RunningAHEAD - Topic: HR (dumb question o' the day)

rkeddie

posted: 7/5/2008 at 9:29 AM

Until this point, I have been working under the assumption that my max hr was 186. I hadn't really ever noticed it higher. Running the return leg home in a surprise thunderstorm, the hr got to 191. Would a safe assumption be that my max is actually in the low 190's? The data is from my Garmin 305, and isn't just a random spike.

beef

Ostrich runner

posted: 7/5/2008 at 11:32 AM

Actually you died on the way home and the rest of what you are experiencing is the surreality of zombiedom overtaking you.

http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum

marcus_g

posted: 7/5/2008 at 11:38 AM

Not necessarily... You don't mention if the HR was running in the high 180's for a while... if you were on a big uphill or going anaerobic, etc... Typically a "normal" run won't give you a true max HR - you need to do one of those special workouts designed to allow you to see God. Not to mention - Garmins can get wonky, too. If you download the HR data, though, you'll get a feel for if it was a strange spike or if the Garmin really felt you were there.

Go to http://certainintelligence.blogspot.com for my blog.

dgb2n

Dave

posted: 7/5/2008 at 11:39 AM
modified: 7/5/2008 at 11:40 AM

Zombiedom is a possibility but it may be something else entirely. The HR max estimates (220-age and other variations) are exactly that. An estimate. It gets most people in the ballpark but there are certainly folks at the tail ends of the distribution. Google for "measuring max heart rate" and you'll find a few methods (most that involve running hill repeats and noting the maximum heart rate measured). I'd be willing to bet that your max is closer to 195 (assuming as Marcus mentioned you didn't get a bad reading from the Garmin. Mine reads high if I don't have good moisture and strap tightness). Higher isn't better. It just is what it is.

I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

dgb2n@yahoo.com

Go Daddy

posted: 7/5/2008 at 1:01 PM

That is not a dumb question. The reply's have actually been quite informative...except for the zombie one...which in case you really are a zombie you probably don't care about the reply's anyway.

turboterie1

posted: 7/5/2008 at 2:14 PM

It is quite possible. I know that the 220-age formula for me is way too low. My max HR is somewhere in the high 190's. I did an all out mile race and reached 199 and thought I was going to die to see God. I've also tried doing other tests that are supposed to predict your max HR and they were off for me as well. One said I was in the high 180's and the other said low 190's. The best way is to go have it tested in a physiology lab. That way you can get a very accurate reading. Other than that, it's really a crapshoot.

Finished my first marathon 1-13-2008 in 6:03:37 at P.F. Chang's in Phoenix. PR in San Antonio RnR 5:45:58!!!!!! on 11-16-08 The only thing that has ever made any difference in my running is running. Goal: Break 2:30 in the HM this year Jay Benson Tri (place in Athena category) 5-10-09

rkeddie

posted: 7/5/2008 at 9:00 PM

I didn't necessarily think that higher was better. It would, however, change the numbers that I've been using for my runs. The zombie thing is an interesting theory. Maybe in the morning I'll drive back down that street. It's possible my body is laying there and you're all in my heaven.

AKTrail

posted: 7/5/2008 at 9:07 PM

Any chance the high reading resulted from electrical pulse from lightning storm? kinda like power lines. Or indirectly from "fear factor" response? (mine spiked in a race last year shortly after passing some bear scat and hearing something in woods - but within my normal range) The reality, though, is that 191 vs 186 isn't going to make that much difference, if any, in your training zones.

"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

db7

posted: 7/6/2008 at 11:44 AM

Are you talking about your absolute max or your max training level? Your absolute max is almost certainly higher than that. Visit the Low Heart Rate Training group for more on this topic. DB

Tougher than most, dumber than the rest. "You can not count the miles until you feel them" TVZ

slowgino

posted: 7/6/2008 at 4:30 PM

The question might be "why do you want to know your MHR?" If it's to determine "training zone(s)", you should take them as estimates averaged over some population of runners. If you know your Anaerobic Threshold (AT), that's probably more useful. Also if you know your Lactate Threshold (LT). "Aerobic Threshold (AeT)" is not really precise in its definition (as used by different authors), but it always means a point where you can get good aerobic conditioning for endurance training. For most people, it's a lot lower than they think. As db7 points out, the Low Heart Rate Training user group is a good place to look for info on training for endurance.

HR (dumb question o' the day) (Read 664 times)