this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
7 points (100.0% liked)
Running
3592 readers
13 users here now
A place for runners.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah I’m sure my real max is higher. Going by my age, it’s 184. But pretty sure I can hit 200. So I guess I should make it 200, but i haven’t hit that in a long time. Figured using 194 is better than 184.
I have an Apple Watch so cant do the lactate threshold thing.
Sounds good. Just did another 5K keeping my average at 148bpm. 10-minute/mile pace. Relatively fast cadence. My main method of slowing down is lowering my stride but I think I’m keeping the same cadence as my faster runs. I guess time will tell if this is working.
Does it support heart rate reserve? If so, use that. Beyond that as long as your runs roughly feel like they should for each zone it's okay as it's not an exact science.
EDIT: Reading your original question more carefully, high HR isn't really dangerous if you don't have an underlying health problem, it's just not an effective way to get faster if that's all you do. Most people gain improvements from a mix of short, high intensity interval sessions, and longer low intensity runs. The general rule is 80/20 in favour of "easy" runs in terms of distance, but this matters more for people who are doing very large volumes. Nevertheless, you should be doing a greater volume of slower runs in terms of distance over a given period.
The reason is that people generally can't tolerate huge volumes at high intensity. Since high volume is a big part of improving fitness, a mix of the two intensities is important.