Theoretic and maximum heart rates, issues, etc.

[Polar Bear]

Having recently returned to running I am also using the splendid Garmin Forerunner 220 acquired from Sojournermike OTP to track my progress.   Last week on a whim I decided to use the HRM functionality of the watch purely out of curiosity.

As background:  When I was a marathon runner in the late eighties and early nineties I recall* that your theoretical maximum HR should be 220 minus your age in years and that you should aim not to exceed 85% of that theoretical maximum.  In my youth I was a good swimmer, then I turned to cycling and running for the next 30 years.  I have always been active but not excessively so. 

So, for the past three runs I have used the HRM.  My age is nearly 55 so my theoretical max HR would be 220 minus 55 giving 165.  85% 0f 165 is 140 rounded.  Checking my stats I'm getting to 176 to 178 max and averaging 161.   I'm assuming that I have regularly pushed myself like this but just never known it before.

Am I feeling any undue effects?   Not really sure what to expect but I'm not suffering any apparent issues at all and my HR returns to my normal range within about 20 minutes of completing a session.   In the morning my HR before I leap from my bed is 55 BMP and my normal walking HR is about 110 BPM.

I don't know if I'm overdoing it, whether I should be worried or what.   My main issue at the moment is a tight left calf which caused me to shorten my run today. 

I'm very interested in the views of the massive on this please.

*  Apparently this is still the crude indicator cited in many places.

[Greenbank]

220 minus your age in years

Ah, this old thing. It exists for several reasons:-
* that formula is the best fit, population wide, for an equation of the form "X - age". Any other value than 220 gives a worse fit population wide
* there are better formulae (for a population wide fit) if you move to second order polynomials, but they're more difficult for the average person to calculate
* individuals vary massively, I'm sure many will post their anecdata to show this (it certainly is way off for me)
* in the absence of any other data it's the best thing to start off to use
* as soon as you have other data (i.e. from your HRM) then you can throw the old value away and use the new value

Since you obtain 165 from the formula, but have seen 178 on your HRM then use 178 as you working HR_max.

As you get fitter you'll be able to push yourself faster and harder and you may see even higher numbers. If so, redo the calculations based on those.

The actual value of your HR_max has very little to do with your "fitness" level. You can't compare it to others and, in my experience, it doesn't really change whether I'm as fit as I've been for years, or after a period of months of being a slob. What changes for me is that I do the same run at the same speed (with roughly the same weather) and when I'm 'fitter' my max and avg HR is lower. Or I'll do the same run (with roughly the same weather) and have the same avg and max HR as before but when I'm 'fitter' I'll do it faster than before. (although, for me, 'fitter' often includes being lighter which obviously requires less energy and therefore a slightly lower HR.)

tl;dr use the max value you've seen on your HRM, if you see a higher value use that, don't use a HR_max value that you haven't actually hit within the last 12 months

[Greenbank]

To put it another way: HR_max = 220 - age is analogous to BMI in that:-

Both are a crude estimate/metric that works at population levels (but individuals are too variable) and is calculated easily using things that people can easily measure in their own home, and should only be considered in the absence of more detailed (and harder to derive) metrics.

[Greenbank]

Am I feeling any undue effects?   Not really sure what to expect but I'm not suffering any apparent issues at all and my HR returns to my normal range within about 20 minutes of completing a session.   In the morning my HR before I leap from my bed is 55 BMP and my normal walking HR is about 110 BPM.

HR just after waking (and before getting up) will typically be lower than traditional "resting" HR (which would normally be taken after sitting still for 5 minutes or so, and not after recent strenuous activity).

One metric that is sometimes useful is HR_recovery which is the difference in HR at the end of a strenuous activity, and HR two minutes later (assuming you stop completely). Most Garmins will record this 'recovery rate' for you assuming you don't save the activity immediately. However, this has fallen out of favour as, with running, you're better off doing some walking/stretching at the end of a run rather than collapsing on the ground and not moving for two minutes. As with most things though, the metric is still useful as long as the conditions are repeated each time; so I only tend to look at the recovery rate after a parkrun as I typically spend the same amount of time slowly shuffling forward in the finish funnel and then wandering over to get my barcode scanned.

The larger the recovery rate the better and, again, comparing them to another human is pointless.

[simonp]

Rowing club haas decided to do HRmax tests using a specific test protocol.

I know that one guy in our squad threw up after doing it; he did 201 bpm and is older than me, and I'm 45.

I know my max is somewhere above 190, despite not having done the test.

I'd use the formula in the absence of better data, but I'd rather have the better data. As for not exceeding 85% - depends on the type of training. I will try to keep below around 70% for some workouts and will exceed 90% in others. I've been >190 at least twice this year, once in a race, once in testing.

However in an endurance workout my average HR tends to be around 140. In some technical rowing sessions, average HR has been 110 or lower.

[Greenbank]

specific test protocol.

Reminds me, the results will be specific to the test or, to be more general, to the type of exercise being undertaken.

Looking back through my Garmin Connect account I can see my HR_max for running is 194bpm and I've only gone over 190bpm a few times (all parkruns unsurprisingly), most of the time it is 180bpm to 190bpm max. This is despite pushing hard throughout the (park)runs, really upping the pace in the last 500m and occasionally being close to vomiting when finishing. Joy.

Stick a football in front of me and my HR regularly goes over 200bpm when playing 5-a-side.

Looking at the figures I struggle to get HR over 190bpm when cycling, but then none of my cycling has any balls out sprinting...

[TPMB12]

I remember in my youth getting a hrm, cardiosport because a local sports shop sold them a lot cheaper than sector leader polar went for with equivalent specs. I set hr max at 220-age. I think I was early 20s because I managed to reach my max according to that formula and it was 199 or 198. Come to think about it I was really giving it some on my bike uphill and I saw 198 but I was easing up so was higher. I wasn't at my max because I wasn't throwing up and knew I had more in my tank. I also knew I was unfit too.

Now I'm a lot older and fitter. I doubt that formula fits me now. Put it this way my fitbit Surge records my theoretical max so many times on a little hill that I know I never push myself on. I've got quite a few beats over and above the 220-age result a few times when pushing myself a bit, although I always ease off because of traffic or other reason.

You really need to do a test to find out.

[sojournermike]

As ever the group have summed up the limited value of a formula for HRmax.

In terms of training, you might use all parts of the available range. Do a search for HR zones - Joe Friel has a useful set, echoed by Jim Vance in Running with Power (but there is a useful webpage that includes power and HR zones with training times and impacts).

If you've just started running again enjoy and just keep at it. Hard day easy day or two usually sums it up.

Glad the 220 is proving useful

Mike

[Polar Bear]

Thanks guys.  I'll just use the information for interest rather than anything else and just carry on as I am.   

... 

Glad the 220 is proving useful

Mike

It's very useful indeed thanks Mike.  It's my backup on the bike and the mainstay for my walking and now my running.  Certainly giving excellent value for money!   

[Greenbank]

I don't know if I'm overdoing it, whether I should be worried or what.   My main issue at the moment is a tight left calf which caused me to shorten my run today. 

What's your goal? What are you doing at the moment?

Personally I try and keep to the following rules/guidelines:-
* Don't extend weekly distance by more than 10% a week (if starting from scratch then follow something like C25K before applying this)
* One set of intervals per week (building up to 6x1600m / 8x1000m / 10x800m with 120/100/90 sec of walking in between - one interval distance per week - paces set so you can just complete the final one and then increase target pace when you're able to complete them a bit more comfortably - HR data is good to tell you when you're adapting to the pace/challenge - aim for 800m intervals at 5k pace, 1000m and 1600m intervals at 10k pace)
* One fast short run per week (i.e. parkrun)
* One long run per week (at medium intensity)
* Any other runs are at medium intensity (don't be tempted to go at them too hard)
* Ease off every 4th week (replace intervals with a general run, try not to aim for a PB on parkrun although I often fail this one, not quite as long a long run)

* End each run with at least a couple of minutes of walking (stretching and foam roller after a run too if I can)
* Trying to run off a niggle rarely ever works
* Cross training with cycling, walking and swimming helps reduce the niggles too

Things like intervals and long runs will improve your fitness faster than just bashing out the same thing 3 times a week, but some people like to bash out the same thing 3 times a week and the idea of intervals and long runs fill them with dread. I find the faster improvement is usually enough to encourage me to do the bits of training I dislike.

