Heart Rate

Mark you need to do a proper HR test - the [220 - age] is just an average, and deviations from it are huge.

Having said that, unless you have an unbelievably freak high max, 170 is probably too high for the bulk of your runs.

Read this http://www.fetcheveryone.com/article-view.php?id=434

Try doing a max heart rate test and then check your resting heart rate. You can take the resting away from the maximum and you get you heart rate reserve (HRR). This is a much more accurate way to figure out where you need to be. Percentages can be worked out using the HRR - google it

It really important you dont go too hard to often as you end up knackered. Longer runs need to be easier, that way you recover faster and can do other relevant training like tempo runs.

good luck

I like the +/- 15 bpm - I've not heard that before. It gives me exactly what I run at comfortably! (that's having done RHR, Max HR and all the maths, then tweaked it a few beats on the Garmin so I'm happier ...)

I may have got the standard deviation of +/- wrong - can't find the info - seen all sorts of variations online. In anycase as others said, check your own max Heart Rate, and don't worry too much about statistical norms, otherwise you may have a familily with a 0.2 child one day

Got to say that a 44yr old, doing 9 miles at 8:25 pace is impressive for someone who only started running 8 weeks ago. But I would say that I've frequently read that you are now  at a critical time for getting injured. (a little experience myself too)

Now you are a runner, you are subjecting your leg bones, ligaments, muscles, to repetitive stresses...  and it takes some months for them to adjust - hence why almost all plans do not propose that you do as much as you have, as fast as you have. 

Maybe your heart/lungs were quite fit to start with (from other activities?), or maybe they just responded quickly to training...  and this is allowing you to run at a fast pace over long distances...  but you really MUST consider that you will almost surely be putting repetitive strain on those ligaments etc, and building up cumulative damage.   Your heart and lungs may be able to cope with this rapid increase in speed/mileage, but many people find that the cumulative damage on their ligaments/tendons/bones/muscles catches up with them about 6-12 weeks in.

So... take care. If you think this rings true, then have a "rest week", where you do fewer miles at a slower pace,  and even then, when you pick it up again, I'd recommend that you continue to slow down that pace. You're doing great. Look after yourself... and focus mainly on building up your body with aerobic, slow runs.  Don't undo your good work by finding you get shin splints or plantar fascia or something...  the sorts of things that can come and bite you at this stage.

Well done on doing so well.

I'm confused

After reading what you all said I thought I would take it easy this week since my Saturday long run. Normally I go out Tues and Thurs on a 4 miler and Sat for the longer runs (will be 10 miles this Sat) but this week I had Tues off and I have just been out for a gentle 4 mile run (Wed)

I tried my hardest to run really slow and to be honest it was hurting my calfs after 3 miles. I wanted to take bigger steps but kept at what I thought was a really slow pace. Dont know if this was a good idea but 100 metres from the end I ran as fast as possible to see if I could get a max heart rate reading.

The Garmin read as follows -

Max heart rate = 183    Average HR = 167    Average pace 8.11

I also did a resting heart rate test for 30 mins before running and the average was 55

This slow run turned out to be my second quickest 4 miler !!!!

What can anyone tell me about these readings. Looking back at my original post should I stop looking at the Garmin and just run and not worry about the average heart rate ?

Hi Mark

A 100m sprint isn't going to change the average much for a 4 miler.  It also isn't a true indication of your maxHR - you need to do the test properly as per link I posted above.

As for what is "slow", I could suggest you race a 5k parkrun on Saturday. Do it flat out, eyeballs popping etc.  As you hit the last 100m that will probably be 5 beats off your maxHR.  After finishing, work out your pace in mins per mile. Then add 3 mins.  That is "slow". 

I apologise in advance if your 5k pace is 5.11 per mile...

M4RKRUN wrote (see)

I'm confused

After reading what you all said I thought I would take it easy this week since my Saturday long run. Normally I go out Tues and Thurs on a 4 miler and Sat for the longer runs (will be 10 miles this Sat) but this week I had Tues off and I have just been out for a gentle 4 mile run (Wed)

I tried my hardest to run really slow and to be honest it was hurting my calfs after 3 miles. I wanted to take bigger steps but kept at what I thought was a really slow pace. Dont know if this was a good idea but 100 metres from the end I ran as fast as possible to see if I could get a max heart rate reading.

The Garmin read as follows -

Max heart rate = 183    Average HR = 167    Average pace 8.11

I also did a resting heart rate test for 30 mins before running and the average was 55

This slow run turned out to be my second quickest 4 miler !!!!

What can anyone tell me about these readings. Looking back at my original post should I stop looking at the Garmin and just run and not worry about the average heart rate ?

Yes just run, take it easy, even a slow jog is 200 times more energenic than resting.