Related

Is 96% of my maximum heart rate a reasonable ask for a VO2 Max run?

JazzRunnerDP
8 days ago

My Garmin 965's suggested workout today was a VO2 Max run of 8 2-minute work sections at 163 beats per minute with a one minute trot at 117 beats per minute in between. Additionally there was a ten minute warm up and ten minute cool down, both at 129 beats per minute.

163 beats per minute is 96% of my maximum heart rate of 170 beats per minute. My running lactate threshold is 156 beats per minute, 91.7% of my maximum heart rate. I'm 73 years old.

Here's how the run happened for me: (You can see the details of my heart rate during the run in the attached screenshot. )

• Although I did hit 162 beats per minute once, most of my work sections peaked between 155-159 beats per minute.

• It took me most of the two minutes of the work sections to reach those levels as I typically started each work section at about 132 beats per minute.

• The watch scored the workout as a Tempo run.

• My Execution Score was 18%. I generally get much better scores on suggested workouts that are categorized as Threshold and Tempo.

• My Aerobic Benefit was 3.6.

• My Anaerobic Benefit was 2.1.

Questions:

• When you get a VO2 Max workout, is your target heart rate approximately the same percentage of maximum as mine?

• Do you find the target heart rate for your VO2 Max workouts to be achievable?

• Are your experiences with a VO2 Max workout similar to mine or different? If different, how?

• For those of you who get a high execution score on a VO2 Max workout, what does your heart rate profile look like?

  • 0 8 days ago

    I change mine to pace for these , tempo and other faster workouts and use HR for base and recovery runs. When I see its aTempo, etc I change the DSW setting to Pace and then back after.  With HR, the HR ramp take too long (both up and down) and the execution score is not good. You can see this on your graphs there is a sort of offset.

    I dont have one in the coming period so cannot check the HR ranges it sets.

  • 0 8 days ago in reply to S.M.R.

    Hey S.M.R.

    Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try it. Just hope I remember to change that setting.

    For which workouts do you use pace and for which heart rate?

  • 0 8 days ago in reply to JazzRunnerDP

    I use HR for the base , recovery and similar steady state runs.  The issue with the one with tempo, etc that have high/ low HR is that the HR doesn't react fast and in a straight line as the graph depicts the workout. Then one is spending low HR time in teh high part and high HR in the low part as your chart shows so the evaluation score is off even though the workout is actually correct.  

    For instance today it shows threshold @ 148 BMP, now it will likely take a while for my HR to get to 148 from the start of the threshold part , and for sure to come down after the end of the threshold part. If I select pace its say the same time but at 4 min / km.  As an example.

    I've started using HR for my easy base long runs etc and not look at pace at all , just at the HR dial that the workout puts on the screen. I've found this good for me as looking at pace makes one think one is going to slow psychologically I find. It has taken me a while to get my head around it but now I'm in the groove I find it helpful to get me to do some of my runs at a slower type pace.

  • 0 8 days ago in reply to S.M.R.

    Thanks for the extra information.

    I've noticed that some of the faster runs ask for running at a single steady state without a rest, for instance - I have a Threshold run coming up that, not including the warm up and cool down, is simply 22 minutes at threshold (for me: 8:40 pace or 153 BPM). For this run, would you set your watch to pace or HR?

  • 0 8 days ago in reply to JazzRunnerDP

    I would do pace as I find it easier to stay in the workout zones. 

    That is very similar to mine suggested Threshold WO today  which is 29mins at 148bpm or 29min at 4:00 per KM. 

    The watch says my Threshold is 3:58 at 151 .

  • 0 7 days ago in reply to S.M.R.

    Do you find any downside in doing the suggested workouts based on pace? I'm thinking of potential difficulties in maintaining the target pace on uphills and the potential of the difficulty in holding pace during the later portion of a longer run.

  • 0 7 days ago in reply to JazzRunnerDP

    Valid points , I suppose both ways have plusses and minuses.

    It's like doing long run which includes a nice hill in the middle base on BPM. :-). Had one of those this week. 

    Give it a try and then one can see what works best. Best of luck!

    Keep up the running. I'm 61 so hats off to you!

  • 0 7 days ago in reply to S.M.R.

    Wow! 4:00 minutes per kilometer threshold at 61 years old is very impressive. If you run competitively, you must do very well in your age group. I feel like I'm slowing down a bit each month now. My cadence remains consistent at 180-190, but my stride length decreases. Oh well, I guess I should be grateful that I'm still able to get out an run.

  • 0 7 days ago

    Like SMR mentioned heart rate lags far behind for any type of target HR on intervals.  Better to target the work, the heart rate is only the response to work your body is doing... and very dependent on outside factors (heat, caffeine, hydration, stress, time of day).  Better to use HR afterward in analysis and progress tracking.  For long runs or long steady tempos, you can use it, but still you have to take it with a grain a salt - for a Tempo or Threshold run, you might not hit the 'target' until you are nearly done with the workout, but as long as you understand that... then its fine.  Or a long run... you shouldn't set out to target your BPM in the first 1km or mile... you would want to set the pace that triggers your aerobic system, likely your 'easy zn2 pace'... it might take 5km before you are in the zn2 target HR!  You would want to sit low in the target HR for the first 1/3 of a long run probably and then it will likely continue drifting up towards the high target HR, unless your VERY aerobicly fit, plus its cold and well hydrated.
    Similar for biking, you target workout zones by Watts.... not shooting for a Heart Rate.  Running is fairly similar, paces are well defined... easy enough on up/down hills to watch HR just before and during a hill to account or 'check' your effort/pace.

  • 0 7 days ago in reply to NickMN

    Thanks for the advice NickMN. I live in an area that is mostly rolling hills. On longer runs, I typically gain or lose about 100 feet per mile. This impacts my pace such that, if I'm using the pace option, I drop below the target pace on the uphills. On the other hand, if I'm using the heart rate option, I can regulate my pace to keep my heart rate in the target zone. Running on level ground, which I have available to be on a bike path that goes by a creek, it takes me about two minutes to ramp up from my warm up heart rate, about 129, to my threshold pace, about 153.