Help With Heart Rate Training

Moonbeamofsun

I am looking for tips, tricks, apps, and recommendations on Heart Rate Training. I looked back into some older posts but couldn’t find any recent posts.

I used to run a lifetime ago and have been getting back into it this past year. I started off running a block or two at a time this summer and have now worked my way into a comfortable 3 mile run in about 6 months.

I have an Apple Watch and started to pay closer attention to my heart rate as I get more fit to track my progress. A mile or two of running feels easy. I’m not fatigued or out of breath but my heart rate average is about 90% max HR consistently on runs while bouncing between hitting max HR and dipping down a bit (running hills). My walking average is closer to a 75-85% max HR. Casual walking around 60%

Do I need to stop running and get back to walking and work my HR down in the 50-75% zone and then reintroduce jogging? Or is this normal?

It is odd to run an easy mile or 2 and feel like I could run forever but have my watch stats tell me I’m working too hard when I feel like I’m already slacking in a jog.

ninerbuff

MAX heartrate is just a guideline based on age. There are MANY MANY people who are much more fit than easily surpass the MAX heartrate guideline in their age limits. If you're really concerned, you can get it measured accurately by treadmill stress test. Many hospitals like Kaiser Permanente will do it if you're a member.

If not that, then here's another way: https://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-to-calculate-your-max-heart-rate-youre-probably-d-1683716934

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

sijomial

If you are consistently at "90% max HR" and not feeling fatigued or out of breath your max HR is probably quite different to what you or your device are assuming.

Have you done a Max HR test as many people are far from their age-related average number?

Alternatively use perceived exertion, if you aren't tired you aren't tired no matter what a gizmo tells you!

AnnPT77

ninerbuff wrote: »

MAX heartrate is just a guideline based on age. There are MANY MANY people who are much more fit than easily surpass the MAX heartrate guideline in their age limits. If you're really concerned, you can get it measured accurately by treadmill stress test. Many hospitals like Kaiser Permanente will do it if you're a member.

If not that, then here's another way: https://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-to-calculate-your-max-heart-rate-youre-probably-d-1683716934

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

If KP is doing it as an exercise test, they may give useful results. Based on my personal experience with a *medical* (not sports) test, I'd hate to have anyone *assume* that the results from a non-sports-focused stress test were telling them HRmax for exercise purposes. On my medically-focused test, they made me stop around age-estimated HRmax, even though I still had plenty of breath to argue with them about it at the time. That's not HRmax. 😆

OP, sijomial's right. If you feel totally fine at your "max heart rate", that's not your max heart rate. My age-estimated HRmax by the common 220-age is 155. In reality, 155 is only around 80% heart rate reserve, because my sports-tested max is around 180. That's not even a particularly huge discrepancy, and discrepancies are common. It's mostly genetic, not mostly about athletic history (though I believe people who stay active as they age tend to decline slower in HRmax as they age, compared to inactive people).

Get a sports test, do a submaximal performance test to get a better estimate of HRmax (there are DIY, or do-with-a-friend ones) if you have decent base conditioning (don't do it IMO if not in reasonable CV condition: build base first), or use RPE.

Djproulx

I use a chest strap HR monitor to capture my HR during workouts and the info is synced to a training app that my coach uses to both set up appropriate workouts and then track my performance to measure rising fitness, training fatigue, etc. In order to establish HR training zones, we "test" periodically to determine my threshold levels, from which training zones are set. Typically a 5k test is done every 8 weeks or so to ensure we have updated data.
If you wanted to do something like this, I'm sure a web search of "Heart Rate Zone Training" would turn up some useful results.

Now with that said, my thought is unless you're training for an endurance event, using RPE may be just as good and easier(Rate of Perceived Exertion). I've worked with several running coaches and they have had great success with athletes who use the RPE method.

Two basic concepts seem to capture the essence of this approach:

1. Most of the runs should be Easy.(80% of them.) This is defined as runs done at a "conversational pace" that allows you to talk to a running partner without losing your breath. If you can't do that, then slow down your pace.

2. The other thing that both coaches drilled into their runners was: Build distance first, then speed. And distance should only be increased gradually, as in adding no more than 10% to your long run each week. Other runs stay the same.

It sounds like you're making great progress in running. While pursuing a Heart Rate zone training approach is very doable, it is certainly not necessary. Your distance and run times will improve and that provides a solid indication of improvement.

spiriteagle99

I am another whose maximum is quite different from the average. On most of my easy runs I average about 164, with maximums in the 180s when going up hills. (I'm 64.) As long as I can finish the run I had planned without wearing out or slowing down, I consider myself good. If you feel good while running and feel that you could go farther at the end, then you're fine.

scorpio516

Without proper zones, it'll be worthless to train by HR.

1 way: The Joe Friel method, it's pretty much the standard
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones/

2nd: Talk test from Matt Fitzgerald
https://www.8020endurance.com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/
halfway down the page.

Once you have the LTHR, you can set your zones - LTHR is the change over from Z4 to Z5

Djproulx

scorpio516 wrote: »

Without proper zones, it'll be worthless to train by HR.

1 way: The Joe Friel method, it's pretty much the standard
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones/

2nd: Talk test from Matt Fitzgerald
https://www.8020endurance.com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/
halfway down the page.

Once you have the LTHR, you can set your zones - LTHR is the change over from Z4 to Z5

Exactly! I had a brain fart and forgot to mention these guys as sources.

Moonbeamofsun

Thank you for all your replies and information @ninerbuff @sijomial @AnnPT77 @Djproulx @spiriteagle99 @scorpio516

All of this info helps a lot. Having a smart watch has been a blessing and a curse. Before having one I didn’t think twice about pushing myself too hard, steps, or heart rate. You just push until you can do it. Now with so much data available and adding that I just turned 35 and am not in my early 20s anymore it’s the perfect storm for worrying I’m doing something wrong.

AnnPT77

Moonbeamofsun wrote: »

Thank you for all your replies and information @ninerbuff @sijomial @AnnPT77 @Djproulx @spiriteagle99 @scorpio516

All of this info helps a lot. Having a smart watch has been a blessing and a curse. Before having one I didn’t think twice about pushing myself too hard, steps, or heart rate. You just push until you can do it. Now with so much data available and adding that I just turned 35 and am not in my early 20s anymore it’s the perfect storm for worrying I’m doing something wrong.

As long as your doctor clears you for intense exercise, IMO there's not a big reason to worry about pushing yourself.

Sure, overdoing intensity (in terms of duration and frequency) will be less effective from a training perspective; could make it more likely to experience overtraining symptoms (which could potentially involve health risks like reduced immune function); and is potentially counter-productive for weight management (through fatigue-based reduced activity or exercise performance); but likelihood of severe, life-threatening acute consequences is pretty low, if healthy overall . . .

. . . especially in a mere youth such as yourself, at 35. (I'm 65, which I implied, but didn't state, in my PP.)

I'm not saying you believe this, but too many people seem to believe that there's some inherent risk in reaching up into the upper ranges of heart rate - that the age-estimated HRmax is a limit we *shouldn't* exceed, rather than an estimate of a limit we *can't* exceed**. Absent some problem preexisting health condition, there's mostly not acute risk. It can be a bad plan even in health/fitness terms - more risky - for someone new to working out, IMU, but with a reasonable fitness base in place, and medical clearance for intensity, regular recreational athletes can go there.

** Yes, some urgent health conditions result in observed HR higher than tested HRmax. I'm talking normal conditions.