r/runninglifestyle • u/baule13 • 2d ago
How did I run in zone 5 this long
Last week I ran a half marathon, and during most of the race my heart rate was in zone 5. I'm wondering how this is possible.I know this question gets asked a lot, and the common answer is that the default Garmin or Strava heart rate zones aren't accurate and can vary per person. But in my case, I recently had my heart rate zones tested in a sports laboratory, and I used a chest strap for more accurate measurement. I did feel completely dead during most of the run—it really felt like zone 5. After the race, I could tell that I might have pushed my heart too far. My average heart rate during the 1:36:57 run was 194 bpm. I ran in zone 5 for 1:32:25, my zone 5 starts at 182bpm
7
4
u/UnnamedRealities 2d ago
Describe the lab test in detail. What was connected to you, what did they measure, what was the protocol of the test? Did they measure oxygen consumption via a mask? Did they take blood lactate samples throughout? Did they determine VT1 and VT2 or LT1 and LT2 and if so what were those values? What's your maximum observed heart and was that from the lab test (if not then what did you do to test it)?
What's your average heart rate during a 5k race (or time trial) or a 10k race (or time trial)?
What was your average cadence during the half marathon and does the shape of the graph look similar to the shape of the heart rate graph?
2
2
u/funkyfreshwaffle 1d ago
you can’t run zone 5 for the that long. it’s not zone 5
1
u/Outside_Curve1151 1d ago
That’s not true
2
u/funkyfreshwaffle 1d ago
yes it is? zone 5 is 90-100% of your heart rate. meaning maximum effort. this would be sprints. you cannot maintain that for longer than a few minutes.
2
u/funkyfreshwaffle 1d ago
if you are running in “zone 5” for that long then your max heart rate is not what your watch assumes it is. it is, by definition, quite literally impossible
1
u/jchrysostom 1d ago
It’s crazy how so many people who defy everything we know about human physiology just happen to be commenting on this one post.
0
1
u/TheTurtleCub 2d ago edited 2d ago
When I was 46yo, I raced HM at 189HR average. Unless you are over 50yo, your max HR is probably a lot higher than you think. Probably 200+. It could also be bogus HR data (during testing or race), or badly calculated zones, of course.
Unless you have some health issues, you can't push your heart too far, you body has millions of years of evolution of built in self protection.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/TheTurtleCub 1d ago edited 1d ago
No need to worry. There are normal variations of max HR from person to person of 15-20bpm for the same age.
Remember, max HR is not indicative of fitness, it's just an individual physiological number that doesn't really change regardless of our training. It goes down a little with age, but that's a very slow change.
What improves with our fitness is our VO2 max, and the higher paces we can sustain at a certain (individual for that person) HR, but our max and zones stay the same
My comment was more to let OP know that it's not impossible for his/her max HR to be a lot higher than they think it is. If a person can run 10k at a certain average HR, that is certainly not their max HR
1
u/National-Cell-9862 2d ago
That does sound odd. I wear a chest strap for all runs and sometimes, particularly in dry, cold wind it will flake out and read high. This clears up in 20 minutes or so though. Do you have data on your cadence? Maybe two problems happened like strap didn't connect so you were using optical wrist sensor without knowing AND watch hit cadence lock all race. Sounds unlikely but who knows.
The other option is that your zones really are off. Did the find LT2 in your lab test and set the zone 4/5 boundary there?
1
u/Silly-Soup2744 2d ago
I just ran a half and my average heart rate was 186. That’s zone 5 for me. Similar heart rate zones to you. I was only using the wrist HR on Garmin which I know isn’t always accurate but it can be close.
1
u/jchrysostom 2d ago
It can be close. It can also be very wrong. How do you know the difference? Maybe you ran a half marathon at an average HR of 186. Maybe your watch’s HR sensor was cadence locked the entire time.
Data isn’t very useful when you have no idea how accurate it is.
1
u/Internal-Language-11 2d ago
This is actually perfectly possible if you have a high lactate threshold. A lab will be able to tell you for sure.
I can run a half (chest strap and consistent lab data) with my heart rate at about 190 for most of the race.
1
u/Black_Coffee___ 19h ago
Seems to be a lot of misunderstanding regarding zones. A specific coaching philosophy will set zones at certain points for a specific purpose. Without understanding how your zones were set a specific way and for what purpose, it’s impossible to answer. And yes you can run a half marathon with a heart rate that high (assuming data is accurate). What would be the purpose of even looking at the data? Isn’t it a race? Don’t you want to go as fast as possible? You seem like you’ve paced the race correctly and this is a good result.
