Distance: 9 miles
Heart rate: 173-ish
Weight: Not talking about it.
Wine consumption: 2 gl. at dinner with Indian food
Today was the weekend long run with Coach starting at 5:30 a.m. We were supposed
to go with B and F. At 5:30, B texted that it was raining and she wasn’t
getting out of bed. F texted that she thought the run was starting at 6:30, not
5:30. This is what happens when you start the run so early. People don’t think
it’s such a great idea when the alarm goes off.
It was still dark at 5:30, leading to this conversation:
Coach: Wait, I need to find my sunscreen.
Me: You don’t need sunscreen. It is the middle of the night.
Coach: Where are my sunglasses?
Me: Have you noticed
it is pitch black out and raining?
The focus of today’s nine-mile run was my new heart rate monitor. I
bought this as a birthday present for myself—it is a Garmin Forerunner 110
watch with a heart rate monitor.
(This is not my arm. I'm less veiny and muscular. And am a girl.)
Turns out I have a ridiculously fast heartbeat
while working out. Or maybe all the time. We walked from the car to the
stoplight, and it was already 93 bpm. Coach’s was, like, 12. Then we got to
play this game for 9 miles:
Coach: What’s it at now?
Me: 168.
Coach: Mine’s 131!
(half mile passes)
Coach: What's it at now?
I never won this game.
Coach informed me
that I shouldn’t worry—what mattered was how fast my heart slows after I stop
exercising. Was that true? Seems like my rate is pretty fast. (Note that it is
faster at a moderate pace for a long slow distance run than Toe-Shoes Tina’s
was for her all out one-mile sprint.) What if I have heart disease?
So I did a little research. Traditionally, people use a
formula that takes 220 minus-your-age to come up with a heart rate maximum, and
then you train at a percentage of that. So my max would be 180, and I'd be training at 75% of that, or 135. I'm quite a bit higher. But according to some pros, this
formula is “notoriously inaccurate.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/health/nutrition/10BEST.html
In fact, the formula was devised in 1970 by physicians
who culled data from different studies to find a maximum heart rate—but these
were not meant to be a representative sample of the population. They drew a
line through the data and determined that for age 20, the heart rate maximum average
was 200, and for age 60, it was 160. Although it was clear a maximum heart rate
could vary widely depending on the individual, people took it as gospel. One of
the physicians who came up with the formula said to the New York Times that the
formula “was never supposed to be an absolute guide to people’s training.” http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
That article also says, “Heart rate is an indicator of heart disease," said Dr. Michael
Lauer, a cardiologist and the director of clinical research in cardiology at
the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. But, he added, it is not the maximum that
matters: "it is how quickly the heart rate falls when exercise is stopped.”
(I tell Coach. He
says, “Isn’t that what I said?” Dude, I know. I’m allowed to consult other
sources.)
What to conclude? I will just keep an eye on it, hope my heart doesn't explode, and watch to see if the rate decreases over the next months as marathon training gets serious. And then there is this:
(My wine glass would likely have several more EKG rhythms in it.)
No comments:
Post a Comment