[dim]

I don't have a power meter (yet), but I do use my heart data on rides and find this important. I'm 57 (I'm old  ) and on my Garin Edge 1000, it calculates your max heart rate constantly ....  as you ride, if your max heart rate exceeds the previous max (especially during sprints), the Garmin notifies you when you view the summary after a ride

mine stands at 177 at present .... so the 220 minus age is a bit off (220-57=163)

as your max heart rate increases, you update the data on Strava (I also use the free app called Stravastix which gives me loads of extra data .... I'm a sucker for data, and even log all my rides on a Microsoft access database, which includes data such as wind speed, wind direction, climbing speed etc  )

I constanly check my heartrate on rides .... if I am cycling long distance, I like to keep the HR at approx 133 (get to a hill and it will increase, and it will also increase in strong headwind, even if you spin), but bring it back to the 133 on flats .... and I have my'all day' speed which in normal conditions is approcx 25km/hr

If I'm aiming for a PB on a segment, I will watch my heart rate and try and push it to the 177 (or more if I can) ... i still want a power meter though

there is info on the web as regards doing threshold tests to determine you max heart rate

[Karla]

I'm not sure where you got the bit about not going over 85% of HRmax from.  I generally aim to start a 10 or 25 mile TT at 85% of HRmax and go upwards from there - and that's my measured HRmax, not the one calculated by the formula as I can go way over it, for all the reasons already given.

[rob]

I've seen my HR hit 205 on a ramp test, 5 years ago.   I only managed 200 a couple of years later.

Calculating zones on 200 seems about right for me, and I'm almost 45.

I'll be riding a 25 with my HR high 170s and hitting 180, a 50 low 170s and a 100 in the 160-170 range.   I can ride for hours on end with my HR 150-155.

[Pedal Castro]

The 220-age formula is useless, if you are going to set zones from HRmax you need to find it by doing a test, the uphill repeats test is reckoned to be a good one for cycling, I recently did a treadmill ramp test with my students which must have got close 

Personally I set my zones based on my anaerobic threshold HR:
http://www.nrtoone.com/home/?p=1137

[mattc]

The 220-age formula is useless

No, it's actually very good, provided you use it as intended, which is:

that formula is the best fit, population wide, for an equation of the form "X - age". Any other value than 220 gives a worse fit population wide
* there are better formulae (for a population wide fit) if you move to second order polynomials, but they're more difficult for the average person to calculate

Another way of looking at is the height-vs-age tables/graphs; they're good at showing how tall the average 7yr-old is (for example), but you shouldn't worry if you are 7 years old but 6" away from what the table predicts!

[Polar Bear]

I don't know if I'm overdoing it, whether I should be worried or what.   My main issue at the moment is a tight left calf which caused me to shorten my run today. 

What's your goal? What are you doing at the moment?

I am starting from a low threshold having not really run for a few years and allowed myself to pile on the lard so goal number one is to get back to 5K continuous running for a Parkrun on 13th January.  I have devised my own equivalent of C25K and am now just on week 7 of 18 weeks.  I am very happy with my progress.   I started on 30/30 seconds run/walk and have progressed from 1k to 3.2k and from 30/30 to 45/30.   My average pace time has dropped nearly a whole minute and I feel that I could go further but am carefully sticking to plan for now.

Goals are:

Jan 2018:   Parkrun

May 2018:   Waendel Walking Festival 42k mixed terrain.

September 2018:   Daventry mini triathlon

October 2018:   Rugby half marathon

If all goes to plan I will set myself new goals after the Rugby half.

I have worked my training schedule around these targets and have allowed myself an awful lot of flexibility.   I am in 'get round comfortably and enjoy myself doing so' mode, not 'break any records and body parts' mode.   

[Greenbank]

OK, that (to my entirely unqualified eye) looks like a perfectly achievable plan. Parkrun to HM in 9 months is definitely doable.

I wouldn't worry about HR whilst running during your C25K equivalent and for parkrun. As you do the training towards those events you'll get a feel for what pace you can sustain for a certain length of time and you'll probably get it wrong quite often (which is all part of the fun). But recording the runs and looking at them in Garmin Connect will give you a feel for how your HR reacts to the different paces.

