Couple of HRM questions for the experts

[jroche5998]

First question is about my current activity level. The manual says not to change the description if your exercise level has changed in the last 6 months. So I set mine to Low. However based upon my current weekly mileage I am currently in the high bracket. Which should I be setup for? (basically do you agree with the manual?)

Next I did the fitness test, which gives an OwnIndex (which I guess correlates to V02max) and mine was a 23. For my age group that is a category 1 fitness or "very poor". Does that make sense, can I be that cardio vascularly unfit yet run 5 miles several times a week? Maybe I am. But it says that it takes height, weight, age, gender, hr, hr variability, etc into consideration so maybe my high weight is skewing the numbers? As part of that is predicts my max HR is 173 not 183 (220-37). And I've been reading that as your fitness improves your max heart rate will drop, which seems to contradict the test results. I'm confused.

Last (I think), setting the zones. Do I set the three zones to the 60-70, 70-80, 80+ pecentage numbers.? Which zones do I leave on? Or is that dependent on the type of workout? Like if I'm doing intervals I would need all three, if I'm running a tempo or time run I'd just need 2 and 3, for a recovery just #1. Is that correct or am I thinking wrong?

Thanks in advance.

[ttdriver]

Re: Couple of HRM questions for the experts

First question is about my current activity level. The manual says not to change the description if your exercise level has changed in the last 6 months. So I set mine to Low. However based upon my current weekly mileage I am currently in the high bracket. Which should I be setup for? (basically do you agree with the manual?)

Next I did the fitness test, which gives an OwnIndex (which I guess correlates to V02max) and mine was a 23. For my age group that is a category 1 fitness or "very poor". Does that make sense, can I be that cardio vascularly unfit yet run 5 miles several times a week? Maybe I am. But it says that it takes height, weight, age, gender, hr, hr variability, etc into consideration so maybe my high weight is skewing the numbers? As part of that is predicts my max HR is 173 not 183 (220-37). And I've been reading that as your fitness improves your max heart rate will drop, which seems to contradict the test results. I'm confused.

Last (I think), setting the zones. Do I set the three zones to the 60-70, 70-80, 80+ pecentage numbers.? Which zones do I leave on? Or is that dependent on the type of workout? Like if I'm doing intervals I would need all three, if I'm running a tempo or time run I'd just need 2 and 3, for a recovery just #1. Is that correct or am I thinking wrong?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Jim!! :wave

Glad to see you are using the HRM!! Good for you!! Yeah, they can be tricky at first, but I think you're doing great, just working with it and trying to figure things out!

I would set your activity to HIGH. I've always had mine on HIGH. Your mileage certainly substantiates that, so forget what the book says.

Yes, I suppose its possible to get a very poor fitness score because of your weight. Mine has always been EXCELLENT, usually coming up with a 40 or better, but then I've been running for over 19 months and I only weigh 95 pounds and I'm 49 (going on 50!!) Actually, your maximum heart rate will not drop as you progress, its your RESTING HEART RATE that will drop as your fitness level improves. Since the fitness test is measured while you're at rest (lying still the entire time), then its basing the score on your resting heart rate ... I'd suggest repeating the test in another month or two and see if your score improves. My guess is, it will.

As for the zones, I never did the OWNZONE test .. I just figured my MHR at 185 and leave it there. I try to keep my long sustained runs at about 80-90% of that number. During my speed runs, I don't care if I go over the MHR for a minute or two at intervals. What I find works best for me is to take the first few miles SLOW, then work up to about 90% of the MHR, then maybe exceed it for a sprint of a minute or so, then back off again to about 80% of maximum. I like to do that to keep my body guessing. Seems to work well for me. When I do an all out sprint, my MHR can hit 200, so I figure I'm just one of those people who has a faster heart rate than most. Although by keeping up with the running, my RHR has gone from about the mid-80s to the upper 60s now.

Betty

[Iapetus999]

I've been reading the Maffetone Method book...it's a real eye opener. :yikes

He talks about the "180" heart rate method...meaning your training heart rate should never exceed 180-age. So for me (38 ) that would be 132-142.

His book is very much in line with the lo-carb philosophy. He eschews hi carb diets and focuses on workouts that will burn only fat (aerobic workouts)

Now for me 142 is like a fast walking pace.
Apparently tho training at these slow speeds provides the fastest improvements in speed and endurance. ensive

A lot of people swear by his methods.
I'm still reading thru it but it seems like an interesting approach.

[ttdriver]

He talks about the "180" heart rate method...meaning your training heart rate should never exceed 180-age. So for me (38 ) that would be 132-142.

Holy smokes! I'd have to crawl to be at 131 ... I think I can hit that just by *thinking* about running!

Phooey. I'm done trying to stick to other people's methods of computing this stuff. I just run at a sustained pace and say the heck with it.

I feel good, look good and can run 10+ miles without dying. That's good enough for me!

:guns

Betty

[Iapetus999]

I tried it today.
I did 3 miles and it took over 46 minutes.
So either I'm really out of shape or this guy is nuts.
I did it barefoot on the TM. (He's a big proponent of barefoot because it forces you to have better technique)

I have to say tho when I was done it felt like I hardly had worked
out at all.

I could probably do 10 miles at that pace but I might fall asleep first. :speechle: