heart rate training question... have to run pretty slow
248
Member
2397 days
Joe_H posted 23 weeks ago.
how did you determine your max hr or LT? did you use a formula or field test - formula are only a rough guess. field tests give an more accurate picture of your fitness level at that particular moment (they should be performed a couple times during your season)
1819
Member
1078 days
13
Member
482 days
tribrane posted 23 weeks ago.
Joe_H wrote:
how did you determine your max hr or LT? did you use a formula or field test - formula are only a rough guess. field tests give an more accurate picture of your fitness level at that particular moment (they should be performed a couple times during your season)
my max heart rate as personally tested by me is 193. i did this through what i believe is the accepted method of 'running real fast'- heheh... im only half kidding.. following some guidlines and wearing a heart rate monitor I did a gradual build up a few different times over the course of the week to find the point where my heart rate peaked. I'm sure there are more accurrate ways, but i feel pretty comfortable with the number.. for the record i am a 33 year old male..at 135 pounds....
4480
Member
1633 days
kylie posted 23 weeks ago.
I know some people on here swear by HR for running, but what you mentioned is why I don't use it to determine my effort. I found that I was running at a pace where I didn't feel I was getting a good workout and where (and this was the important thing) running became and chore and I was no longer having fun. I tri because I enjoy it, so when the run wasn't fun anymore it was a sign to me that I wasn't doing things right and it wasn't too long before I stopped slowing just because the HRM told me to.
Instead I use perceived exertion and pace. It is hard to go on PE when you are a newer runner, but once you have a feeling for your body and paces and efforts you can sustain for different distances, I have found my love for running again. Oh, and I've gotten faster.
Again, there are different opinions on this one, but I'm a believer that if you train all your running at a slow, 60-70% easy pace, you get good at running at a slow, 60-70% easy pace. So at least don't always train that way!
248
Member
2397 days
Joe_H posted 23 weeks ago.
tribrane wrote:
Joe_H wrote:how did you determine your max hr or LT? did you use a formula or field test - formula are only a rough guess. field tests give an more accurate picture of your fitness level at that particular moment (they should be performed a couple times during your season)my max heart rate as personally tested by me is 193. i did this through what i believe is the accepted method of 'running real fast'- heheh... im only half kidding.. following some guidlines and wearing a heart rate monitor I did a gradual build up a few different times over the course of the week to find the point where my heart rate peaked. I'm sure there are more accurrate ways, but i feel pretty comfortable with the number.. for the record i am a 33 year old male..at 135 pounds....
I think for LT it's a warm up then 20 minutes as fast as you can but your method is at least something. yeah sorry but that's the nature of the beast you are building an endurance monster and you've got to listen to your heart
4480
Member
1633 days
kylie posted 23 weeks ago.
Joe_H wrote:
yeah sorry but that's the nature of the beast you are building an endurance monster and you've got to listen to your heart
I disagree -- you can be very successful at endurance training without a HRM. In particular since heart function is not a great measure of how hard your muscles are working, and HR is very dependent on temperature, hydration level, and other factors that vary day to day.
3354
Member
1401 days
RV posted 23 weeks ago.
I stopped using a HRM cuz it did nothing but teach me to run slow - and I was already pretty adept at that!
As we all know HR can really fluctuate day to day - workout to workout due to environmental conditions, stress, hydration, when last ate etc etc.
So I switched over to running by pace. Really all that is - is that you follow the Daniels training tables. You do a 10k TT. Enter that time into the spreadsheet and it determines you LR pace(Z1), MP(Z2), HMP(Z3), TP(Z4), IP(Z5) etc. Then run these paces when identified in your plan.
Then periodically - every 4 weeks or so - do another TT and adjust to the new paces.
I have been running this way since Nov and I actually cut 17 min off my HM time.
RV
It takes a long time to get good. - Scott Molina
Slow is smooth; smooth is fast. - Rich Strauss
13
Member
482 days
tribrane posted 23 weeks ago.
kylie wrote:
Joe_H wrote:yeah sorry but that's the nature of the beast you are building an endurance monster and you've got to listen to your heartI disagree -- you can be very successful at endurance training without a HRM. In particular since heart function is not a great measure of how hard your muscles are working, and HR is very dependent on temperature, hydration level, and other factors that vary day to day.
its pretty funny...this is so personal. i have a good friend who has never used a HRM and completed an ironman and recently completed a half marathon in sub 6:30 min/mile- he jsut keeps getting better and its basically from shite-tons of training...
55
Member
1464 days
rlauredo posted 23 weeks ago.
It's one thing to monitor your heart-rate while on a bike staring at the display on the aero-bars, but who runs looking at your watch? Focus on percieved level of effort rather than HR. Or run by target pace.
558
Member
1383 days
vanjames posted 23 weeks ago.
I second Kylie here.
After years of trainign by HRM, zones this and that - I ditched it for RPE and pace. Result - 15min off my previous best Half mary time. I still wear it a bit but if i am looking at zone training i find the karvonen was better. Allowed for a 10bpm increase on the max aerobic side.
I used the maffetone method under Mark Allen online training and became an expert slow runner. To get fast you need to run fast. For example -how you can expect to run a 8min mile if all your training is at 9:30?
That being said - when building your aerbic base it is necessary to gradually progress to increase the efficiency of fat utilization and glycogen sparing effects. Once the base is built - run fast.
Don't get caught up in the numbers. - -in my business we call it paralysis by analysis.
248
Member
2397 days
Joe_H posted 23 weeks ago.
kylie wrote:
Joe_H wrote:yeah sorry but that's the nature of the beast you are building an endurance monster and you've got to listen to your heartI disagree -- you can be very successful at endurance training without a HRM. In particular since heart function is not a great measure of how hard your muscles are working, and HR is very dependent on temperature, hydration level, and other factors that vary day to day.
sure you don't need a HRM. AND HRM's have drawbacks but there isnt' out there for running like a powermeter that provides better feedback. I don't like being a slave to a HR either and use it sparingly but he asked about HR training and I told him what little I know
1188
Member
336 days
TriSooner posted 23 weeks ago.
kylie wrote:
Joe_H wrote:yeah sorry but that's the nature of the beast you are building an endurance monster and you've got to listen to your heartI disagree -- you can be very successful at endurance training without a HRM. In particular since heart function is not a great measure of how hard your muscles are working, and HR is very dependent on temperature, hydration level, and other factors that vary day to day.
+1 HRM are way over-rated. Got rid of mine and got faster b/c I wasn't always looking down thinking, "Wow, 180, I better slow down."
4480
Member
1633 days
kylie posted 23 weeks ago.
Joe_H wrote:
sure you don't need a HRM. AND HRM's have drawbacks but there isnt' out there for running like a powermeter that provides better feedback. I don't like being a slave to a HR either and use it sparingly but he asked about HR training and I told him what little I know
I believe that pace is to running what power is to biking (for now). There are other options than the HRM. And for the orig poster, I think in training with a HRM it is very important to know the limitations.
13
Member
482 days
tribrane posted 23 weeks ago.
kylie wrote:
Joe_H wrote:sure you don't need a HRM. AND HRM's have drawbacks but there isnt' out there for running like a powermeter that provides better feedback. I don't like being a slave to a HR either and use it sparingly but he asked about HR training and I told him what little I knowI believe that pace is to running what power is to biking (for now). There are other options than the HRM. And for the orig poster, I think in training with a HRM it is very important to know the limitations.
what do you mean by limitations? my personal limitations or limitations of the monitor...?
13
Member
482 days
tribrane posted 23 weeks ago.
overall i think i will continue to use the heart rate monitor as I do like the fact that it gives me one more level of feedback with regards to my body... but I dont think ill worry to much about the zones... i think the physiological arguement for the zone system is a good one, but we also have to trust our bodies... ill split the difference.
thanks all for the quick feedback... here's to breaking 3 hours.
4480
Member
1633 days
kylie posted 23 weeks ago.
Limitations of the HRM. The main one being how dependent it is on temperature, hydration level, and other factors that vary workout to workout (which makes it harder to set a HR to train by successfully).
I think that is a good approach -- don't completely disregard it, but take into account how you feel as well. Best of luck!
