Home Chat General Chat

Training with Heart Rates

Hi, I am new here and 1st season in Triathlons this year.



I have just purchased a HR monitor and did first run with it this morning and it did not go according to plan so I wanted to get some advice from any experts at this forum..



My resting heart rate is pretty low, around 40 BPM which can indicate I am quite fit, I have been mainly cycling and swimming and not really got into run training properly, but still pretty fit when it comes to cycling/swimming.



So today I intended to run in HR zone at 75% of MHR, with my resting heart rate at 40, and using a formula I found, using resting heart rate and age, 75% should be around152 BPM.



However, for a 30 minute run at what I would call 75% pace of which I could do that distance run, my HR was around 170 BPM.



What does this indicate ?



Is it possible to be much fitter at cycling and therefore keep HR down at higher physical effort and find at running it get's much higher ?



I am not sure what to do now because if I tried to run at 152 BPM (75% of MHR) I would almost be walking.



Any advice appreciated - THANKS.

Comments

  • vale46vale46 Posts: 6
    hi, i had the same thing and the answer i got was: not specifically fit for runnning . . Did you use Karvonen formula? That's the best one to use. I slowed down my run speed to about 9.5km/h on a treadmill for about 4-6 weeks, HR was about 135-142 for my zones, then i upped it to 10km/h and HR stayed the same . . I did the same with times ie: 20min then 25min then 30 etc. . . Now i'm up to 75min at 10km/h (treadmill speeds) at HR 132-136. . . It worked really well for me . . Check out Joe Friel Triathlon Training Bible . . Good luck!
  • chischis Posts: 94
    The rule of thumb you have used is ok for starters and should give you a guide to get your running training with your HRM going. You probably know that your 75% of MHR for cycling will be much lower than the 75% for running - if you have assumed that they would be the same this could explain why your rate was up at 170 when you were running. However if you were already aware of this could it be that your lack of running has meant that your idea of the pace you were doing did not match the actual effort you had to put in to achieve it- as you run more your HR for the same pace will fall dramatically as you get fitter in that discipline.



    Just a thought, but did your calculation take account of your resting HR - if not, it should have done as in the example below:



    Example: The athlete's MHR is 180 and their RHR is 60 - determine the 70% value

    [ul][*]MHR - RHR = 180 - 60 = 120

    [*]70% of 120 = 84

    [*]84 + RHR = 84 + 60 = 144 bpm [/ul]

    Hope this is of some use.



    chis
  • SKMRSKMR Posts: 5
    Thanks for the advice, confirmed what I thought. I also just finished a chat with a fitness instructer I know and he also suspected I had been training way to much at high intensity and not enough in lower training zones, which can cause you HR's to be quite high in training



    I am going to do an active (stress test) with him to calculate my MHR and then take it from there, once I know what my real MHR is, I will have to trust to stay in the correct training zone, even if that feels slow.... seems especially in the run, where I am not fit enough..



    P.S this seems like a good forum !
  • jeanmongjeanmong Posts: 23
    HI, A good read would be "Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot" by J Parker.

    [/b]I understood that my hard runs ( Tempo, or speed intervals training) were not hard enough, and that long run were too hard. My long run are now done at 75% ( 145 for me) which initially seemed very very very slow, but as I train the speed, I noticed that (within one month) for the same heart rate (145) my speed has increased...



    As a result, I am less tired, and touch wood have no injury any more...



    I have one question, According to the Karnoven formula, the HR declines with the resting HR...SO that means as our fitness improves our Rest HR declines therefore the outcome of rate formula declines as well. does this make sense?

    Thanks



    Jean

Sign In or Register to comment.