Timeline for Why does my pace improve during a low heart rate (HRR zone 2) 10k?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7 at 12:21 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | This answer simply can't be right - see the update to the question. | |
| Dec 4, 2023 at 4:21 | comment | added | Ten O'Four | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 22:27 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | Ah, I have found it is a misleading term: "The 180-Formula was engineered as an easy-to-use accurate estimator of an individual’s Maximum Aerobic Function Heart Rate (MAF HR), at which stress levels are low enough that sugar is being utilized at a minimum, but fat-burning activity is at its highest." That is not maximum aerobic function, it is about energy sources. philmaffetone.com/… | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 22:23 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | The site you linked said the MAF test should be performed at the max aerobic HR. The terminology is misleading, or at least inconsistent with other methods, such as Karvonen's as Karvonen zone 3 is still an aerobic zone. No wonder us newbies are confused! Note my MAF HR would be 126, so I am clearly not "running far too slowly" as on average I am running slightly above my MAF HR. I still don't see how I could be running for an hour at the "maximum aerobic HR" and still not have warmed up. | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 21:45 | comment | added | Ten O'Four | I think you're confusing MAF HR with your second lactate threshold. While there are some adjustments, your MAF HR is 180 minus your age. So a 30 year old would have a MAF HR of 150. If you want more info, it's on the site I linked | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 20:44 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | The top of Karvonen zone 2 doesn't sound like "max aerobic level" for me - I have no problem running for a couple of hours at the top of zone 3. From what I have read, Karvonen zone 3 is considered an aerobic zone. There seems to be a lot of variability in these zones, but the Karvonen system works for me, the results fit much better with the usual textual descriptions (e.g. zone 2 - can hold a conversation) fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/46297/… | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 17:40 | comment | added | Ten O'Four | Also, how long you need to warm up depends on your body. For some people, a 5-10 minute progressive warm up is too much. For others, 20 minutes isn't enough. | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 17:38 | comment | added | Ten O'Four | Your MAF HR correlates pretty closely to the top of Karvonen zone 2. If that's the top of zone 3 for you, then it could be your zones are wrong. Consequently, this could mean you're running far too slowly. At a recovery run pace, you're not fatiguing the same | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 17:13 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | +1 for the suggestion though. The MAF test seems to be designed to be undertaken at the maximum aerobic heart rate though, which would be the top of zone 3. I checked my last two zone three runs and the first 10km was at a pretty constant pace in both; for my last zone 4 run, the pace decreased through the run, but not by very much. | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 16:45 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | I don't see how that is the case, surely after running the first 5k I ought to be fully warmed up for the second 5k? FWIW I had walked briskly about 1km to the place I was running and then performed dynamic stretching and lunges etc. before starting the run, so my heart rate was fairly elevated already (115 bpm, but I can walk for an hour at a normal pace with a HR of 70-80 bpm). | |
| S Dec 3, 2023 at 16:28 | review | First answers | |||
| Dec 4, 2023 at 1:55 | |||||
| S Dec 3, 2023 at 16:28 | history | answered | Ten O'Four | CC BY-SA 4.0 |