Page 1 of 1

Running Heart Rate

Posted: July 14th, 2019, 12:44 pm
by feder1
I quick look at training heart rates suggests working 50% of maximum where maximum is 220-Age.

This would compute at 75 for a 70 yo and 78 for a 65 yo.

These figures are incredibly low and I find it hard to believe that it is possible to "run" at such a low HR. Can anyone actually do this?

I think 130 and 140 would be much more realistic for a once a week runner.

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: July 14th, 2019, 1:12 pm
by EssDeeAitch
feder1 wrote:I quick look at training heart rates suggests working 50% of maximum where maximum is 220-Age.

This would compute at 75 for a 70 yo and 78 for a 65 yo.

These figures are incredibly low and I find it hard to believe that it is possible to "run" at such a low HR. Can anyone actually do this?

I think 130 and 140 would be much more realistic for a once a week runner.


It is quite complicated, first the 220 minus age is often incorrect. At 60 I was able to get to 177 max whereas the calculated max is 160. And this pattern was clear with almost all of my cycling friends.
Second, I am not sure that the 50% of max is correct, I would have thought 70% would be fine but to be sure, I would advocate a full MOT before testing out anything.

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: July 15th, 2019, 9:16 am
by Weath
Further than a lab based test where you are run to literal exhaustion; you can only really 'guestimate' your max HR and the BPM ranges you would be looking to attain are then worked up from the WORKING heart rate ranges (max - resting rate) and not just the 'raw' percentage from 'the top'.

One of the least inaccurate formulas to do this is 217 - (0.85 x age)

Therefore for a 47 year old with an assumed resting HR of 44 bpm:
Max HR = 177
Working HR = 133

The corresponding HR zones for 'training' would then be assigned based on the % of the WHR + resting heart rate values.

(aerobic) @ <60% (45-124 bpm) = recovery run
(aerobic) @ 60-70% (124-137 bpm) = easy / long slow runs
(aerobic) @ 70-75% (137-157 bpm) = 'deadzone'
(anaerobic) @ 85-90% (160-164 bpm) = Tempo pace
(anaerobic) @ >90% (164-177 bpm) Intervals & RACE

The 70-75% zone is considered to be one to avoid as it neither assists in 'recovery' or pushes the body hard enough to improve.

I have used heart rate training for many years whilst running, especially during marathon training. It is very hard to learn to run slow/easy enough when you first start to get the HR as low as ~60%. Over time this does become easier as the heart strengthens, but you then start to find it more difficult to put it under 'stress at the other end ... !

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: July 16th, 2019, 6:04 am
by feder1
Most interesting informative especially that from Weath.

I will go away and compute some zones.

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: October 1st, 2019, 2:15 pm
by didds
late to this thread but here's my 2p... plenty of decent advice above.

as said that 220-age is apparently nothing more than sticking a finger in the air. If you really really want to find as close as you can to your max HR then take a "ramp test" which will stress you to not full HR but a measurable amount that you can uasi-reliably extrapolate from. I did a few a decade or so ago - they aren't overly pleasant because you really are going full bore and exhausting yourself (but that's rather the entire point etc). Also note your max HR for running and eg cycling will AIUI be different... the ramp tests I did for cycling HR were pretty close to helping me find a max, cos a couple of times i got to 99% of HR and really did feel that there was absolutely nothing left to give anywhere in my body and i could hear my heart!

And - I'm sure you'd need to check with your doctor/sports science person before doing one. WADR if you were a once a week runner Id really suggest you check with a suitably trained professional first etc etc.

WRT the uber low HR stuff... Ive a mate that has been doing full distance ironman races for 12 years or so now. He now trains using MAF - ultra low heart rate running. He plods along at about 120-ish BPM on his sub 5 hour marathons etc. It takes quite a lot of training though as I understand to get to that ability. Id certainly say that the less you exercise the less likely it is to attain that sort of ability, cos its all about training the body to operate that efficiently.

didds (ex long distance triathlete, now Parkrun plodder training for his first HM in 9.5 years!)

