Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

alan98

Heart Rates During Running

Recommended Posts

Well,

I just used the defaults in the Polar HRM. (max HR=220-age) So I wonder if it is accurate for me. But I feel ok after the run.....Not seeing stars..... Just some pain in my right calf.....hehehe....Maybe time for a coconi test.

Conconi test merely gives an estimation of your thresholds. If you don't push to the max, any test also won't give a MaxHR. However on a separate note, lactate threshold is actually a better value to know than MaxHR.

In simplified format, a VO2max test gives a pretty accurate value near one's lactate threshold. At a certain intensity, which supposedly corresponds to a particular HR, one moves into anaerobic effort and it is unlikely that one will be able to sustain this for long.

For some people especially those who train to improve lactate threshold (which can be improved), it can be a high percentage of one's MaxHR (which is fixed). This is opposed to a sedentary person who can neither hold very long above his lactate threshold, nor possess a high lactate threshold in the first place. Of course, there are also genetic (i.e. choose the right parents) issues when some people can clear lactic acid faster than others (Lance Armstrong is one of these).

To cut a long story shorter than short, tracking your HR is useful if you know what to do with it, and what you plan to do with it. It is also one of the most basic and easiest things to track, not to mention cheap. It is not for everyone because not everyone is interested in it, or have used it and found it doesn't help them. It does not make you faster by buying one. But I have no doubt it will help one become faster if used properly as a training tool.

Hey jjchsg, that is a good way to look at it. I have never thot of it that way, hmm young heart. So far my fastest HR registered during run was 216, that will make mine a 8-yr old heart :LMAO: !!! (if i used the standard formula of 224 - age (think supposed to add 4 for female)).

The "formula" is 226-age for females but I won't even bother with the estimation. Females generally have smaller hearts. Kinda like saying the avg female is 1.64m tall but the avg male is 1.7m tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My 2 cents.

1) Someone mentioned it is not possible to run 21km in anaerobic pace? It is possible. I ran the whole AHM using my AT pace.

2) I know of many people who achieve their max HR not from sprints but from long distance (>25km) training/competition. My max HR measured comes from a long distance training session, not from the standard 800m x 2 sprint method so often prescribed on the web. The reason is cardiac drift. Your HR will steadily goes up as your muscles fatigue and the blood becomes more viscous due to water lost. So I would say set your max HR to the highest HR detected by your HRM (and not follow the standard formula).

3) All those supposedly fit (but are their heart normal?) people dying from the runs prove nothing. There is no need to conclude that it is due to over exertion or we can't train above 90% MHR. Can a person hold his breath until he dies of suffocation? Can the mind tell a normal heart to over exert until it collapse? Open your eyes big big, keep your mind open, read whatever report/studies available and then decide for yourself but there is no need to jump to hasty conclusion due to a few sensational cases.

1) How did you know you are running at anaerobic pace? Did you do a blood lactate profiling to know exactly where is your threshold speed? Anything other than taking blood is merely a prediction and in most cases, highly inaccurate as they tend to underestimate the threshold including Conconi test which, he himself admitted is seriously flawed base on the review study he published back in early 90s (Conconi Test was created in early 80s).

2) The reason why 800m is used is becoz this distance is enough to elicit a duration for the runner to enter a state of VO2max. This would reflect the highest heart rate needed to support a state of highest O2 consumption which hence, accurate to be used as the HRmax for training. This is the standard we use in the lab: HRmax is recorded as the heart rate achieved during a state of VO2max (assuming the athlete did give his/her best).

3) Training over 90% of your HRmax is what we called entering the "red zone" whereby damage at tissue, cellular, muscles etc are really high. At this point in time, you are opening your body to the highest amount of stress. If done continously without adequate recovery, not only would it hinder training progress, but add on to the damage. Such training should NOT exceed 15 to 20% of your total training volume weekly. We do not know for sure what causes the sudden cardiac arrest in these athletes who passed away lately in the races. It could be over-exertion or a hidden cardiac problem that's being triggered out of the blue, but nevertheless in all cases, do race with precaution. As I always advise my trainee, if in pain (not mental pain ah), go slow or need be, pull out. Dont let your best race be your last.

