If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
“One of the things you’ll love about running,” Pam told me when I started in April, “are the statistics you generate. You can track as many numbers as you want.” She knows from years of friendship that I’m, well, obsessive about this sort of thing.
In 1997 and 1998, when I was biking most of the summer, I compiled a spreadsheet filled with data. And I track a lot of information about my non-exercise life. (Just imagine how detailed my numbers about web site traffic are!) So it should be no surprise that Pam was right — I do love tracking my running stats. This is made easier with the variety of modern cool tools available to runners.
Here, for example, is a record of the marathon training runs I’ve made on Saturday mornings for the past eight weeks. (With a final line for yesterday’s 10k race.)
As you can see, my first run was a slow four-miler on a cold, wet day in early April. (Well, I guess this table doesn’t show the cold, wet part…) I’ve gradually increased my distance — and my pace — until this weekend I’ll be running fourteen miles (at what I’m guessing will be about 5.00mph). I never would have believed I had it in me just two months ago.
What I find interesting, however — and this is the entire reason I created this particular table — is the data on my heart rate.
The importance of heart rate
Many fitness experts argue that heart rate is the most effective means of targeting specific workouts. After finding your maximum heart rate (MHR) through either actual or theoretical means, you are able to base your fitness regimen on percentages of this number.
For example, one commonly cited means of obtaining the theoretical maximum heart rate for men is to subtract your age from 220. Since I am 39 years old, my theoretical maximum heart rate is 220 minus 39, which is 181 beats per minute. But that’s only theory.
In reality, my maximum heart rate is much different nearly 10% higher than theoretical. In general, my MHR is about 194. I have, however, reached 196 beats per minute on the treadmill recently. (Still, I’m using 194 as my MHR for all calculations.)
Does it matter that my maximum heart rate is high? I don’t know. My resting heart rate is also high. When I wake up in the morning, it’s about 72 beats per minute. Sitting here at my desk, it’s about 75 beats per minute.
Based on your maximum heart rate, researchers have proposed several levels of exercise zones:
- Moderate activity — For warming up and cooling down, one should exercise at between 50% and 60% of their maximum heart rate. For me, that’s between 97bpm and 116bpm.
- Weight control — For maintaining fitness and burning fat, we should aim for a heart rate between 60% and 70% of maximum. For me, that’s a pulse between 116bpm and 136bpm.
- Aerobic — At between 70% and 80% of our maximum heart rate, we’ve entered the endurance training zone, where we training our cardiovascular system to more efficiently transfer oxygen throughout the body.
- Anaerobic — During hardcore training, your heart rate should be between 80% and 90% of your maximum, or between 155bpm and 175bpm for me.
- Maximum effort — When your heart rate exceeds 90% of maximum, you are exercising at full capacity.
More questions than answers
I’ve written all of this simply to note that my heart rates seem unusually high. Not only is my maximum high, but the heart rates I generate when exercising seem high (even when measured as percentages of max). When Matt saw my splits for Monday’s 10k, he was shocked at my heart rate. “That’s insane,” he said.
To be honest, I always fret when I see that my average heart rate for a run was 92% of max. This can’t be good, can it? Am I achieving any physical benefit at all by maintaining this for an hour? When I’m anywhere above 90% heart rate, I’m usually struggling to breathe well, and that was certainly the case during Monday’s race.
And what about my marathon training runs? My average heart rate there is about 81% of my maximum, which puts me just out of the aerobic zone. Is that okay?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. I need to find out. I’m pretty much a fitness novice. I’ve never approached exercise in a scientific fashion — I’ve just gone out and done it. But I have to wonder if I might not improve my overall performance long-term if I’d spend some time exercising at lower heart rates. (Sort of like establishing an emergency fund before paying off debt?)
For now, I’m going to keep training at the same pace with my weekend group, but I’ll ease up a little on my mid-week runs. I’ll still do one day of quick stuff, but I’ll spend two days at a very easy jog.
Next week, by popular request, I’ll share information on my heart rate monitors. Yes, I used a plural there. I love my GPS-enabled monitor, and would be happy to review it. Also, I’ve had requests to write about my experiments with ice baths, and about how I recovered from shin splints. I’m finally starting to write articles with useful information around here!
Mac
10 responses so far ↓
1 J.D. // May 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm
2 Amy Jo // May 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm
This might seem like a really odd question, but have you had your iron levels tested recently? When I was in the hospital, after my c-section, my ob-gyn commented that my resting heart rate was high but my blood pressure was very low. She attributed this to my anemia . . .
3 Rich // May 27, 2008 at 4:55 pm
JD, it looks like you have a Garmin watch. Why not use the free option for Motionbased.com and share your runs and rides (at least the ten most recent) with us? The screenshots of the training center are cool, but I find the website output to be truly spectacular.
Congrats on finishing your first 10K race, and good luck as you prepare for your first marathon. Mine will be about the same time as yours, although I am now done training for my runs as I gear up for the Pan-Mass Challenge, a huge cycling fundraiser here in Massachusetts. But I’ll still come back, if for nothing else than to hear about these ice baths, a training tool I’ve avoided to date.
4 Peter // May 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I’ve got the same problem. I’m 26, so theoretically my MHR should be 194, but I’ve reached 205 before. I’m not terribly overweight or out of shape either (6′1”, 19o lbs). Apparently it’s not an uncommon phenomena. The ‘220-age’ rule is just an average. The standard deviation is about 12 bpm, so your MHR could easily be 24 bpm higher or lower than that.
At least that’s what I read in this article (not mine): http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=3705
Keep up the god work!
5 Jolene // May 27, 2008 at 7:45 pm
J.D. - I trained with a marathon group in Denver a couple years ago. I stopped half way through because my knee hurt too much from the impact of daily running. Now I walk almost every day, which I love, but I’m not much of a runner.
With that said, and for whatever its worth (since I’m not a runner) there were two theories I really liked when I was running.
1. John Douillard’s theory about nose breathing. He trains athletes (he lives in Boulder) to slow their heart rate through nose breathing. Often they have to back off of their normal pace for a couple weeks, but once the breathing and heartrate re-set they take minutes off their times. He lays out the protocol in his book, Body, Mind, Sport. The book goes into some Ayurvedic principles that I’m not really interested in, but I found his heart rate training ideas very interesting!
2. I’m not sure what you and your readers think of Jeff Galloway’s theory? I tried his stuff during my training and had good results. He has people run for so many minutes then walk for so many minutes, I can’t remember the exact ratio.
I think some people thought it wasn’t for the “real” runner but he has whole marathon training books about the benefit of training this way. Resting the muscles and heart for a couple minutes throughout the race by alternating running and walking. By planning short rest and recovery periods people actually gained time instead of losing time. His material explains it much better than I am doing. As strange as it sounds I do remember not being as tired at the end and my race times were just as good or better than if I ran the 10K straight through?
Anyway, just my 2 cents for some alternative heart rate, pace theories.
Congrats on your race yesterday!
6 Wendy // May 28, 2008 at 5:11 am
Thanks for posting about your heart rate. Although I don’t own a monitor, my heart rate is always very high on the treadmill sensor at the gym. For a while I just chalked it up to a poor method of measuring heart rate, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I have currently a Garmin 205 to track my running stats. What I really want is the 405 that will also measure heart rate. Due to the expense though, I’ve been toying with picking up some other heart rate monitor. I’d love to see some reviews of the things you’ve tried.
7 Sarah // May 28, 2008 at 5:30 am
Just wanted to say that the same thing happens to me. I’ve been running for about 7 years now and I just completed 3 half-marathons. My resting heart rate is about 72. When I run at a comfortable pace my heart rate is about 172-175 and if I’m over my anaerobic threshold my heart rate will be as high as 186. I’ve never understood the heart rate training rules for this reason.
I will say that the only way I have gotten faster and in better shape is through three things: steady practice, losing about 5 pounds (made a big difference!), and trying to spend about 50% of each run pushing myself just to the edge of being uncomfortable (for me that’s a heart rate in the upper 170s - low 180s instead of the lower 170s). Good luck and stick with it — your numbers are moving in the right direction and you should really be proud of yourself!
8 Brigid // May 28, 2008 at 11:50 am
I’ve done four full marathons using the Galloway method and it’s worked very well for me. They don’t encourage maximum effort during the long runs. The rule of thumb - don’t mix speed with long slow distance (LSD).
As far as whether or not your heart rate is “bad”, you should really consult with a doctor. As your heart grows stronger, theoretically your resting heart rate should go down as your heart will pump blood more efficiently through your system. How long it takes to see improvement is largely a factor of current fitness, diet, age, genetics , etc. , etc. I would at least get a VO2 test - the info you get from that will be more accurate than figuring it off an age chart.
Great job on the race BTW. May just want to start off a bit slower next time so you can avoid the “I want to vomit” factor. Plus, you will have a better time if you start slower. It seem counter-intuitive, but the energy you save up for the second half of the race totally makes up for any time you lose in the first half.
9 Mark // Jun 5, 2008 at 7:48 am
Maximum heart rate is really hard to determine and is completely different for everyone. Two people of the same age can have vastly different max heart rates. Also, max heart rate is different depending on the exercise you are doing (running will usually produce a higher max than cycling). I was a former runner, now cyclist, and my heart rate max is different for each activity.
The only real way to determine your real max is basically to totally max out your effort, almost to the point that you puke at the end. I have done that on my bike and have seen 186 before I saw stars
I try to do most of my training at 70-80% of max to build fitness and endurance but I will do intervals at 90-95% from time to time.
Congratulations on your progress so far. Keep it up!
10 Roundup for Week of June 01 | Health, Fitness, Exercise, and Weight Loss (47 pounds in 7 weeks) // Jun 9, 2008 at 12:11 pm
[...] by Get Fit Slowly this week is Learning to Use Heart Rate Zones for Exercise. I could sure use this guide to find my own Maximum Heart Rate and apply to different exercise [...]
Leave a Comment