I'd only start to think about HR when you start to go for runs over 10km, up until then I'd judge it based on the pace (I have my Garmin set to 1km autolap when running, so I get a lap split every km and I can tell from that whether I've set off too fast [e.g. at 5k pace for a 11km commute into work]).

I am in 'get round comfortably and enjoy myself doing so' mode, not 'break any records and body parts' mode.   

Given this, and the marathon walk you have scheduled, I'd probably start to look in June (or 3-4 weeks after the marathon walk) at varying your training to start to build in some intervals. This will give you plenty of time to get used to them and adapt before the HM in October.

The intervals may be uncomfortable but they bring on the improvements far quicker than repeated long steady runs. The weekly uncomfortable sessions will make your HM a whole lot more comfortable.

How quickly you go from 5km up to near HM long runs is up to you, there's plenty of time to do that steadily. The fastest (applying the "never increase longest run by more than 10% a week" rule-of-thumb) would be about 5 months[1]. Depending on how your fitness progresses you may have your first HM run on the day of the event itself (it's unlikely to be "get round comfortably" if this is the case), or you may have done a whole bunch of them in training before the day (there's certainly time for this).

Good luck!

1. 10% increase per week will double in ~8 weeks, but factor in a couple of consolidation weeks every 4 weeks to give you 10 weeks to double a distance. So 5km to ~21km would be 20 weeks or 5 months.

[Polar Bear]

All a lot of sense there Greenbank and in line with my own thinking.

I am looking for a 10k target for Easter and hope to put in a couple of half marathons in training by late September / early October before tapering back a couple of weeks before the actual event itself.     

Intervals is something that I never did in the past but I could be interested just for variety.  Initially I'll be more focused on getting steadily up to 21.1k using the 10% rule on my long run whilst beginning to stretch a couple of the shorter runs resulting in Parkrun eventually becoming the shortest run of the week.   

Having all the data at the touch of a button and viewable on Garmin Connect is a real bonus.   In my previous long distance running phase (1986 - 1998)* I would record all manner of stuff in paper diaries and later onto spreadsheets.   Just plugging the device in and getting everything is somewhat awesome.     

* A serious leg break / ankle dislocation in August 1998 whilst mountain biking saw the end of the serious running.   I have dabbled from time to time but never really got back in fully. 

[Greenbank]

Intervals is something that I never did in the past but I could be interested just for variety.  Initially I'll be more focused on getting steadily up to 21.1k using the 10% rule on my long run whilst beginning to stretch a couple of the shorter runs resulting in Parkrun eventually becoming the shortest run of the week.   

Intervals will get you faster in a shorter period of time.

You may not want to run long distances faster, but if you have the capability to do so then you can run long distances at your target pace but keep well within yourself and be more comfortable on the day.

Put it another way, without intervals you could do all of your training and on the day get round the HM in, say, 2h30. It'd feel ok for the first 10km (and you're wondering what the fuss was about) but then get progressively harder as the fatigue sets in and for the last couple of km it feels like hard work.

Or, having done a load of interval training along the way, you would be fast enough to aim for, say, 2h10. If you actually ran 2h10 you'd probably find it feels very similar to the above description, instead if you aim for 2h30 then you'll be far more comfortable as you'll be running almost 1min/km slower than you are trained for, and that's huge.

More importantly, you don't have to do fast long runs with intervals. The longest intervals I did had involved 8km of hard running (I never quite got to the 6x1600m interval session it seems), 1km warm up jog, 1km cool down jog and about 1km of walking between intervals: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1068148304 (HR wasn't that high for intervals but GC says it was 7 deg C that day which is probably why).

[sojournermike]

Intervals is something that I never did in the past but I could be interested just for variety.  Initially I'll be more focused on getting steadily up to 21.1k using the 10% rule on my long run whilst beginning to stretch a couple of the shorter runs resulting in Parkrun eventually becoming the shortest run of the week.   

Intervals will get you faster in a shorter period of time.

You may not want to run long distances faster, but if you have the capability to do so then you can run long distances at your target pace but keep well within yourself and be more comfortable on the day.

