Running News Daily

Every week or two, I'll open an athlete's training log and it seems like a blood-curdling scream leaps off the page.

"My body is being weird! My heart rate was way too high on this run!"

Or . . .

"My body is being weird! I couldn't get my heart rate up on this run!"

As Edgar Allan Poe could tell you, little is more disconcerting than a screwed-up heart beat. And sometimes these athletes' hearts seem very screwed up, a telltale sign of a major issue. Maybe they sustain 190 heart rate at a moderate effort. Or maybe it peaks at 120 on a sprint. When I first saw these issues a few years ago, worried about arrhythmia or other health crisis, I would ask them to go to the doctor immediately.

But, then, I would look at the data and notice discrepancies. Lots of studies came out that saw discrepancies too. There seemed to be a problem of faulty measurement, rather than faulty hearts. So, now, I have a standard one-question response.

"Are you using a wrist-based optical heart-rate monitor?"

Simply put, for some athletes, wrist-based heart rate is not accurate during intense activity like running, though it varies a ton. And many athletes have no idea. Let's dig down into some of the data.

Heart-Rate-Measurement Basics

Most wrist-based heart-rate monitors rely on photoplethysmography, a word that I assume is real. Photoplethysmography involves using light to measure blood flow. That's why your watch may have a bright LED light that shines against your skin. Light refracted off the blood flowing beneath the surface of your skin is fed into algorithms that use it to spit out a heart-rate number.

Chest straps, meanwhile, use sensors on the strap to record signals from the heart beat. This process requires some moisture, which is why you may notice readings that are off when you start a run and haven't worked up a sweat.

Problems Wrist Monitors Face

The chest strap has the advantage of being a semi-direct measurement of heart rate. A good chest strap will be close to 100% accurate. Which makes sense, because it's essentially reaching into your chest cavity and recording each beat with a clipboard.

As we'll see later, many wrist monitors are not as accurate. For some, it could be as simple as not being placed correctly on the wrist, since being too loose generate a faulty reading, and being too tight can impede blood flow.

Other athletes may have physiology that is not as conducive to the technology, possibly due to locations of blood vessels or bodyfat percentage. On top of that, vigorous exercise jostles everything around, like turbulence on an airplane. You might be looking at a beautiful sunset out the window when you hit a rough patch, and now you're looking at the sky, now the clouds, now the sun and now you're throwing up in a bag.

Wrist-Monitor Accuracy Data

I currently have 18 windows open to different studies on wrist-based heart rate conducted since the start of 2017, and my computer fan just turned on loudly in protest. If my browser had a heart, it would currently be at VO2 max.

Most of the data from the studies has overlap, even if the conclusions vary. A January 2017 research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology had 50 healthy adults test four different wrist monitors and a chest strap at rest, 2 mph, 3 mph, 4 mph, 5 mph and 6 mph. While the chest strap had a 0.99 correlation with electrocardiograph readings, the wrist monitors varied between 0.83 and 0.91 correlation. That study had a conclusion that we'll see a lot: "In general, accuracy of wrist-worn monitors was best at rest and diminished with exercise."

An August 2017 study in the Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Journal had even more disheartening findings. Fifty athletes spent time on the treadmill, elliptical and stationary bike, and correlation varied from 0.75 to 0.92. As that study concluded: "Electrode-containing chest monitors should be used when accurate HR measurement is imperative."

"That sounds pretty good," someone might say. "It's not imperative to be exactly right, just close." That perspective is backed up by the conclusion of some studies. For example, a 2018 study in BMC Sports Science, Medicine, and Rehabilitation came to the conclusion that wrist-based heart rate is "acceptably close" across a broad range of activities. Looking a bit deeper into the data, that study found that during running, the heart rate numbers were within 10 beats per minute of actual heart rate 95% of the time, with around three beats per minute average error. In other words, on a one-hour run, a few minutes will be spent with a heart rate monitor giving a number that is 10+ beats off.

You think that was a lot of studies? Well you ain't seen nothing yet. A 2018 study in the journal Digital Health found absolute error of 1% to 8% depending on device and intensity level. A 2017 conference paper found that the tested watches accurately measure up to 89% of beats accurately at rest, and less during activity. A 2019 study in the Journal of Sport Sciences found error rates between 2.4% and 13.5%.