248
Member
2397 days
Joe_H posted 23 weeks ago.
limitations for HR - your fitness levels moves around (i.e. your Max HR increases as you become more fit) so you gotta test regularly to make sure your zones are right. but also like she noted earlier your HR can be affected by dehydration or your healthy levels (if you're sick I believe this messes up your #'s) also I never know what to do about hills do slow down or do you just ignore your HR for it.
me personally think it's ok as long as you're not a slave to it as others have noted especially if you're just starting out.
872
Member
872 days
tsilcyc posted 23 weeks ago.
An interesting read related to this:
“The 90’s called: They want their training plans back”...
http://thetriathlonbook.blogspot.com/2008/04/90s-called-they-want-their-training.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my Log: http://www.felog.net/users/teamsln/query_log.aspx
Check out my Blog: http://www.felog.net/feblog/
4480
Member
1633 days
kylie posted 23 weeks ago.
I was thinking of that article, too :) However, also read the article after it. The first is about the misconceptions, and the second talks about their place in training today.
55
Member
1464 days
rlauredo posted 23 weeks ago.
The great value in a non-commercial site like TriFuel is that opinions like these, that discount the value of "stuff" get a good airing. Unfortunately, ad-driven commercial magazines in running, cycling, and triathlon have no choice (I don't blame them) but to promote the importance of gear. The latest generation of running shoes make you faster; this year's version of wetsuits will improve your swimming, yahdi, yahdi; a 4-ounce lightter (and $2,000 more expensive) bike is the solution to your bike-leg, yahdi, yahdi.
Sometimes gear matters and is of value. But not always.
52
Member
469 days
kxux posted 23 weeks ago.
tribrane wrote:
overall i think i will continue to use the heart rate monitor as I do like the fact that it gives me one more level of feedback with regards to my body... but I dont think ill worry to much about the zones... i think the physiological arguement for the zone system is a good one, but we also have to trust our bodies... ill split the difference.thanks all for the quick feedback... here's to breaking 3 hours.
I think we should distinguish here between people training for their 10th Ironman and total newbies. When I started running I did so without the HR monitor and after a while I got all tired and sick. Basically one long 3 months cold that I was unable to shake. Then I did some reading about building aerobic base, bought my first Polar and slowed quite a bit. Since then I built good base, finished first few 5k and 10k races, then upgraded to Oly and Sprints and last year finished HIM. The moral of the story is while it is fine to train without HRM it is better to train with one especially for the new runners. People tend to run way too fast just because they do not yet have a feel for pace and RPE. Now after two years of training I can go out for a run without any gadget and have a pretty good feel for my RPE and pace. But when I started I needed HRM to keep me slow to build the base. So 1+ for HRM if used sensibly.
I do use HRM during the race, but only to record my HR for later analysis. Never look at my HR during race. During race I go by one rule - go as fast as you can to finish what you are doing.
2866
Member
1302 days
bluebirdbiker posted 23 weeks ago.
Newbies, start running slow and often, conversation pace. The more you can do the better. Your base will become stronger and after a while the critical thing will be to reduce volume and focus on fast and shortat with full recovery in between runs. Then speed at AeT will come. It's not rocket science. HR is one way of doing it.
BBB
There are no excuses - so don't look for them. As a product of your own choices, you directly determine your life outcomes.
Don't think, just do.
My Blog
558
Member
473 days
TryScott posted 23 weeks ago.
tribrane wrote:
... so when trying to run in the 60-70% heart rate to build my aerobic base i must be at an over a 10 min/mile pace... its quite frustrating to run that slow, but from peoples past experience is this a relatively normal thing? I imagine as i get more fit a will be running faster miles at the same heart rate... just curious about other peoples experiences starting out-- looking for the motivation...
Hard to define "normal" but it is safe to say that if you train with or without a HRM, you will get faster. The key isn't the HRM, it's the training.
Personally, I bought a Garmin in June of 2007. It was a gadget that got me started running (again) and it motivated me to get out the door. On easy days, my brother HATED running with me because I was running over 10min/mile in order to stay in the 130-140bpm (my max HR was 191). I had to walk going up hills, and wasn't even out of breath. My easy runs in that range dropped by a solid min/mile in less than a year. Last week I logged 5.2 miles at 9:00/mile with ave HR of 140.
