Heart rate
298 watchers
Jan 2019
10:19am, 22 Jan 2019
13,909 posts
|
Chrisull
Ta Bazo and G. Makes sense, so I'm not upending orthodoxy at all, kind of reinforcing it :-). Yes HR does go up on hills, but by smaller amounts , and takes less time to come down again. I suppose the key is knowing at one point you need change, or which program is likely to benefit. As my target race is at beginning of March, it's not the worst time to be seeing such improvements and stepping it up.
|
Jan 2019
10:22am, 22 Jan 2019
30,179 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
All sounds positive Chris, I think you've possibly just taken one of those steps up that we sometimes see, in the non-linear progression of fitness and performance. Bodes well.  G
|
Jan 2019
12:32pm, 22 Jan 2019
13,958 posts
|
Bazoaxe
HADD only has 2 of those runs a week so you did break the rule slightly
|
Jan 2019
2:28pm, 23 Jan 2019
1,789 posts
|
J2R
Interesting, although perhaps unsurprising, observation about the effect of alcohol on heart rate last night. I jogged just over a mile to the pub, where I drank a lot more than I normally would - 3 pints of 4.3% alcohol cider, in fact. On the way back, running at pretty well the same pace, my heart rate was 12bpm higher! (Lesson learned - don't have 3 pints of cider immediately before an important race).
|
Jan 2019
5:58pm, 23 Jan 2019
17,119 posts
|
Dvorak
I think even "enthusiasts" would normally rule that out, J2R ok before a Cat C race then. Maybe the increase was down to the extra weight?
|
|
Jan 2019
12:05pm, 24 Jan 2019
1,791 posts
|
J2R
Yes, there was definitely more weight. More likely just my body trying to process something it sees as a poison, though! Chrisull, I found your observations very interesting. I have to say that I find that I occasionally need to do a period of faster stamina building stuff - maybe a series of 10K races, or a couple of fast finish long runs, to take my fitness up to another level. I don't think I'd be wanting to do it week in, week out, though. I would love to get a definitive answer, for myself, as to whether I gain more fitness long term from doing my easy runs at the top end of the easy band (getting on for 80%) than from something more like 65-70%. Never been able to say for certain. Having said that, assuming that training in the 80% area allows as good a recovery as 70% (which is the key question), then the obvious advantage of doing so is that you cover more miles in the same training time, and mileage is beneficial. The whole question of heart rate and perceived effort is a curiously awkward one to get a clear picture of. I often go on respiration instead of HR as a marker for zone boundaries, but a couple of days ago I was running with my usual 'easy' 3 steps breathing in, 3 steps breathing out pattern, but rather faster than usual, and noticed my HR was 155, which is something like 88% of my HRmax. I have no idea what this means, but it seems odd. |
Feb 2019
10:45am, 28 Feb 2019
6,829 posts
|
larkim
I finally got around to installing an app on my watch which allows for HRV monitoring (cost of 2 dollars, just something to play around with). I need to read around a bit about how to interpret the data / when to monitor / how to monitor etc, but I've come to work with the chest strap on and had the app running on my phone all morning. HRV has been consistently at 40 most of the morning, which I get the impression is on the low side. That seems to conflict with feeling well, fitness generally being on the upside and work stress etc being fairly normal. Clearly figures on their own mean little outside of general trends etc, but just wondered if that sort of figure was within the range of tolerance that others have experienced. I still can't quite get my head around the fact that a very regular heart beat with little variation beat to beat is a "bad" thing - my natural inclination would have been to see irregularity as being less comfortable - but I can plug that knowledge gap through some more reading. Anyone with a good understanding of HRV able to share experience / point me in a sensible direction. |
Feb 2019
11:30am, 28 Feb 2019
3,318 posts
|
Sigh
Hi Larkim - FWIW, here's the data from my Garmin yesterday (using optical): RHR was 49, Avge HR was 51. |
|
Feb 2019
11:35am, 28 Feb 2019
30,549 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
What does HRV of "40" mean? 40 whats?! Why is less variation bad and more is good? How does the device or app remove "bad data" (of which there can be lots as we all know, both optical and chest, for different reasons). Sigh, I think larks is asking about HRVariation rather than just HR? G
|
|
Feb 2019
11:55am, 28 Feb 2019
14,107 posts
|
Chrisull
Which watch do you have larks? How rock solid is the HRV data you are getting? I thought the apps were meant to be potentially flakier than optical HRMs. Is it watch monitoring you? I tried via an iphone app but it just seemed like a random number generator.
|
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
