Heart Rate Zones

[SOULY47]

Hi all. Just wondering if you guys and gals worry about your heart rate being high. I've complete c25K and have ran a few 5ks, think thats my limit distance wise, I just wonder how to get my heart rate down so I run in more in the green Zone 3 and not in zone 5 which is red(Garmin) If I slow down any more, I think I'll be walking. My average heart rate is 155 but can get up to 180. Im 47 and not that fit. Any advice or do I just ignore the zones?

[BaddieThePirate Graduate10]

Sorry Souly I don't know anything about heart rate (or how to measure it) so will follow this post with interest...

[SlowLoris]

Heart rate zones only work if you know your maximum heart rate. I'm guessing yours is based on the 220-age formula for a result of 173. The formula is a one size fits all and can be well off the mark. You already know that your maximum is at least 180 because you've recorded it without exploding like Mr. Creosote.

There is two ways of calculating heart rate zones. One is simple percentage of max heart rate. The other is percentage of heart rate reserve (HRR) which is the difference between resting heart rate and max heart rate.

My Garmin gives me an average resting rate of 53 so I set the watch to that. My highest recorded rate is 183 after some hill repeats. It could probably go higher but I haven't yet had the will torture myself. I've set Garmin at 183 for now.

What are you using as a monitor?

[SOULY47 in reply to SlowLoris]

I have a Vivoactive HR watch, had it a few years. My average rhr over this week is 53 and my max has been 181 but generally around 170's. My hubby is fitter and stronger and he rarely goes over 165 so he always runs in zone 3 and 4. I'm just curious and thinking my runs arent beneficial if I'm running mainly in anaerobic instead of aerobic. Probably over thinking stuff too lol

[SlowLoris in reply to SOULY47]

Have you set your max to 181 in the watch settings?

[SOULY47 in reply to SlowLoris]

It was 177 so not far out so I've upped it. Not sure if it will make much difference lol

[Jay66UK Graduate10 in reply to SOULY47]

Men have generally lower heart rates than women, because they have larger hearts. (Yes, I thought body size would balance that out as well, but Dr Google says not.). And wrist-based monitors are notoriously inaccurate.

What matters is comparison against yourself using the same watch.

You say you aren’t that fit - it might be worth getting your blood pressure md cholesterol checked just to make sure all is as it should be - my ex had a workplace “mot” and they discovered her cholesterol was off the scale. Better to be safe than sorry?

[linda9389 Graduate10]

My numbers are similar - only I'm 10 years older!

I dream of that much orange - I'm lucky if I'm anything less than 90% red zone

I've never reset my max rate, just left it at the Garmin defaults.

Not saying it's right, just ... yours could be worse

[SOULY47 in reply to linda9389]

Haha. Today i had my heart rate showing so it was a conscious effort to stay orange but its normally more red lol x

[linda9389 Graduate10 in reply to SOULY47]

Actually I just checked my 'easy pace' 5K stats from this morning. It was a rare one, giving me less than the full 5.0 for aerobic effort which I usually score (I got a 4.3 today which is brilliant for me) - but I see I was 56% red, 42% orange ... which means 2% was even lower than that! I think this might have been a record for me - like you, I was trying hard to keep it 'easy'

[ArthurJG Graduate10]

I said this before and got shouted down but it is true: you cannot rely on wrist worn heart rate devices under conditions of intense exercise. (If you are using a chest strap the following may be less relevant.) It's well documented but some folk will tell you it is only a problem on Fitbit. The fact is the problem is with the optical technology which Garmin and other wrist-worn devices use too: the way the software tries to allow for the problem may differ but the actual problem is still there. A specific issue is that sometimes the device measures your running cadence instead of your heart rate because the frequency of that vibration can cause a bigger optical effect than the blood in your veins. That's why the problem is greater in exercise: the measurement when you are standing still might be more accurate. If you're getting figures in the 150 to 180 range that MIGHT be your heart rate - people who exercise a lot tend to have a lower resting heart rate and a higher maximum heart rate than usual - but it might not be. 150 to 180 strides per minute would not be unusual while running. I ignore it now, but if you're concerned, try measuring your pulse rate manually right at the end of a run before you warm down and see if it agrees with what your watch said immediately before you stopped.

[SlowLoris in reply to ArthurJG]

The technology is the same for a Ford Fiesta and a Porsche Carrera. They don't perform the same. The article you cited previously referred to research using the Garmin Vivosmart fitness bands which I class as a Fitbit type device. There are numerous brands of activity trackers and they are not intended as proper sports training aids. The watches designed for sports use perform much better. That would include the Garmin Vivoactive, Forerunner and Fenix ranges. Fitbit also now make higher end gear for sports use. It's still well below the Garmin spec though.

[ArthurJG Graduate10 in reply to SlowLoris]

Yes some models are better at compensating for the problem than others: I think you’ll find I said that. The underlying problem is still there though: variations in light can be caused by other things.

[Oldjigger in reply to ArthurJG]

Very interesting discussion. My Huawei band has shown all my runs as being almost entirely in the top 'extreme' range, which was curious, although I haven't worried about it. Now you mention this, it has been quite close to my cadence, so that might account for it. It will be interesting to see what my new Smart Watch shows - I'll be sure to buckle it good and tight!

[SOULY47]

My watch says my heart rate is 56 (sitting watchin tv) pulse on neck says 61. I'll try after exercise see how close they are.

[Dexy5 Graduate10]

I set the HR alerts on my garmin watch when I first got it , and was so worried during my next Parkrun when it kept beeping at me that I started walking. I then removed the alert because I can feel if I’m overdoing it by going too fast by my breathing. I just use it to monitor the pattern of my heart rate rather than look at the individual readings.

[SOULY47 in reply to Dexy5]

Cheers. Im just curious. Least I havent died.....yet.

[Flyingred Graduate10]

When your heart rate peaks are you still able to talk conversationally or are you puffing and panting? That's probably a better way of assessing whether you're running aerobically or anaerobically.

If you are huffing and puffing then introduce walk breaks to let your HR recover – doing run/walk interval runs is a very effective way of building aerobic capacity (lots of runners use it to get through marathons).

When doing high intensity intervals, my max HR recorded was 30 bpm higher than predicted by the 220 minus my age formula (but according to ntnu.edu/cerg/vo2max) my fitness age is 22 years less than my actual age.

[Hidden]

A year ago I worried. I haven’t dropped dead yet, and an ECG was normal, so hey ho!