I saw your report in the other thread (congrats! and don't forget I will be doing 50min 10K too and I'm female which puts me at a disadvantage - just responding again to that post of yours where you said you are better and you said that out of no reason at all). and I wondered already how it was possible to do an all-out 10K at 168 if the MHR is really 198 (or similar, I forget the exact number for yours now). mine's 208 and a 10K at 176 (85% of MHR, same % as yours) would be crazy far from an all-out. :P

maybe you are the slow twitcher type of runner... who can't access the anaerobic system very well. (I'm the other way around; I can access it all way too easily!)

Thanks. My point was if you maff more and add mileage you will get faster. However, I know time is precious for a young mother.

Run until the trail runs out.

SCHEDULE 2016--

*The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff*

Thanks. My point was if you maff more and add mileage you will get faster. However, I know time is precious for a young mother.

OK, I get your point. young mother??? that's maybe not me, I don't have kids yet. time is really just limited by caring for my joints. maybe next year I can run as much as I want without having to worry about them.

How often do you do tempo runs( race pace)? I have not run race pace in 5+ years. Trying to decide is it worth the risk or is it even necessary. Using the team Oregon pace wizard the predicted HR 185 gives a time of 49:27. My race time was 49:20 / HR avg 170. It was a fast course. I can never maintain the HR on the charts. Wish I could .Times would be lower.I would like to reach the higher HR's. So, here is the question : Should I train to maintain Hr or maintain pace? The maffing and hill work (ever 7 or 8 days)has worked so far. If it ain't broken why fix it.

If you were asking me, I haven't ran very many before, I was just bored on the dreadmill and decided to pick up the pace. I will start running more race paces next month when I start my marathon training as I see there are days when the plan calls for specific race paces.

Nice job on the 10k PR. Question for you, what is your Max HR? reason I ask is I have seen HR's around the upper 190's and a 202. If I figure a 202 Max HR, I can't hold a race pace HR of 185 either. I could possibly run the last mile or so at that pace, but not aa an avarage.

*The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff*

2014 Goals:

Stay healthy

Enjoy life

OK, I get your point. young mother??? that's maybe not me, I don't have kids yet. time is really just limited by caring for my joints. maybe next year I can run as much as I want without having to worry about them.

Cmon2---I keep reading as C mom of 2.

Run until the trail runs out.

SCHEDULE 2016--

modified: 5/17/2010 at 3:22 PM

If you were asking me, I haven't ran very many before, I was just bored on the dreadmill and decided to pick up the pace. I will start running more race paces next month when I start my marathon training as I see there are days when the plan calls for specific race paces.

Nice job on the 10k PR. Question for you, what is your Max HR? reason I ask is I have seen HR's around the upper 190's and a 202. If I figure a 202 Max HR, I can't hold a race pace HR of 185 either. I could possibly run the last mile or so at that pace, but not aa an avarage.

HR monitor usually is between 195-198. A go all out at about 200 meters. 185 is 93%. Team Oregon must be using 185 as an avg HR On a shorted 5K (2.86) avg HR 181/ max 195. Other races 10k or less HR avg 168-175. Thanks for asking. Will go for avg HR of 175 at 5k next race.

Run until the trail runs out.

SCHEDULE 2016--

modified: 5/17/2010 at 7:46 PM

as for that oregon calculator, it gives me way too high HR's too. with my MHR=208 it thinks I should run a 5K at 202bpm, this would only be possible if I could run 5K within 15mins, I might be able to hold it that long. but not for 25mins (my 5K is around that now).

for 10K it says 195bpm but I think 190 would be more realistic. again, with a 30mins 10K I could easily do 195...but I can't do 10K in 30mins

my other guess, perhaps it adds a few bpm for racing conditions? I have higher HR when racing (ok, only had 1 race until now, so not sure if that statement would always hold), so maybe actually possible then.

btw, "cmon2" comes from my name.

The 185 came from Team Oregon pace wizard. I tend to worry about running out of gas. I may need to add tempo runs to build confidence or not wear the HR monitor to races. I made 3 water stops. I came to a full stop to drink about 6 oz of water. The last stop about 3 oz. After mile 2 no one passed me. The last mile was the fastest. Now that I have time to reflect. I talk to a guy who had a couple of kids running and I was not breathing particularly hard. I my need to run faster than " talk test " pace. I need to calculate 170 to max 198. 85%.

What I meant was where did your MHR come from? How did you figure it out.

10k pace is uncomfortable and above lactate threshold.185 or 93% for an average HR is

about the best you can do for 198 MHR. Remember that it is an average HR.

You'd probably average below for the first three miles and above for the final 3.2.

You could construct a tempo run where you average 175-180 (178ish) for two miles. The pace would

mirror the first two miles of a 10k; approximate a pace you could ** probably** hold. Once you get

a 10k in that was your true potential for current fitness, you can work with paces rather than

HR if you wish. It's one way to use tempos for specific race distances. Just mirror the early

portion of the race. Like a brief time trial.

--Jimmy

What I meant was where did your MHR come from? How did you figure it out.

10k pace is uncomfortable and above lactate threshold.185 or 93% for an average HR is

about the best you can do for 198 MHR. Remember that it is an average HR.

