General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Heart Rate and training Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2004-07-21 12:27 PM


10

Subject: Heart Rate and training
I am trying to follow the couch to 5k program, I have just added the 3 min. to the walk. The problem is that to do this I'm way out of my 50-60% mhr zone. According to the 220 calcultion my max heart rate is 197. I get above 130 just walking at 3.5-3.8mph. Today when I added 3 minutes of running at 5.1mph I was around 150-155. (The hrm on the treadmill flaked out at that time so I'm estimating from my scientific 6 second pulse count). I did the run about half way into the walk and then walked afterwards and my hr stayed around 140, and finally to 130 once I decreased my speed to 3.4mph.

So, my question is should I continue at this rate? I want to run, but I keep hearing about peak performance and the relation to heart rate so I don't want to over do it without realizing it either.

I know the gym machine and my wee fingers may not be the most reliable sources, but my reward for sticking with training is a HRM and I haven't gotten to the goal date yet (plus I have a birthday coming up so one way or another there's a HRM in my future - but just not yet).

I'd appreciate some advice,

Vicki

Max HR: 197 - 90%: 177 - 80%: 157 - 70%: 138 - 60%: 118 - 50%: 99


2004-07-21 12:34 PM
in reply to: #39375

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
$0.02

I wouldn't be overly concerned with your heart rate at this stage, especially given the innaccuracies of your measuring devices and the relatively short times you're training. If you were over 85% I might tell you to slow down, but at this level 70% will do you no more harm than 60%, might even do you some good. I've always heard that 65% to 80% MHR was the range to train at.
2004-07-21 12:36 PM
in reply to: #39375


10

Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
I got the 50-60% range from the Eric Harr book on Training for a triathlon. His book is for a 6 week training and I'm going a bit slower than that. So perhaps my range should reflect that?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Vicki
2004-07-21 12:37 PM
in reply to: #39375

User image

Champion
13323
5000500020001000100100100
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training

here is an excerp from: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/Scott%20Herrick/HRMoniterPartI.htm 

i dont use hr so maybe some others can let u know of better ways that work for them in determining MHR...in my opinion, if your doing the couch to 5k and JUST starting to run, nix the HR measuring for the time-being.  listen to your body...if your panting and out of breath, just go slower.  then once u have built up a consistent distance u can run (end of the program), then u could benifit from hr training.  but what do i know...i dont hr train.

Myth: You can use a formula to find your maximum heart rate.
As we've seen above, your MHR is different for every activity you perform. In addition, it's also difficult to predict a number within each sport with formulas such as the popular MHR = 220 –age or the newer MHR = 205 -.1/2 age. The fact is that even if the formulas would be based on a single activity, there are wide genetic differences between individuals that make these formulas too vague to be predictably useful.

As an example, my actual MHR for running is 4 beats less than what the 220 - age formula indicates, but my cycling MHR is 13 beats less. If I used the formula's value to determine my training zones, then my "easy" heart rate for a long bike isn't so easy anymore. Performance testing, not using a formula, is the only really accurate way to find your MHR.

We now know that maximum heart rates are very unique to both individual and activity, and it’s easy to see why Urs’ workout targets may not be applicable to you at all. We will now also see how more accurate training zones can be calculated instead of just simply measuring percentages of our MHR.

2004-07-21 1:07 PM
in reply to: #39381


10

Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
Great article and advice!

I don't know if it's just because you told me what I wanted to hear or if it's true, but I'll take it . It seemed otherwise it would take me forever to get upto a run!

I'm just using the formula as a guideline so that I don't over do it with out realizing. The heart rate monitor I'm eyeing has the fitness test options that will help me find my personal rates (I guess if I don't want to be lazy I could do them myself like the article suggested!)

Mostly, I just want some guidelines while I'm ramping up my training until I'm comfortable really "reading" the signals that my body is giving me.

Thanks,

Vicki
2004-07-21 2:15 PM
in reply to: #39375

User image

Member
47
25
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
HR is a lot like fingerprints... everyone's is different.

the 220 measurement is pretty inaccurate - maybe it works for 30pct of the population, but everyone seems to be different:

My girlfriend is 25, her max hr is probably like 220, she can get it to 205 pretty easily while training. She's like a hummingbird - her resting HR is around 70.

I'm at the oppisite end of the spectrum, I'm 28, my resting pulse is about 40, and I've never seen my heart rate above 161, although I train regularly with a HRM. I average maybe 135bpm at a 10min / mile pace if it's not too hot outside.

