Any heart rate gurus???

Mark_B introduced me to low heart rate training a while back and I've been doing quite a bit of it. For my age, 54, I should be doing a lot of running at about 125 in order to build an aerobic base. (Basically 180 - age with a little tweaking). My wife is trying to get back into running, but says she cannot run with that low of a HR. Well, she's right. We went for a very slow run this morning, and while I was at 115-120, she was over 150 the whole time. Checked with another HR monitor and same thing.

Now she cycles a lot and is in pretty good shape. But her HR seems really high for such little effort. She does not feel like she's straining at all. We slowed to a fast walk and my HR dropped to well under 100 and she was still at 120 or so.

I guess my questions are:

1- Does the LHR training formula of 180-age not work for everyone?

2- Would she get the same aerobic base training by just walking fast as long as HR is around 120-125?

3- How unusual is it for someone to have such a high HR? She sees her HR get to 170+ when cycling on flat ground! I have to be climbing a pretty damn big hill to see that.

I'm almost thinking she should just forget about HR for now and just run for a few weeks and then take a look at it again. As I said, she's getting back into running after quite a layoff, but she does cycle a lot.

180-age isn't a good formula and MaxHR can vary dramatically from person to person. Interestingly, MaxHR has little to do with running performance. As your fitness improves, you can run closer to YOUR MaxHR for longer periods of time.

I suspect your wife has a high MaxHR. Probably a good bit over 200. Nothing wroing with that. As long as she is running at an easy, comfortable pace then she'll get the aerobic benefit. Don't expect her HR to have any correlation with yours. Doesn't work that way.

Matt is correct, we are all different and it is not unusual to see differences like this. This often due to genetics. If your wife has always been like this then there is little concern. Is your wife on any medications? Sometimes some anti allergy medications can raise HR for example, claritin

Tim C wrote:Mark_B introduced me to low heart rate training a while back and I've been doing quite a bit of it. For my age, 54, I should be doing a lot of running at about 125 in order to build an aerobic base. (Basically 180 - age with a little tweaking). My wife is trying to get back into running, but says she cannot run with that low of a HR. Well, she's right. We went for a very slow run this morning, and while I was at 115-120, she was over 150 the whole time. Checked with another HR monitor and same thing.

Now she cycles a lot and is in pretty good shape. But her HR seems really high for such little effort. She does not feel like she's straining at all. We slowed to a fast walk and my HR dropped to well under 100 and she was still at 120 or so.

I guess my questions are:

1- Does the LHR training formula of 180-age not work for everyone?

2- Would she get the same aerobic base training by just walking fast as long as HR is around 120-125?

3- How unusual is it for someone to have such a high HR? She sees her HR get to 170+ when cycling on flat ground! I have to be climbing a pretty damn big hill to see that.

I'm almost thinking she should just forget about HR for now and just run for a few weeks and then take a look at it again. As I said, she's getting back into running after quite a layoff, but she does cycle a lot.

Hi Tim!

The 180- formula is just a formula, so it can't fit every possible circumstance. But it might mean that your wife has lots of potential to improve the fitness of her slow-twitch aerobic muscle fibers.

If you follow Maffetone's approach, the key to aerobic training is to work the heart in the lower end of the range. If that means fast walking, that's perfectly fine. After a period of time, as more mitochondria build, that fast walking will turn into a slow jog, then a faster jog, then... well, you get the picture. Building that lower end allows two things - it improves overall endurance and improves the body's ability to go even faster at higher heart rates.

As far as heart rates go, my MaxHR is significantly higher (193) than what the charts say it should be (173). But for Maffetone's approach, a high MaxHR doesn't really factor in. He'd rather err on the side of lower intensity. Even at levels as low as 50% of your MaxHR, you're getting a benefit.

Others have add good things and I'm sure more will come in and help offer up good answers to your questions. I won't pretend to be a HR guru because I'm not. I have a generally idea about my HR data but I am more a run by feel type of person.

One thing I will add is that women tend to have a much higher HR then men. I know that when my wife and I go out and run and when we both have had HR monitors on her HR numbers will be way different then mind. My guess is due to the fact that women have a much higher HRmax the raw numbers would look way different. But if you have a good estimated on each others HRmax and then you looked at the HRmax % I would bet you would find those numbers to be closer if you were both at or near the same fitness level.

Again I could be wrong because I'm not a HR guru, so hopefully some others will chime in on the subject.

Me thinking if she is in good shape, but just get back running, she may need a little time to adapt. People new to running tend to feel harder to go slow. Maybe just run by feel for awhile for the body to adapt, then start a specific running method?

Just a guess. What do I know?

Thanks everyone!

We talked and she's just going to run for a few weeks to get back into things. I just want her to run at a comfortable pace. We'll check HR later, maybe.

Tim C wrote:Thanks everyone!

We talked and she's just going to run for a few weeks to get back into things. I just want her to run at a comfortable pace. We'll check HR later, maybe.

I think that is a great idea Tom. I know that when I take time off and just start getting back into running again it takes about a week or so for my HR numbers to get back into line. So no doubt just going out and running comfortable and by effort so do the trick.

I'll second what Schuey said, women tend to have much higher HRs than men. When I run at 150 or below, it is recovery pace.

1- Does the LHR training formula of 180-age not work for everyone?

-- It's close for the majority of people. The "least objectionable" formula is (per wikipedia):


HR_max = 205.8 − (0.685 × age). Standard deviation = 6.4. I think this would put your wife (unless she is significantly younger) pretty far from the norm. Although she may be good at cycling, that sport does not raise the HR as much as running. So I can see her HR getting higher than yours if you are more running-fit.
2- Would she get the same aerobic base training by just walking fast as long as HR is around 120-125?

-- I think the is the core belief behind cross training - that any activity that gets your HR up for a sustained period, will benefit your conditioning.

3- How unusual is it for someone to have such a high HR? She sees her HR get to 170+ when cycling on flat ground! I have to be climbing a pretty damn big hill to see that.

-- It seems unusual based on the standard deviation in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate )

I kind of agree she should forget about HR for now and just run, if that is her goal. MVW is actually the HR guru but he's off trying to post a lot to a different site.

Well, if 180-age works for the most of us, then I would be running every run at 10:30-11 min pace as that is where my HR would be if I used the above formula (131). I had my HR measured about 12 yrs ago with a max just under 200, and being that I was in my late 30s then and late 40s now, I have adjusted it to around 193. (My resting HR is 43). I normally train in the 155-165 range, race a marathon in the higher end of this range, and race shorter distances in the 170-180 range. I can tell you that I've never been close to my max in a 5 or 10K, but I have been there (or very close) in a 1500 and 3000m.

Like Michele said, the 180 - age works for most of us. But if you have been able to run faster than 180 bpm, then you have a new max of that heart rate +1, because supposedly you're never suppose to ever be at your max.

I used the 180 until 2009, when I got to a bit over 200.