More importantly than my slow training runs, my 5k dropped from 24:30 in July 2007, to 20:01 in April 2008. Would I of improved if I logged the same amount of time without a HRM? Of course. Would it of been more improvement or less improvement? We'll never know.
18
Member
182 days
run2race posted 23 weeks ago.
I agree. And a heart rate monitor is only that- a monitor of heart rate. It's a tool to quantitate how your heart reacts to your effort in your workout. You're not going to PR because of your HRM. You have your goals, and your training plan- that will get you your PR.
But for me the HRM has always captured my exertion for the workout (minus the power line interference). I have the beep turned off and go according to the goals of my workout, but when I record it (I'm anal like that), I write duration and avg HR.
To those people who go by perceived effort only, once I get some food in me and am relaxing, on with my day, I can easily start thinking that things went so much better than they did. How do you get past that bias?
HRM have great value, but they're just another monitor of training, like your cyclocomputer.
558
Member
473 days
TryScott posted 23 weeks ago.
TriSooner wrote:
+1 HRM are way over-rated. Got rid of mine and got faster b/c I wasn't always looking down thinking, "Wow, 180, I better slow down."
Also, the HRM only makes me go slow 2-3 times per week at most. Usually on easy days for running, I'm riding or swimming, and NOT running. I can't imagine why anyone would look at a HR of 180 and slow down. If it's 180, either
1. it's a hard day, and you should go hard, or
2. it's an easy day, and you have absolutely no idea how to go easy if you accidently tipped 180.
18
Member
182 days
run2race posted 23 weeks ago.
er, I'm new at discussion boarding. I was agreeing with:
rlauredo:
The great value in a non-commercial site like TriFuel is that opinions like these, that discount the value of "stuff" get a good airing. Unfortunately, ad-driven commercial magazines in running, cycling, and triathlon have no choice (I don't blame them) but to promote the importance of gear. The latest generation of running shoes make you faster; this year's version of wetsuits will improve your swimming, yahdi, yahdi; a 4-ounce lightter (and $2,000 more expensive) bike is the solution to your bike-leg, yahdi, yahdi.
Sometimes gear matters and is of value. But not always.
138
Member
1129 days
NotAsFast posted 23 weeks ago.
HRM is a a way to monitor your improvement for the same pace. Yes you can train with it and be the HRM slave (On my god I popped 180bpm), but runnning by perceived exersion or specific pace zone (Garmin 305/405) is a better way of training with using you HRM to see if you are actually improving and setting your new pace zone due to improvement. Which one is better for the same person 25 minute 5k at 160bpm Avg or a 25 minute 5k at 140bpm avg. Same course, same person, same conditions. Works for me.
872
Member
872 days
tsilcyc posted 23 weeks ago.
kylie wrote:
I was thinking of that article, too :) However, also read the article after it. The first is about the misconceptions, and the second talks about their place in training today.
I read all of his posts including the follow up.
But his final point is this:
"Now that we went through some of the situations where heart rate can be valuable, some of you that do not use a heart rate monitor are probably wondering if they should get one. My opinion is that they are better off by staying away from a heart rate monitor. For the experienced, successful athlete, starting to use a heart rate monitor will only bring unnecessary complexity to the training process, with the possibility of overthinking that comes from it. And if you allow me to quote myself, overthinking is synonymous with underachieving."
I think this applies to more than just the "experienced, successful athlete". But that's just my opinion so...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my Log: http://www.felog.net/users/teamsln/query_log.aspx
Check out my Blog: http://www.felog.net/feblog/
hey all-
so ive completed my first triathlon last sept.07 I did the mighty hamptons olympic and finished at 3 hours on the nose with very minimal training....
this year i have entered a sprint in july and will compete in the mighty hamptons again in september... I decided to focus on my training and get a heart rate monitor and try to build up in the most efficient way.
although i have good overall conditioning i guess i am not that aeoribcally fit... so when trying to run in the 60-70% heart rate to build my aerobic base i must be at an over a 10 min/mile pace... its quite frustrating to run that slow, but from peoples past experience is this a relatively normal thing? I imagine as i get more fit a will be running faster miles at the same heart rate... just curious about other peoples experiences starting out-- looking for the motivation...