Running

220 minus my age (39) gives me 181. I'm going to interpret the fact that my current max is about 195 means I'm clearly very young and super fit and its definitely nothing to do with that rule of thumb being nonsense. No sir.

I've just to Stratford/West Ham, so I now have a flat, paved and (relatively) uninterrupted running route along the Greenway to play on. Just ran my fastest 5k (23.03) which I'm quite pleased with. Any tips for getting faster? Might set myself an arbitrary goal of a 22.30 5K by the end of lockdown..

Edit: Just realised 23.03 was my elapsed time – 5k was actually 22.53

It's the best thing there is if you've got absolutely no other reference point. If you've got any other reference point (like an HRM reading) then you can throw away the 220-age estimation.

There are approximations that give a better fit (population wide) if you use a second order polynomial but that is beyond the branes of most people.

There are approximations that give a better fit (population wide) if you use a second order polynomial but that is beyond the branes of most people.

I have quite a clear memory of my coach, a hockey Olympian, saying (paraphrasing) "Fuck the models, if you want to find out your max HR,run uphill until you throw up and take your pulse".

I was only able to find my true running HR max doing and incline ramp test at a constant speed. That method got me almost 10 bpm higher than keeping the incline constant and ramping the pace. I put this down to the fact my legs won't turn over any quicker than 21 kmh so my legs top out before my cardio does.

First 5k under 30 minutes for a good few months (still 96kg fat and unfit). HRavg 162bpm so that's ~1530 beats per mile.

1000 beats per mile seems a long way off. One long term target for it is a 20 minute 5k at 155bpm.

Looking back at my logs I got down to 1308 beats per mile for a 24:24 parkrun (Avg HR 167pm) back when I was 10kg lighter so it's definitely possible as there was still 10-15kg to lose from that point.

Aim to get to under 90kg by the start of April which should hopefully start to bring the pace back.

My beats per mile is awful.

Fwiw I've been 10bpm + higher than usual average on training at 150 but working on getting it back around 140bpm as that's more sustainable. Breathing 5 steps in 5 steps out the other night helped but I was 10min miling as a result.

Edit: looking at my better v40+ race times I was in the 900's once.

1 Attachment

Did a cheeky half marathon last night after a stressful day and possibly too much dinner.

Was quite uncomfortable as the food hadn’t settled properly but managed 1:37 which is ok.

Pegasus 37s arrived today but too achy to test them properly so will have a crack in them tomorrow...

Just started week 3 of the plan @doubleodavey uploaded and feeling quicker already. 2x2k at 10k pace today and average pace was 6 seconds per/km quicker (3:38)than on my 10k test at the beginning and felt pretty comfortable so I'll aim to knock another 5 seconds per/km off that next time these come around. So its either?
A) a very good plan that works
B) i didn't go hard enough on my 10k test
C) just on one today but could totally fall apart at any moment

Just to pipe in on the HR chat. Wrist based HR often had my max a good 10-15 bpm above what the chest strap says. Either that or my heart ain't the same since I started using the strap (but the consensus is that wrist based HR gets pretty iffy at the top).

Run some intervals, 4x1 minute all out with 3 minutes in between

Make sure you are regularly running further than the 5k once a week as well

If your wrist strap is that far out I'd say that makes it pretty useless and going by breathing rate or just perceived rate of exertion would probably be more accurate than that. What one are you using? I'm looking into some of the arm based straps at the moment as i find the chest straps get uncomfortable when i get very sweaty.

I thought I knew my max hr from cycling, until I started joining in a parkrun that ends on a racetrack

Smart/running watch HRM are total fantasy

I think Max HR for running is meant to be higher than for cycling, mainly because you are using more muscle groups.

The accuracy of optical sensors is improving, but it’s still behind the sensors used in a decent chest strap.

What I've been looking at are optical bicep straps and they are meant to be very good and way better than wrist based sensors. Don't know what one to go for just yet but probably the wahoo

I might sell my Polar OH1+ (which is optical and can be used on the bicep) as I don't use it for swimming any more now that the latest Forerunners do wrist based HR for swimming (don't worry about accuracy, just want it to be consistent).

I used to top out at 18x when running then race training at HH saw me regularly tip over the 200 mark (3 years ago, so 35yo)

@Retro_bastard I had a Polar M600 which I compared with a H... Something... 7 maybe? strap a few times at work and they were always within a 1 or 2 bpm of each other. Averaged over an hour they were pretty spot on. GPS tracking was more reliable on the m600 than on my phone too.

I have zero physiology / anatomy knowledge to back this up, but isn't there a literal pumping effect from running?

My highest HR (which must have been 8 / 9 years ago) was 195, running fast down a very steep hill at a very high cadence.

At the time, my highest was usually 185ish, in the back of speed sessions and hill sprints.

Nowadays I have no idea, as I can't hit max effort without aggravating injuries.

I've always hit highest HR at the end of 5k/10k races. (Max just over 200 in my early 40s, compared to ~215-220? during fitness tests in circuit training as a teenage cyclist.) My average HR would be very similar for the two distances; even though the 5k is a more intense effort, you spend a higher proportion of it getting up to the higher end. I don't recall ever doing a max HR test as such on the bike but from hard tempo/spinning sessions it's probably a good 10-15 beats lower than for running.

I seem to have a problem with pushing my running HR up then. Its easy on the bike just push 500w and after 2-2:30 mins I'll be right up there but when running unless it's Uphill i can't push my HR above 92% (current max 197) regardless of distance. I'm sure I've got another 5% in the tank but my legs simply won't turn over fast enough to allow me to get it out? So more speed work to get my legs used to turning over quicker or more easy miles for endurance so my legs aren't fading by the end of a race or a combination of both? Or something else? My head and cardio says yes but the legs say no at the moment so how do i engage the afterburners?

So more speed work to get my legs used to turning over quicker or more easy miles for endurance so my legs aren't fading by the end of a race or a combination of both?

I'm guessing, but a bit of both I reckon. One of the physical effects of working on your endurance base with more volume is to increase the size and number of mitochondria in the muscles, which means increasing the muscles' ability to burn the oxygen that the cardio system is trying to deliver to them. Plus the muscles get more running-shaped, so less likely to fatigue when trying to maintain a given level of intensity.

I've always hit highest HR at the end of 5k/10k races.

This, plus xc at Heaton Park (uphill finish) and at the top of Hardknott Pass.

1100ish beats per mile tonight, appx 9min mile, ave 138 bpm.

Yep understood cheers 👍 I thought that was what you were going to say and my new running plan does actually increase my previous volume by a third and increases the intense sessions by half so that could actually do it. I just thought I'd try to get all bases covered now and make sure i wasn't missing anything whilst I've got the time to commit to a pretty hardcore plan rather than get to my first tri/duathlon this year just to get turned over again in the closing kilometers and only then thinking shit I've done it again 😡