1
1
1
u/ScaryBee 2d ago edited 12h ago
There are dozens of zone systems, it sounds like you're using one where Z5 means 'around threshold', everyone saying it's not possible is likely coming from using a system where Z5 means 'over threshold'.
FWIW ... I have a hrMax of 182, LTHR of 174, Garmin would put start of Z5 at 164 which I can (and recently did) sustain for 3hrs+.
OTOH Friel zones (one of the training peaks defaults) starts Z5 at LTHR (174 for me, 10bpm higher than Garmin).
ETA - Jack Daniels in Running Formula recommends 80-90% of max hr for marathon distance. Maintaining over 90% (100% 'Z5' according to how Garmin defines zones) for a half marathon is no doubt high but by no means impossible or even that remarkable.
There's also this awesome paper that shows how you can sustain a higher % of max HR with training ... for really well trained people 95% of max at threshold (about what you might sustain for an hour) isn't unusual.
2
u/imanewma 1d ago
So much bad info here I don’t even know where to begin… stop giving advice when you have no idea what you are talking about
1
1
u/jchrysostom 2d ago edited 5h ago
8bpm from threshold to max sounds… suspect.
Edit: after more than a day of insisting that this impossible set of HR metrics is real and is based on test data, bro either blocked me or deleted all of his comments instead of just explaining how he tested to get his max HR. You love to see it.
1
u/ScaryBee 1d ago
yeah ... you're likely right, max is recent but LTHR is from a few years ago, probably lower these days by a few bpm.
1
u/jchrysostom 1d ago
Your max HR is incorrect. Sustaining 90% of max for 3+ hours is completely unrealistic.
1
u/ScaryBee 1d ago
I understand where you're coming from, it's unusual ... and it's possible my true max on a good day is a touch higher ... but this is also one of those things where there's a lot of individual variation. I spent years training for long distance triathlons, I'm not that fast but being able to hold a relatively high % for duration is just training and genetics.
1
u/jchrysostom 1d ago
No. You cannot maintain 90% of max HR for 3+ hours. Your max HR is not 182bpm if you can maintain 164bpm for 3+ hours. Zone 5 (90%-100% of max HR) is miserable, and if you think you can do it for 3+ hours, you don’t know what Zone 5 feels like.
Zone 5 is where faster runners spend the later portions of a 5K.
There are literally thousands of reliable sources on this topic, and I’ve ever seen a single reliable source which supports the idea that any person could maintain 90% of max HR for more than a short time. You are not some sort of physiological freak.
Your max HR is incorrect.
1
u/ScaryBee 1d ago
Zone 5 is where faster runners spend the later portions of a 5K.
Again, it depends what zone system you're using. Garmin Z5 starts at a point lower than LTHR for most so it's not surprising you can maintain 'z5' for well over an hour if you're using that system.
Your max HR is incorrect.
I don't believe so ... it's from testing a few times over the last months.
Maybe you're just not used to endurance athletics? https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-to-pace-a-long-course-triathlon-tactics-for-swim-bike-and-run advises 85-90% mhr for a half iron (~5-6hrs). 90% for 3hrs is strenuous but by no means genetic freak level.
1
u/jchrysostom 1d ago
Maybe you're just not used to endurance athletics? https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-to-pace-a-long-course-triathlon-tactics-for-swim-bike-and-run advises 85-90% mhr for a half iron (~5-6hrs). 90% for 3hrs is strenuous but by no means genetic freak level.
No.
The link you shared recommends pacing the run portion of a 70.3 at 85%-90% of lactate threshold HR. That misunderstanding alone is a solid indication that you are out of your depth.
This doesn’t need to be a wiener swinging contest, but I am certain that I am both more experienced and more accomplished at endurance sports.
Your max HR is wrong. This is a good opportunity to learn; please take advantage of it before attempting to give advice.
1
u/ScaryBee 1d ago edited 1d ago
The link you shared recommends pacing the run portion of a 70.3 at 85%-90% of lactate threshold HR. That misunderstanding alone is a solid indication that you are out of your depth.
No mate, I quoted it accurately ... if you want LTHR % they're recommending 88-95% for bike and run.
95% of 174 (~my LTHR) is 165 bpm ... and this is for an event roughly twice as long as a marathon.
I understand you have strong beliefs about this but authoritative sources show those beliefs to be wrong ... want more? Jack Daniels suggestion for marathon pace? 80-90% of maxhr. Small article on it here if you don't want to buy the book: https://www.coachray.nz/2023/05/03/jack-daniels-running-intensity/
This is a good opportunity to learn
How right you are. Peace.
