


As you may have gathered, I find the theory / technical is part of fun and that looking at numbers on a watch is a helpful distraction on some runs (as well as preventing oneself going off to fast like your friend or suffering a mental collapse halfway round as I used to do).

Either way, do the LTHR test - at worst you'll probably get a new 5km PB out of it.

In reply to Carrot Cake:

Latest research suggests that the 220 - your age underestimates your max heart rate if you're young, and overestimates if you're old. So the revised formula form men from Bell State University is the one I've used 214 - (0.8x age).

Despite being "mid thirties" I'd still like to consider myself young!

Thanks for everyone's help!

In reply to Dan_S:

Ignore that max heart rate forumula.. to find it do what wbo says.

In reply to Dan_S:

There was a talk test max rate that was pretty close for me but sadly I can't remember the figure. Age is a bit of a bad figure to use, just look around you at people your age and think about getting a figure based on that.

I have a bike computer / heart-rate monitor and the estimated max was spot on.

The talk test is exercise until you can't hold a normal conversation i.e. you are getting out of breath, don't be macho about it, it's the point where you can't talk easily.

Then note your heart rate add the following:
fitness level
Poor +55
Average +45
Excellent +35
competitive Rider +25

In reply to Dan_S:

Well that formula gives 170 as my MHR (I'm 55) and it's low as I can maintain 175 for a couple of minutes which would indicate a MHR of somewhere in the region of 185. (you can hold 95% of MHR for a short while)

As others have said, a ramp test or something similar is the only real way to find out. There's too much variability to use age.

In reply to Bimblefast:

Bimblefests post is bob-on.

Using it to maintain a low intensity (almost certainly lower than most people guess) is possibly the most important use.

The fact you say the zones seem so slow is a good indicator that a HRM will be useful to you. Over time you should find that, maintaining the same low HR, your pace will significantly improve, and in the long run this will be the biggest contribution to imroved overall performance you will achieve.

Okay, you don't need a HRM to run that slow, but for most people it's so slow a HRM is the only way you'll get that slow.


Oh yes, and as others have said- do a MHR test!
Mine works quite neatly around the various standard equations- around about 185 in my case. Most people are fairly close to it.

But it is possible to be quite wide of the standard equations (my missus is well over 200) so do a MHR stress test, and then maybe in a month try another one.

In reply to wbo:

Cheers folks, I followed wbo's advice, thought I was going to throw up on the last go at the hill, and came up with a new value of 197 BMP, which seems to make the zones a more reasonable pace for me.