This morning I ran the Miami Half Marathon. Had a solid race, held a strong (for me!) pace all the way through. Finished in 1:48, just shy of my PR (1:44, about 18 months ago).
But when I looked at my HRM after the race (Polar RS800CX) I was shocked. My max heart rate was 192 bpm, or 104% of my max (???), and my average was 174, or 94%. Apparently, I ran the entire race at redline.
Is this possible? Is my HRM on crack? My normal heart rate for long runs is in the low to mid 150s (and yes, I pushed harder during the race than on my typical long runs).
Some info: 29y/o male, 6’4, 220 lb. Followed normal hydration/nutrition routine over past few days and during the race. Hadn’t really run in about 3 weeks (I got hit by a car, gave myself a few weeks to heal up). No injury-related pain during the race, just the typical burn/soreness.
Depending on your range it’s entirely possible. My hr max is about the same and I race around 172 on average for a half, if not higher. I start out alot lower though keep in mind, has the average. I run around 1:28 for a half.
Hmm. That’s reassuring - and, now that you mention it, I did start my HRM a minute or two late, and I was already at 130. Still, though - I’m surprised that I would have been able to sustain my heart rate at 94% of max for the better part of two hours…
I ran a 1/2 marathon last October with an average HR of 178. The temperature was about 40 degrees. I’m 46 years old and do my easy runs with an average heart rate of about 150.
well you weren’t at 94% of max, because as you found out, your max is higher than you thought.
Yeah, very good point. But even then - a quick excel (assuming 192 is my real max) puts my average at 90.6%. Isn’t that still pretty darn high?
Unless my max is something completely different, like rroof suggests. Is there a reliable way to find it? Is there even a point to finding it? Or should I just relax with the knowledge that my race effort was entirely ‘normal’?
I started out averaging 167 the first 6 miles. No way I could sustain it at 172 for the entire race evenly, my Lt is 172, but it averaged out to 172 by the time I was done. So I didn’t hit 170 on the 6th mile and then finished at 183. For reference my max is around 194. I still think I left some out on the course as I finished the last 3.1 in under 20 minutes. I just don’t run enough individual HMs to get the pacing down. it’s usually after swimming and biking.
Also, my normal “average” HR rate on long runs is around 145 at a 7:20 - 7:40 pace this time of year when it’s cool out. 150+ average would be a good bit quicker. Sounds like your max may be higher than you think if you are doing your long runs at that high of an HR. You need to find out what your LT is.
One of the common ways to get your max HR is to race a 5k at a hard pace and do all out sprint at the end. If your hr monitor ltat lines during the sprint and doesn’t go any higher you are probably within a couple beats of your true max hr. I would be surprised if you have enough left in the legs at the end of half to have hit a max hr. So your max may be above the number you saw.
Garmins record the hr throughout the run. Does your polar do that? I think some of the fancier models do. My cheap polar does not so I prefer to use the garmin if I am trying to determine max hr.because I can download to my computer and see the HR flatline at then end.
Also, don’t be surprised your HR is higher in the race. Mine is always 10-15 bbp higher in a race and at a level I would not be comfortable in a normal run, but on race day it does not feel bad. I’m guess it has something to do with the race excitement.
All you’ve found out is that your max is a good degree higher than you thought.
You’ll have to do some short-distance 5k races truly all-out or other time-trial situations to get your new max. It’s entirely possible that your legs limited you in the past from hitting your maxHRs, and now you’re in better shape, yhou can really push the cardio.
I’d guess your max to be near 200-205, based on your HM results.
I did a 10 minute all out run on a track with my current coach. The average is your lt. Funny thing about it is that I had a feeling just based on past experience that it was around 172-174. Seems like the more u train with hr the better u get at it. I can tell within the first mile of a workout based on my hr how the workout is going to go.
I did a 10 minute all out run on a track with my current coach. The average is your lt.
If you or your coach think your LT is your average HR for a 10 minute all out effort on the track, you REALLY need to find a new coach. Really.
The skinny red line is my heart rate, the blocky dark-red line with the shading is altitude, and the blue line is pace (as measured by my G3 gps sensor, which you’ll note I switched on even later). No heart-rate flatlining, which is consistent with everyone’s observation that my max ain’t what I thought it was.
Here is something I struggle with (well I did when I used to train by HR, dont anymore).
But for whatever reason, I never seemed to be able to run at a low HR. IE, my max used to be 209. So at times when I would try and run “easy”, I simply couldnt run easy. My HR would always be up in the 180’s for “easy”. I mean I would have to walk just to keep my HR low, so I always struggled with HR training, so now I simply go on RPE.
174 isn’t so bad as an average. The last Olympic distance I did I finished in 2:16… 30 minutes longer than your 1/2 marathon. My heart rate is over 170 most of the time and peaks over 190 on climbs. It’s probably the lowest during the swim. Not unusual.
