If you got faster by going slower... (HR training)
FromHereOnOut
Posts: 3,237 Member
I would love to hear your story and how long it took.
I'm two months in, and I see my heart rate is recovering MUCH faster now and hills are being slow-run instead of walked. But, I am soooooo ridiculously slow. I see people on Garmin Connect who take these awesome easy runs and maintain a low heart rate... But they are twice as fast as me. You seriously cannot imagine how slow I am at the right hear rate! It reinforces the concept that I really NEED to address this (heart rate training), but I'm wondering if it's going to take....year or yearS?
Thanks!
I'm two months in, and I see my heart rate is recovering MUCH faster now and hills are being slow-run instead of walked. But, I am soooooo ridiculously slow. I see people on Garmin Connect who take these awesome easy runs and maintain a low heart rate... But they are twice as fast as me. You seriously cannot imagine how slow I am at the right hear rate! It reinforces the concept that I really NEED to address this (heart rate training), but I'm wondering if it's going to take....year or yearS?
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
Yes. It is going to take you years to be "twice as fast". Lol. Running is hard work. It takes a LONG time to improve. My 5k pace is almost sub 6 min pace. I run my easy runs around 9 min pace. It does work. You can't run hard every day0
-
Be very careful about comparing actual heart rates. I am somewhere in the 8-9min/km mark at at hr of 150. I know others that struggle to get their hr above 150 during intervals.
I am a strong beleiver in low hr trainig, but it needs to be low for you, not someone else. Unfortunately Strava and Garmin show HR data in beats per minute, rather than a percentage of heart rat we reserve, which is a more even comparison field, if everyone has adjusted foe their resting and max HR.
My max HR as far as I have discovered is 201, a good 15 bpm above the most generous calculator I have found.
All that said, after a good week of sticking to LHR trainig, I've already loweredmy LHR pace by 10sec/km0 -
Aerobic fitness is developed over years of consistent training. It just takes time. Keep putting in the easy miles and the gains will come.0
-
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.0
-
Garmin Connect and Strava is the best and worst at the same time. You can't compare yourself to others. It's hard I know.
Just do you. Be patient. Take it easy. Enjoy running for running, there is no rush.0 -
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.0 -
I've never tried HR training because I suspect my easy runs would be like 12-min miles or slower on it, and I'm way too self-conscious to run that slow in public. (Not saying that's a good reason, but it's the truth.)
I will say that I did a streak (at least a mile every day) for a couple months last year at the start of my marathon training season, and got a lot faster on short distances while I was doing that. I think a lot of benefit comes just from volume, and keeping your HR low helps with that.0 -
Thanks for all the input! I guess some of the comparison has been to myself too. I started running in 2013 and I thought I was slow then, at 12min/mile, but eventually with just adding miles (and not thinking or planning or trying), I was more like 10min/mile, but I was pushing and either couldn't get more miles b/c of recovery, or (more often) was pushing too many miles without enough recovery. So, ffwd to January this year when I started heart rate training (after a 3mo break to heal achilles/calves), using the Maffetone calculation (180-age=138 target hr) and suddenly it's like 16min/mile!!! I seriously walk faster than that. hahaha!
Anyway, I'm very positive about it because (1) it's already working! I'm at about 14min/mile (down from 16) after two months (mainly because less walking because of faster hr recovery) (2) I enjoy it (3) burning fat, hello! (4) not feeling awful for pushing out 8 horrific miles, pushing my hr into the stratosphere (5) not needing to fuel AT ALL (6) better recovery, easier running gets me more miles, which seems to be where the magic happens. About the only time I'm not so positive about it is when I'm scanning the Garmin activity log and my "running" can only be compared to other people's dog-walking. hahaha!! But it's so freaking easy to run like this, I just hope that some day I'll be running this easy at something more like 9min/mile. That'd be heavenly!
@LPorter229, thank you so much for your story!!! That's exactly what I was hoping to hear!! I've committed myself to 3mos of all aerobic running, but plan to go to 80/20 after that. Would be THRILLED with a result like yours!!! Congrats!
Any more personal stories are very welcome!
Thanks!0 -
You are welcome! I am happy to share my story with anyone who will listen. Aside from being proud of my accomplishments (typical runner, I know), I love to promote this method of training to anyone who is skeptical, like I was. Yes, it's difficult on the ego to slow down at first, but once you get used to it and begin to see results, you get it. Everything you stated above is spot on. Best of luck to you. Would love to hear how it's working for you.0
-
I've never tried HR training because I suspect my easy runs would be like 12-min miles or slower on it, and I'm way too self-conscious to run that slow in public. (Not saying that's a good reason, but it's the truth.)
I will say that I did a streak (at least a mile every day) for a couple months last year at the start of my marathon training season, and got a lot faster on short distances while I was doing that. I think a lot of benefit comes just from volume, and keeping your HR low helps with that.
You'd be surprised. It really does closely follow conversational pace. This cycle ice been doing easy runs with a friend, chatting the whole time. I thought maybe we were going to fast looking at the numbers but I was feeling awesome. I put my strap on a couple times and found that my easy pace is now about a minute faster than were it was last year. So you might think your easy will be really slow but do the test!0 -
I've never tried HR training because I suspect my easy runs would be like 12-min miles or slower on it, and I'm way too self-conscious to run that slow in public. (Not saying that's a good reason, but it's the truth.)
I will say that I did a streak (at least a mile every day) for a couple months last year at the start of my marathon training season, and got a lot faster on short distances while I was doing that. I think a lot of benefit comes just from volume, and keeping your HR low helps with that.
