If you got faster by going slower... (HR training)
Options
Replies
-
The 220-your age is a valid measure for some uses but is an inaccurate means of determining the maximum number of beats per minute for your heart. Newer formulae have been developed but, for myself, I have yet to find any formula that comes close.FromHereOnOut wrote: »brandiuntz wrote: »This is a good read for me. I'm working on HR training now (finally, two years into running).
What did everyone do to figure out their max HR? All the age formulas are wrong for me (I know from experience my HR goes higher than any calculated). I want to do a run test, but am never sure what exactly is the best way. Some sort of hill/sprint run? Or, 30 minutes at a 5k race pace?
Surprisingly, I found my maxHR auto-filled in Garmin Connect. At least I think it was auto filled, because I don't remember doing it. I just assumed that any time my HR exceeded and sustained above the standard calculation, it bumped it up. Idk, though! It was 7 beats higher than the basic 220-age calculation. So, I'm 42, and should estimate 178 and it said 185. I didn't go back through my activities to see that I'd gotten that high, but I don't doubt it. Maybe I'll check. (Sure beats the sprint test, which I wouldn't do right now anyway.)
Like BMI, which is a valid measure for the purpose for which it was developed, "220-age" has become "conventional wisdom" which often is neither "conventional" nor "wisdom".
Per the formula, my MHR would be 162 (220-58) which is horribly inaccurate considering that I ran my last Half with an average of 165 (miles 2-13 were 161 or higher) and a year before I averaged 173 BPM for the entire race.
I think one of Fitzgerald's book defines a good test and there are running sites that provide similar guidance. My approach, when I first started losing weight, was to warm up, run at a fast but controlled pace for a few miles, and then run at what I thought was a mile pace for as long as I could. And then I ran a little further. Since that time, I crank it up pretty hard every few months and my number comes up in the high 180's vs 191 which is the number that I still use for HR ranges.
A variance of a few BPM will not throw off your training because there are so many other variables in the training equation. HR is a broad stroke way of getting us to run at a level of effort than may vary significantly from one day to the next…heck, one hour to the next, truth be told.0 -
"Comparison is the thief of joy" - great quote!SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »Comparison is the thief of joy. Run your easy runs at your easy pace, and don't get hung up on what your friends are able to accomplish. You'll get there too, just give it time and dedication.
And the rest of what you're written is right on the money!
0 -
I would highly recommend sticking with the Maffetone 180 method. It worked awesome for building my aerobic base. After a short while (before my recent knee injury), my HR at 9' miles was the same as it previously was at 11' miles. It takes time and consistency to adjust, but it does work. Now that I'm back to training, I will be incorporating this method again to get my aerobic base and HR zones back to where they were before my knee injury.0
-
Here's a question: I see that a lot of the benefit of this is getting in more miles because your recovery is easier. I have a given number of hours I can fit in running during the week. Obviously, to maximize mileage for me means, in very broad terms, to run as fast as I can for those periods of time. I have no recovery issues at the paces I run. I'm not running race pace unless I am doing speed work.
Is there some benefit other than easier recovery=more miles to paying such close attention to your heart rate like this? I have an HRM I used a lot a few years ago, it acted up all the time, I got a Polar strap to pair with my Garmin, wore it a few times, but it's just another thing to worry about.0 -
Here's a question: I see that a lot of the benefit of this is getting in more miles because your recovery is easier. I have a given number of hours I can fit in running during the week. Obviously, to maximize mileage for me means, in very broad terms, to run as fast as I can for those periods of time. I have no recovery issues at the paces I run. I'm not running race pace unless I am doing speed work.
Is there some benefit other than easier recovery=more miles to paying such close attention to your heart rate like this? I have an HRM I used a lot a few years ago, it acted up all the time, I got a Polar strap to pair with my Garmin, wore it a few times, but it's just another thing to worry about.
As I understand it, by running at a slower (aerobic) pace, you are essentially training your body to use it's own natural reserves for fuel rather than depleting your glycogen stores, which helps to avoid hitting the wall during a marathon. It also helps you to develop a more efficient gait through muscle memory. Repeated miles at a slower pace means your body will more naturally adopt this same movement even when you increase your speed. (Anyone feel free to correct me if that's not accurate info).
Also, you may not have recovery problems, but you will be surprised to see how effortless running becomes when you slow your pace.
