I set out this morning hoping to debunk the "220 - your age" age adjusted formula (220 is for men; women use 226 - age) used to estimate your maximum heart rate.
I ran from my house about a mile to the track at The Woodlands High School 9th grade campus to do the following running test: "After warming up, run at even pace for three minutes, as fast as you can. Jog for two minutes; then run again for three minutes as fast as you can. Your maximum heart rate is the maximum level reached during the second 3 minute run." I don't recall the exact source of the test; I found it online months ago and finally got around to trying it this morning.
The few times I've run with a heart rate monitor, my heart rate has been really high/out of the zones that it should be in while training (using zones defined by the age adjusted formula) so I figured that my max HR was much higher than the age adjusted formula.
I ran back home after the 2nd 3 minute test and walked Waldo around the neighborhood while I was already soaked with sweat. 220 - my age has my estimated maximum heart rate at 175; test results reveal that my maximum heart rate is 175. So much for my theory about being much higher than the estimate. The estimate was dead on for me.
I don't use splits very often on my Garmin and kept resetting instead of just lapping so I ended up with 6 workouts this morning totalling around 4 miles..... All the workouts look impressive for the day until you add up the mileage.
Now that I know that the zones I've used before are good, I need to start using them for smarter training.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment