You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A fairly new runner, since before Christmas doing it fairly regularly after completing C25K. 55yo, 80kg.
I’m up to 10k now and this evening, did that in 1hr 1min, with 184m elevation gain.
My 40yo nephew did an 11k on a canal bank today and his average heart rate was 79bpm, max 85.
Mine, this evening, was average 148, max 181.
Are these shockingly bad numbers for me?
I received a fancy iPhone for Christmas and to try and keep a run in zone 2, it was barely more than a walk.
Thanks, in advance.
My 40yo nephew did an 11k on a canal bank today and his average heart rate was 79bpm, max 85.
I have a low hr and that's what I'd record if I was walking.
His sensor isn't recording well.
Ah right, I did message him ask if he was sleep running. So what about mine, there or thereabouts? Or should I take it a bit easier?
Depends what you want to achieve but yours sounds too fast for two reasons. Every running tip ever says to start slow and build up. That'll help you build strength in the right place to prevent injuries. The other thing is heart rate in general. Zone 2 exercise is where it is at these days. Good for general conditioning and will let you do more running. It'll be slow to start with and take longer than you'd like to get better but it does improve. Around 150 is getting you into "junk miles"
Ah right, I did message him ask if he was sleep running. So what about mine, there or thereabouts? Or should I take it a bit easier?
I think I'd try measuring your heart rate on a different device, or both at the same time, so if both devices roughly agree with each other, you can probably take that as more representative.
your nephew's numbers a freakishly low that suggests they are inaccurate (to put it politely), and I'd ignore them as everyone is different. Can you correlate how you felt when hitting the heart rate of 181, and was it a spike or did your heart rate steadily climb to the that number?
I was a keen runner about a decade ago and HR was a good indicator of how I was doing, I'm now a more occasional/recreational runner and I find it difficult to maintain higher heart rates for very long and the rate fluctuates significantly over a run, which means the average HR is a better indicator of how hard the run was when compared over the weeks. But it's still a guide, rather than an absolute reference. For zone 2 you should be able to keep a conversation without gasping for breath, if running alone you should be able to sing along to a song for a minute or more (in your head if not using earphones).
I'd recommend not looking at your heart rate numbers to closely for an individual run but look for the trend of the average HR gradually decreasing for the same effort, or it becoming more difficult to reach the peak HR previously experienced and gauging that against how you felt for your run
Yours seems on the high side of normal for someone who isn't a runner. I certainly wouldn't worry about it.
How are you/he measuring hr. Lots of wrist based optical HR suffers from cadence lock where the device locks onto the pulses in your blood flow from your strides rather than your HR.
I think my nephews was incorrect, he agrees.
I use an iPhone 9.
What Heart Rate Monitor are you using though?
Mine, this evening, was average 148, max 181.
Are these shockingly bad numbers for me?
Nope, they're just your numbers. Don't read anything into it.
Just the iPhone, set it on activity tracking and off I go.
Do you actually know what your maximum possible HR is? You can’t tell anything unless you have that as a datum point.
I'm a reluctant runner (it's the 3rd part of triathlons and the bit I think is shite after the 2 good bits. Similar age.
For a 'can go for couple of hours or more' (half marathon or marathon pace for me... and I'm a plodder, all very aerobic) I'm typically at about 150-155bpm. 180 would be my sprinting flat out HR whete my wheezy asthma would kick in afterwards (in fact I'm only getting into the 170s max now - 180s would have still been in my mid/late 40s.) When properly fit I'm about 85-90 kg (and waaaaaay above that at present 😖
For me for what would feel like the same effort on a bike would be 10 bpm lower- ie my all day riding pace in a 100+ mile ride would have my HR in the mid to high130s, maybe low 140s.
(Whether that shows a different development of muscle use for biking vs running, maybe, not sure).
One post mentions the 'cadence lock' when using a wrist optical HR. I sometimes get that when swimming- the HR adds up both my real HR + my stroke rate - it must be sensing the 'throw' of blood in my arm each time my arm swings forward and thinking that's a pulse.
If you're using a chest strap - try wetting the pads on it - or ideally some HR gel. I used to find when my HR strap was getting knackered it would give some nonsense readouts - swapping to a new strap (same sensor pod but new stretchy strap) + moistening it would usually solve the reading problem.
79bpm is a slow walk for most.
150bpm I'd say is typical for a steady run. Getting down to a proper zone 2 takes a concentrated effort imo.
181bpm would be max HR for many, gasping for air.
Not all heart rate sensors are made the same.
181bpm would be max HR for many, gasping for air.
I still get to around 180-182 occasionally when running (I did tonight). My Max HR for running is usually a bit higher than my Max HR for cycling too. (Age 66, 72kg)
Heart rate is measured by the watch.