I have to agree with babumouse that a HR monitor is only useful is 1) you know your real HRmax (not base on formula), 2) it is a model whereby you can upload the data onto the computer whereby you can eliminate any HR spike or what we call noise. Maybe on your HRM you manage to get a HR reading of 210 but that might be due to a "noise" due to external interference. Pretty common esp if you are running near Singapore Poly area near the Singtel Tower. Byt seeing a complete HR graph, would you be able to justify for majority of the duration during the run, which area of training are you in a) light, b)moderate c) hard. End of the day, everything falls back to the amount of work done in what zone.

For the last time, 220-age is a seriously flawed equation which somehow has been sensationized throughout the years. If you want a better one, in recent years, more and more sports scientists are agreeing that 206 - (0.67 X age) is a much better choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My 2 cents.

1) Someone mentioned it is not possible to run 21km in anaerobic pace? It is possible. I ran the whole AHM using my AT pace.

2) I know of many people who achieve their max HR not from sprints but from long distance (>25km) training/competition. My max HR measured comes from a long distance training session, not from the standard 800m x 2 sprint method so often prescribed on the web. The reason is cardiac drift. Your HR will steadily goes up as your muscles fatigue and the blood becomes more viscous due to water lost. So I would say set your max HR to the highest HR detected by your HRM (and not follow the standard formula).

3) All those supposedly fit (but are their heart normal?) people dying from the runs prove nothing. There is no need to conclude that it is due to over exertion or we can't train above 90% MHR. Can a person hold his breath until he dies of suffocation? Can the mind tell a normal heart to over exert until it collapse? Open your eyes big big, keep your mind open, read whatever report/studies available and then decide for yourself but there is no need to jump to hasty conclusion due to a few sensational cases.

1) How did you know you are running at anaerobic pace? Did you do a blood lactate profiling to know exactly where is your threshold speed? Anything other than taking blood is merely a prediction and in most cases, highly inaccurate as they tend to underestimate the threshold including Conconi test which, he himself admitted is seriously flawed base on the review study he published back in early 90s (Conconi Test was created in early 80s).

2) The reason why 800m is used is becoz this distance is enough to elicit a duration for the runner to enter a state of VO2max. This would reflect the highest heart rate needed to support a state of highest O2 consumption which hence, accurate to be used as the HRmax for training. This is the standard we use in the lab: HRmax is recorded as the heart rate achieved during a state of VO2max (assuming the athlete did give his/her best).

3) Training over 90% of your HRmax is what we called entering the "red zone" whereby damage at tissue, cellular, muscles etc are really high. At this point in time, you are opening your body to the highest amount of stress. If done continously without adequate recovery, not only would it hinder training progress, but add on to the damage. Such training should NOT exceed 15 to 20% of your total training volume weekly. We do not know for sure what causes the sudden cardiac arrest in these athletes who passed away lately in the races. It could be over-exertion or a hidden cardiac problem that's being triggered out of the blue, but nevertheless in all cases, do race with precaution. As I always advise my trainee, if in pain (not mental pain ah), go slow or need be, pull out. Dont let your best race be your last.

I have to agree with babumouse that a HR monitor is only useful is 1) you know your real HRmax (not base on formula), 2) it is a model whereby you can upload the data onto the computer whereby you can eliminate any HR spike or what we call noise. Maybe on your HRM you manage to get a HR reading of 210 but that might be due to a "noise" due to external interference. Pretty common esp if you are running near Singapore Poly area near the Singtel Tower. Byt seeing a complete HR graph, would you be able to justify for majority of the duration during the run, which area of training are you in a) light, b)moderate c) hard. End of the day, everything falls back to the amount of work done in what zone.

For the last time, 220-age is a seriously flawed equation which somehow has been sensationized throughout the years. If you want a better one, in recent years, more and more sports scientists are agreeing that 206 - (0.67 X age) is a much better choice.

Hmm...If I use your formula of 206-(0.67xage), my MHR will only be 180.

Then I would have been hitting my MHR all the time?!!

AHM, my record:

Ave HR: 183 (98%)

Max HR: 192 (103%)

kcal: 1326

I have kind of accepted 180 - 190 as my normal trg rate. And have been using the HR monitor to keep track of my HR during run to just make sure it does not go beyond this range. Am I doing the right thing? I cant lower my HR, if not then I will literally be strolling liao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting on the max HR formula. I am 43 in age

by 220 - 43 = 177

by 206 - (0.67 x 43) = 177

Therefore, for me, it doesn't matter. These model are based on statistical data gathered in large samples. I recall when my kid was in P1, her height/weight is at 20%tile. Does it mean she is abnormal? No, provided she is keep gaining height and weight and being healthy, she is perfectly normal.

Same thing for Max HR, I don't know what is the std dev of Max HR, but I would say that within the population, there are people with Max HR 10% higher than whatever formula shows and some may have 10% lower than whatever formula shows because we are all different. Different people with different heart size. A smaller heart can beat faster.

Knowing your MaxHR is actually useful since you would like to keep your training to be in the effective cardiovascular training zone. For me, since I just realize my max HR is higher, meaning that I should get my training HR to be 5% higher in order to fall into the cardiovascular training zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is interesting on the max HR formula. I am 43 in age

by 220 - 43 = 177

by 206 - (0.67 x 43) = 177

Therefore, for me, it doesn't matter. These model are based on statistical data gathered in large samples. I recall when my kid was in P1, her height/weight is at 20%tile. Does it mean she is abnormal? No, provided she is keep gaining height and weight and being healthy, she is perfectly normal.

Same thing for Max HR, I don't know what is the std dev of Max HR, but I would say that within the population, there are people with Max HR 10% higher than whatever formula shows and some may have 10% lower than whatever formula shows because we are all different. Different people with different heart size. A smaller heart can beat faster.

Knowing your MaxHR is actually useful since you would like to keep your training to be in the effective cardiovascular training zone. For me, since I just realize my max HR is higher, meaning that I should get my training HR to be 5% higher in order to fall into the cardiovascular training zone.

At the end of the day, as long as we don't over exert, we will minimise (not eliminate) the risk for dying from over-exertion from a run or other phyical activities. Sevilla football defender jogging back to the goal also had heart attack and died. He was just jogging, not sprinting. I can't comment on your MaxHR, but as long as we keep within a comfortable pace, we will minimise damage to heart muscle and tissues.

For those who know philip's background and vocation, we won't argue with him on his post above. Too long in the "red zone" (>90% of MHR) based on whatever formulae may lead to certain damage or injury which in future could bring about a heart attack even though one is just "jogging like the Sevilla footballer".

As always, everyone, take care and run safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is interesting on the max HR formula. I am 43 in age

by 220 - 43 = 177

by 206 - (0.67 x 43) = 177

Therefore, for me, it doesn't matter. These model are based on statistical data gathered in large samples. I recall when my kid was in P1, her height/weight is at 20%tile. Does it mean she is abnormal? No, provided she is keep gaining height and weight and being healthy, she is perfectly normal.

Same thing for Max HR, I don't know what is the std dev of Max HR, but I would say that within the population, there are people with Max HR 10% higher than whatever formula shows and some may have 10% lower than whatever formula shows because we are all different. Different people with different heart size. A smaller heart can beat faster.

Knowing your MaxHR is actually useful since you would like to keep your training to be in the effective cardiovascular training zone. For me, since I just realize my max HR is higher, meaning that I should get my training HR to be 5% higher in order to fall into the cardiovascular training zone.

At the end of the day, as long as we don't over exert, we will minimise (not eliminate) the risk for dying from over-exertion from a run or other phyical activities. Sevilla football defender jogging back to the goal also had heart attack and died. He was just jogging, not sprinting. I can't comment on your MaxHR, but as long as we keep within a comfortable pace, we will minimise damage to heart muscle and tissues.

For those who know philip's background and vocation, we won't argue with him on his post above. Too long in the "red zone" (>90% of MHR) based on whatever formulae may lead to certain damage or injury which in future could bring about a heart attack even though one is just "jogging like the Sevilla footballer".

As always, everyone, take care and run safe.

haha, being in this line dont mean Im right, Im still learning everyday at work and at studies. What I share here is merely what I picked up from my own experience. In fact, the more opinions being contributed here, the more we can clarify n learn from one another. Do not hesistate to post your opinions but of course, never state that its the absolute gospel truth unless you have the backing of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) How did you know you are running at anaerobic pace? Did you do a blood lactate profiling to know exactly where is your threshold speed? Anything other than taking blood is merely a prediction and in most cases, highly inaccurate as they tend to underestimate the threshold including Conconi test which, he himself admitted is seriously flawed base on the review study he published back in early 90s (Conconi Test was created in early 80s).

Good point. I do not know for sure that is my AT pace. Which means all my training base on my "AT" pace is just agar agar only.

2) The reason why 800m is used is becoz this distance is enough to elicit a duration for the runner to enter a state of VO2max. This would reflect the highest heart rate needed to support a state of highest O2 consumption which hence, accurate to be used as the HRmax for training. This is the standard we use in the lab: HRmax is recorded as the heart rate achieved during a state of VO2max (assuming the athlete did give his/her best).

Is it possible that someone who is used to long distance running can never attain HRmax in a 800m? I'm making a guess that sprinting over 800m utilizes different muscle group compared to long distance running. If the runner trains mainly the slow twitch muscle and most of the muscle fibre is the slow twitch type, doing an 800m will not fully utilize all the muscle groups and hence will not require the heart to pump at HRmax?

3) Training over 90% of your HRmax is what we called entering the "red zone" whereby damage at tissue, cellular, muscles etc are really high. At this point in time, you are opening your body to the highest amount of stress. If done continously without adequate recovery, not only would it hinder training progress, but add on to the damage. Such training should NOT exceed 15 to 20% of your total training volume weekly. We do not know for sure what causes the sudden cardiac arrest in these athletes who passed away lately in the races. It could be over-exertion or a hidden cardiac problem that's being triggered out of the blue, but nevertheless in all cases, do race with precaution. As I always advise my trainee, if in pain (not mental pain ah), go slow or need be, pull out. Dont let your best race be your last.

When you talk about the damage of cellular tissues, are you referring to the heart muscle cells or the leg muscle cells? From what I understand, the damage is to the leg (or arm) muscles so that they can rebuild and adapt to the intensity by increasing capilliaries and mitochondria concentration. I'm not aware that we're killing the heart cells! Basically, people get very worried when they see that statement "damage at tissue, cellular, muscles etc are really high" by linking it to their heart. I agree that it will lead to injury when we overtrain but the injury is related to the leg (tendon/ligament/itb/muscle) and not to the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) How did you know you are running at anaerobic pace? Did you do a blood lactate profiling to know exactly where is your threshold speed? Anything other than taking blood is merely a prediction and in most cases, highly inaccurate as they tend to underestimate the threshold including Conconi test which, he himself admitted is seriously flawed base on the review study he published back in early 90s (Conconi Test was created in early 80s).

2) The reason why 800m is used is becoz this distance is enough to elicit a duration for the runner to enter a state of VO2max. This would reflect the highest heart rate needed to support a state of highest O2 consumption which hence, accurate to be used as the HRmax for training. This is the standard we use in the lab: HRmax is recorded as the heart rate achieved during a state of VO2max (assuming the athlete did give his/her best).