0 -
To clarify, I really am not running anywhere near race pace. I have an 8:50 HM pace and I run my 12mi+ runs at around 9:45-10:30. But reading this thread I feel like I should maybe be running more like 12:00/mi. I think I am going to go out with my HRM next run. I was regularly running around 165bpm when I was using it, but I have two years under my belt.0
-
To clarify, I really am not running anywhere near race pace. I have an 8:50 HM pace and I run my 12mi+ runs at around 9:45-10:30. But reading this thread I feel like I should maybe be running more like 12:00/mi. I think I am going to go out with my HRM next run. I was regularly running around 165bpm when I was using it, but I have two years under my belt.
In your case, I don't see any need to slow down. You are doing your "easy" runs at the faster end of aerobic pace. If you are taking a day off between runs, then you are getting recovery in.lporter229 wrote: »As I understand it, by running at a slower (aerobic) pace, you are essentially training your body to use it's own natural reserves for fuel rather than depleting your glycogen stores, which helps to avoid hitting the wall during a marathon. It also helps you to develop a more efficient gait through muscle memory. Repeated miles at a slower pace means your body will more naturally adopt this same movement even when you increase your speed. (Anyone feel free to correct me if that's not accurate info).
This really only applies to the long run when you get over 90 minutes.
When you do easy runs, you are building the aerobic pathways, like mitochondria, in the body which allows you to get more O2 to the muscles, with the same amount of blood flow.
0 -
FromHereOnOut wrote: »brandiuntz wrote: »This is a good read for me. I'm working on HR training now (finally, two years into running).
What did everyone do to figure out their max HR? All the age formulas are wrong for me (I know from experience my HR goes higher than any calculated). I want to do a run test, but am never sure what exactly is the best way. Some sort of hill/sprint run? Or, 30 minutes at a 5k race pace?
Surprisingly, I found my maxHR auto-filled in Garmin Connect. At least I think it was auto filled, because I don't remember doing it. I just assumed that any time my HR exceeded and sustained above the standard calculation, it bumped it up. Idk, though! It was 7 beats higher than the basic 220-age calculation. So, I'm 42, and should estimate 178 and it said 185. I didn't go back through my activities to see that I'd gotten that high, but I don't doubt it. Maybe I'll check. (Sure beats the sprint test, which I wouldn't do right now anyway.)
My auto-filled one doesn't work for me, either. I'm 43 and none of the formulas out there are correct. I know my maxHR is higher, lol. I have manually bumped it in my TomTom Runner Cardio HRM based on what I've hit in the recent past, but I'd still prefer to know that I'm actually close.
I do have Mark Fitzgerald's 80/20, so I'll dig back into that to look at the test(s) he mentioned. I may regret figuring it out once I look at what the test is!
0 -
The 220-your age is a valid measure for some uses but is an inaccurate means of determining the maximum number of beats per minute for your heart. Newer formulae have been developed but, for myself, I have yet to find any formula that comes close.FromHereOnOut wrote: »brandiuntz wrote: »This is a good read for me. I'm working on HR training now (finally, two years into running).
What did everyone do to figure out their max HR? All the age formulas are wrong for me (I know from experience my HR goes higher than any calculated). I want to do a run test, but am never sure what exactly is the best way. Some sort of hill/sprint run? Or, 30 minutes at a 5k race pace?
Surprisingly, I found my maxHR auto-filled in Garmin Connect. At least I think it was auto filled, because I don't remember doing it. I just assumed that any time my HR exceeded and sustained above the standard calculation, it bumped it up. Idk, though! It was 7 beats higher than the basic 220-age calculation. So, I'm 42, and should estimate 178 and it said 185. I didn't go back through my activities to see that I'd gotten that high, but I don't doubt it. Maybe I'll check. (Sure beats the sprint test, which I wouldn't do right now anyway.)
Like BMI, which is a valid measure for the purpose for which it was developed, "220-age" has become "conventional wisdom" which often is neither "conventional" nor "wisdom".
Per the formula, my MHR would be 162 (220-58) which is horribly inaccurate considering that I ran my last Half with an average of 165 (miles 2-13 were 161 or higher) and a year before I averaged 173 BPM for the entire race.
I think one of Fitzgerald's book defines a good test and there are running sites that provide similar guidance. My approach, when I first started losing weight, was to warm up, run at a fast but controlled pace for a few miles, and then run at what I thought was a mile pace for as long as I could. And then I ran a little further. Since that time, I crank it up pretty hard every few months and my number comes up in the high 180's vs 191 which is the number that I still use for HR ranges.
A variance of a few BPM will not throw off your training because there are so many other variables in the training equation. HR is a broad stroke way of getting us to run at a level of effort than may vary significantly from one day to the next…heck, one hour to the next, truth be told.
