Hi Sheila,
I think it means you are running below your threshold and could try again by bumping up your heart rate another 5 bpm and see what happens. Caveat for anyone else reading this: this can also happen, as i understand it, if you start your 60 mins before you are adequately warmed up – but I also selected a range in your chart to disclude the data from the beginning, and it was still negative, so this doesn’t appear to be the case.

Mathematically, it means that overall your heart rate decreased slightly while your pace improved. You did maintain it really well, but it did decrease. The conclusion for me then is that you can stand to run with a bit more increased heart rate and get it more towards between 1-3%.

I hope the coaches will chime in and say if im wrong or right because I am also learning – and maybe have a bit more specific advice about how much you could bump up your heart rate, should you want to repeat it. Mine was also only at 1%, so i am going to try again tomorrow and see if i can get it closer to 3.

Thanks Maya! I have another question about the threshold number but i am not sure if i should ask it here, ask it in a zoom meeting or start my own topic. It’s basically about a realization I had – I seem to have a higher threshold (top of zone 2) than what the MAF method gives me, by far – I am 48 so that would be 132. But i ran for 60 mins yesterday and slowed my pace down to try to get to 142, but still only have a drift of 1%. I did this test last year, and I think it came to 148-150, which is a threshold where i can still have conversations when i run.

Now, I always thought my high HR was an indicator that i was out of shape. But then i read somewhere on here that “our goal is to increase our threshold HR”. Does that mean since i can run at 150 for an hour and not have a drift of 5%, that I am not doing as bad as I thought I was? Wouldn’t it be better for my endurance to be able to run the same pace with a LOWER heart rate? Or is my brain completely screwed up and the goal isn’t to have a lower heart rate, but to be able to adapt to a higher one?

This doesn’t need to be answered here, but I just wanted to lay my thoughts on the table so we can discuss it somewhere, sometime. I know we shouldn’t compare, but I do get jealous of the people in my running club who are running along with me at a HR of 125 or something crazy low and I always had it in my head that thats what I should be aiming for before adding on more volume. (and its why i signed up!)

Thanks Maya! Your answer definitely helps me wrap my head around it. I should add that yeah, at even HR 145-150, I am still pretty slow for an hours’ run (i am coming from more of a sprinting background so its been a big transition the last 2 years trying to slow down so I don’t burn out, build volume, increase endurance, etc). So i do look forward to more discussions and seeing this improve!

Hi Sheila, I have nothing helpful to contribute, I just wanted to say I have similar. I managed to get my Pa:Hr positve, but JUST barely, it is hovering around 0. And I can’t physically go faster right now because I am coming off a 3 month break due to a surgery. I did go out and buy a chest strap (Polar H10) and maybe I should have saved my money because I got the exact same results.

Does 160 feel good to you for an hour? I personally thought, ok, I can do this for an hour, its comfortable, and I can talk, but I am not sure i could do it FOR hours, which is what running at under our AeT should be (or maybe that is when we start building volume, not sure). So thats going to be a question for the coaches. Because of that, i purposely ran at an even slower pace, so I could get a HR of 148 – but it felt the exact same.

Like i said, not helpful for you, but just wanted to tell you I have a similar issue. Right now I am chalking it up to: I am well adapted to run at a higher HR due to training i did last year, but just out of shape (muscle wise) after my break so still slower than I was last year at lower HRs.