heart rate training questions...

Hmm... i just get the splash screen about upgrading/renewing my membership. Can i get a summary? Thanks, though!

Double post, but worth it!

Edited by the bear 2006-09-19 4:24 PM

zia's thread is in the "Performance only" forum and is only the primer, there are eight pages of discussion as well here:

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25733&posts=210&highlight=22

After you've done your reading, grasshopper, one must then practice patience. It may take months, you may have to even walk to keep your HR in the right zones, but it will definitely pay off in the long run.

Edited by the bear 2006-09-19 4:24 PM

renew your membership or go to Mike Ricci's website and learn WHY using MHR to determine zone training is a BAD IDEA... (but do it ASAP instead of wasting your training time )

Learning to run using your HR zones is really frustrating at first, but it works. I started working with a coach about a year and a half ago and when I first started with him my training runs were ridiculously slow as well. My pace slowed a good two to three minutes a mile at first. Believe me, I was more than a little frustrated and skeptical.

He also had me work on increasing my cadence when I ran, which did slightly change my stride, but for the better. My endurance training pace is now about two minutes per mile faster than it was when I first started the HR zone training, and I run it with a much lower heart rate than I ever did in the past. And my race pace is way faster.

My first year using the HR zones with him I took 13 seconds a mile off my half mary pace and then this year I took an additional 17 seconds a mile off of that. I dropped about 25 seconds a mile off my previous best marathon pace last year and we'll see how much more I can improve from that when I do the marathon this year.

Using the HRM itself to calculate your HR zones may not be the best way to figure them out, but training using the HR zones is worthwhile as a training philosophy. You just have to be patient.

bear, thanks for that link. There's a ton of information there, and i learned a lot about how to implement LTHR training, just not so much about, well, why, i guess.

Jorge, forgive me, but i didn't read anything that said that MHR training is necessarily wrong, just that the (220-age) formula is wrong. The only thing i could deduce is that an actual LTHR is easier to test for than an actual MHR, and that test values are (obviously) more useful than estimations. i think!

kmarzano, thanks for sharing your experience. The fact that my knees hurt after modifying my stride is what concerns me most. i already have problems with my knees, and i don't really relish the idea of making them hurt. It took about a year for your pace to come back up? Hmmm.... Am i that patient?

i think what i'm going to do for now is add some walking to my routine to try to get used to moving at a slower heart rate. After i've finished with my races this year, i'll focus on LTHR-based running (or run/walking!) over the winter. i have to slow down during the winter, anyway, since i live in Wisconsin.

i'm kind of concerned about what seems to be a relatively high heart rate at random times. My heart rate was over 100 when i stepped out the door the other day for my morning run. It almost has to be due to genetics, my albuterol inhaler, and my red sports bra, right?

If your knees are hurting when you slow down, you should have someone look at your form. Your cadence should remain the same (high), but your stride legnth should shorten. My knees/back also hurt if I run too slow, but I'm talking realllllyyyyy slow, like 12:30 min miles.

Your summaries above reflect the fact that you absorbed a lot from that thread. LTHR is easier to measure and since a lot of people here are using it, you cna compare your training a little easier.

Hmmm. I think I didn't communicate my experience very clearly before. When I said it took a year for my pace to come back up to what it was before, I wasn't talking about my race pace. That started to improve. I was talking about my endurance training pace. My race pace got consistently faster as I implemented the HR zone training, but my endurance training pace slowed down.

Before the HR training I used to run my training runs maybe 10-20 seconds slower than my race pace, which put me at about a 9:00-9:10 endurance training pace. I was running an 8:52 marathon pace at the time. When I started with the HR training, my zone 1 endurance training runs slowed into the 11:00 pace. VERY frustrating. I stuck with it however and when I ran the marathon the next year, my race pace had come down to an 8:26 and my half mary was at an 8:04 pace (down from 8:17).

Now I run between a 9:07-9:17 pace for my long endurance runs and my last half mary was at a 7:47 pace on tired legs. We're hoping I can pull off an 8:10 pace for my marathon this year and finally qualify for Boston.

So while my endurance training runs have taken quite a long time to get back up to the pace I was running them before I started the HR zone training, my race pace got stronger and faster. I also do the endurance training pace at a MUCH lower heart rate than I was doing them before.

I'm not sure if that clarifies anything or not . . .

Or just adds a useless post. I'm hoping it helps clarify.

Chances are you have not yet truely established your maximum. The 220 minus your age equals your theoretical max would have me at half my age. I have found that running a solid race 5K or 10k and checking it close to the end will give as high of a max as I have observed. Many try running hills to get it. I would not rely on HRM's calculation, although I presume it can do an adequate job with the correct input. Personally, I go by heart rate reserve. For instance if my max is observed at 198 and my morning resting heart rate is 40. My 80% heart rate reserve is (198-40)x.80+40=166. You can read about heart rate training on line or by buying one of the books.

I know the books emphasize how hard it is to adjust to the new pace etc. etc., If you are in reasonably good condition, the heart rate monitor training really shouldn't do anything except provide you feedback as you train. I bet it is not that you always train to fast and overexerting yourself, but rather do not have a true heart rate max. You wear it in a couple of races and really put it all out toward the end, I bet you'll come closer to your max. For me heart rate training really serves two purposes: 1. Great for lactate threshold runs, 2. Sometimes provides a distraction from boredom. I probably wear it less than 10% of the time. It really is a useful tool in training, but really you need to hone in on the feel of exertion. Also, if I haven't raced for awhile I sometimes use it to double check myself am I just a wimp and not putting it out or am I not yet in condition. I know pretty much what level I can run at for what distance. After a few times of racing, I don't bother but go by feel.

I'll provide you with my personal experience with getting faster through HR training.

In Augsut 2004 I started running using a couch to 5k program from this site. Although I didn't have a HRM at that time, I was concentrating on using RPE and keeping my pace nice and easy. For the first time in my life I enjoyed running and was able to easily get myself out the door to run three times a week. For Christmas I got a HR monitor and used the Maffetone method to determine at what ceiling I should use for my HR on my runs as I did not yet feel up to completing an LT test. I forget exactly how the formula goes but it is easy to find if you want to look it up. For the next couple of months I ran at or below this HR until I felt that I was able to safely complete the LT test described in the threads linked here. Around this time I was able to run 5k in just under 30 minutes.

At that point I had my training zones and for the remainder of the year, I ran at or below my zone 2 cutoff - with maybe four-five exceptions in training where I would run some more hills that usual. Other than that, my LT tests and races were the only times I ran hard. By the end of the season, I ran the 10k of my last OD race in 50 minutes (Sept 05).

In Nov 05 I started a two month run focus where I was building volume and in two months did maybe 4 tempo runs - and that was it for intensity - the rest was zone 2 or below. From then until the end of my season (last weekend) I focused mainly on zone 2 work - I did more pacing work this season and some speedwork but again, the majority of my time was spent running slow. This year at my last race, the 10k was 42:30!

So yes, you can get fast running slow - however it is a long term investment for speed rather than a short term benefit. If you focus on building your base you will get faster over months (and years). If you focus on speedwork you will get faster for a few weeks - and then you will slow down as your body can only handle so much intense training.

Have fun,

Shane

Edited by gsmacleod 2006-09-21 7:50 AM