Here's the most fascinating one to me. A 2018 study in the BMJ Open Sport and Exercise Journal found absolute error values of 3.3% to 6.2%, but using a "10% equivalence zone," concluded that the watches were accurate. You can see why that is a problem for athletes if you think about using the heart-rate monitor to stay below aerobic threshold (AeT). Imagine a hypothetical athlete with an AeT of 150. At 150 heart rate or below, they know they can achieve the desired training stimulus, or excel in an ultra race. A 5% error rate could mean that their heart rate is actually 157 (which would lead to lack of recovery in training or a bonk in racing).

But here's the big problem-the errors are not consistent. If it was always 5% low or 5% high, we could use that information (you're probably having flashbacks to the accuracy v. precision distinction from high-school science class). Instead, it's all over the place, and since 5% is an average, sometimes it might read 190 or something that makes an athlete write a panicked entry in their training log.

It's kind of like Michael Cohen testimony. First it says one thing, then it says another, so even if it's right one time, how can you trust it? In this analogy, I'm not sure if I'm CSPAN or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Put It All Together

When it comes to wrist-based heart rate, it's not an obvious answer for every athlete. A 2018 commentary in the Journal of Medical Internet Research pointed out that there is no consensus, partially due to lack of uniformity in evaluation (the same data can be used to reach different conclusions based on methodology, as we were talking about with the "10% equivalence zone" above). The gold standard of product testing, D.C. Rainmaker, has found some optical sensors that work well for him (with variation), and his tests are as rigorous as any study protocol. Anecdotally, some athletes can use certain wrist monitors and return with beautiful heart-rate graphs that track effort, while others can use the same watch and do the same workout and return with a garbly mess of incomprehensible noise.

In addition, every watch is different, and some are more accurate than others. The technology is constantly improving, and it's possible that newer, high-quality watches have overcome some of the technological hurdles uncovered by the studies. If I were a betting person, I'd guess that wrist-based heart rate will be effective relatively soon.

If you want to do some home testing, and you think your watch might be right, do 6 x 1 minute intervals hard with 2 minutes easy recovery on your next run (or similar hard effort). Does your watch return heart-rate peaks that are as stunning as the Matterhorn, lining up with how you feel? That's good, it probably works. Calibrate it with a chest strap to be sure.

However, if you're like some of the athletes I have seen, the heart-rate graph will look like it was created by a random-number generator. If that's you, there's a good chance your wrist monitor is still accurate at rest and during certain activities, so it can still be useful. But using it for intense running would be like entrusting your timekeeping to one of those broken clocks that is still right twice a day.

Most Olympic marathoners spend their youth focused on running. They join track clubs, compete in national championships, and pursue the sport from an early age.

Julia Mayer’s journey was very different.

Today, Mayer is Austria’s marathon record holder, a multiple national record holder on the roads, and an Olympian. Yet for much of her athletic life, running was not her primary sport.

For 16 years, she played soccer.

Then she discovered something that would change her life.

“I noticed that I was really fast in the fun runs and that it was really, really fun,” Mayer said when reflecting on her transition from soccer to distance running.

What began as curiosity quickly became a passion. She eventually made the bold decision to leave soccer behind and focus entirely on running. It was a move that surprised many people around her, but Mayer believed she had found her true athletic calling.

The decision proved to be the right one.

Within a few years, Mayer developed into one of Europe’s top marathon runners. Her steady improvement carried her from local races to the international stage, where she began rewriting Austria’s record books.

She now holds Austrian records in the marathon, half marathon, and road 10K. Her marathon best of 2:26:08 established her as the fastest female marathoner in Austrian history. Her performances in the half marathon and 10K have further cemented her place among the country’s all-time great distance runners.

Her rise culminated with qualification for the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris.

Competing in the Olympic marathon represented the realization of a dream. On one of the most challenging marathon courses ever used for the Olympics, Mayer ran courageously against the strongest field in the world and finished 55th in her Olympic debut.

Behind the scenes, success has come through extraordinary dedication. During marathon preparation, Mayer trains twice a day and covers approximately 200 kilometers, or 124 miles, each week. The workload demands discipline, patience, and a deep commitment to continuous improvement. 

