I dusted off my HR monitor on Saturday and did my local park 5k (very hilly). I worked as hard as I usually do, which means that, as usual, I felt like puking at the end.
I've never worn a HR monitor before on this run, but, looking at my Garmin stats later, I found that most of run I hovered at 160bpm+, reaching a max of 175. My max HR is actually 175. I haven't seen a higher number in years. So, I really was working hard.
My Garmin page says that the "training effect" of my run was 5.0, which is "overreaching". What's that?? (I see that 4.0 is "highly improving", which sounds a lot better).
I guess my question is, would my run really have had a better training effect if I hadn't worked so hard? Why?
Some quick background: I'm training for Oli and sprint distance, 'A' races in September, and I'm a bad runner - I really need to get much quicker, and I don't have much time to do it in. I was tired for the rest of Saturday, but fine the following day.
I've never worn a HR monitor before on this run, but, looking at my Garmin stats later, I found that most of run I hovered at 160bpm+, reaching a max of 175. My max HR is actually 175. I haven't seen a higher number in years. So, I really was working hard.
My Garmin page says that the "training effect" of my run was 5.0, which is "overreaching". What's that?? (I see that 4.0 is "highly improving", which sounds a lot better).
I guess my question is, would my run really have had a better training effect if I hadn't worked so hard? Why?
Some quick background: I'm training for Oli and sprint distance, 'A' races in September, and I'm a bad runner - I really need to get much quicker, and I don't have much time to do it in. I was tired for the rest of Saturday, but fine the following day.