I am a runner, I've run 3 marathons, 4 or 5 1/2 marathons, and some 15K's here and there. I haven't been running too much due to the heat, but today I ran a 3 mile race and my heart rate was at 100%. I'm 35 years old and it was at 188. I was trying to run faster than normal, and my average heart rate when I run my races is normally 172 (which is normally a good pace for me). Is there something wrong with running at 100% of your heart rate?
2007-07-04 04:47:28 · 7 answers · asked by Remington B 2 in Sports ➔ Running
There is nothing wrong with a trained runner running at max heart rate. The only thing that happens is that you get tired quickly, i.e. it is not possible to maintain this pace for more than 5 to 10 minutes.
My question is this. Did you hit max hr or did you average max hr? Hitting max heart rate during a 5k/3 mile race isn't unusual. However, average heart rate is typically between 95% to 98% of max heart rate. If you hit max heart rate that means that you ran very hard and/or kicked at the finish. You implied it was hot during the race. It is also easier to hit max hr in warm weather.
If you averaged max heart rate, I suspect the value for your max heart rate is wrong. If you calculated it from one of the standard formulas, the value may be wrong. The popular formulas are accurate for the average of a large population but can be very far off for a particular individual. In addition, heart rate measured during a race is often very different from heart rate measured during training. Race day excitement, heat, hydration etc can introduce significant variations.
2007-07-04 07:33:13 · answer #1 · answered by David 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really if you could sustain it.
You should up the tempo of your training runs and re program your max heart rate based on new and inshape data.
That number will change as you get in better condition, it isn't a static nimber that you should never exceed.
Who has time to check their heart rate so much in a 5k race?
5K is a completely different animal from a 1/2 mara and nothing much can compare between the two.
Old Guy, 69:00 1/2 mara, 28:50 10K, 15:00 5K( in HS), 4:24 Mile
2007-07-04 12:25:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maximum heart rates based on 220 minus your age are wrong. Just like height weight charts, they are not an accurate way to measure people. How did you feel after running at your maximum rate of 100%? Different people have different capabilities. If you did not suffer from this race then it is obvious that your maximum is not 188. As you probably know when you are in very good condition you can race faster, longer, and not feel as bad as when you are not in good condition.
2007-07-04 06:42:31 · answer #3 · answered by lestermount 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Suggest you watch the pace if the HR goes over max for long durations you are risking a heart attack and or may cause irreparable damage. Iwear a heart monitor watch from Oregon Scientific when training and I'm 44 I never get the heart rate above 155 and try and control rhythm to maintain a lower level.
Be careful and take some medical advice as well
2007-07-04 04:54:21 · answer #4 · answered by freeadvice 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have a similar 'problem'. I bought a HR monitor once, but it always told me I was at the high end-many times over 100%. I ran track and cross country in high school and I still run. I sent the HR monitor back--I think it worked, but the numbers didn't mean anything to me. I am 47 now and when I ride a bike or run quickly I still get close to 200bpm. My resting pulse though is in the low 40s.
2007-07-04 08:45:15 · answer #5 · answered by Nelson_DeVon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You heart rate is individual to you. If you felt ok after the race don't worry about it. If are already worried look into getting you actual max heart rate from a lab that offers that test.
2007-07-05 02:18:58 · answer #6 · answered by NVAJacketFan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds as if your max HR is calculated wrongly (the generic "200 less your age" or other such systems are at best only guides)
2007-07-04 05:26:52 · answer #7 · answered by g fh 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