Discussion
Am just getting back into my gym and running routine, and have been looking to push up my running pace.
So I have run a series of 5 Kansas on the treadmill, and I always measure my heart rate directly I cross the line.
I am 46, averagely in shape, 5'11 and around 14 stone. I pushed my pace today finished in 25:45 - that's my fastest this year.
However my heart rate was 192 bpm.
Normally I would say that's too high I should max at 220. - 46
So what risks am I running or damage might I be doing if I go beyond when I run.
I should add my resting HR is 48 bpm
You never really know with the measurement, it ps the treadmill grips that you can use to take a pulse, I would say they are consistent.
192 is the highest I have seen recently, never over 200. Not concerned as such about the specific one off, what I wondered was, if I regularly run 5k and sprint finish I will go into above my theoretical max on a regular basis.
Is that a good thing, risk free, or should I look to stay within the range which i assume is now 174 Max.
Just a couple of thoughts on heart rate training.
220 minus your age is a very generic formula, so you could just as easily be over/under-estimating your max. 220 minus 34 only gives me 186, but my actual max sits around 205bpm. A couple of runs up a short, steep hill with one big blast on the final effort should give you a reasonably reliable number to go with.
You say you're just getting back into training, which could explain the initially high reading. Unfit/less trained people will get much closer to their maximum more readily and more often versus trained people. In other words, the fitter you become, the more it hurts to reach your maximum. These days, I have to be seriously pushing it in a 5k with a PB on the line or ill to reach my max.
220 minus your age is a very generic formula, so you could just as easily be over/under-estimating your max. 220 minus 34 only gives me 186, but my actual max sits around 205bpm. A couple of runs up a short, steep hill with one big blast on the final effort should give you a reasonably reliable number to go with.
You say you're just getting back into training, which could explain the initially high reading. Unfit/less trained people will get much closer to their maximum more readily and more often versus trained people. In other words, the fitter you become, the more it hurts to reach your maximum. These days, I have to be seriously pushing it in a 5k with a PB on the line or ill to reach my max.
Cybertronian said:
Just a couple of thoughts on heart rate training.
220 minus your age is a very generic formula, so you could just as easily be over/under-estimating your max. 220 minus 34 only gives me 186, but my actual max sits around 205bpm. A couple of runs up a short, steep hill with one big blast on the final effort should give you a reasonably reliable number to go with.
You say you're just getting back into training, which could explain the initially high reading. Unfit/less trained people will get much closer to their maximum more readily and more often versus trained people. In other words, the fitter you become, the more it hurts to reach your maximum. These days, I have to be seriously pushing it in a 5k with a PB on the line or ill to reach my max.
I think that is part of it, I have done a lot of running, 3 marathons and plenty of distance, I had a reasonable lay off about six months since regular training, so I am building back up. Usually I run long and slow and build a base aero fitness. However this time because of the weather I am using a mill, so every run has been a PB run - started at 30 minute 5k's and have upped the pace by 45 seconds every time I run. 220 minus your age is a very generic formula, so you could just as easily be over/under-estimating your max. 220 minus 34 only gives me 186, but my actual max sits around 205bpm. A couple of runs up a short, steep hill with one big blast on the final effort should give you a reasonably reliable number to go with.
You say you're just getting back into training, which could explain the initially high reading. Unfit/less trained people will get much closer to their maximum more readily and more often versus trained people. In other words, the fitter you become, the more it hurts to reach your maximum. These days, I have to be seriously pushing it in a 5k with a PB on the line or ill to reach my max.
Think I might dial it back for a few, and run at 80% of HR max before upping the speed again.
As mentioned above the 220 - age formula is often wrong. I am 37 but I regularly see 193 on hard track sessions.
RHR of 48 is quite low for someone with 6 months off training. Mine is around then when I am in a full on training block, but can be up to 60 when de trained.
There was a study done recently that suggested people who do a lot of endurance exercise we at an increased risk of some specific heart problem, can't remember the name. The thinking is that they have low RHR and often hit very high max HR the wild swings causes damage. But I wouldn't worry on a few 5Ks. The benefits of doing that far out weigh the risks
RHR of 48 is quite low for someone with 6 months off training. Mine is around then when I am in a full on training block, but can be up to 60 when de trained.
There was a study done recently that suggested people who do a lot of endurance exercise we at an increased risk of some specific heart problem, can't remember the name. The thinking is that they have low RHR and often hit very high max HR the wild swings causes damage. But I wouldn't worry on a few 5Ks. The benefits of doing that far out weigh the risks
Scabutz said:
As mentioned above the 220 - age formula is often wrong. I am 37 but I regularly see 193 on hard track sessions.
RHR of 48 is quite low for someone with 6 months off training. Mine is around then when I am in a full on training block, but can be up to 60 when de trained.
There was a study done recently that suggested people who do a lot of endurance exercise we at an increased risk of some specific heart problem, can't remember the name. The thinking is that they have low RHR and often hit very high max HR the wild swings causes damage. But I wouldn't worry on a few 5Ks. The benefits of doing that far out weigh the risks
The specific heart problem is atrial fibrilliation, I should know because I suffer from it myself after years of high mileage ( 85 - 100 miles per week ) in my younger days. Many ex pro cyclists suffer from it too and it can be quite debilitating.RHR of 48 is quite low for someone with 6 months off training. Mine is around then when I am in a full on training block, but can be up to 60 when de trained.
There was a study done recently that suggested people who do a lot of endurance exercise we at an increased risk of some specific heart problem, can't remember the name. The thinking is that they have low RHR and often hit very high max HR the wild swings causes damage. But I wouldn't worry on a few 5Ks. The benefits of doing that far out weigh the risks
I had a catheter ablation in Sept. 2016 to cure it but that has not been entirely successful as I have had one further episode of AF since and may need a further ablation.
Now I can only run about 5 miles 3 times a week and feel really frustrated as I still want to race.
The formulas are never going to be accurate. I only use the numbers I've seen from a decent quality chest strap - the max I've seen has been during hill reps and sessions and my last 5K PB. FWIW I'm a fair bit younger than you, do a decent amount of training (albeit not so much focus on VO2 max type work) and I've not seen mine go as high as what you've recorded. N of 1, so take that with a grain of salt.
What are you using to measure your HR with? I ask because not all HRM's are created equal, and even some of the better ones can suffer with cadence lock sometimes where they start tracking your foot strikes instead of HR. If you read many of DC Rainmakers reviews you'll see it crop up surprisingly often.
What are you using to measure your HR with? I ask because not all HRM's are created equal, and even some of the better ones can suffer with cadence lock sometimes where they start tracking your foot strikes instead of HR. If you read many of DC Rainmakers reviews you'll see it crop up surprisingly often.
tenohfive said:
The formulas are never going to be accurate. I only use the numbers I've seen from a decent quality chest strap - the max I've seen has been during hill reps and sessions and my last 5K PB. FWIW I'm a fair bit younger than you, do a decent amount of training (albeit not so much focus on VO2 max type work) and I've not seen mine go as high as what you've recorded. N of 1, so take that with a grain of salt.
What are you using to measure your HR with? I ask because not all HRM's are created equal, and even some of the better ones can suffer with cadence lock sometimes where they start tracking your foot strikes instead of HR. If you read many of DC Rainmakers reviews you'll see it crop up surprisingly often.
I have a fit bit which I use for my resting HR - but the measurement I am looking at for Max HR is via the treadmill handgrips. I haven't got a chest strap, as I say historically I run long distance so rarely break 160 - or maybe only briefly on a climb. What are you using to measure your HR with? I ask because not all HRM's are created equal, and even some of the better ones can suffer with cadence lock sometimes where they start tracking your foot strikes instead of HR. If you read many of DC Rainmakers reviews you'll see it crop up surprisingly often.
