-
Most likely the higher readings are erroneous. The HRM takes a little while to settle down. Are you wearing a chest strap? The signal can take a while to lock in, and gets more reliable on wet skin. It looks as though the reading starts getting reliable around 1-2km in (high 150's), steadily rising as you get more warmed up into the run.
So no, don't work out your zones from this max, although if the average was 179 and you really weren't working too hard, it could well be over 200. (So forget any age-related formulae you might have seen.) You need to do a max HR test, which is usually said to involve having a decent warm-up then blasting it up a big hill a few times, although personally I've clocked my highest readings at the end of all-out 5k and 10k races.@ewanmac - An uphill 10k sounds like fun. Unfortunately I'll be on holiday!
You are reading a single comment by @PhilPub and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
PhilPub
Can we talk about......the EU refe...only joking, heart rates.
I have never really used a HR monitor but I have one so I wore it today. I did a 5.9 KM at 4:53 min/km. Not particularly fast and if I ran a 5 km I'd expect to do 20-21 mins at the moment and I ran a HM @ 4:35 in March. I didn't feel I was working very hard, although a touch of hey fever didn't help, but...
my average heart rate was 179 and my max was 226. my HR was over 220 for about 2 mins as I was getting going but I didn't really feel it. I'm 34.
Can I deduct anything from these things? do I work out my HR zones from that HR max? Will I die of heart explosion?