Just the iPhone, set it on activity tracking and off I go.
The phone is recording your HR but not measuring it. It needs a sensor. Do you have an apple watch as well or a HR chest strap (or something else).
Edit, too slow.
What watch? An apple watch?
iPhone 9
edit, doh, I mean Apple Watch 9
I think that high heart rate has caused problems with your brain 🤣
Everyone's different. I've never managed to get a heart rate above 160s and i'm 20 years younger than Scotroutes.
YHRMV
HR is different for everyone - I don't think it means much. I'm 43 and can sustain 180-185 for 30 mins of so - that would be higher than most of my mates HR max. This is the crucial number - e.g mine is 198 measured with a decent strap. Your max lets you set your zones - you want zone 2 mostly.
It would be pretty possible to spike it to 180 if you're trotting along, get to a hill and decide to give it some lash. I wouldn't get too stressed about the numbers.
If you run real easy for the hour, that's about the 140 ish?
What's your resting pulse - do you measure that?
Ewan has nailed it, everyone is different, so comparing means nothing.
you have to calculate the zones for you,
It’s all relative. Depends what your max HR is etc. yours is obviously high
The test for max hr (which sets your zones) is best done on a bike unless you’re in good physical condition, and with company in case something goes wrong
you’re a new runner. Get used to being in threshold for what ‘feels’ like an easy run. You may think it’s easy and within yourself - your body doesn’t!
not much you can do about that until you build proper fitness / resilience / strength. Look into running specific strength training to support your running if you’re really serious about it.
worry about z2 in the future. Paradoxically it takes considerable fitness to be able to run in z2.
little and often is the name of the game for the first 4-8 months imo. 1-2k a day painfully slow for the first few months will let your body adapt and tendons develop the necessary elasticity, a foundation on which you can then develop proper training
Firstly kudos for a very good 10km time for a newish runner of your age.
How are you calculating your zones? I think by default Apple just use the 220 - age rough formula to get you maximum rate and calculates the zones from that. This will probably give inaccurate information for you.
Find a web site that can calculate them based on your max heart rate such as https://www.myprocoach.net/calculators/hr-zones/
For a max hr of 181 this site gives the ranges below which means your average of 148 seems fine.
| Heart Rate Training Zones | Feel | Heart Rate (beats per minute) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Easy | 123 - 133 |
| 2 | Steady | 134 - 146 |
| 3 | Moderately Hard | 147 - 158 |
| 4 | Hard | 159 - 169 |
| 5 | Very Hard | 170 - 181 |
Given your age and experience with running, a 10K in just over an hour is not bad and those heart rate numbers are roughly what I would expect. For comparison, I'm a little younger than you and I've got 2 years of running under my belt. My very easy pace. Heart rate is about 130 and if I start to push it I get up to about 155. I can maintain a pace with a heart rate of about 155 for several hours if necessary.
I would say you're doing absolutely fine. I would say that your relative's heart rate monitor isn't working or they have an abnormally low heart rate, but I would lean towards the heart rate monitor not working
From the phone….resting heart rate is 50-54 bpm.
zone 1 <123
zone 2 124-134
zone 3 135-146
zone 4 147 - 157
zone 5 158+
I think I might have been thrown out by my nephews stats, but they are wrong.
I agree with those saying your HR sounds relatively normal.
As it happens, I am roughly the same age, weight and speed as you — and my last run registered 138bpm average.
I have been running for about 5 years now and have good CV fitness generally FWIW.
try and keep a run in zone 2, it was barely more than a walk.
Sounds about right. Use a bike down the canal instead if you want to indulge in Z2 training.
You need to undertake a max HR calculation to estimate your own maximum. It wont be 100% accurate but should be close enough. From then you can estimate your "zones" The numbers you mention dont mean much and its not helpful to compare with others. The numbers aren't an indication of fitness or performance in themselves. I have quite a low resting rate of around 30-32 but my max is only around 145. I am 60 and have ran and raced for over 40 years. I had a max of around 175 when I was in my 20's (which in itself was low compared to all of my peers) which has reduced with age. I wouldn't assume your nephews number are wrong (but only rely on them if he is using a chest strap) I can run at an easy pace for an hour and average well under well under 100bpm.
How's the recovery after a run with HR like that? If it's out of breath for a few mins of stopping and then quickly back down to normal, I'd say don't worry, if you're feeling ill, a bit sick, perhaps still breathing heavily long after stopping, probably less so.
How do your HR stats from that one run compare with your stats from other runs you've done since Xmas?
If you're seeing similar numbers, and feel fine then you're probably good.
If this is odd for similar feeling effort then worth taking a look at why. Why the peak to 181, how long for etc? . How tight is the watch to get reliable optical HR?
