High Heart Rate during Long Run

Charlene_1985

Did my weekly long run today, 2 hours. Took it slow and felt good for the entire run. I don't really monitor anything during my run except time and distance from an audio prompt. Anyway, came home and looked at my HR and it was averaging 168BPM. I paced around 9:20 (which is a solid minute slower than my pace runs). Temps were in the 60s but the sun was warm. Slept fine last night. Comparitively, I ran 5.5M @8:10 yesterday and heart rate was 168 (normal for a pace run). Why did this happen? I felt fine except being tired the last 20-25 minutes.

NorthCascades

Probably the warmth and sun?

lporter229

There are a lot of things that can influence your heart rate. Weather, sleep, fuel, hydration, stress, time of month, elevation changes, etc. Also, when running for 2 hours, you will begin to experience cardiac drift. Your heart rate will naturally increase as you run longer.

Theo166

how quickly did it recover to normal levels?

Charlene_1985

Down to 80 within 2-3 minutes. I had to walk almost a mile to get home.

BeeerRunner

My heart rate seems to gradually climb the longer I run. Especially if I'm warm and not drinking too much.

MeanderingMammal

BeeerRunner wrote: »

My heart rate seems to gradually climb the longer I run. Especially if I'm warm and not drinking too much.

Called cardiac drift.

A number of contributing factors, including hydration reducing over the session.

Theo166

So you were doing a pace that should have been aerobic but your heart was beating at anaerobic levels?

I'd suggest a check-up, if you haven't had one recently, and monitor your HR closely on future runs, noting when/why it veers higher than you were expecting based on your effort levels.

MeanderingMammal

Theo166 wrote: »

So you were doing a pace that should have been aerobic but your heart was beating at anaerobic levels?

168bpm shouldn't be anaerobic for a 31yo distance runner

ronocnikral

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Theo166 wrote: »

So you were doing a pace that should have been aerobic but your heart was beating at anaerobic levels?

168bpm shouldn't be anaerobic for a 31yo distance runner

Care to explain? Everything I've read says even well trained distance runners will have a v4 level (which is an indicator of aerobic fitness, but not actually the aerobic threshold) around 170, but usually below. The little I know about the op, it is very likely she is the opposite of "well trained."

Transformations to get to the elite level need to measured in years with the proper training. Which, not to knock the op, it doesn't sound like they are on that training plan. Of course, she could go get physiology testing done and end this debate...

Cherimoose

Charlene_Marie_723 wrote: »

Anyway, came home and looked at my HR and it was averaging 168BPM.
Comparitively, I ran 5.5M @8:10 yesterday and heart rate was 168 (normal for a pace run).

Maybe your monitor is stuck at 168.

Actually it's more likely the cardiac drift mentioned above. Try drinking more water and post an update.

Charlene_1985

I'm not concerned about it just surprised it was as high as it was based but my feelings during the run. I've been a casual runner for years and do some sprint triathlons from time to time. I'm in shape but certainly not an elite athlete. I've just recent (since October) been trying to become a better competitor in the events I enter. My resting HR is in the upper 40s. I'll chalk it up to dehydration and cardiac drift. My slow runs are usually around 140ish but I am new to the south and its heat and humidity.

lporter229

Heat and humidity play a huge factor, even for seasoned athletes, so don't discount that.

FWIW, if you are trying to become a better competitor, I highly recommend picking up a copy of Matt Fitzgerald's "80/20 Running". I made HUGE gains thanks to that book. Granted, it is very humbling at first because it forces you to run at almost embarassing paces, but if you really pay attention to the principles of the book, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish. Like you, I was a casual runner for years. When I realized that a Boston qualifier might actually be in my grasp, I decided to get serious. With the help of that book, I not only qualified for Boston, but did so by 16 minutes. I pretty much attribute it all to the principles of "80/20 Running".

I should also note, Matt Fitzgerald is not the only accomplished runner that promotes this style of training. I just happened to fall into this book. However, the training plans were what really got me to my goal. The key is in the fast finish long run. Huge negative splits!

MeanderingMammal

ronocnikral wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Theo166 wrote: »

So you were doing a pace that should have been aerobic but your heart was beating at anaerobic levels?

168bpm shouldn't be anaerobic for a 31yo distance runner

Care to explain? Everything I've read says even well trained distance runners will have a v4 level (which is an indicator of aerobic fitness, but not actually the aerobic threshold) around 170, but usually below. The little I know about the op, it is very likely she is the opposite of "well trained."

Transformations to get to the elite level need to measured in years with the proper training. Which, not to knock the op, it doesn't sound like they are on that training plan. Of course, she could go get physiology testing done and end this debate...

I suspect we've got a difference in usage. From a coaching perspective a threshold effort should be sustainable for about an hour, so given the pace described for a threshold run as sustaining 168bpm, a reading of 168 is at, or under, threshold. That means it's not anaerobic.

In coaching that would normally be described as threshold, whereas describing an effort as anaerobic would suggest 90% MHR or greater, where gains to VO2Max are generated.

The value of threshold training endures, whereas the value of VO2Max training doesn't. That's why it's only really of value for an A race.

Vladimirnapkin

Two things:
A failing battery on some HR monitors can give some odd readings.

HR is incredibly variable between runners, mostly due to genetic differences. So declaring a certain number aerobic or anaerobic is unwise without a really good understanding of a particular athlete's HR range.