Was reading an article the other day that said Meb's easy runs put his heartrate around 118 average. My easy runs are around 128-135, but I suppose he's a bit older and his max HR is different than mine, but you can kinda see where it's going.0 -
FromHereOnOut wrote: »Thanks for all the input! I guess some of the comparison has been to myself too. I started running in 2013 and I thought I was slow then, at 12min/mile, but eventually with just adding miles (and not thinking or planning or trying), I was more like 10min/mile, but I was pushing and either couldn't get more miles b/c of recovery, or (more often) was pushing too many miles without enough recovery. So, ffwd to January this year when I started heart rate training (after a 3mo break to heal achilles/calves), using the Maffetone calculation (180-age=138 target hr) and suddenly it's like 16min/mile!!! I seriously walk faster than that. hahaha!
Anyway, I'm very positive about it because (1) it's already working! I'm at about 14min/mile (down from 16) after two months (mainly because less walking because of faster hr recovery) (2) I enjoy it (3) burning fat, hello! (4) not feeling awful for pushing out 8 horrific miles, pushing my hr into the stratosphere (5) not needing to fuel AT ALL (6) better recovery, easier running gets me more miles, which seems to be where the magic happens. About the only time I'm not so positive about it is when I'm scanning the Garmin activity log and my "running" can only be compared to other people's dog-walking. hahaha!! But it's so freaking easy to run like this, I just hope that some day I'll be running this easy at something more like 9min/mile. That'd be heavenly!
I can totally relate to what you're saying here! When I calculated my target heart rate, it also put me at a pace that I could walk at. Since then I've been able to increase my pace by a minute. I, too, have noticed how much longer I'm able to run at a slower pace, it's incredible. I have heard that using the standard calculators are sometimes inaccurate and I know in my case, my max heart rate has gotten over 220. I would really like to do one of those tests where they tell you what all of your heart rate zones are. So glad to hear about your progress so far, though! Keep it up!0 -
sgonzalezblanco wrote: »FromHereOnOut wrote: »Thanks for all the input! I guess some of the comparison has been to myself too. I started running in 2013 and I thought I was slow then, at 12min/mile, but eventually with just adding miles (and not thinking or planning or trying), I was more like 10min/mile, but I was pushing and either couldn't get more miles b/c of recovery, or (more often) was pushing too many miles without enough recovery. So, ffwd to January this year when I started heart rate training (after a 3mo break to heal achilles/calves), using the Maffetone calculation (180-age=138 target hr) and suddenly it's like 16min/mile!!! I seriously walk faster than that. hahaha!
Anyway, I'm very positive about it because (1) it's already working! I'm at about 14min/mile (down from 16) after two months (mainly because less walking because of faster hr recovery) (2) I enjoy it (3) burning fat, hello! (4) not feeling awful for pushing out 8 horrific miles, pushing my hr into the stratosphere (5) not needing to fuel AT ALL (6) better recovery, easier running gets me more miles, which seems to be where the magic happens. About the only time I'm not so positive about it is when I'm scanning the Garmin activity log and my "running" can only be compared to other people's dog-walking. hahaha!! But it's so freaking easy to run like this, I just hope that some day I'll be running this easy at something more like 9min/mile. That'd be heavenly!
I can totally relate to what you're saying here! When I calculated my target heart rate, it also put me at a pace that I could walk at. Since then I've been able to increase my pace by a minute. I, too, have noticed how much longer I'm able to run at a slower pace, it's incredible. I have heard that using the standard calculators are sometimes inaccurate and I know in my case, my max heart rate has gotten over 220. I would really like to do one of those tests where they tell you what all of your heart rate zones are. So glad to hear about your progress so far, though! Keep it up!
I was having some difficulty for awhile and used some different calculators with RHR and HRmax, getting HR reserve etc, and got some different ranges that I felt good about and tried them out for ease and listened to my body to see what my energy level did (running fasted) and could confirm some higher numbers and let myself creep up on some runs and it gave me an emotional boost, but soon after that my HR started cooperating much more and so I try to keep to the lower 180-age number now, but know that I can push a little higher at the end of the run etc. I actually emailed a sport lab in our neighborhood about those tests but they never got back to me (probably they saw the email in English and just ignored it, I live in Greece). Just as well, I think I've got the hang of it now. ;-)
Ps, max over 220? I didn't know that was possible (but I don't actually know much about all this stuff, haha)
0 -
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?0 -
Matt Fitzgerald has one in a couple of his books. I can type it out later tonight!0
-
brandiuntz wrote: »30 minutes at a 5k race pace?
Not this one, since your profile says you run 5k faster than 30 mins! I think there is a test where you get someone to yell at you while you sprint uphill 5 or so times. I've never bothered doing it because there always seem to be better things to do...0 -
I'm going to give myself a max HR test in a few weeks when I have access to a treadmill.
Process of warmup at easy (probably low HR) pace for about 1.5-2miles, then start cranking speed/incline up every few minutes until I bail or get shot off the back of the treadmill.0 -
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.)
0 -
^^ That makes sense. I am nearly fifty and it says 179, measured with Polar.
Stef.0 -
FromHereOnOut wrote: »Ps, max over 220? I didn't know that was possible (but I don't actually know much about all this stuff, haha)
I just checked on Garmin Connect and it says my max heart rate from my runs has been 185, but I swear on my watch I've seen it get over 220. Looks like I don't know that much either! haha0 -
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 discussion has been closed.