10 replies to this topic

[mgi11a]

mgi11a, on Jun 1 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

After I uploaded to sportstrack and found my avg HR was 96% made me even happier that iv'e given everything.

I ran the QLD 1/2 this morning, and the comment above was part of my race report. After having a good rest and plenty to eat I got to thinking could I have possibly run for 92mins at this rate?

As recent as last week I did a Max HR test and came up with a figure of max 180bpm, with a RHR of 42bpm. My race today had me at an avg of 173bpm which is Vo2max and it doesn't seem right that I can go for that long.

Which leaves me with some questions.
1. Did I bale on the HR max test early and and could have gone higher? (I don't think I did.)
2. Is this normal if you run at a pace where you cant give any more?
3. Or could it be i'm just getting fitter and I can sustain this higher level for longer.

Cheers

mgi11a

[funrunner63]

mgi11a, on Jun 1 2008, 01:08 AM, said:

I ran the QLD 1/2 this morning, and the comment above was part of my race report. After having a good rest and plenty to eat I got to thinking could I have possibly run for 92mins at this rate?

As recent as last week I did a Max HR test and came up with a figure of max 180bpm, with a RHR of 42bpm. My race today had me at an avg of 173bpm which is Vo2max and it doesn't seem right that I can go for that long.

Which leaves me with some questions.
1. Did I bale on the HR max test early and and could have gone higher? (I don't think I did.)
2. Is this normal if you run at a pace where you cant give any more?
3. Or could it be i'm just getting fitter and I can sustain this higher level for longer.

Cheers

mgi11a

mgi11a,

I too ran with a high average heart rate this morning that I put down mainly to not tapering for this run whilst training for the GC Marathon. I haven't done the Max HR Test, but subtracting my age from 220, gives a notional max of 176bpm. My RHR has been as low as 43bpm in the last few months, and today my average was 164 (93%). I hit 158 (90%) at 2.13k into the 10k and didn't go below that for the rest of the race (peaking at 172 just before the finish). I'm not sure I could've safely run much harder today, however:-
1. If I hadn't followed the 32k run last Sunday with a 30k run on Thursday, I probably could have done better (with a lower HR)
2. If I bothered to properly measure my Max HR, I'd probably find it is actually higher than that given by the notional formula.

Also, check the graph of HR vs distance. I've noticed that sometimes my Garmin heart rate monitor gives abnormally high readings (but not this morning) in the first 1-2 km until a decent sweat has formed under the contacts. I think this may have happened to Balri on Wednesday last week as well. If the graph doesn't have a nice curve shape to it rising rapidly at the start then tapering to a slow rise thereafter, the first 1-2kms of reading may have abnormally contributed to an artificially high average reading.

Sounds like your training is going great!! Might see you at West End in 2 weeks time for a good hitout before the taper,

Funrunner

[blair]

Hi Mgi11a, I often find that my racing heart rate is in the 90s (%). I just assumed this was normal.

BTW, congrats on your fantastic run today.

[Sunset]

The last race I did (last weekend) I ran at 90 - 93% so I also thought that was normal. Not sure if I could sustain that for longer than 10km though...

[Gasher]

mgi11a,

I think your HR max is probably correct but during a race your HR is higher than for the same pace done in training, check out this article here especially point #1.

My heart rate stats are very similar to yours & during a 15k training run just prior to my most recent HM, I ran at a pace I intended on running during the race & my HR avg was 162, so 90%max, HM time was 100mins. Very much doubt it would be physically possible to maintain 96% or your HR max for 92mins but easy way to check the real figures would be to do a 10k run at your HM race pace & see what numbers you come up with.

[mgi11a]

I've added the workout data from sportstrack, on checking back through my log I discovered my last 2 races, 8km & 10km both had my HR at an avg of 174- 173 respectivly.

 Running_1_06_2008__Heart_rate___Distance.png   58.01K   13 downloads

I had been using 186bpm as my max based on that was what it got to during a hard tempo run up a hill. With 186 as my max, when I raced it showed as 91%, which didn't seem out of the question. Now that i've changed to 180max the % has shot up.

mgi11a

[blair]

Wouldn't your max HR be the maximum HR you ever reach? In which case, 91% sounds fine to me.

[funrunner63]

balri, on Jun 1 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

Wouldn't your max HR be the maximum HR you ever reach? In which case, 91% sounds fine to me.

I agree so long as the 186 (Max HR) was measured "recently". Our max HR would change with time getting lower as we "mature".

[dcl]

mgi11a, on Jun 2 2008, 07:14 AM, said:

I had been using 186bpm as my max based on that was what it got to during a hard tempo run up a hill. With 186 as my max, when I raced it showed as 91%, which didn't seem out of the question. Now that i've changed to 180max the % has shot up.

mgi11a

Your 180 bpm may be a little low. My half marathon HR is 90-91%.

To obtain a true HRmax you need be in the vomit zone.

The best method I've been taught (when I was with the Northside running group in Sydney) is to find a long hill, then do a number of reps with increasing intensity on each successive rep (no stopping). The point is that each uphill effort pushes your HR max a little higher. By about the 5th rep your body will be screaming and you attack the final part of the hill at full effort. You need to calibrate your efforts so that you can make it through at faster speed each time. It won't work so well if you're screwed on the second rep.

[JR1500]

I don't think your max heart rate is correct then, as you would not be able to complete a half marathon at 96 per cent of your max heart rate, as that is up in the lactate tolerance zone. I think the top runners in the world would only be able to hold 96 per cent for 5km maybe 10km.

[mgi11a]

Thanks all for the replies, based on them i think i will go back to using 186 (and yes that was in the last 6mths) as my max until further notice, the results seemed a little more balanced at that.

I couldn't see myself running a half at 96% and thats what prompted the query. Talking to my PT earlier about this he said I may have confused muscle fatigue in my legs with total exaustion when I did the HR test on the tready. As dcl said you need to be in the vomit zone when doing a max HR test, and even though my legs were shot I didnt feel like an up and under when I was finished.

Cheers

mgi11a