What makes her story especially inspiring is not simply the records or the Olympic appearance.

It is the fact that she found her greatest talent later than many elite runners.

In a sport where athletes are often identified at a young age, Mayer’s journey serves as a reminder that potential does not always reveal itself early. Sometimes it takes years of experience, a willingness to try something new, and the courage to follow a different path. 

The former soccer player who once chased a ball across a field is now chasing history on the roads of Europe.

And according to those closest to her, her best performances may still be ahead.

For runners of every age and ability, Julia Mayer’s story delivers a powerful lesson: it is never too late to discover what you are capable of.

From soccer player to Olympian, her journey proves that remarkable achievements can begin when least expected.

Megan Keith produced the performance of her career in Oslo on Thursday night, shattering one of Scotland’s longest-standing distance running records and cementing her place among Britain’s greatest female 3000m runners.

The 24-year-old clocked a sensational 8:28.35 over 3000m, breaking the Scottish outdoor record that had stood for nearly four decades. In doing so, Keith eclipsed the previous mark of 8:29.02, set by Scottish legend Yvonne Murray back in 1988, ending a record reign that had lasted 38 years.

Keith’s breakthrough run was more than just a national record. The performance also propelled her to third on the UK outdoor all-time list, placing her behind only two of Britain’s most celebrated distance runners — Paula Radcliffe, who leads the rankings with 8:22.20, and Laura Weightman, whose 8:26.07 remains the second-fastest outdoor mark by a British woman.

The significance of Keith’s achievement is amplified by the calibre of athletes she now joins in the record books. For decades, Murray’s mark stood as one of Scottish athletics’ most untouchable records, surviving generations of elite competitors. Keith has now succeeded where many outstanding runners have fallen short, announcing herself as one of the leading distance talents in British athletics.

Her time also compares favourably with the best performances produced indoors. Olympic medallist Laura Muir ran 8:26.41 indoors in Karlsruhe in 2017, underlining just how exceptional Keith’s outdoor effort in Oslo truly was.

The run continues a remarkable rise for the Scottish star, whose progression over recent seasons has transformed her from a promising prospect into a genuine force on the international stage. Running with confidence and composure against elite competition, Keith demonstrated both the speed and endurance required to challenge the very best in Europe and beyond.

With the World Championship season gathering momentum, Keith’s record-breaking display sends a powerful message. Not only has she etched her name into Scottish athletics history, but she has also established herself as a serious contender in one of the sport’s most competitive events.

In Oslo, Megan Keith did far more than break a record. She ended a 38-year wait, climbed into the upper echelon of British distance running, and delivered a performance that may prove to be a defining moment in her career.

British middle-distance talent Phoebe Gill took another significant step forward in her return to top form, producing a determined victory over 800 metres at the Meeting de Marseille in France on Wednesday.

Competing in challenging, wind-affected conditions, the 19-year-old demonstrated both resilience and composure as she held off a late charge from Switzerland's Veronica Vancardo to secure the win in 2:00.81. Vancardo finished just three hundredths of a second behind in 2:00.84, underlining the fiercely contested nature of the race.

While the margin of victory was narrow, the result represented another encouraging milestone for Gill as she continues to rebuild momentum following her injury setback. The young Briton showed impressive race awareness and strength in the closing stages, maintaining her advantage despite the difficult conditions that made fast running a challenge throughout the evening.

The Marseille triumph adds to a growing body of evidence that Gill is steadily progressing toward her best form. Earlier in her comeback campaign, she clocked 2:01.50 for 800m in Bydgoszcz before demonstrating her versatility with a strong 4:05.53 performance over 1500 metres at the BMC Grand Prix meeting in Trafford.

Those performances have highlighted not only her improving fitness but also her ability to compete across multiple distances as she carefully builds her season. The Marseille victory now provides further confirmation that the European junior star is moving in the right direction.

Gill emerged as one of Britain's most exciting middle-distance prospects through a series of breakthrough performances as a teenager, earning widespread recognition for her fearless racing style and remarkable maturity. Injury temporarily interrupted that upward trajectory, but her recent results suggest she is steadily rediscovering the form that made her one of the sport's brightest young talents.