3) Training over 90% of your HRmax is what we called entering the "red zone" whereby damage at tissue, cellular, muscles etc are really high. At this point in time, you are opening your body to the highest amount of stress. If done continously without adequate recovery, not only would it hinder training progress, but add on to the damage. Such training should NOT exceed 15 to 20% of your total training volume weekly. We do not know for sure what causes the sudden cardiac arrest in these athletes who passed away lately in the races. It could be over-exertion or a hidden cardiac problem that's being triggered out of the blue, but nevertheless in all cases, do race with precaution. As I always advise my trainee, if in pain (not mental pain ah), go slow or need be, pull out. Dont let your best race be your last.

Dropping Conconi out of the equation (which pretty accurately matched my VO2max test), would it be safe to assume that

(i) my lactate threshold is accurately determined by the VO2max test, which is at 89% of MaxHR and

(ii) I did reach my MaxHR because I believe neither of us can imagine running above R-E-R 1.32 and

(iii) I did a two and half hour cycle at 91.3% MaxHR which would be above my AT and

(iv) I hit my MaxHR a couple of times - sprints I did in between maintaining - during that race which I found easier to do than hitting on a short test such as the 800m sprint (I had to really really psych myself up for both the beep test n VO2max to hit my max).

As such, I am tempted to agree with theone that it is possible and may even be easier to achieve one's max if one is really pushing to max and at some points, still sprinting for it. After approx 20mins to half an hour of AT workout, I find it easier for the heart to respond to effort, and before that, I find the heart rate tends to lag quite a bit behind effort, even when going for sprints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) How did you know you are running at anaerobic pace? Did you do a blood lactate profiling to know exactly where is your threshold speed? Anything other than taking blood is merely a prediction and in most cases, highly inaccurate as they tend to underestimate the threshold including Conconi test which, he himself admitted is seriously flawed base on the review study he published back in early 90s (Conconi Test was created in early 80s).

2) The reason why 800m is used is becoz this distance is enough to elicit a duration for the runner to enter a state of VO2max. This would reflect the highest heart rate needed to support a state of highest O2 consumption which hence, accurate to be used as the HRmax for training. This is the standard we use in the lab: HRmax is recorded as the heart rate achieved during a state of VO2max (assuming the athlete did give his/her best).

3) Training over 90% of your HRmax is what we called entering the "red zone" whereby damage at tissue, cellular, muscles etc are really high. At this point in time, you are opening your body to the highest amount of stress. If done continously without adequate recovery, not only would it hinder training progress, but add on to the damage. Such training should NOT exceed 15 to 20% of your total training volume weekly. We do not know for sure what causes the sudden cardiac arrest in these athletes who passed away lately in the races. It could be over-exertion or a hidden cardiac problem that's being triggered out of the blue, but nevertheless in all cases, do race with precaution. As I always advise my trainee, if in pain (not mental pain ah), go slow or need be, pull out. Dont let your best race be your last.

Dropping Conconi out of the equation (which pretty accurately matched my VO2max test), would it be safe to assume that

(i) my lactate threshold is accurately determined by the VO2max test, which is at 89% of MaxHR and

(ii) I did reach my MaxHR because I believe neither of us can imagine running above R-E-R 1.32 and

(iii) I did a two and half hour cycle at 91.3% MaxHR which would be above my AT and

(iv) I hit my MaxHR a couple of times - sprints I did in between maintaining - during that race which I found easier to do than hitting on a short test such as the 800m sprint (I had to really really psych myself up for both the beep test n VO2max to hit my max).

As such, I am tempted to agree with theone that it is possible and may even be easier to achieve one's max if one is really pushing to max and at some points, still sprinting for it. After approx 20mins to half an hour of AT workout, I find it easier for the heart to respond to effort, and before that, I find the heart rate tends to lag quite a bit behind effort, even when going for sprints.

WC --- your VO2max protocol is a running one. FYI, max heart rate and VO2max for running and cycling is totally different, it can be higher or lower, so does the AT. The specificity of movement is different, you cant use a running protocol test results to reflect your cycling performance. Read about the slow and fast components of O2 and you will understand why the heart rate lags at the initial phase of the sprint. That's y the protocol requires the 1 set of 800m to be done b4 using the 2nd set to find out your max HR.

