Slower heart rate for faster run

Accurate measurement   3 votes - 50 %
Measurement glitch   3 votes - 50 %
 
6 Total Votes
You appear to be doing it right by lm (4.00 / 2) #1 Sun Nov 05, 2017 at 11:07:19 AM EST
"A week ago ran same route with average 167, peak 190. Now with a a faster run the heary rate was average 135, peak 154, so slower heart rate for a faster run."

That's what you want to see. Part of it is your body is learning to be more efficient. Another part is that the intervals should help lower your base heart rate.

Your results aren't outside of the range of what would expect if you're taking raining even half way seriously.

That said, infrared HRMs on wrists are typically pretty accurate at rest and low intensity exercise and tend to lose accuracy as intensity increases. If your device isn't accurate, I would expect it to probably not be accurate in the same way during most of your runs.

Of course, good old fashioned chest straps with electrodes are far more accurate.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
Up to a point by Herring (4.00 / 1) #2 Sun Nov 05, 2017 at 05:27:08 PM EST
Depends how you are training. I always found it difficult to maintain a high HR when training (or the turbo for instance) but in a 10 mile TT I could go much harder. Something about having an old bloke in hi-viz with a stopwatch at the end.

On the turbo trainer, I'd get up to a HR of maybe 170bpm and after 10 minutes think "fuck this". With even a club 10, I could get a HR starting around 180 (after easing in) and ramping up to 188 at the finish.

When I was at my fittest, it was mostly from doing 2-3 TTs a month - varying in distance from 10 miles to 100 miles. Then I had a resting HR about 44bpm but was able to hold high 160s for a couple of hours.

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

[ Parent ]
Well, yeah. by lm (4.00 / 1) #3 Sat Nov 11, 2017 at 05:08:49 PM EST
I was presuming that TE is doing most of his running in HR zone 2 where he should be. Most endurance athletes do most of their training in zone 2 save for speed work in zone 4. Races are another matter entirely. Elite athletes plan for that by scheduling time to rest after a race.

But if you train in zone 3, sure, you'll get faster peak speeds and a faster heart rate.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Hmm. by Herring (4.00 / 1) #4 Sun Nov 12, 2017 at 03:37:22 PM EST
When I was fit, I wasn't doing much Zone 2 training - except maybe the club run. Mostly going at it in zones 4 - 6. Not very scientific but long, easy rides are time consuming.

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

[ Parent ]
Just done some calcs by Herring (4.00 / 1) #5 Sun Nov 12, 2017 at 03:49:57 PM EST
And for my 100 mile PB, I had an average HR of 160 which is at 80% for nearly 5 hours (well, 4:46:16).

Yes, it was hard.

One of the people from the district committee I sit on broke the Women's 100 mile record this year. She rode 3:42:37. Gulp. She's got a full time job (teacher) and I have no idea how she finds the time to train.

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

[ Parent ]
Have you ever taken a holiday in Tanzania? by lm (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Nov 15, 2017 at 06:17:30 AM EST
I think that perhaps you've been bitten by a mutant Tanzanian devil.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Hmm by Herring (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Nov 15, 2017 at 01:29:59 PM EST
I've not done a (serious) triathlon, but time trials on the bike are all about trying to find that edge - going as hard as you can but not so hard that you can't finish.

This is why I hate 10 mile TTs. Because you're going so hard that by the end you feel dizzy and nauseous.

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

[ Parent ]