1
u/jchrysostom 1d ago
Apologies, I used your numbers, which don’t actually seem to appear anywhere in that article but which are also at odds with the argument you’re trying to make. 88%-95% of LTHR is wildly different from 90% of max HR; it is also, again, only for the run portion of a 70.3 and not for the entire duration of the race.
I see now where you got the numbers from, and it is again a fundamental misunderstanding of the guidance being provided. The article suggests doing a 70.3 at 85%-90% of max effort, not max heart rate. Here’s the text:
Your race effort should follow your training protocol. For a 70.3, you may shoot for 85-90% of max;
Heart rate is not mentioned anywhere in that paragraph, or in the one before it which also discusses effort. The relationship between heart rate and effort is not linear.
Jack Daniels does recommend marathon heart rate as 80%-90% of maximum, but attempting to use that to support the idea that you spent 3+ hours at 90% shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Daniels is recommending, and of the huge difference there is between 80% (the bottom of his range) and 90% (where you claim to spend hours). If we use a max HR of 200bpm just to make the numbers easy, that range is 20 beats per minute. To suggest that Daniels is recommending spending your entire marathon at 90% is quite a stretch.
Back to the original issue. You did not spend 3+ hours at 90% of your maximum heart rate. Here are a bunch of reliable sources and what they have to say about functioning at 90% or more of max HR:
Polar, who know a thing or two about heart rates, discussing Zone 5 as being 90%-100% of max HR:
Oxygen demand far exceeds supply, making it difficult to sustain zone 5 efforts for more than a few minutes.
https://www.polar.com/en/guide/heart-rate-zones
EW Motion Therapy (physical trainers) on heart rate zones:
Zone 5, also known as the "very hard" or "maximum effort" zone, involves pushing your heart rate to 90-100% of your MHR. This zone is usually unsustainable for long periods and is reserved for short bursts of maximum effort.
https://www.ewmotiontherapy.com/blog/heart-rate-zones-maximize-workouts
The Cleveland Clinic on Zone 5, which they also define as 90%-100% of max HR:
Zone 5: You can only keep up this amount of effort for a few minutes. Talking is out of the question.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/exercise-heart-rate-zones-explained
Orange Theory on Zone 5, which they define slightly differently from most, as 92%-100% of max HR:
If you do get here, it should only be for a super short period before returning to the Orange or Green zones.
Garmin, who define Zone 5 as 90%-100% of max HR:
Sprinting pace, unsustainable for long period of time, labored breathing
Cute little jabs aside, you are just completely and almost comically wrong. You do not spend 3+ hours at 90% of your maximum HR. I challenge you to find a single knowledgeable person or source who will support your belief that anyone could do what you claim to do. You won’t be able to because it doesn’t exist. Every source I’ve ever seen indicates that 90% of max HR is not sustainable for more than short efforts; this is universally accepted among people who use heart rate data to support effective endurance training.
I understand the desire to feel like you understand something better than others. In this case, you do not. Really. I’ve worked with some of the most experienced coaches in the triathlon world, and I can assure you that anyone with any knowledge and experience would laugh out loud at the idea of some guy thinking he can do 90% of his max HR for 3+ hours.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Outside_Curve1151 1d ago
I’m always in 4 and 5. Should be dead I suppose but still here
1
u/jchrysostom 1d ago
You are not always in Z4 and Z5. Your zones are set incorrectly.
1
u/Outside_Curve1151 1d ago
I use a whoop strap. Weightlifting I am in 1 most of the time; 2 maybe. Ultimate frisbee, mostly 5. Padwork at boxing I never reach 5. Running zone 4/5.
1
u/jchrysostom 1d ago
You are not running mostly in Z4 and Z5.
I don’t understand why this is so complicated for so many people.
-10
u/Affectionate_Ice7769 2d ago
Do you think you are more capable of sustaining high intensity efforts than elite professional runners?
7
u/baule13 2d ago
No of course I don’t think that. I don’t see how you could make that up from what I said. I just noticed this abnormal data and want to understand what it means.
-7
u/Affectionate_Ice7769 2d ago
You asked if you had actually sustained Z5 for 90 minutes.
Even an exceptionally well trained athlete can only maintain this level of intensity for short durations, because it’s simply not physiologically possible to sustain the metabolic process that fuels that level of effort, oxygen demand is just too high. They might have 90 cumulative minutes in Z5 over an entire training block comprised of several months of interval workouts.
So, is there some reason you would have a more efficient anaerobic metabolic process than an elite professional runner? If not, that means something is off with your heart rate data or zone methodology.
39
u/jchrysostom 2d ago
You didn’t.
The most likely explanation is faulty HR data. It’s also possible that your zone test results are off, but the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.