Thanks for this. My current estimation for my max is probably pretty close right now. I may be over thinking it. Trying to train myself to not get stuck in too much moderate work on days that are supposed to be easy.
I also laugh at the formula's telling me it should be no more than 179, when I hit 183 the other day with a brief moderate effort for one mile.0 -
Any age based formula for determining maximum heart rate is almost worthless for HR based training. The spread of maximum heart rates is just too large. If you google, you'll find various studies with distributions like this one -
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/2/130/F1.large.jpg
If you're interested in using a heart rate monitor, buy one, and test yourself. I haven't followed my own advice and done one of the recommended tests yet. I did run hard up a hill near the end of an easy 6 mile run and hit 186 on the monitor. Based on age (48), my max should be 172 so I already know it's off. I'm sure it's a hair higher since this was just 1 short hill starting from a HR of about 155. 155 is a conversational easy run for me.
In case my rambling point isn't clear, if you're going to be super precise about your training, don't set up your zones based on the age based formula for maximum heart rate. It'll throw off all your numbers. I'm more a perceived effort guy but I find the HR monitor keeps me honest. At times I feel like I'm not working hard but the monitor tells me otherwise and I've hit points near the end of a long run where I feel I'm running out of energy but the HR monitor says I'm slacking.
0 -
This page has a calculator that will let you put in your Max HR (by adjusting age) and resting heart rate. After saying I'm not a numbers guy in my previous post I do like to be as accurate as possible if I'm going to look at the numbers. Yes, I am an engineer.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm0 -
Thanks Carson!CarsonRuns wrote: »To clarify, I really am not running anywhere near race pace. I have an 8:50 HM pace and I run my 12mi+ runs at around 9:45-10:30. But reading this thread I feel like I should maybe be running more like 12:00/mi. I think I am going to go out with my HRM next run. I was regularly running around 165bpm when I was using it, but I have two years under my belt.
In your case, I don't see any need to slow down. You are doing your "easy" runs at the faster end of aerobic pace. If you are taking a day off between runs, then you are getting recovery in.lporter229 wrote: »As I understand it, by running at a slower (aerobic) pace, you are essentially training your body to use it's own natural reserves for fuel rather than depleting your glycogen stores, which helps to avoid hitting the wall during a marathon. It also helps you to develop a more efficient gait through muscle memory. Repeated miles at a slower pace means your body will more naturally adopt this same movement even when you increase your speed. (Anyone feel free to correct me if that's not accurate info).
This really only applies to the long run when you get over 90 minutes.
When you do easy runs, you are building the aerobic pathways, like mitochondria, in the body which allows you to get more O2 to the muscles, with the same amount of blood flow.
0 -
I just ran across two earbuds that synch with RunKeeper and contain HRM's in the earbuds. Not as accurate as the chest strap though. SMS BioSport ($150, not wireless, meaning you need to carry your smartphone) and Jabra Sports Pulse ($200, wireless and gives you a voice check of your hr).0
-
OldNoobJohn wrote: »This page has a calculator that will let you put in your Max HR (by adjusting age) and resting heart rate. After saying I'm not a numbers guy in my previous post I do like to be as accurate as possible if I'm going to look at the numbers. Yes, I am an engineer.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm
I used runningforfitness.org. I plugged in my numbers and it generated a custom table with my numbers and explanation of each and i copied and emailed it to myself. I also compared it to Garmin's numbers, to get a feel for my ranges. Then, I just listen to my body within those numbers.
One thing I will say about using higher numbers...I was tempted to do it, and did briefly for a much-needed emotional boost. And on longer runs, my hr creeps up towards the end of the run and it becomes difficult to keep it down and I try to let it stay within a tolerance. BUT, I find that the lower you go, the better it seems to be for the whole body...for the muscles and ligaments, etc. It seems that when i start to creep up over the lower number (the Maffetone number), I start to feel my tendon aching (which I have to be careful about my Achilles) and when I stick to the lower number I tend to feel as though I've done resistance training in my hip flexors and calves (like slowly hopping on one leg for a couple of hours)--which I think is beneficial. I wonder sometimes if pushing harder introduces an inflammatory response or something shifts (obviously there is a degree of catabolism happening, which you want to keep towards fat and away from muscle) which might cause the body to ever-so-slightly start to breakdown on itself. IDK, just one of those many, many things that goes through my head when running. But, tl;dr, I find when I let my hr creep up, I experience more non-cardiovascular-related negative effects. Therefore, I will definitely be keeping to 80/20 when I complete my 12 week aerobic zone training.
0 -
Fromhereonout - it sounds more likely to me that when you start pushing too hard your running form is just not as good because you're tired. Either way, it sounds like training at an easy pace is working better for you.
