General Discussion Triathlon Talk » heartrate training...good or bad? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2005-04-02 5:07 PM

User image

Member
7

california
Subject: heartrate training...good or bad?
Hi...i just ran my 11 mile run today in prep for the la jolla half on the 24th of this month! I've been training consistently during the week with an average of prob 9.2-9.4 min miles on my 4-6 mile runs, (but alwasy slower to-faster) I was told I may be training too hard at times with the high HR I was experiencing..so.... today I focused on keeping my HR consistent on my run...I never was out of breath or tired. (except of course in my knees at mile 9,10 and 11!)...though I was dissappointed to see by monitoring my HR (vs time) I ended at a 10.45 min mile overall. The Avg HR was 158. My big hill was around 171 and I still felt good...(though the morning was a bit hot outside!)...

Question: Is it good to focus on my HR so much? It does help me to tell me where my body is energy wise and helps to keep me from over-tiring and getting out of breath (Ie: the two I ran with had to stop on the hill and other spots during the run...I continued on and came in 7 min ahead).. I suppose my concern is I don't want to jeopordize over-training by running TOO fast, but on the flip side, I don't want to run TOO slow!! Miles 10 and 11 I definitly picked it up probably to a 9 min pace.

do i keep it slow on the long runs and then go for it more (speed) on the short ones??

Sorry to be so winded/wordy. Thoughts on it?
ALSO....on the steep down hills.. can I sprint those out?? or is that really bad for my knees? B/c my HR rate drops down to about 150 or so... so I feel I have room to pick it up and make up time... good idea or bad?


2005-04-02 6:33 PM
in reply to: #137225

User image

Veteran
204
100100
Gif-sur-Yvette
Subject: RE: heartrate training...good or bad?

I'm not an expert at this, but I think you may be pushing it a little. Again, I do not know what your zones are, so 158 average may be just fine even though on the high zone 2 anyway. The zones and HR are important because they define whether or not you are working aerobic or anaerobic.

For a race on the 24th, that is, three weeks from today, I would concentrate in keeping it long, but at very low intensity, doing maybe one fartlek seesion on week one of the three, and a tempo run on the second. The third week HAS to be very very short in distance and very low intensity (under 150) so you can taper for the race. You need rest, remember that.

You will not become slower because you run 80% of your milleage slow. In fact it will help you be faster.

Have a great 1/2.

2005-04-02 7:02 PM
in reply to: #137240

User image

Member
7

california
Subject: RE: heartrate training...good or bad?
hi and thanks!
so...the question is..how do I find out what my zones are?? I have my resting hr, weight and all that stuff...do you have an equation?
what's wierd is that when I run the long runs , like today at 150-158 I felt like I was going super duper slow...
2005-04-02 7:38 PM
in reply to: #137249

User image

Veteran
340
10010010025
Greenville, NC
Subject: RE: heartrate training...good or bad?
firsttymer - 2005-04-02 6:02 PM

hi and thanks!
so...the question is..how do I find out what my zones are?? I have my resting hr, weight and all that stuff...do you have an equation?
what's wierd is that when I run the long runs , like today at 150-158 I felt like I was going super duper slow...


Equations just don't cut it. The only real way to get max HR is to do a fit test in each discipline, though getting your run rate should allow you to approximate the others. Simply put, you warm up for 10 min, then push your speed up in 2-5 minute spurts (some say 2 is enough, others say longer). Using a treadmill, run at a pace and wait for your HR to level off. Then speed up the treadmill, and wait for your HR to level off. Once you can't force your HR to go any higher by speeding up the treadmill, you're at your max. This test hurts. This test can be dangerous if you have some medical problem lurking. However, it's the best way to determine your HR zones. YOu could also run a couple of 800M repeats with 1 minute rest, and use the highest recorded HR if your HRM can save that kid of data. It's not as good as the treadmill though. You also need to record your resting HR at wake-up for about a week and take an average. Then you can determine your zones using calculations. Aerobic Ceiling could be found as: [(MAX HR - Resting HR) X 70%] + Resting HR = Aerobic Ceiling
(MAX HR - Resting HR) X 85%] + Resting HR = Lactate Threshold, though this is a complex place for the body to be, and without blood tests, oxygen measurements, etc its hard to determine where exactly ones LT is.

The Miller formula of 217 - (0.85 x age) is probably the most accurate of the age based equations if you must use one to determine Max HR though lots of people use the Karvonean Formula and the Cooper Adaptation to the formula, among others. This is 205 minus 1/2 AGE adding 5 to 10 beats if elite or accomplished athlete and adding 5 beats if female = Max Heart Rate. I prefer Miller for beginner athletes.

Really, a VO2 Max test should be part of this procedure as well. I think the formula goes something like % HR max = 0.64 x % VO2 max + 37. Elite athletes get a bit different equation.
Studies have shown that HR max on a treadmill is consistently 5-6 beats higher than on a bicycle and heart rates while swimming are lower still, around 14 bpm.

According to the equations for instance, my Max HR is 186. I can consistently record 105-110% readings for almost an entire sprint Tri, which tells me that ain't an accurate number. the formula just doesn't work for me. My true Max HR is more like 192. As you train, your max HR can change, and your zones will definitely change due to lowered resting HR.

Does this help?
2005-04-02 7:40 PM
in reply to: #137225

Elite Veteran
781
500100100252525
Subject: RE: heartrate training...good or bad?
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm1.htm

The above is a link to determining your zones which should get you started. Several of us at BT have had great improvement using our HRMs and concentrating on staying in the lower zones.

And the usual caveat, some of the folks on this board are ridiculously fast. When I say "great improvement" as it applies to me, I mean moving to the front of the middle of the pack from the back of the middle of the pack. Good luck!
2005-04-02 11:14 PM
in reply to: #137225

User image

Extreme Veteran
698
500100252525
SW part of US
Subject: When done right - Good.

>Is it good to focus on my HR so much?

Define too much... you don't have to be a slave to the HRM... but, it is important to know the relationship of PE to HRM. HRM are more important when you are doing a training activity or race that is outside of your normal routine/environment.

>It does help me to tell me where my body is energy wise and helps to keep me from over->tiring and getting out of breath (Ie: the two I ran with had to stop on the hill and other spots >during the run...I continued on and came in 7 min ahead).. I suppose my concern is I don't >want to jeopordize over-training by running TOO fast, but on the flip side, I don't want to run >TOO slow!! Miles 10 and 11 I definitly picked it up probably to a 9 min pace.

Too Fast vs. Too Slow are in direct relationship to intensity. Knowing the correct ratio is a by-product of experience and quatifiable base upon your training goals.

>do i keep it slow on the long runs and then go for it more (speed) on the short ones??

Depends upon your training goals and your current level of fitness relative to those goals/expectations.

FWIW Joe Moya

BTW, running down hills ... typically - sprinting increases probability of injury.

Good or Bad on knees depends upon your running form (not just the grade of the run - downhill OR uphill OR level ground) ... the bodies balance should adapt to the grade... basically, how knees are effected are determined by balance of your running form.


New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » heartrate training...good or bad? Rss Feed