With each race, the signs of progress become increasingly evident. Winning in difficult conditions and under pressure from a quality field is often a stronger indicator than a fast time alone, and Gill's latest success demonstrated exactly those qualities.

As the summer season gathers pace, the Marseille victory offers another confidence boost for the British teenager, whose return continues to gain momentum. If her recent progression is any indication, Gill could soon find herself back among the leading names on the European middle-distance circuit. 

The NCAA Track and Field Championships delivered a moment few could have predicted as Ja’Kobe Tharp produced one of the most astonishing performances in the history of sprint hurdling, rewriting the record books in spectacular fashion.

Competing in the opening round of the men’s 110-meter hurdles, the Auburn star stunned the athletics world by clocking an incredible 12.75 seconds, becoming the first athlete ever to break the 12.80-second barrier. In doing so, he eclipsed the long-standing world record of 12.80 set by Aries Merritt in 2012, a mark that had stood as one of the sport’s most revered achievements for more than a decade.

What makes Tharp’s breakthrough even more remarkable is the scale of his improvement. Entering the championships, the defending NCAA and U.S. champion had recorded a season-best of 13.05 seconds. Yet under the brightest spotlight, he unleashed a performance that exceeded every expectation, slicing an extraordinary 0.26 seconds from his personal best in a race that instantly became one of the greatest ever run.

The achievement sent shockwaves throughout the track and field community. While Tharp arrived in Eugene as one of the leading contenders for the NCAA title, few envisioned a performance capable of redefining the limits of the event. Instead, the American hurdler delivered a race for the ages, combining flawless technique, explosive speed, and impeccable rhythm from the first hurdle to the finish line.

The historic run not only secured his place in athletics history but also transformed the outlook of the championship. With the world record now in his possession, Tharp advances to the final as the overwhelming favorite, carrying momentum that could make an already unforgettable weekend even more extraordinary.

For years, the 12.80 barrier appeared untouchable. On a stunning day at the NCAA Championships, Ja’Kobe Tharp proved otherwise, producing the kind of performance that reminds fans why sport remains so unpredictable. In a matter of seconds, he turned a routine qualifying round into a landmark moment that will be remembered for generations.

The world record no one saw coming is now a reality—and Ja’Kobe Tharp is the man who changed history.

A new chapter in middle-distance running may have begun in Oslo after American teenager Cooper Lutkenhaus produced one of the most remarkable performances of the season, narrowly defeating reigning Olympic champion Emmanuel Wanyonyi in a thrilling men's 800m contest at the Diamond League meeting.

The 17-year-old sensation shocked a world-class field by crossing the finish line first in a race that came down to the smallest of margins. After an intense battle over the final metres, Lutkenhaus held off Wanyonyi by just one hundredth of a second, producing a dramatic finish that left the packed stadium in disbelief.

From the opening lap, the pace was relentless as the leading contenders positioned themselves for a fierce showdown. As the athletes entered the home straight, Wanyonyi appeared poised to unleash his trademark finishing kick. However, Lutkenhaus refused to be intimidated, matching the Olympic champion stride for stride before producing a perfectly timed lean at the line to secure a historic victory.

The result marks a breakthrough moment for the young American, who continues to establish himself as one of the brightest talents in global athletics. Defeating an Olympic champion at a Diamond League event is a feat many athletes spend entire careers pursuing, yet Lutkenhaus achieved it before reaching adulthood.

For Wanyonyi, the narrow defeat does little to diminish his status as one of the world's premier 800m runners. The Kenyan once again demonstrated his exceptional class and competitiveness, pushing the race to a world-class standard and forcing his young rival to deliver the performance of a lifetime.

Beyond the result itself, the race offered a glimpse into what could become one of the sport's most exciting rivalries in the years ahead. With established stars and emerging talents now pushing each other to new heights, the men's 800m continues to evolve into one of athletics' most captivating events.

On a memorable night in Oslo, the spotlight belonged to Cooper Lutkenhaus. At just 17 years old, he stood toe-to-toe with an Olympic champion and emerged victorious, announcing himself to the athletics world in spectacular fashion.