0 -
lporter229 wrote: »Yes! I read Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 and used his recommendations to develop a good base before starting my last marathon training plan. I was a 10 min/mile casual runner for years. I never tried to get faster. After following this plan for less than a year, I ran a 1:43:52 HM (7:56 pace) and a 3:52:37 FM (8:52 pace).
To be fair, I was already getting faster by virtue of running more after doing my first marathon in 2013, but it wasn't until I started monitoring my HR and running in the recommended zones that I really noticed a difference.
That's amazing! I'm still such a novice that I'm trying to build a base of long, slow runs, but I do use some of Matt's coached PEAR runs with my HRM so I'm excited to hear that 80/20 worked so well for you.
To the OP: my first 5K in November was 32:17. A month later, I ran a 29:57. Then, last week, I ran a 4-mile race in 36:06, and that's through nothing more than more miles.0 -
That's one of the reasons why many runners don't use HR based training and go by perceived exertion (Google "Borg scale"). One factor is "cardiac drift" but there's also the fact that, for many runners, mile 10, for example, is a lot more demanding than mile 2.One thing I will say about using higher numbers...I was tempted to do it, and did briefly for a much-needed emotional boost. And on longer runs, my hr creeps up towards the end of the run and it becomes difficult to keep it down and I try to let it stay within a tolerance.
What I haven't seen mentioned, and, if you're of a techie bent might be of interest, is HR being used a proxy for %VO2Max. HR measurement is ubiquitous and directly observable whereas VO2Max requires either a lab (for measurement) or a high end HRM, a computer running Windows, and $80 of software (for a calculation).
I've found only one reference in the "popular press" detailing what parts of the system are enhanced at what levels of VO2Max and, wouldn't you know, it corresponds fairly closely to the HR values that we discuss. :-)0 -
That's one of the reasons why many runners don't use HR based training and go by perceived exertion (Google "Borg scale"). One factor is "cardiac drift" but there's also the fact that, for many runners, mile 10, for example, is a lot more demanding than mile 2.One thing I will say about using higher numbers...I was tempted to do it, and did briefly for a much-needed emotional boost. And on longer runs, my hr creeps up towards the end of the run and it becomes difficult to keep it down and I try to let it stay within a tolerance.
What I haven't seen mentioned, and, if you're of a techie bent might be of interest, is HR being used a proxy for %VO2Max. HR measurement is ubiquitous and directly observable whereas VO2Max requires either a lab (for measurement) or a high end HRM, a computer running Windows, and $80 of software (for a calculation).
I've found only one reference in the "popular press" detailing what parts of the system are enhanced at what levels of VO2Max and, wouldn't you know, it corresponds fairly closely to the HR values that we discuss. :-)
Well, my Fenix2 and HRM-run strap estimate VO2max and it may be close, but I don't pay it much mind. Not really sure what to do with it.
As for perceived exertion, I've never been able to judge that because I never have anyone to talk to* and don't want to look like a crazy person. They also say to try to say the pledge of allegiance, but I don't live n USA, so again there's the danger of looking like some insane American, lol.
* never anyone to talk to UNTIL today when someone I've seen around pulled up next to me and started a convo. Since I don't speak his language very well, I failed at telling him that I was going slow for HR training, and since I was enjoying practicing language skills and he is a very consistent runner, I just hung in with him. Then I found out he's a 10k racer! (much, much older...but quick and consistent lifelong runner) Oops! I got way out of HR range, especially on uphill, but I was able to hold a conversation easily everywhere else (on the hill too, but mor labored). But I don't know what any of that means vis-a-vis my HR ranges. Gonna download and look at the data. Should be interesting.
0 -
Hey.... I am starting to think this slow running stuff works. Since my 1/2 marathon last fall (1:53:58), I have been running slowly almost exclusively. And by slow I mean 9:30+ on the long runs. I signed up for a 10k as a speed check for an upcoming 1/2 marathon in April. A did a one mile speed test in the middle of a slow run last week and discovered that 7:30 didn't seem too crazy so when the starting gun figuratively fired this past Saturday I just ran hard. Negative split, negative schmit. I ran fast early (7:35 for the first two miles) and faded my way to a 48:57 10k PR for me. Now it's back to running slowly until the 1/2 marathon.
0 -
Not sure how to edit a post on here... I will plug the 10k result into the usual calculators and use that as a target pace for the 1/2 marathon. I'm not trying to argue against the conventional negative split race philosophy, I just felt like I didn't have enough information to approach the 10k with any real pace plan.0