Any other thing, I will answer everything after my biomechanics FYP. The brain is simply not in exercise physiology mode now, all I can see in my mind and in my sleep are angles, numbers and a pair of legs running over and over again on the treadmill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dropping Conconi out of the equation (which pretty accurately matched my VO2max test), would it be safe to assume that

(i) my lactate threshold is accurately determined by the VO2max test, which is at 89% of MaxHR and

(ii) I did reach my MaxHR because I believe neither of us can imagine running above R-E-R 1.32 and

(iii) I did a two and half hour cycle at 91.3% MaxHR which would be above my AT and

(iv) I hit my MaxHR a couple of times - sprints I did in between maintaining - during that race which I found easier to do than hitting on a short test such as the 800m sprint (I had to really really psych myself up for both the beep test n VO2max to hit my max).

As such, I am tempted to agree with theone that it is possible and may even be easier to achieve one's max if one is really pushing to max and at some points, still sprinting for it. After approx 20mins to half an hour of AT workout, I find it easier for the heart to respond to effort, and before that, I find the heart rate tends to lag quite a bit behind effort, even when going for sprints.

Just a point to note, maxHR is specific to the kind of exercise you undertake. Eg. the maxHR for running will be different from the maxHR for cycling (slightly higher for running) due to the different muscles involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should it be described as "cannot push to true max" rather than different MaxHR for different sports instead?

I always thought a MaxHR is a MaxHR, regardless of sport, except it's much more difficult to get a 100% MaxHR while swimming than while running.

The RER reading is just an establishment of "maxing it out". Sometimes it's just not possible for people to push so hard as to reach the MaxHR. And anyway... I also don't believe it's the MaxHR that counts but rather lactate threshold.

I think it's just easier to calculate based on MaxHR and almost everyone has been doing it. Okay... I think we're getting too technical for almost everyone else here already. :-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should it be described as "cannot push to true max" rather than different MaxHR for different sports instead?

I always thought a MaxHR is a MaxHR, regardless of sport, except it's much more difficult to get a 100% MaxHR while swimming than while running.

The RER reading is just an establishment of "maxing it out". Sometimes it's just not possible for people to push so hard as to reach the MaxHR. And anyway... I also don't believe it's the MaxHR that counts but rather lactate threshold.

I think it's just easier to calculate based on MaxHR and almost everyone has been doing it. Okay... I think we're getting too technical for almost everyone else here already. :-p

This is what I've learnt from this shifu. See second point. http://home.hia.no/~stephens/hrchngs.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may summarize... am I right to say that we're just trying to say either formula of

220 - age or 206 - (0.67 x age)

are mere approximations and are not true MaxHR for individuals

and

the chances of us dying when pushing to maximum is debatable (the field is split in such that some of us think will not die, while some of us playing it safe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I may summarize... am I right to say that we're just trying to say either formula of

220 - age or 206 - (0.67 x age)

are mere approximations and are not true MaxHR for individuals

and

the chances of us dying when pushing to maximum is debatable (the field is split in such that some of us think will not die, while some of us playing it safe).

Most probably it is. I have professional advice from my teacher. "Never put your body too hard because you will need time to recover the amount of workload"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my stats for this run.

average HR: 186(94%)

max HR: 210 (107%)

Calories burned: 1997

fat burn: 20%

wow, average HR of 186 seems very high for a half mara man. any experts available for comment?

There are few methods to calculate MHR.

The best known formula is 220 - age. Assuming age is 30, MHR is 190. Aerobic pace is 70%-80% of MHR for long distance running. HR is (220-30) x 0.7 to 0.8 = 133 to 152. So HR 186 is 20 years old runner who chiong at anaerobic pace 90% MHR..Impossible run 21km anaerobically...sure collapse.

The settings of HRM needs to be verified.

Just wondering what's the HR for Haile Gebrselassie who set a new record for 42.195km in 2 hrs 4 mins 26 sec. He finish 2 marathon n i am still running. :hail:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...