Put it another way, without intervals you could do all of your training and on the day get round the HM in, say, 2h30. It'd feel ok for the first 10km (and you're wondering what the fuss was about) but then get progressively harder as the fatigue sets in and for the last couple of km it feels like hard work.

Or, having done a load of interval training along the way, you would be fast enough to aim for, say, 2h10. If you actually ran 2h10 you'd probably find it feels very similar to the above description, instead if you aim for 2h30 then you'll be far more comfortable as you'll be running almost 1min/km slower than you are trained for, and that's huge.

More importantly, you don't have to do fast long runs with intervals. The longest intervals I did had involved 8km of hard running (I never quite got to the 6x1600m interval session it seems), 1km warm up jog, 1km cool down jog and about 1km of walking between intervals: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1068148304 (HR wasn't that high for intervals but GC says it was 7 deg C that day which is probably why).

I once paced a mate around HM in with a target time of 90 mins. He thought we were going too slowly at mile 3 (we were bang on pace), but had changed his mind by mile 10;) (still bang on pace). he only lost 1 minute in the last 3, but given he is an international standard off road endurance racer, the change of pace  has a significant impact.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I fully accept the value of intervals.

Anyone have any clever ideas for improving muscle and tendon toughness? That was always my limitation. Not shin soreness but just general wear down and soreness that stopped me from running further than a half marathon.

[simonp]

First time I tried running intervals I ended up with peroneal tendinitis and stopped running for 6 weeks.

YMMV. You need to build up to them. Most advocate 80% of training should be at moderate intensity.

[sojournermike]

Build intervals slowly - if you head out and do 10x100 hard then you can expect, at the least, to be unable to walk downstairs for a few days as your calves will no longer work. At worst, you'll shuffle on painful achilles for weeks or months.

If you're in PB's position of starting after a long time off, then I'd suggest a bit of fartlek/'speedplay' once a week would be a sensible start - the usual stuff just upping the pace a bit for a minute or so, or accelerating between lampposts. I suspect on the the challenges as we age is that we get less flexible and resilient, so a bit of care is no bad thing.

I should say that interval training is my favourite type. It's just that there's a need to be a bit careful about the effort levels as you build the strength and toughness. Mr Charly, just do fartlek and take it easy. It just takes time. Worth having properly easy days afterwards too. The other thing to be careful of is that CV tends to respond faster than muscle/soft tissue, which responds faster than bone to training load, hence the common 6 to 12 week injury issues faced when we start (again). More speed and effort expended before the body is able to take it.

Mike

[Greenbank]

Indeed, I started with 6x800m (90sec walking in between) at 5k pace, and 5x1000m (100sec walking between) and 3x1600m intervals (120sec walking between) both at slightly faster than 10k pace.

6x800m is 4800m so it should really be quite easy at 5k pace (since you can run 5k in one go at that pace).

Adding the subsequent reps to the set is where it gets interesting, my progression was:-
6 x 800m = 4.8km
5 x 1km = 5km
7 x 800m = 5.6km
6 x 1km = 6km
8 x 800m = 6.4km
4 x 1600m = 6.4km
7 x 1km = 7km
9 x 800m = 7.2km
8 x 1km = 8km
5 x 1600m = 8km
10 x 800m = 8km
6 x 1600m = 9.6km (although this is probably more suited to marathon training than HM training)

So that's 15 weeks if after every 3 weeks of intervals you have an easier week where you do a moderate intensity run instead of intervals.

Remember that I suggested adding intervals in about June [for PB], so he should be well into his training by then, have a good handle on his 5k pacing and probably running a long run of at least 10km. I certainly wouldn't recommend adding intervals like the above before your regular training routines include running 10k at least once a week.

[toontra]

This is all good info, especially the suggested interval program.  Thanks Alex.  I'll try working this into my weekly regime and see if makes a difference.

I'm happy trundling along at about 8 - 8.5mph and have worked up to about 30 miles a week with no discernible increase in speed, although I make a pedantic effort in getting a new PB on the Parkrun each September, even if only by a few seconds.  My mistake is probably making all runs the same length and intensity (and even the same course!)

Not really interested in marathons (or even halves).  For me it's more to aid my cycling, but it would be nice to get better/fitter/faster.