Now... once you start training with a HRM, you won't be able to stop... it tells you some really interesting things about how hard your body is percieving your workout, and you'll quickly realize what your HR zones are:

for example:

I can sprint at 160+ bpm for maybe 3 minutes - which is anaerobic (zone 5b)
or
I can excersize at 155-160 bpm for about 20-30 minutes, then I'm dead - this is roughly my aerobic threshold (5k type effort) (zone 4/5a)
or
I can do 150-155 for about an hour (zone 3*** this is the zone you want to stay out of, according to some)
or
135-150 for 2-3 hours (zone 2 - base aerobic building)
or
anything up to 135 for 5 or so hours (zone 1 - recovery)

My zones are all pretty narrow because my max HR is kinda low. When you train with a HRM, you'll figure out your own zones, and how to interpret your HR:

for example, if it's hot outside, it pushes up my HR 5 to 10 bpm
every 1/2 hour i'm working out, my HR goes up maybe 1-2 bpm, even at the same effort level / speed.


Anyway, I love the HR monitor, it keeps me from slacking or more commonly, from pushing too hard.




2004-07-21 3:34 PM
in reply to: #39375

Regular
99
252525
Guelph, ON
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
I had the same issues as you describe when I started out. It is very hard at first to go "slow enough" to keep your HR in the target zones. While I agree with the other posts that HR can't be determined through a formula, it's probably close enough that you can use it as a guideline.

If you keep with your program, gradually increasing the duration and intensity of your workouts, you will find you ARE able to work at lower HR without shuffling around like an old man. It takes a bit of time, but once you have a good base there's nothing to it.
2004-07-21 4:08 PM
in reply to: #39441


10

Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
KPA - Fantastic! I checked out your race report too - it's so nice to know that Whataburger is still in my future! Thanks.

KKoole - I was kind of counting on the formula being a rough estimate - which, is why I was thinking 130 would be okay to go upto, as a guideline. I think I'll do as you suggest and just keep with it and only worry if I start going up to 180+ (though I think I would probably know at that point that I was over doing ;-) because I would be quickly passing out from exhaustion).

Thanks,

Vicki
2004-07-21 9:46 PM
in reply to: #39375

Member
52
2525
Subject: Me too
I am having the same problem.

Before getting the HR monitor last week, I was running 9:30 miles. Nothing that was killing me and I could run for 10 miles in Florida heat and not die.

I got the monitor two weeks ago and using Mark Allen's formula ( http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460) of 180-age = maximum aerobic heart rate. At 38 and training 3 to 5 days a week, brings my heart rate to 142. I can't even accomplish a shuffle for more than about 60 paces before my heart rate is over 145. This isn't running, not even jogging; this is a shuffle barely pick up my feet. If I run, forget it. I'm over 160 within minutes.

Am I doing something wrong or is this just going to take a lot of time?

Also, I just quit smoking about six weeks ago, but have always smoked (about a pack to a pack and a half a day) and run, including marathons and ultramarathons. Somehow I thought stopping smoking was going to be a huge deal and I would feel better, taste better, etc, but I haven't experienced anything like that.

Am I just wierd?

Leighsah
2004-07-23 8:40 PM
in reply to: #39375

Member
52
2525
Subject: Any further suggestions y'all?
Bump, bump bump :-)
2004-07-24 10:47 AM
in reply to: #39500


10

Subject: RE: Me too
Well, according to what people are telling me it sounds like your max heart rate is probably higher than the formula is giving you. If you do your run at your current heart rates and the next day or two you feel okay, I would say your fine. However, if your legs are lethargic or more aching then maybe try dialing it back a little. Apparently workout by heart rate takes a little fiddling and trial & error to figure out what's right for you.

Congrats on stopping smoking - stick with it - whether or not things taste better its so much better for you and your running will improve as well because your lung capacity will recover. And, I would think that would certainly help with your hr. Six weeks is a great start but I think you'll have to stick with it to reap the full benefits.