You'd probably average below for the first three miles and above for the final 3.2.

You could construct a tempo run where you average 175-180 (178ish) for two miles. The pace would

mirror the first two miles of a 10k; approximate a pace you could

hold. Once you getprobablya 10k in that was your true potential for current fitness, you can work with paces rather than

HR if you wish. It's one way to use tempos for specific race distances. Just mirror the early

portion of the race. Like a brief time trial.

--Jimmy

Discovered the mis-step. Thanks.

MHR 175(top end)

**In 2007, researchers at the Oakland University analysed maximum heart rates of 132 individuals recorded yearly over 25 years, and produced a linear equation very similar to the Tanaka formula—HR _{max} = 206.9 − (0.67 × age)—and a nonlinear equation—HR_{max} = 191.5 − (0.007 × age^{2}). The linear equation had a confidence interval of ±5-8 bpm and the nonlinear equation had a tighter range of ±2-5 bpm. ^{[5]}**

Run until the trail runs out.

SCHEDULE 2016--

Discovered the mis-step. Thanks.

MHR 175(top end)

In 2007, researchers at the Oakland University analysed maximum heart rates of 132 individuals recorded yearly over 25 years, and produced a linear equation very similar to the Tanaka formula—HR_{max}= 206.9 − (0.67 × age)—and a nonlinear equation—HR_{max}= 191.5 − (0.007 × age^{2}). The linear equation had a confidence interval of ±5-8 bpm and the nonlinear equation had a tighter range of ±2-5 bpm.^{[5]}

Just to illustrate: both formulas give me 174, Ron. My MHR is 200. Stay clear of MHR formulas.

Use a race, track test, V02max test, or a stress test to figure your MHR.

Have you been using 175 for an MHR?

--Jimmy

Just to illustrate: both formulas give me 174, Ron. My MHR is 200. Stay clear of MHR formulas.

Use a race, track test, V02max test, or a stress test to figure your MHR.

Have you been using 175 for an MHR?

--Jimmy

Also be leary of what your Garmin (Polar, whatever) gives for a Max HR in your data. I've seen some pretty strange readings from them. I have gotten alot of 224 beat spikes before and there is no way that was correct.

2014 Goals:

Stay healthy

Enjoy life

Just to illustrate: both formulas give me 174, Ron. My MHR is 200. Stay clear of MHR formulas.

Use a race, track test, V02max test, or a stress test to figure your MHR.

Have you been using 175 for an MHR?

--Jimmy

Both formulas give me 170. I was using the HR from the monitor form several races(198). I will go to the track when school lets out for the summer.

Run until the trail runs out.

SCHEDULE 2016--

Make sure you look at the graph of your HR readings when you upload your workout to see if the Max HR number you get is not just a spike, but looks like a HR that was achieved for several beats and some extended time frame.

I see a lot of people try to use the Max HR number that gets imported without doing some investigation into the validity of that number. For example during my swim workout today, I wore the strap in the water, but left my Garmin watch unit on the edge of the pool. Each time I finished a lap, I hit the lap button and track my rest time at the wall during which I start receiving a HR signal. After my third full lap, the HR monitor returned a Max HR of 196, but I know that could not have been an accurate reading because it dropped from there down to about 125.

2014 Goals:

Stay healthy

Enjoy life

Both formulas give me 170. I was using the HR from the monitor form several races(198). I will go to the track when school lets out for the summer.

If you've seen 198 in races, then that's not a bad one to go with if you need to use MHR for anything in particular.

When you saw 198, were you running really hard at the end, busting a gut?

--Jimmy

In 2007, researchers at the Oakland University analysed maximum heart rates of 132 individuals recorded yearly over 25 years, and produced a linear equation very similar to the Tanaka formula—HR_{max}= 206.9 − (0.67 × age)—and a nonlinear equation—HR_{max}= 191.5 − (0.007 × age^{2}). The linear equation had a confidence interval of ±5-8 bpm and the nonlinear equation had a tighter range of ±2-5 bpm.^{[5]}

aw, what bullshit!

that gives me 188 and 186, respectively. and my MHR is 208+... so uh, the number of my years is like, minus something.

so, I'm not sure what they mean by confidence interval here.

I'd rather like to know the standard deviation instead, for these formulas.

Confidence interval is typically (assuming alpha error of .05) the range at which you are 95% certain that the true value (in this case, max heart rate) is within the upper and lower limits. It is just a probability and is completely dependent on your sample size. The normality of the sample size also has to be verified, but even if a few of the 132 test subjects had heart rates higher or lower than the confidence interval it wouldn't fail the test and the results are still accurate as per the individuals sampled.

In short, if the individuals tested were representative of all of the runners in the world, then the chance that the resulting equations are wrong is 5%. I'm sure that out of 6 billion or so people in the world there are going to be some outliers here and there...

Back to the matter at hand: I've got some 5k's and a couple of sprint tri's coming up in the next two months. As my true goals in the next two months are the sprint tri's, my plan was to use the 5k's as some anaerobic training rather than goal races. Number 1, does this make sense? Number 2, how would the group approach approach the upcoming two months? Thanks!