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: October 1st, 2019, 2:50 pm
by Lootman
didds wrote:WRT the uber low HR stuff... Ive a mate that has been doing full distance ironman races for 12 years or so now. He now trains using MAF - ultra low heart rate running. He plods along at about 120-ish BPM on his sub 5 hour marathons etc. It takes quite a lot of training though as I understand to get to that ability. Id certainly say that the less you exercise the less likely it is to attain that sort of ability, cos its all about training the body to operate that efficiently.)

Isn't the resting heart rate the important number? On my annual medical exam, the base heart rate is always taken, but never the rate when the body is under load. The idea is that the lower the resting heart rate, the lower the rate will be at any given level of activity. And of course it is easier to measure.

When I was young and playing a lot of sports, my resting rate was about 40. Even now it is 60 which I am told is good for someone in their 60's. That said it can also be too low - I used to feel faint every now and then which was a result of the low rate, I was told. Even now I sometimes feel woozy if I stand up too quickly, but then maybe everyone gets that?

My main form of exercise now is swimming, which is relatively kind to the body. I've no idea what my HR is while doing that. I just keep going until I feel tired and then stop.

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: October 1st, 2019, 3:35 pm
by didds
Lootman wrote:[
Isn't the resting heart rate the important number?


depends what you are measuring. Your GP is interested in your resting HR cos that indicates the streess your heart is under when you live a normal day to day life.

If you want to sprint like the proverbial then your max HR may be useful to know in your training regime, if you are using a HR zone approach.

In the same way the HR zones above that somebody posted are an indication of the load you want to put your body for the optimal output desired/needed. But zone 5 and maximal HR zone is somewhat of a misnomer to suggest "RACE" = because that maybe true for the 100m sprint but you are most unlikely to run a marathon in zone five.

didds

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: October 2nd, 2019, 8:11 am
by feder1
Since looking at the data provided by "weath" I have been running 30-60 mins a week at 127 bpm which is the long slow figure.

I am supposedly going to get faster over time at this bpm but so far I haven,t speeded up at all. However, I take the point of avoiding the dead zone between 127 long slow and race pace at 142 plus.

Perhaps I am doing too little running for significant improvements to show up.

I can identify with "lootman,s" post. I enjoy plenty of swimming and tennis too.

Re: Running Heart Rate

Posted: October 2nd, 2019, 1:36 pm
by Weath
didds wrote:But zone 5 and maximal HR zone is somewhat of a misnomer to suggest "RACE" = because that maybe true for the 100m sprint but you are most unlikely to run a marathon in zone five. didds

Depends on the individual physiology and their ability to remain beneath their lactic threshold. Many of the 'faster lads/lasses' can maintain a much higher HR as they're effectively only on their feet for a relatively short period when compared to us mortals. 2-2.45 hrs flat out for them over 26.2 miles could easily equate to similar threshold levels less able runners experience over shorter distance. I certainly wouldn't suggest that there's loads of people who can hold Zone 5 for an extended period but - having just looked at one of my HM's from earlier this year - I comfortably* managed to hold 10 miles of a half marathon at >85% WHR and that's just at a reasonable plodder level, someway back down the first 1/3rd of the field.

* I chose the data from that particular race as I wasn't racing it as it was in prep for this years Brighton Mara.

feder1 wrote:I am supposedly going to get faster over time at this bpm but so far I haven,t speeded up at all.

You won't get noticeably/significantly faster just by running day-in, day-out at that bpm. You will find your running becoming more comfortable and you will likely to be able to run further for the same effort aerobically, but if you're looking to "get faster" then you will need to incorporate (shorter) sessions at a faster pace that will increase your tolerance to lactic acid. This type of training teaches the body to efficiently process the lactate while still running at a reasonable pace, with the benefits carrying through into the other longer runs at a now faster pace.