2004-07-24 6:56 PM
in reply to: #39375

User image

Veteran
113
100
Greenville, SC
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
I have been training with a heart rate monitor for six months. It has helped me a lot as I tend to want to go too hard a lot of the time (doesnt help build endurance or economy), but I always knew my MAF (max aerobic function) heart rate was higher than the 142 predicted by the Maffetone method. My guess was 162 based on how I felt when my heart rate got there. As I've become very serious about training (too serious to a lot of people)...I had lactate threshold testing (with blood samples taken as exercise and heart rate increase) performed yesterday and officially learned that my MAF HR is 163...just about where I thought it was. It is very individual from person to person.
2004-07-24 9:33 PM
in reply to: #39375

User image

Member
11

Wellington, NZ
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
some others have alluded to it, but no one has stated it outright. calculating your training zones against your max is
an inaccurate measure. a better measure is your lactic threshold, or the point where you go from aerobic to anaerobic.
you should base your training zone on that number, rather than a theoretical max. a fairly easy test is to warm up for
10 minutes or so, then do a 30 minute 'time trial' on your bike. the your average heart rate for the time trial will be
pretty close to your lactic threshold (just be sure to push, not to where you feel like falling over, but so you are working
hard).
for the original poster, i agree that you probably should listen to your body and your perceived exertion rather than your
heart rate for the time being. 50-60% is about where you start breathing harder - your should be able to still carry on a
conversation, albeit with shorter, choppy sentences.

hope that helps
2004-07-25 4:33 PM
in reply to: #39375

Veteran
134
10025
Seattle, WA
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
This is an article from the Danskin Tri site that was written by Sally Edwards. http://www.danskin.com/triathlon/04TrainingHandout.pdf.

There is lots about this article that I do not like (it is pretty hokey in my mind), but there is a section that discusses determining your HR training zone. She suggests you may have a different one for all 3 sports which sort of makes sense to me. Of course, I have been too lazy to determine mine for all 3 sports......maybe some day
2004-07-25 10:46 PM
in reply to: #39375

User image

Expert
1836
100050010010010025
Lafayette, CO
Subject: RE: Heart Rate and training
I just recently got my (first) HRM, and I found this the other day:
http://www.timextrainingcorner.com/exec/timex/why_heartrate.cfm?pub...

I've found at least 5 different formulas to estimate max HR. I can't remember the exact formula that I used to plug into my HRM, but it at least gave some additional corrections based on current fitness level.
2004-07-26 12:17 AM
in reply to: #39500

User image

Elite
4344
2000200010010010025
Subject: RE: Me too

Hey Leighsah,

The hot, humid weather like you are having in Floriday really makes your heart rate increase more than the same workout in cooler weather.  The reason is because the heart is pumping blood to the surface of the skin to increase cooling in addition to pumping extra blood to your legs.  That is just more blood for the heart to pump, ergo a higher heart rate.

Stopping smoking should help you a great deal.  Carbon monoxide in the smoke ties up the hemoglobin in the blood and prevents the blood from carrying as much oxygen.   Not being a smoker or real expert in the matter, I don't know how long it takes to fully recover from the effects of the smoke but I would think that in six weeks, you would be feeling a great deal stronger wind. 

Compared to the average of the exercising population, your heart rate of 160 is pretty high.  This may or may not indicate a problem.  The thing I would be looking for from the high sustained workouts that you are doing is whether your body is recovering from the workout.  For me (non smoker for life, 52 male), 9.3x5 per week would wear me down.   By day five, my legs would feel dead and my heart would be slow to get up to exercise zones.  I would have a really hard time sustaining the same pace.  9.3x3 would be a lot more rest and would probably be ok.  (My usual workout is 6.3*5 or the equivalent in biking or swimming.

I would keep records on heart rate, distance, mileage, and temperature.   Recording how you felt and whether your splits were positive (pace got slower toward the end) or negative (pace got faster toward the end)  is a good way to pick up on the trends on whether the body is keeping up with the workout scheduel.   My goal is always to run (or bike or swim) just exactly the amount I can recover from before the next workout.  It is a tricky thing to know when this is because the tanks are really not empty at this point in the workout.  I feel like I could go farther.  You can only know where the recovery point is by experience.  Keeping records for a few weeks (or in my case years) lets you know what level of workout is sustainable.   Based on your running accomplishments, I am sure you already know that it is a lot better to back off a little in training when you spot a negative trend rather than pushing on and developing overtraining or an overuse injury.

The HRM gives you a tool to use to spot your own trends.  For me, I tend to maintain the same effort level every day.  In general, if I am not recoverying fully my heart rate and pace both drop as I string together consecutive training days.  You may be different.  You may maintain the same speed and your heart rate goes up on consecutive training days when you are overdoing it.   You need to learn to spot your own trends.  Log books are a lot better than memory for this purpose.  Books on heart rate training only provide guidelines because people are quite different.  You need figure out the heart rate that you can sustain for training and what trends indicate overtraining. 

Oh and by the way, congratulations on quitting smoking and on your impressive accomplishments in running marathons and ultras. 

TW



New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Heart Rate and training Rss Feed