Pete
I recently started wearing a heart rate monitor during my runs. I do not set it to give any feedback during the run and only use it to evaluate runs after the fact. I am finding that I can and do exceed the MHR that the calculators predict, and by a pretty wide margin. Various calculators put my MHR in the upper 150s or low 160s . Even on easy runs I have short sections that are at a heart rate in the 190s and if I push can easily get to 212 or so for short efforts. That without ever having the feeling I was near my limit of effort. I have never really tried to see how far I can push it but suspect I can go above 212.
So... What number should I use in evaluating how long I am in various training zones?
TrailTromper
Tallahassee, Florida
I'm guessing one of the MHR formulas you are using is 220 - age? That one is almost totally useless. The standard deviation is +-6.5 bpm, which means that only 68% of all 40-year olds are between 173.5 and 186.5. That's a huge range when it comes to perceived effort and lactic acid. In addition, the decline in the formula doesn't really apply to people who are active.
My advice would be to go out and directly measure your MHR
On a side note, 212 seems very high, and could be the result of a glitch between your body and the measurement band.
3/8 Way Too Cool 50k WNS
4/19 Tehama Wildflowers 50k
Quite likely. On today's run that was a peak in the middle of a 1/10 mile fairly hard effort. The whole 1/10 mile was above 190 BPM and the 4 consecutive data points were above 200 BPM, but only one was at 212 BPM. So not definitive at 212 BPM. I'll have to see what I come up with in more controlled conditions. I have no doubt that 220 minus age is way off on the low side though as are the similar formulas.
Thread killer ..
I tried to use it when I started running . Coming from the horse background I thought it had some value , in horse endurance it's used to judge fitness by how quick they recover . I used to run on a trail near my work and within the first 1/2 mile I would get readings over 200 even if I walked . One of the businesses I ran by was IGT who make slot machines , they have some spy like electronic force field ( not kidding ) around the building that interferes with anything electronic . Then I found out that , for women, an underwire bra could skew it , a synthetic shirt can skew it , power lines ....so any review of the data was useless to me .
Take a look at this website for background on using HRM: Heart Rate Training
The 220-age formula can be really off. For me (age 66), it's slightly under my 1-hr race HR, so nowhere near max.
You might also look at some of Joe Friel's work.
Or just use talk test.
I actually don't use the HRM at all while running, preferring to go by perceived effort and the talk test. I do like to be able to look at the data after a run on MapMyRun to see what percentages were in what zones. The difference between my actual HR and the 220 minus age approximation make that data pretty far off unless I use a figure closer to my actual MHR.
Using 158 as my MHR seems ridiculous when on an easy run it yields percentages like 50% Tempo, 30% Race, and 10% high intensity.
Oh, and thanks to you both for the links.
I did a couple hard efforts on hills on my morning run trying to make sense of my maximum heart rate which seems to be miles off from what any of the formulas predict. I seem to be able to hit 210 bpm which I supposedly should not have been able to do since I was 10 years old, if the "220 minus age" formula is to be believed (yeah I know it is a very rough approximation). Being off by a good bit is normal, but this seems excessive. Either I am a freak of nature or my monitor is suspect.
I know that when I was 40 and racing bicycles my MHR was way above what the formula predicted, but only a about 3 points above what I am seeing now these 22 years later. That doesn't seem right to me, but the numbers seem to be there.
I have some faith in the 210 number since that was from a series of a bunch data points that built to it as I made a maximum effort on a hill. So for now I am using it as my MHR and I will see how the results of runs compare to my perceived effort. I'll have to try to measure my MHR on the equipment at the Y and see how that compares.
What's your HR in a 1-hr race (give or take a bit - maybe 10k-15k)?
You might try using that as your LT HR if you're using Friel's zones or divide by 0.9 and use zones for HRmax.
If you're using the talk test, you should be able to just use that for generating your zones.
Forget about any of those age-based formulas. They're just too far off for many people. (At age 66, my HRmax is likely 20-25bpm above the formula. My zones have not changed with age over 10 yr, as an age-based formula might suggest - at least once I had sufficient base that my easy and recovery were different - at that was mostly a matter of adding a recovery zone.)
After trying a few runs with hill repeats, I set my MHR to 197 bpm in MapMyRun. The resulting numbers seem to line up with what I expect based on the "talk test". Interestingly enough that MHR is pretty much the same as I found 20+ years ago (I recall it being 198 when I was 40. I am now 62. I think that 197 probably is not my absolute max, but is close enough for the purposes I am using it for.
My daughter tells me she is way off from the formulas in the same direction so I am guessing this is a hereditary thing.
So bottom line, it seems that for me the formulas are all off by a huge margin, but what I came up with by doing a few hill repeats seems satisfactory.
I know that MHR can vary wildly from person to person and is also affected by fitness ie. those with better fitness often have a higher MHR.
However, I do question if you are really having heart rates in the 200 range, mostly based on your age. Is this a new device? if not have you changed your batteries recently? I had this happen to me where I was showing a rate around 200-220 and found that it was the device. Either the batteries were low or there was a problem with the chest strap. When I didn't believe the monitor I would just wait until it was showing a very high rate then stop and check my radial pulse and compare. For me it was always the device being off.
I really like using a HR monitor. There are many benefits to using one but I had so many problems with them working right and needing to be replaced frequently that I'm not currently using one, mostly because I don't want to spend the money.
It is possible that you do indeed run a high MHR as everyone is different. Do you ever track your resting HR or check to see how fast your HR drops after exercise?
Is this a new device? if not have you changed your batteries recently?
It is a new device. It seems to match a manual count at the ranges where I have checked it, but I have not had success in counting when at or near MHR. I am awkward finding and counting my pulse when fully maxed out on HR and it drops very quickly from MHR. I did count it when it was in the 150-ish range several times today and the Monitor was OK there.
Thinking about it, I am more concerned that I have a setting that gives me what percentages of time I am in what ranges more or less agreeing with perceived effort and the talk test. With my MHR set to 197 I seem to have that. So I guess I really do not care if the actual MHR number is off as long as the device is consistent and yields useful percentages, which it seems to do.
Still I am curious enough that I may see what readings I get with another device. I may give the rowing machine a go later with that in mind.
I have not tracked resting HR in recent years.
After trying a few runs with hill repeats, I set my MHR to 197 bpm in MapMyRun. The resulting numbers seem to line up with what I expect based on the "talk test". Interestingly enough that MHR is pretty much the same as I found 20+ years ago (I recall it being 198 when I was 40. I am now 62. I think that 197 probably is not my absolute max, but is close enough for the purposes I am using it for. ...
This doesn't surprise me. I've heard of others who stayed active over time whose HRmax or zones have stayed relatively constant for 10-20 yrs.