What athletes on strava have you seen with freakishly low HR's while running?

Really low HRs on runs are more likely to be due to a poor HR monitor than anything else.

Next thread please.

Definitely wrong and nice try. If anything a bad HR will make your HR very high not very low. Nice troll try though.

Anyhow, what pro's can you all think of other than Sage (he does like 6-7min at like low 120's) .

Not elite but I run pretty low... today 10 miles arm 6-6:30 pace 130-140

In the 7s I run around 130bpm

I ran 33M yesterday - 5th of 6 days of high mileage averaging over 30M for morning run (some doubles too). 10M uphill, 6.5M downhill, turn and back again. 4800ft elevation. 7:58 pace. 106 or 107bpm. Today was 31.5M, 4000+ft, 8:12 pace and 102bpm.

I tend to get data glitches where when my HR goes very low (sub 90), the monitor counts the "boom, boom" pf a beat as two beats and doubles the data. Only with my wrist monitor - chest strap fine. Had this kind of data for years so 100% sure it's legit.

Last year at my best I was close to 7mm pace at 100bpm on flat. Might have been as close as 7:05 pace if SoCal had cooled down a bit. My training goal this year is to get down to sub 7:00 pace at sub 100bpm for 20+M - fresh legs, flat road, cool day.

I am training for 100 mile races. My resting HR gets down to 30bpm when fit. No idea on max HR - never run fast enough to try. Hardly hit AnT; never above - lactate phobic! AnT HR is around 155bpm - could be higher with training. Marathon effort is around 130bpm, but again could be 140bpm with more training at that effort.

Big goal race in December, after that I am hoping to work on getting a bit faster and more efficient at 130-160bpm efforts leading up to LA marathon and/or a 100km race.

I have trained high mileage and low HR for many years and this has been a very gradual development over a decade plus.

Dead Wrong. While doubling of the HR is not uncommon, the main problem with newer optical HRM's is that they underestimate HR.

freakishly wrote:

Definitely wrong and nice try. If anything a bad HR will make your HR very high not very low. Nice troll try though.

Max King, that guy is a machine.

Steve Way - 9th in Comrades (uphill) @ 142bpm - https://www.strava.com/activities/1020788420/overview

On the contrary, my experience is opposite: more likely to show higher than normal results.

Troll Patrol wrote:

Dead Wrong.

While doubling of the HR is not uncommon, the main problem with newer optical HRM's is that they underestimate HR.

adfafd wrote:

On the contrary, my experience is opposite: more likely to show higher than normal results.

Troll Patrol wrote:

Dead Wrong.

While doubling of the HR is not uncommon, the main problem with newer optical HRM's is that they underestimate HR.

When running, movement can cause the monitors to momentarily lose contact with the skin which means they literally miss beats.

Hate to say it but your hr data looks like a stuck reading to me. OK its just about plausible you could throttle a big climb but throttle the descents at exactly the same HR too? If that's the optical fenix then it wouldn't surprise me. Good luck with it anyway. At the end of the day its race times that count :-)

freakishly wrote:

Definitely wrong and nice try. If anything a bad HR will make your HR very high not very low. Nice troll try though.

Anyhow, what pro's can you all think of other than Sage (he does like 6-7min at like low 120's) .

I've got an optical TomTom and when that goes wrong it tends to lock onto my cadence - pretty easy to spot afterwards. But it can be irritating in races where my cadence and race HR are quite similar.

I load the data into Golden Cheetah and look at the HR histogram, that will often show two separate peaks, one in the 120s and one in the 160s.

Not a troll at all. Have been monitoring my HR data for decades - I find the wrist strap and chest strap to be no different other than occasional glitches - specifically the doubling (for a minute or two here and there) by the wrist strap.

Why on earth would you think I am trolling?

Really bro? wrote:

Hate to say it but your hr data looks like a stuck reading to me. OK its just about plausible you could throttle a big climb but throttle the descents at exactly the same HR too? If that's the optical fenix then it wouldn't surprise me. Good luck with it anyway. At the end of the day its race times that count :-)

Where did you read I had same HR going up and downhill? I have only mentioned average HR. On an easy run I can hit 110+ on uphills and be in the 80s downhill.

The OP wanted people with freakishly low HRs. I have one. I posted. People shout "troll!" and "HRM error!". Go figure.

You must be new around here. One of the most cynical message boards on the inter webs. Just wait for the doping accusations.

Pantman wrote:

Really bro? wrote:

Hate to say it but your hr data looks like a stuck reading to me. OK its just about plausible you could throttle a big climb but throttle the descents at exactly the same HR too? If that's the optical fenix then it wouldn't surprise me. Good luck with it anyway. At the end of the day its race times that count :-)

Where did you read I had same HR going up and downhill? I have only mentioned average HR. On an easy run I can hit 110+ on uphills and be in the 80s downhill.

The OP wanted people with freakishly low HRs. I have one. I posted. People shout "troll!" and "HRM error!". Go figure.

freakishly wrote:

What athletes on strava have you seen with freakishly low HR's while running?

I'm curious who it is and how low their HR operates frequently.

A very low HR doesnt make you per se a faster runner....

Just for comparison, 100-mile AR holder Zack Bitter has a HR in the low 130's for 7:00 pace at sea level on the flat:https://www.strava.com/pros/5255567

Pantman wrote:

Really bro? wrote:

Hate to say it but your hr data looks like a stuck reading to me. OK its just about plausible you could throttle a big climb but throttle the descents at exactly the same HR too? If that's the optical fenix then it wouldn't surprise me. Good luck with it anyway. At the end of the day its race times that count :-)

Where did you read I had same HR going up and downhill? I have only mentioned average HR. On an easy run I can hit 110+ on uphills and be in the 80s downhill.

The OP wanted people with freakishly low HRs. I have one. I posted. People shout "troll!" and "HRM error!". Go figure.

Pantman wrote:

Really bro? wrote:

Hate to say it but your hr data looks like a stuck reading to me. OK its just about plausible you could throttle a big climb but throttle the descents at exactly the same HR too? If that's the optical fenix then it wouldn't surprise me. Good luck with it anyway. At the end of the day its race times that count :-)

Where did you read I had same HR going up and downhill? I have only mentioned average HR. On an easy run I can hit 110+ on uphills and be in the 80s downhill.

The OP wanted people with freakishly low HRs. I have one. I posted. People shout "troll!" and "HRM error!". Go figure.

Maybe I read it by looking for the session you mentioned on the public LetsRun Strava group leaderboard sorted by longest single run?

By the way, I wasn't shouting at all. Optical HRMs can be very quirky.