active network espn
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community
Click to view d3finition's profile Pro 96 posts since
Jan 7, 2006

Dec 26, 2007 6:50 AM

Misconception about aerobic effort?

According to the 220 - age formula I should have a max heart rate of 202. In that sense, if we assume aerobic effort to be roughly around 70% (which I know differs from individuals), I should be running most of my runs at around 141 beats per minute? However, according to this website which I see quite a number of runners in the community using, http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/hrzones.php,[/URL" target="_blank"> I should be running 158 to 172 for my "aerobic zone" and 143 to 158 for my "Long, slow runs, easy or recovery runs" (my RHR is 54). Also, I am uncertain as to which range I should use for most of my runs to maximize aerobic strength. The descriptions for both zones seem pretty similar and I am not sure which is ideal.

The reason why I am suddenly asking this is that for the past 2 weeks, I dropped my speed from 9 minute mile to 11 minute mile. I was able to run up to 1 hour and 30 minutes in a go which is something I couldn't do at a 9 minute mile pace. I could even talk to myself much more easily @ the 11 min mile pace (feeling no difficulty at all even talking fast) as opposed to the 9 minute mile and my heart rate for the 9 min mile was around 166 to 168 bpm but the heart rate where I ran the 11 min mile was about 142 to 148. I thought this was for the better since I was running much more and feeling less drained each run, but I realised that my resting heart rate rose by quite a bit after these 2 weeks. I took the training really easily and even took days off the moment I felt my ankle was a little tired. My RHR rose from the mid 50s to the mid 60s and it certainly did not feel like that "overtraining" elevated heart rate. Also, after my runs at the 9 min mile pace, my thighs would feel really warm after the run. After my 11 min mile pace runs, despite them being of longer duration, I did not have this after-run warm feeling. This made me wonder if I was running too slow or not at the ideal heart rate. I would really appreciate any advice and comments. Thanks in advance!

d3finition

http://This message has been edited by d3finition (edited Oct-10-2007).

http://This message has been edited by d3finition (edited Oct-10-2007).
Click to view figbash's profile Legend 620 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
1. Oct 10, 2007 11:35 AM in response to: d3finition
The misconception here is that the 220-age formula will give you an accurate indication of your max heart rate. That formula and the many others like it are notoriously inaccurate which makes all of your other calculations inaccurate. If you want to know your true MHR, you'll either need to get a stress test or go out and do uphill wind sprints until you puke and/or pass out. I guarantee that your MHR is higher than you are calculating with the formula.

Tom

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">
My Running Log[/URL" target="_blank">
Click to view Diesel88's profile Pro 159 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
2. Oct 10, 2007 12:16 PM in response to: d3finition
What about the 180-age formula? Some consider that to be an updated version of the same measurement because the lower base number takes more factors into consideration then (what is considered by some) the outdated 220-age formula?
Click to view Biophilia's profile Pro 171 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
3. Oct 10, 2007 12:30 PM in response to: d3finition
those simple formulas are probably based on an average. There's a wide range of max heart rates in each age group and it doesn't consider whether you're fit or a couch potato.
Click to view HDH's profile Legend 335 posts since
Aug 19, 2007
4. Oct 10, 2007 12:31 PM in response to: d3finition
I think that one of the corollary's to the rule is if after subtracting your age, the resultant value is still greater than 200, then you are too young to be using this formula.
Click to view Igg's profile Rookie 3 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
5. Dec 26, 2007 6:50 AM in response to: d3finition
Don't forget too that when calculating 70% that is based off of your heart rate reserve, not your max hear rate. So where 70% of your max heartrate is 141, you're forgetting the step of finding your heart rate reserve.

Say your resting heart rate is 60. Your Max is 202. So your Heart rate reserve is 202-60 = 142.

Multiply that by 70% you get 99.4 which you then add back to your resting heart rate and you get 159.4 which is closer to what you thought you wanted to be running at.