This is from 5k PB typ of effort though, so I am not overly concerned, just that I would like to get my age adjusted PB back to around 22:30. I recognise I am unlikely to run sub 20 again at my age. Obviously though this means a few sessions where I will be into the 190+ HR so I was curious about possible effects
Gargamel said:
I have a fit bit which I use for my resting HR - but the measurement I am looking at for Max HR is via the treadmill handgrips. I haven't got a chest strap, as I say historically I run long distance so rarely break 160 - or maybe only briefly on a climb.
This is from 5k PB typ of effort though, so I am not overly concerned, just that I would like to get my age adjusted PB back to around 22:30. I recognise I am unlikely to run sub 20 again at my age. Obviously though this means a few sessions where I will be into the 190+ HR so I was curious about possible effects
I've no idea how accurate treadmill grips are for HR, so this is speculation - but I'm assuming it'll be an optical HR, and they work best on the fleshy parts of your body. The only really reliable ones I've seen are the Scosche Rhythm+ and they sit on your upper arm which is nice and fleshy. So based on that logic, I'd take the reading with a big pinch of salt.This is from 5k PB typ of effort though, so I am not overly concerned, just that I would like to get my age adjusted PB back to around 22:30. I recognise I am unlikely to run sub 20 again at my age. Obviously though this means a few sessions where I will be into the 190+ HR so I was curious about possible effects
So if you're planning on relying on HR much I'd seriously consider a decent HR strap. A Wahoo Tickr is only £35 and has both BT and ANT+ so it'll work with pretty much any GPS watch (and may even pair to the treadmill.)
And I'm getting run under the carpet by people your age at Parkrun, including on courses that should give me a bit of a home advantage (being muddy, off road and as Parkrun goes pretty hilly.) So I'd keep an open mind and see how you progress. Good luck and enjoy!
Just out of interest, what are/is your goal? Also, why the sprint finish?
A slight hijack, if I may. I'm currently using an exercise bike, putting in/out about 420 watts, my heartrate can vary from say 140 bpm, to 150 bpm on another day. What is causing this? Hydration? Caffein? Time of day?
A slight hijack, if I may. I'm currently using an exercise bike, putting in/out about 420 watts, my heartrate can vary from say 140 bpm, to 150 bpm on another day. What is causing this? Hydration? Caffein? Time of day?
thatjagbloke said:
Scabutz said:
As mentioned above the 220 - age formula is often wrong. I am 37 but I regularly see 193 on hard track sessions.
RHR of 48 is quite low for someone with 6 months off training. Mine is around then when I am in a full on training block, but can be up to 60 when de trained.
There was a study done recently that suggested people who do a lot of endurance exercise we at an increased risk of some specific heart problem, can't remember the name. The thinking is that they have low RHR and often hit very high max HR the wild swings causes damage. But I wouldn't worry on a few 5Ks. The benefits of doing that far out weigh the risks
The specific heart problem is atrial fibrilliation, I should know because I suffer from it myself after years of high mileage ( 85 - 100 miles per week ) in my younger days. Many ex pro cyclists suffer from it too and it can be quite debilitating.RHR of 48 is quite low for someone with 6 months off training. Mine is around then when I am in a full on training block, but can be up to 60 when de trained.
There was a study done recently that suggested people who do a lot of endurance exercise we at an increased risk of some specific heart problem, can't remember the name. The thinking is that they have low RHR and often hit very high max HR the wild swings causes damage. But I wouldn't worry on a few 5Ks. The benefits of doing that far out weigh the risks
I had a catheter ablation in Sept. 2016 to cure it but that has not been entirely successful as I have had one further episode of AF since and may need a further ablation.
Now I can only run about 5 miles 3 times a week and feel really frustrated as I still want to race.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01MZ6S2LP/
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff