What should my heart rate be for a tempo run?

170 is the threshold between aerobic and anerobic. Pick your poison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

b/w 130 and 150, and it should be at that for most of the run

Two things:

1. these guys giving specific numbers are spouting bullshit. There's no way to say without knowing YOUR maximum HR. For me, 170 would mean my heart was exploding (HRmax 166-168).

2. HR isn't a particularly useful way of controlling a short hard tempo run. Running a fast 2-3 miles at somewhere lower than race pace, as a strong effort, you will see HR continually rise, ending up somewhere around 90-95% of HRmax, depending on your fitness and how hard you ran. For a fit runner, a longer controlled tempo run will get HR to around 93% of HRmax, give or take.

it all depends on your max hr, and how long you can sustain a high hr. typically training runs should be 130-140, tempo runs 150-160, and intervals no higher than 170. all out time trials should be 170-180 to push the threshold.

the longer you can handle 170-180 the more efficient you will be at 150-160.

for instance your 5k is 17:20, which means your averaging 5:30's. so for your normal 5-6 mile run should be run at 6:30 or so, and that should be no lower than 130 hr. tempo runs should have a specific mile avg time, and for you it should be right around 5:40. mile repeats should be around 5:15-5:20, and all out for you should be 4:50-5:00

from my experience most tempo runs were 3*5 min at a specific pace, not just one interval at a set distance. not that im some track guru, but thats what we did at Adams State.

just curios, for the purpose of what i told you, is your mile pr 4:50's?

Heart rates vary widely and none of the forumals predict them very well at all. MY HR for tempos in the 5:20 range is in the 150's. I have worn a HRM for time trials and can't get my HR much over 160 for very long at all. When I was in my 20's the same paces produced HR's in the 170's. I did a 7 mile tempo at 5:26 pace the other day (coming back from surgery, not very fit) and my average was 156, but if you only look at the last 6.5 (since the first half mile drags the average way down) it was like 158. 160 at the end. I have a friend who regularly sees 180 on hard workouts. I would die if my HR was 180.

The best way to use a HRM, in my opinion, is that you establish your workout efforts subjectively then match them up to a HR that is right for you and just use your HRM as a compliment to your subjective impressions.

totally agreed. whenever i wore a hr moniter it was in high school and i had the same 5k pr as the OP, it was in colorado but i was also born in colorado...if that makes much of a difference.

anyways on 400m repeats i hit over 200 a few times, it made me feel really sick, and afterwards was hard to convince myself to push past 195 or so. i had two team mates who ran 16:30s, but the one could barely get into the 170s while the other one was hitting upper 180's. to this day i think the 180's kid never pushed that hard, always just "one stepped" the other kid.

Pete wrote:

Two things:

1. these guys giving specific numbers are spouting bullshit. There's no way to say without knowing YOUR maximum HR. For me, 170 would mean my heart was exploding (HRmax 166-168).

2. HR isn't a particularly useful way of controlling a short hard tempo run. Running a fast 2-3 miles at somewhere lower than race pace, as a strong effort, you will see HR continually rise, ending up somewhere around 90-95% of HRmax, depending on your fitness and how hard you ran. For a fit runner, a longer controlled tempo run will get HR to around 93% of HRmax, give or take.

Well said

i agree with spencer wrote:

from my experience most tempo runs were 3*5 min at a specific pace, not just one interval at a set distance. not that im some track guru, but thats what we did at Adams State.

just curios, for the purpose of what i told you, is your mile pr 4:50's?

yes, 4:51, but it's from awhile ago (now I run the 800)

thanks or the replies

Aim for 290-310.