if I enter 206(MHR) and 27(age) it will suggest me to run 2mile at 206 and 5K at 200.

I always noticed this. 

I know that I run a 5k with an HR of about 175.  My maxHR is 185.  If I enter 185 as the maxHR, it says that I run the 5k at HR=180.  So, I adjust the maxHR entry until it shows the correct value for my 5k HR.  Once I do that, all of the HRs seem to line up better and be correct. 

 http://www.teamoregon.com/publication/online/wizard.php

""steady state" (average of the middle miles) versus an actual average since you might be as much as 5-10 beats below in the first mile of a 5k.

Thanks for adding that.

Whenever I calculate any avg HRs for my log or for my races, I don't include the first mile in the 5k race and I do not include the first 15 minutes or so, of a training run.  The steady state HR avg is definitely a better stat to use.  I think it better represents the effort.

My 5k mile splits always seem to be something like this:  162, 175, 176.  Adding in the first mile into the average definitely pulls it down to a value that is not as meaningful.

Same goes for training runs.  My HR average for 20 minute intervals might be 114, 128, 133.  Again, that first 20 minutes definitely pulls down the average which is not as meaningful.

It just takes time for the HR to reach that steady state.

 

thanks for the link - if I enter 206(MHR) and 27(age) it will suggest me to run 2mile at 206 and 5K at 200. I don't think I can do either. I could do 2 miles at 200 perhaps and 5K at 195 :P

I cannot comment on the other HR's it suggests to me for the other distances, but maybe I can really do the HM at the 185 it suggested, I actually imagined it would work out between 180-185 avg.

 

as I said my endurance is NOT good enough yet because my HR will jump up after a while of hard running (keeping same pace). so I don't really believe in the times it gives me. it seems to me the pace it suggests for 2mile is too slow and the pace it suggests for marathon is too fast. so yes, not good endurance.

(but! funnily enough, my HR doesn't really go up much when running at/below MAF..)

 

yes I will be doing my first race this weekend, sunday. and yes I guess I'll have to just go out and run as my legs want to go and check the HRM to make sure I'm not going too fast.

 

here's a question on that though - I'm pretty sure it's not recommended to do the entire race at a fixed HR. I do see you mention HM and marathon, but this one is a 12K race. for this, would the start be lower HR? how much lower? - I expect to complete it 1 hour plus a few minutes (not worse than 1hr 10mins but the goal is to be within 1:08). I will probably try to run it at a 187-190 avg HR or so. what HR should I allow in the first few mins of the race?

 

also, how much warmup would be advisable before it?

I usually warm-up the same as I do before a training run. 15 minutes of brinign my HR up slowly. Sometimes I'll chuck a few strides in at the end (if it's a 5k).

The more you race, the more you will learn to deal with discomfort. When run close to correctly, a 5k is very uncomfortable. You'll learn that you can go harder and hold it. The number  the Pace wizard gives you is the best possible one within a few beats. Eventually you'll get there.

--Jimmy

 

 

Probably because your MHR is a little higher than 185. It's extremely difficult to get it there. We all probably fall 3-5 beats short due to the discomfort. I'm also beginning to think that the better shape you are in , the more difficult it is to get it there. There is some evidence out there that MHR comes down when you are in top fitness. It could be that you just can't move your legs fast enough to get it there.

 

--Jimmy

I think there's a lot of truth to that - I'd define the absolute top fitness as being able to push it to MHR again. so, if you can do that with an already strong heart/etc then you're probably an elite

 Exactly and great suggestions, Greg. Here's an example of a 5k I did (Pace wizard Number 192)

 

6:39   175   88% MHR
6:49    189  95%MHR
6:55    191  96% MHR
0:36    194  98% MHR

 

 The first mile is generally lower because it takes a awhile to get the HR up to the 95% area.

--Jimmy

that is weird to me. do you get that with better fitness? I can push my HR up pretty (too) fast. for me this would look more like 189-195-197-... that 175 compared to 189 is really low!

this makes me wonder about this question: what does your HR do if you try an all-out 100m sprint?

last time I tried, mine went from 109 to 192 in 17secs or so.