When I have tried an apple watch in a shop (a few times) I found them to be rubbish. I know my garmin is accurate and the apple was about 10 beats wrong, consistently.
It's quite likely the max recorded is a glitch anyway, does the trace rise over time to that level or just jump up and back down? The latter is just due to the optical reader getting confused by motion or light.
The rate does vary, and I think it might also be due to terrain as there are two lungbusting climbs on the loop, that I shuffle up, but it’s still hard going.
The rate ramps up, there is no sudden step or jump in the figures.
As for recovery, I live at the top of said lungbusting hill but when I get back, I don’t feel ill or sick, and heart rate drops from 170 to 118 after three mins.
All based on Apple Watch numbers.
I'd think that max might be quite near your actual max, you just need to really hammer a hill - either it will go a bit higher, or you'll blow up., then you'll have a number. But it then means your calculated ranges are ballpark ok.
The rapid drop down is a good sign.
If you want to run more often you might need to back off on some runs at least so you're staying in zone else you'll start to get pretty beat up. Really it's a good idea to calculate zones as not being just off max, but as the % of the range between min and max (ergo Surfers low numbers when out and taking it easy)
By the way, it should also be said that the wrist heart rate monitors will never be as good as a chest strap. When I'm on my turbo trainer I can see the output from the chest strap on my screen in front of me, if I compare that to what my wrist worn heart rate monitor claims, there's a massive difference all the time. Strangey when I'm running it appears to be roughly accurate but for cycling the wrist appears to be a completely inaccurate place to monitor the heart rate
By the way, it should also be said that the wrist heart rate monitors will never be as good as a chest strap. When I'm on my turbo trainer I can see the output from the chest strap on my screen in front of me, if I compare that to what my wrist worn heart rate monitor claims, there's a massive difference all the time. Strangey when I'm running it appears to be roughly accurate but for cycling the wrist appears to be a completely inaccurate place to monitor the heart rate
I used to get this when I started comparing my Fenix with a chest strap, it was reasonbly close but seemed to lag a bit and took a while to catch up.
Tried tightening up the strap a little, much better and now tracks almost identical.
HR is really hard to track accurately with a watch. When I'm stationary and not sweating mine is more or less bang on, so I've found it's good for RHR; but compared to a chest HRM when running or riding mine has been off by +20bpm before.
Generally over time you can use RPE quite well to figure out if you think it's over-reading- if you were panting and hurting then 181 could be realistic (depending on your max), but just running along steadily I would say it's probably overreading.
IME wrist optical is fine for running but dodgy for cycling. I assume bent wrist position on handlebars can push the watch a bit out of position.
Also don’t assume old experiences are still valid. The first optical sensors were crap, newer garmin are pretty good and certainly *better* for me than anything I ever got from a chest strap.
I have a max of 183 which I rarely hit cycling, but running I'm consistently hitting the high 170s
Your numbers sound just fine..
Your nephew on the other hand...
Unless you have a medical condition, there is zero point in thinking about what your heart is doing.
Also, 'zone 2' running as a beginner is pointless. It's not worth considering at this point. You just need to get out there and let your body get used to it - i.e. strengthening your connective tissues, bones and muscles. Go as often and as fast as is comfortable, your body will tell you if you're doing too much too soon. You've gotta find what works for you. No point limiting yourself because of what some bloke on the internet told you.
Go as often and as fast as is comfortable, your body will tell you if you're doing too much too soon.
Yeah, by breaking down. Like the advice for doing up bolts, tighten till you strip the thread, then back off a little.
A runner here, with a few thoughts.
1. Your Nephews HR is plain wrong, not even professionally trained athletes are running at 80bpm. So ignore that.
2. An average of 148 is pretty good going I reckon, not overly high at all, a 181 max could be a misread or could be a bit of effort, either way, nothing to worry about.
3. Don't over complicate things, short of doing some lab based testing, any talk of zones and max HR is at best guess work. Doing your runs to perceived effort is a much better way of managing things unless you have a specific heart or cardiovascular condition.
To give context, my max HR given my age should be 170 ish, zone 2 would be 100-110 ish. In the real world, my easy runs are at circa 150bpm, I held 178 average for a marathon and in a 10k race I'd be at 185+. I'd be over 110 walking to the shops.
Yeah, by breaking down. Like the advice for doing up bolts, tighten till you strip the thread, then back off a little.
Exactly yes - overload and then adaption. No pain no gain at the end of the day.
When I have tried an apple watch in a shop (a few times) I found them to be rubbish. I know my garmin is accurate and the apple was about 10 beats wrong, consistently.
Did you measure your HR manually while wearing the Apple watches? It would have been the first thing I did if I thought there was a discrepancy.
