Is having a high max heart rate good or bad? I find myself consistently pushing over 200 and sometimes as high as 220 during workouts and races. Going off of the 220 minus your age rule, I should be around 184. So should I be happy or concerned with this?
Hoover wrote:
Is having a high max heart rate good or bad? I find myself consistently pushing over 200 and sometimes as high as 220 during workouts and races. Going off of the 220 minus your age rule, I should be around 184. So should I be happy or concerned with this?
One thing to keep in mind if you are using a "wrist" heart rate monitor, I have read that some of them can wind up (for whatever reason I am not sure), synching up with your "pace"/stride and not accurately recording your bpm. If it is a wrist one make sure it is snug and not sliding up and down your arm. The most accurate ones are the chest strap ones. (not sure how comfortable they are though)
That said, you really shouldn't be running in your "max zone" whatever it is, for too long. Depending on your workout and the type of race you are training for (5k?, half? full?). So for example your "Long Runs" should be done where you are in your ideal cardio zone is (in the 140's at your age). Now if you work in some "intervals" or fartleks, you get up into the "performace" and maybe "peak" area, but not something you should maintain your entire run.
To me if you do not feel like you are panting and "huffing and puffing" it is likely more a technical glitch.
220-age formula is the worst idea to follow. Never do this, it is useless.
Regarding high max heart rate - its good only if you have a higher heart rate reserve. Consider this example of two runners:
Runner A - max heart rate 195 - able to run 7:00/mi pace at 145 bpm
Runner B - max heart rate 165 - able to run 7:00/mi pace at 132 bpm
Which of these athletes are in better aerobic shape? At first sight the impression is that athlete B is better conditioned as he can run 7:00/mi pace at only 130 bpm while the runner A takes almost extra 15 beats per minute for the same pace.
But actually its the opposite as in fact runner A cruises 7:00/mi pace at only 74% of his maximum while the runner B is at 80% of his maximum. It may easily be a difference between running in grey area or not and with hard training it can accumulate to significant fatigue.
I personally know two runners which have very different reserves. At a pace of 6:10/mi one of them runs at 135 bpm while the other is above 170 bpm. But in fact the guy with higher heart rate is able to run 10k in 30:xx while the guy with much lower heart rate is only able to run 33:xx.
So the bottom line is - do not compare absolute heart rate with anyone. You can compare only relative percentages
IckleMe wrote:
One thing to keep in mind if you are using a "wrist" heart rate monitor, I have read that some of them can wind up (for whatever reason I am not sure), synching up with your "pace"/stride and not accurately recording your bpm
The problem with the wrist heart rate monitors is that they can lock up in sync with your cadence (if not tight enough on the wrist).
Long run at a heart rate of 140 bpm for a guy with max of 220 is a walk in the park. It's basically a recovery run.
Hoover wrote:
Is having a high max heart rate good or bad? I find myself consistently pushing over 200 and sometimes as high as 220 during workouts and races. Going off of the 220 minus your age rule, I should be around 184. So should I be happy or concerned with this?
I'm about your age and have about the same max HR as you. As other people have mentioned, I don't think there is any advantage or disadvantage of having a max of 210 compared to a max of 185. Everyone's is different. You really just need to learn what level is appropriate for different efforts. For me, I try to keep easy runs under 160, tempos in the 170-180 range, and hard intervals usually in the 190's. I never see 200+ unless I'm racing. Not even sure that it will go there without the adrenaline, but I think I've seen 218 in a 5k before.
qw wrote:
220-age formula is the worst idea to follow. Never do this, it is useless.
Regarding high max heart rate - its good only if you have a higher heart rate reserve. Consider this example of two runners:
Runner A - max heart rate 195 - able to run 7:00/mi pace at 145 bpm
Runner B - max heart rate 165 - able to run 7:00/mi pace at 132 bpm
Which of these athletes are in better aerobic shape? At first sight the impression is that athlete B is better conditioned as he can run 7:00/mi pace at only 130 bpm while the runner A takes almost extra 15 beats per minute for the same pace.
But actually its the opposite as in fact runner A cruises 7:00/mi pace at only 74% of his maximum while the runner B is at 80% of his maximum. It may easily be a difference between running in grey area or not and with hard training it can accumulate to significant fatigue.
I personally know two runners which have very different reserves. At a pace of 6:10/mi one of them runs at 135 bpm while the other is above 170 bpm. But in fact the guy with higher heart rate is able to run 10k in 30:xx while the guy with much lower heart rate is only able to run 33:xx.
So the bottom line is - do not compare absolute heart rate with anyone. You can compare only relative percentages
'Back in the day' (been using HRMs nearly since they were available to runners) my wife's MHR was north of 200 and mine about 183. Too many newbies are hung up on max, thinking faster = better. A better indicator is RHR, as it goes lower typically the more fit you will feel and run better, assuming training is going well.
What is good is even as we age and that max inevitably goes lower, you can keep a high degree ('the best you can be') by staying fit and lowering the RHR. MHR is good to know for general calculations but pretty hard to accurately determine and that formula is not good enough for athletes. Once in shape, a fast 5k with a decent inclined finish felt about right to me, plus I added 3 beats because I didn't drop from exhaustion. As a runner should be able to 'listen to the body' to know such a thing.