 

The more you race, the more you will learn to deal with discomfort. When run close to correctly, a 5k is very uncomfortable. You'll learn that you can go harder and hold it. The number  the Pace wizard gives you is the best possible one within a few beats. Eventually you'll get there.

that and your other note about how we cannot get to our real MHR is interesting.

oh, I have a guess here: the faster you can do a 5K the easier it will be to get such a high AHR for it because you have to hold it for a shorter time. right?

about trying to get pushed to MHR: when you give up that, what kind of discomfort makes you stop trying?

first time I tried I got to 204 (last october), I eased off because I felt like I almost needed to throw up,  discomfort in my stomach. a few days ago I tried again and got past 204 without any real discomfort (!) but at 206 I think my diaphragm muscle gave up. I think so because it felt a bit like throwing up but it was NOT the same feeling and it was higher up than my stomach. it was a very sudden problem with urgency to resolve it. I felt like coughing, I did cough and it made the feeling go away & I slowed down too. maybe if I made that muscle stronger I could push it higher. my legs did still have reserves in them.

There's no need to reach your MHR, unless you're testing it, and it's okay if it's 5 beats low. And you don't need to test it more than once a year or two years or three. MHR is kind of meaningless really. Be able to reach doesn't define fitness or health. I've known people with heart rhythm problems that reached near MHR just sitting there. MAF and lactate threshold have nothing to do with MHR, and those are the things you want to move higher. For example when your LT goes from 175 bpm to 180 Bpm, or your MAF moves from 145 to 155 bpm. Of course, if you want to know if those are moving and exactly how much, you have to have an RQ and a LT blood sample test. You don't need to do those things though. If your MAF tests move from 12:00 to 9:00, you can be pretty certain your MAF has moved. If your LT runs move from 9:00 to 6:50, same thing.

 

It's nice to have an idea of MHR, but it's really nothing to be too concerned with. And remember, if one person has a 200 MHR and another a 185 MHR, doesn't mean a thing in terms of potential.

 

--Jimmy

OKay, sorry, I was just trying to have a discussion about the topic/details about it. I do agree with what you said above, but why not talk about stuff...

I got an approach too scientific for all this I guess. don't want to be tiring people though  I mean, I just tend to like to think about things, not just do them. and the only reason why I haven't got RQ/LT test done yet is that I didn't find a place in this small country that does RQ at all and I'm not shelling out the money for just LT test. maybe when I get back to the UK...

by the way one thing I disagree about is: MHR not having anything to do with LT. I know people whose MHR is in the 180's and their LT in the 160's, now if my MHR is 200+ it is highly unlikely my LT would also be in the 160's. I did read this in many places that knowing MHR is only useful to be able to predict LT to some extent so they're related somewhat. this of course doesn't apply to people with rhythm problems, that's a totally different subject. if one had such a problem suddenly then the HR could go well above the MHR achievable by hard working out. that doesn't mean it's one's true MHR just because they got a rhythm problem.

PS: another question: I wonder why no need to reach MHR? at the end of a hard race? wouldn't it give you the chance to shave extra seconds off your PR? :P I wonder how it'd feel like pushing it there after running nearly 12K (sunday race). :P

 

I thought we were discussing. Did I misdiscuss?

 

 I'm becoming self-aware that I am co-creating  a hijacking of a thread for race reports. I think we should move this discussion to an MHR thread. If you want to discuss it more, just open one up. There'll be chiming in.

 

--Jimmy

ah, you are right... ok, I'll get to it

Robert--- WTG. Great race. How did you mange those  low 8's  after running 10 miles?

PS: Next time you may want to do the maf test at least 3 days before the race.However, you did do the fastest miles late in the race. Again, WTG.

Nice run, congrats!

Yesterday was the VIA Run Against Autism 5-K for me.  Haven't run a 5-K in probably 5 years, but thought I could use a quick check of my fitness.  This was the kind of race I like - a small, friendly, low-key community race.  Miles and turns were marked but that was it.  No big warm up/psych up.  No aid stations.  No timing chips.  Simple post race ceremony.  It's so low key that official results aren't available yet.  Being the dingaling that I am,  I forgot to push the stop button on my watch when I crossed the line, but my my reckoning I was just a little over 20:00.  Yes, I wore a watch for this one and even recorded my splits, but I didn't look until I was well out of the chute and had realized that it was still running.

Mile 1 was flat.  Miles 2 and 3 were bumpy.  Splits 6:24, 6:39, and call it 7:09 for the last 1.1.  My fitness was right about where I thought it would be given my training and life, so the race was a pleasant confirmation of my instincts. 

My new running goal is to set an adult PR in the 5-K while I'm 40.  I set my current 5-K PR as an adult right around the time I turned 30, and I think it would be cool to run faster at 40 than I did at 30.  I need to break 18:39 for 5-K to make that goal, so I've got my work cut out for me, but I think I can do it.  My all-around, lifetime 5-K PR (sub 17:00) dates back to when I was a teenager.  If I can every beat my 30-year old self maybe I'll set aim on that.