@lunge Not quite. I ran with a very easy 7 miler on Tuesday (on a relatively hilly course) and my average hr was 95bpm according to my Garmin. I wasnt wearing a strap but in my tests they both track closely. I ran 5km yesterday morning, sub 9 min miling, and my HR average was only 103.
@lunge Not quite. I ran with a very easy 7 miler on Tuesday (on a relatively hilly course) and my average hr was 95bpm according to my Garmin. I wasnt wearing a strap but in my tests they both track closely. I ran 5km yesterday morning, sub 9 min miling, and my HR average was only 103.
That puts you up with Mo Farah - maybe even Kipoge levels of aerobic fitness ! Get yourself in the next Olympics - a gold medal cert.
Or at least measure your HR manually - ie count your pulses on your throat for 15 seconds then multiply by 4. Then compare to what your watch says.
A low pulse doesn't make you a great athlete, it just means you have a low pulse. My last 5k jog was 115 bpm and I'm not even particularly fit these days.
That puts you up with Mo Farah - maybe even Kipoge levels of aerobic fitness ! Get yourself in the next Olympics - a gold medal cert.
Are you saying that you dont believe them? It doesnt mean what you suggest at all. The only thing I would say is that my aerobic system is well trained after 40+ plus years of training almost every day. The point it its just a number. It may be a "pointer" in that somebody untrained is unlikely to to match those numbers but It doesnt indicate that I can very run fast at all. I am simply saying that the OP's nephews HR numbers cant necessarily be dismissed.
@thecaptain Low resting rates are often found in people who have done plenty of aerobic and anaerobic exercise over many years. They dont indicate that the holder is capable of running fast now but its generally a good indicator of heart health.
Yes I agree generally it's linked to good health but it's not the case that exceptionally low means exceptional athlete. My resting pulse has been under 30 on occasion (about 36 now and I've not trained properly for over a year), I've trained hard in the past and been as fit and fast as I'm physically capable of being but I'm still just the level of a keen hobbyist. There are much faster people with significantly higher pulse rates!
Some non-athletic family members have a habit of setting off alarms when in hospital and their pulse drops below "safe" levels.
My 40yo nephew did an 11k on a canal bank today and his average heart rate was 79bpm, max 85.
To be really picky, this doesn't say he was running so they could be walking stats and therefore accurate...
I concur with a couple of points above. I run or ride almost every day and use a strap and a Garmin. Whilst using the watch vs strap, the Garmin is a bit laggy when running and very laggy whilst cycling. It doesn't deal with short, fast bursts (like small hills) at all well (accurately). The strap also loses accuracy/connectivity over time which causes dropouts, rubbish data and spurious spikes.
Low resting HR used to be a rough indicator of fitness. As above, it could indicate a lifetime of aerobic training or just someone with the physiology of a very low resting HR. Mine is currently high 30's and I'm nowhere near as fit as usual for one reason or another (illness and injury mainly).
I'd just go running but use a credible HR monitor to ensure you dont overdo it. Fitter people can run harder than their bodies can stand (as they're aerobically fit) and run themselves into injury trouble. Coming back from illness or injury, I tend to build distance then improve time then rinse and repeat until I'm back where I want to be - or reinjured as I've overdone it again 🙃
I'd be using your 10k at 10:00 mile pace as a base to improve on. Run at that until your average HR is say 135 to 140 then mebbies up the pace a little, say 9:30's and do that until you can manage the 10k at 9:30 average with HR back to 135 to 140 average and so on. You might need some harder training thrown in occasionally to stress things a bit but the main thing is, don't overdo it. Duration or pace.
That's my approach - rightly or wrongly.
but it's not the case that exceptionally low means exceptional athlete.
And I am an example of that but I suspect you are unlikely to find an exceptional (distance) athlete with a "high" resting rate.
Another new-ish runner here, started with C25K in December and have first half marathon on 6th April and run 13 miles 3 times now in lead up.
Just what i have found as someone who loves a metric!
HR zones for running are very different to my HR zones for cycling. Zone 2 for me cycling is 110-128BPM, running it is 125-141k, but i have found myself getting less and less obsessed about HR and gone with the "can i speak in whole sentences" as a guide for zone 2
I really struggle to get my max HR above 155-160 on the turbo trainer even when hot and doing long Vo2 max intervals, yet doing intervals running, found new max HR of 182
Other thing that has made a huge difference to me is breathing whilst running, making sure that breathes are "full" in that not just breathing with my chest, but making sure diaphragm opens and stomach clearly extends with each deep breath, and then breathing with my running cadence, that has brought HR down a lot with increasing fitness. Paying off though, i still have old numbers on my turbo trainer, and where i used to often sit at 128-130, i am now happily sitting at 110 for zone 2 stuff having added in running, so need to redo fitness tests on turbo