So I start off running and within a mile or so my HR creeps into the mid 170s then to the lower 180s. i.e. 183-184…and it stays there. I can run a half marathon at that zone, but it sucks… I can lower my pace but the HR stays up, unless I just completely walk. And if I walk and let it drop down to whatever lets say 120, i can immediately jump it right back up when I start running again. So unless I am going walk everything, I need some advice and thoughts. I know I’ve put on 15+ lbs since September and IM training, but this has been an issue for awhile, Im about 5’11" and 170 lbs usually, Im a little rounder at the moment. I’m normally around an 8-8:30 pace, so this was a little slower run, but dont tell my HR that! I attached a pace over HR image. Pace goes down HR stays pretty much the same. Any thoughts? Any training plans or links? Anything would help, Thanks!!
You are obviously not running a flat course, so of coarse your HR will vary in and out of sync with your speed.
Looks pretty normal to me for somebody who runs at that pace.
Oops…42 years old. This is just one run posted, but my concern is the high rate of HR not the flucuation. Maybe I just need to lose a little weight, run a little more, and drink more water.
Everyone is different… at 41 years old I top out at 174 bpm (and would be suffering like crazy to get there). With short interval work I would be in high 160’s. No way I could do anything at 180 never mind a sustained run / pace.
It seems you have a baseline. What would you have expected to be at? How does your resting HR compare now vs prior state?
Are you using and optical monitor or a strap? When I first got my vivoactive3, I was only using the optical. I think that it was picking up my cadence. My HR would be like 160 right away. I got a strap, and for me it seemed more representative at 140ish. Another thing to consider.
How often do you run and what does it feel like when you run at that pace? I will assume when you do these runs at 8:30ish pace they are probably more difficult/intense for you?
If you are just starting out running and getting in shape then I think you probably need to keep a lot of your runs easy (like actually easy for you and not because you think your pace is slow compared to others). That will put you in a much lower HR zone. This is just a guess, but I would think in the range of 120-140s. Somewhere in there probably is your Zone 2, but you would need to verify that with a test or if your just using the 220 - age thing its probably in there.
Verified it by a Garmin HR Run chest strap, and a Vivo HR . Both were right on the same line. I have been slacking on workouts, But Ive been running for 7 years and 3 IMs in the past 4 years. I ran a half marathon 2 weeks ago. So while not in my best shape, still somewhat active. I cant determine if I need more Zone 2 workouts or just accept it for what it is and keep on doing my thing. That posted run was just one of many, that wasnt a first time thing, it seems like I live in Zone 4-5 no matter what, unless I am walking. But maybe for me my zone 5 is way higher and I should adjust accordingly.
Over the past year, I’ve been using HR as a guide for most of the 6-8 athletes I coach so that they go easier on the easy days. I would go easier on the easier days. Seems like a lot of their runs were generally probably too much in the gray area for a lot of the year. Keep the easy easy. I’m running right now using the MAF HR as a rough guide for me. 180 - (Age - 5). That means I try to keep the majority of my few runs a week below a HR of 141.
Verified it by a Garmin HR Run chest strap, and a Vivo HR . Both were right on the same line. I have been slacking on workouts, But Ive been running for 7 years and 3 IMs in the past 4 years. I ran a half marathon 2 weeks ago. So while not in my best shape, still somewhat active. I cant determine if I need more Zone 2 workouts or just accept it for what it is and keep on doing my thing. That posted run was just one of many, that wasnt a first time thing, it seems like I live in Zone 4-5 no matter what, unless I am walking. But maybe for me my zone 5 is way higher and I should adjust accordingly.
Hey, gabe. Everybody’s born with a certain set of plumbing that leads to their HR being high, low, or whatever. It isn’t indicative of your fitness, or anything else, if it scales when working out and recovers afterwards. Don’t worry about it at all. Don’t use 220-age, it’s total bullshit and is only accurate for one year of your life when the graph crosses your actual max HR :-). Just find out what your zones are and use them.
Taking a Vo2max test is a good way to find or confirm your pysiological max HR. I’ve taken two and the number was the same for me both times (one running, one cycling). If you can keep going for the duration of a half marathon at a given HR, it’s probably just over your LT, and is in no way any problem for you.
For example: if your average for a half marathon is 180, your max is likely ~200. That means, depending on how you measure or calculate your dones, that your Zone 2 is 120-140bpm (Polar, 60-70%) or 130-150bpm (others, 65-75%). So quit sweating it that you can’t do anything at 110-120bpm. That’s unrealistic for you, and if you monitor 24/7, you’ll probably find that it gets that high when walking up stairs or watching football
When I was younger, my heart rate would always be around 188 beats per minute while working out.
I am 53 now, and my heart rate is still quite high at 178 bpm.
Yep. In my 30’s (using a Polar strap and the wrist unit that measured it) I would train in the high 160’s/low 170’s and racing in the 180’s for anything under 10K. Showing a peak around 200 was no big deal. I stopped measuring HR until a few years ago when I bought a Schoche optical strap and now in my late 50’s my training HR is around 140 and my racing HR is about 165. The feeling is the same from what I remember 25 years ago, the difference is now my Garmin counts seconds faster than my old Timex Ironman back then so I appear to be slower.
Everyone has their own HR, BUT all things being equal, I’d rather have a low one vs high. Mine would be 180-195 pretty consistently. I did a 10k in April 2017 and topped out at 203. Last October i started working with a coach and for 3+ months in the offseason the focus was on doing EASY runs to keep my HR below 150. If it got to 150 I had to slow down. Walk, or stop even until it went down. And then continue. It was REALLY frustrating but by this summer I could do pretty steady runs (not aggressive, but not lollygagging either) and my HR would be pegged consistently between 145-150.
During races or harder training, the chains come off and the 150 cap goes out the window. But after spending time “training†that way, my HR was a good bit lower during hard workouts and races than before.
Everyone has their own HR, BUT all things being equal, I’d rather have a low one vs high. Mine would be 180-195 pretty consistently. I did a 10k in April 2017 and topped out at 203. Last October i started working with a coach and for 3+ months in the offseason the focus was on doing EASY runs to keep my HR below 150. If it got to 150 I had to slow down. Walk, or stop even until it went down. And then continue. It was REALLY frustrating but by this summer I could do pretty steady runs (not aggressive, but not lollygagging either) and my HR would be pegged consistently between 145-150.
During races or harder training, the chains come off and the 150 cap goes out the window. But after spending time “training†that way, my HR was a good bit lower during hard workouts and races than before.
Oh, yeah, absolutely, don’t get me wrong: training in a lower zone is helpful, going easy is super important, and knowing what constitutes easy for you is the key factor here. Well done