Think of it this way, if you wanted to workout at 25% and you calculated off of your max heartrate of 202, that would mean your heart rate would be 50.5 which is LESS than your resting heart rate. I don't know anyone who can do that.

http://This message has been edited by Igg (edited Oct-10-2007).
Click to view RacingThoughts's profile Pro 109 posts since
Aug 23, 2006
6. Oct 10, 2007 3:18 PM in response to: d3finition
I have a high max hr (~215) and a lowish resting hr (~50). I find the heart rate reserve method works best for me when setting zones.

For your max hr I wouldn't use the 220-age formula, it's not accurate for the majority of people. Get out there like figbash said, run hard, and you'll find your true max.
Click to view formationflier's profile Legend 989 posts since
Oct 13, 2007
7. Oct 10, 2007 6:36 PM in response to: d3finition
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Diesel88:
What about the 180-age formula? Some consider that to be an updated version of the same measurement because the lower base number takes more factors into consideration then (what is considered by some) the outdated 220-age formula?<HR>


The 220-age formula is unrelated to the 180-age formula although
they sound remarkably alike. The 220-age formula is a statistical
average over millions of samples taken, fitted to an affine equation.
It's not a prediction for any one person. Not a good one anyway.
The 180-age formula has nothing to do with max heart rate. It
is based on treadmill oxygen in - CO2 out tests (similar to vo2max
tests) over hundreds of runners and it is not just 180-age, as it
can have a variety of n*5 additions and subtractions based on
fitness and other factors. It is a prediction of respiratory quotient,
which ties to the amount of carb vs fat used as a fuel source
in an exercise. Those in the age range of early 20s to low 50s
seemed to fit best and further adjustments have to be made at
the upper and lower end of the scale.


------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">
Click to view formationflier's profile Legend 989 posts since
Oct 13, 2007
9. Oct 10, 2007 8:38 PM in response to: d3finition
quote:<HR>Originally posted by d3finition:
Thanks for the advices, but just a confirmation, I should be running in the "target aerobic zone" range instead of the "Long, slow runs, easy or recovery runs" range to build aerobic strength right?<HR>


It depends on what approach you want to follow. Certainly you can
get a vast quantity of good quality expert advice that varies by 50%.


------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">
Click to view RacingThoughts's profile Pro 109 posts since
Aug 23, 2006
10. Oct 10, 2007 8:46 PM in response to: d3finition
quote:<HR>Originally posted by d3finition:
Thanks for the advices, but just a confirmation, I should be running in the "target aerobic zone" range instead of the "Long, slow runs, easy or recovery runs" range to build aerobic strength right?<HR>


It depends on what you want to do. I started out doing heart rate training but felt it was too confining. I still keep track of my heart rate but I run more by feel now and like it better.
Click to view tigger077's profile Legend 691 posts since
Nov 19, 1999
11. Oct 11, 2007 8:18 AM in response to: d3finition
quote:<HR>Originally posted by d3finition:
Thanks for the advices, but just a confirmation, I should be running in the "target aerobic zone" range instead of the "Long, slow runs, easy or recovery runs" range to build aerobic strength right?<HR>


It sounds to me like you could benefit from investing a few bucks in some running books. I recommend Daniels "Running Formula" as a starter because you are young and I think his book is targeted towards younger runners. However....

Until you read the book you can get a reasonable estimate of your aerobic zone by running at a pace that allows you to breathe easily and talk while running if you choose to do so. Set up some out and back running courses between a half hour and up to 2 hrs. Time yourself on the way out and try to match that time on the way back. If you cannot keep your pace up on the way back then you went too fast on the way out. If you were too fast on the way back then you went too slow on the way out. Adjust your pace accordingly and try again next day. Vary the distance each day...longer one day and shorter the next. Keep running this way for 3 or 4 months and you should notice a good improvement in your pace on each course.

Be careful of running by heart rate until you thoroughly understand the things that can make your heart rate vary. You can see a difference of 10 to 20 beats per min simply because of your state of rest, health or the heat or humidity on any particular day. Heart rate is useful information but should not be the sole determining factor in how fast you run.

Improvement is linked to time spent running. The more you train the faster you will race.....as long as you train aerobically most of the time. Leitnerj's personal links are a great place to gain insight into one way of training. There are other plans you could use as well. Do a google on Arthur Lydiard to learn about the father of aerobic training.

Good luck.
Click to view Brian McN's profile Legend 240 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
12. Oct 11, 2007 8:19 AM in response to: d3finition
Good way to find you MHR. Get on the treadmill for a mile warm up at an easy pace. Now put the treadmill at a 10% incline. Every minute increase the pace by .1 MPH. When you can no longer handle it bring the treadmill up to 12%. In the next thirty seconds you will find your MHR.
Click to view Nobby063's profile Legend 630 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
13. Oct 11, 2007 12:15 PM in response to: d3finition
D3:

I liked your post at some other thread (I recall calling you D3 there as well).

I wouldn't worry too much about your heart rate AT ALL. Go by how you feel and, as long as you're comfortably tired, call it a day. I see Lasse Viren did something like 15k run in 1:25 or something with his heart rate of less than 100! That's rediculous!!! I do my "easy" run with HR of about 140~150 now and I feel fine I'm 48 now so theoretically my HR should be lower (if you calculate 220 - my age). But I really don't care as long as I know that, when I'm stressed, my HR is higher even the pace is slower so I'll watch out. My resting HR does go up by 10~15% (now it's about 52) and if it goes on for a couple of days, I'll watch out. That's about an extent I pay attention to my HR.

In terms of developing your "aerobic strength"; I really doubt if anybody, even some of well-known exercise physiologists, can define what it is exactly and what you need to do to get the best out of it. Chances are; if you go slower and go further, you'll develop muscular endurace better than going faster shorter. So is it not effective workout? Some go further and slower and do great; others go shorter but faster. We are all different and all react to workout differently. If anything, I'll go with two of the Golden Rules: (1) If in doubt, do less or easier. (2) You can NOT run too slowly. Lydiard used to always said even if your HR is up to only 100, you ARE doing some good (as Viren did!) to develop your aeorbic capacity.

This being said, let me give you my honest opinion. If you are a young aspiring runner of 18-year-old (and assuming you are aspire to be a good runner), running at 11-minute-pace, or even 9, indicates your aerobic capacity is still quite low. I consider myself with not much of natural talent but I was probably doing 40~50 miles or so in high school with 100km (62 miles a week) in my senior year. The more you run, the faster you can run (because your aerobic capacity improves). But if you do it too much, you start to develop shuffling action and muscle viscosity and you stay slow. It's a fine line and you need to work very carefully so you continue to develop your aerobic capacity, therefore, your upper aerobic running speed, without losing speed.

I will continue to check your resting pulse to make sure you're building up and not breaking down. Your resting pulse should show steady decrease as you get fitter. I can't remember what mine was when I was in high school but the lowest was after I trained under Lydiard in 1985 of about 37 a minute. At the time I was doing somewhere around 90~110 miles a week at 7-minute pace comfortably.

One last thing about HR; when asked about checking HR first thing in the morning, Lydiard's favorite answer was; "It depends on who you're sleeping with." ;o)
Click to view Nobby063's profile Legend 630 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
14. Oct 11, 2007 12:19 PM in response to: d3finition
PS: One other thing, I sort of pride myself (not a smart thing to do...) when I run on treadmill and do some repeats or tempo run there, checking HR once in a while. It goes up to 170 or 180. There's a little sheet on the side of the treadmill and it says something like 80% of max HR for 40 years old is 160 or something like that. Obviously I exceed it by quite a bit (or even 80% for 20s). In other words, it really doesn't matter at all. Like someone else said, it's the general average and most people are quite a bit out of shape anyways. When you look at someone like Jack Foster who ran 2:11 at the age of 41, you cannot put him in the scale of ordinary 40 year old category. Many of 40 or 50 or even 60 year old category are so much fitter than some of college kids who drinks and smokes and sits around doing nothing but checking out internet threads.