Heart rate
298 watchers
Apr 2017
3:45pm, 18 Apr 2017
11,103 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Re HR calculations, I have an estimated max based on what I have seen at the end of a race and adding a bit on. I appreciate its maybe not accurate larkim has it right though, we all respond differently and need to figure out what works best for each of us |
Apr 2017
3:53pm, 18 Apr 2017
1,826 posts
|
larkim
LOL Dvorak!! Sorry, didn't mean to sound patronising (though I do have a habit of doing that in both typed word and face to face - just ask my wife!) I'm genuinely interested in the differentials though. Do the different approaches ever put it in simple terms - follow this route rather than that route as it will make you X% faster / more efficient? And if they don't, is it because none of them are "right" and none of them are "wrong" (accepting that all of them could be executed correctly or incorrectly, and most of this thread is about how to execute HR-based training correctly rather than HR vs P&D vs Furman etc etc). |
Apr 2017
3:58pm, 18 Apr 2017
11,915 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
You were very specific in the parameters, marathon, after twelve months. Therefore as the marathon is a time on feet event. My thoughts are purely time on feet. It has to be volume, volume and more volume, BUT starting gradually and building up. |
Apr 2017
10:37pm, 18 Apr 2017
33,334 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
B I agree with you except 15 plus is long and 70-74% for long. 9-9.15 But sometimes I build and do a progressive 80% so gives me 8.20 pace 90% gives me 6.50 |
Apr 2017
9:13pm, 20 Apr 2017
44 posts
|
Julii
Re maximum HR... The highest I have seen on my monitor is 177. I think maybe real max is 178. So if I say I ran at avg 80% maxHR, that's 80% of 178 = 142. I thought Karvonen formula was for working out zones (1-5c hierarchy), not calculating what is the max. |
Apr 2017
10:38pm, 20 Apr 2017
400 posts
|
J2R
Because it takes into account your resting heart rate, the Karvonen formula changes where the percentages lie. If you have a resting heart rate of 50, say, and a maximum heart rate of 178, 80% of that is 142, as you say. But using the Karvonen formula, that would be 80% of your heart rate reserve of 128 (maximum heart rate of 178 minus resting heart rate of 50), plus resting heart rate, which works out to 152. That's quite a difference.
|
Apr 2017
10:04am, 21 Apr 2017
10,829 posts
|
Chrisull
It's basically the difference for me between 9 minute miling in zone 2 in Karvonen, or walking for zone 2 using MHR to determine zones alone. I'd call that a big difference. I'd say Karvonen works for me. Walking - while nice, doesn't make me a better marathon runner. And the gains to lowering my average HR on runs come more quickly from pursuing a polarised program vs a wholly slow run program. |
Apr 2017
10:50am, 21 Apr 2017
23,865 posts
|
SPR
I pretty sure when I was looking at this back in 2008/9 easy was different percentages for both. My max is whr zones are about 10% different in the standard zones (60 whr = 70 mhr)
|
Apr 2017
10:58am, 21 Apr 2017
23,866 posts
|
SPR
twitter.com
|
Apr 2017
11:17am, 21 Apr 2017
10,834 posts
|
Chrisull
I don't agree with Magness (or perhaps he's not relevant). The difference is not solely about pace. It is between walking and running at 9mm pace. You're right there's only 10-15 bpm difference, but I can average 9mm - 9.45mm at 129bpm in the last month. When I walk the same routes, I can get as high as 125bpm.
|
Related Threads
- Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire. Jul 2023
- Jack daniels marathon plan help May 2014
- Polarized training Jan 2024
- Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate Jan 2021
- No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease Jan 2021
- Resetting Max Heart Rate Dec 2020
- Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal Oct 2020
- Heart rate zones Jul 2020
- Running Heart rate Jun 2020
- Heart Rate monitors Jun 2020