Running and heart rate training?

[tamara_69]

I've been running a few months now, and can run 3 miles without stopping. At the end, I don't want to do more, and I'm slow, and my heart rate is WAY higher than when I cycle, like 176 or so by the end of my run. (I'm 36.) What would be the best way to condition and build mileage and get my heart rate down in a manageable range? When I cycle I have so much more control over it than when I run. I'm also concerned about too much anaerobic training, so I'm only running 2X/week, and I try not to run and cycle on consecutive days. Is this a good idea?

I have looked online for training tips and haven't been able to find much that is related to heart rate training. Any suggestions from all you experts out there?

[Grog]

I've been running a few months now, and can run 3 miles without stopping. At the end, I don't want to do more, and I'm slow, and my heart rate is WAY higher than when I cycle, like 176 or so by the end of my run. (I'm 36.) What would be the best way to condition and build mileage and get my heart rate down in a manageable range? When I cycle I have so much more control over it than when I run. I'm also concerned about too much anaerobic training, so I'm only running 2X/week, and I try not to run and cycle on consecutive days. Is this a good idea?


I had the same problem as you when I started running, i.e. difficulty to keep my heart rate under control.

I found that run/walk helped. Time is also key. Intervals training is another (and run/walk is a form of intervals training I'd say). When I started my season of more serious training on the bike, doing hard intervals, my heart rate suddently became much more manageable while running.

After all, the reason why we get better while training is through adaptation to higher demands, which happens during recovery. You want to make sure to apply this principle during specific training sessions (by doing intervals, for example, instead of keeping your HR / effort constant during a whole training) and in your general training plan (by having a progression of intensity with one week of recovery every 3-4 weeks of increased effort)...

Take this for what it's worth, I'm not an exercise specialist, just a happy practitioner!

[kaybee]

Tamara, although I'm no expert, I think Grog is right -- try the run/walk method to keep your heart rate under control, or slow way down to a jog. Personally, I use the "low-tech" training method for my running -- I just run whatever pace is comforable that day. I know you said you didn't want to add any more running days, but if you're going to get faster and build mileage, you're going to have to run more than 2 days a week. Cycling will complement your running, but to run well, you have to run. I wouldn't worry about running/cycling on consecutive days; I do it all the time. If you feel a little tired, just run/ride a little slower that day.

Good luck!

KB

[yellow]

Running with a heart rate monitor can be very, very frustrating. Been there. And yes, you will take quite a few walking breaks for a while!

A couple of things to consider. I was a runner before I was a cyclist. I cannot get my heart rate up as high on the bike for the same "level of effort" as I was when I was running and in very good shape (better than I am now). In other words, cycling seems to be easier on my cardiovascular system. Maybe something like that is happening to you (and maybe not...maybe I'm just a weirdo). Also, you didn't say how you determined your max heart rate and your effort levels, but make sure you really know what your max is before you start doing the rest of the math. And there are many different ways to "do the math"...I always used

target heart rate = [target percent (max-resting)] + resting

Example for 85% effort level target rate =[85(max-resting)] + resting

Where resting is your heart rate laying in bed in the morning, before you do much other than move your fingers & toes. This was from a running coach that I used for a very short period of time. I haven't tried it cycling.

If you want to know how to do a really simple max heart rate test, PM me.

y

[tamara_69]

Thanks, all, for your suggestions. I think I'm learning that I just need to be patient and try some new things and not worry so much about speed or distance. The real benefit is just in the enjoyment, right?

I'll try the intervals suggestions. I hate walking and running because mentally I feel like I'm giving up, but I know it will help make me stronger.

Any other suggestions you come up with will be appreciated!:)

[Nanci]

http://www.rrca.org/publicat/slowdown.html

TONS of ultrarunners swear by this method of training with a low heart rate.

Nanci

[traveller_62]

tamara,

first of all, congrats on your running progress!

although i understand that you can feel like walking is "giving up" it is actually a very common training technique. jeff galloway has written a lot of the run/walk method and i know plenty of people that have used his training program to get through their first marathon. here is his web site:
http://www.jeffgalloway.com/

i just bought my niece a couple of his books because she is starting her fitness program from couch potato status. it is working beautifully for her. on the opposite end of the spectrum i have a close friend who did his first Hawaii Ironman last year and he also used the run/walk method to make it through the marathon portion of that event.

as for training with heart rate monitors, check out this web site for a good "starter" article on HRM training:
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-52-74-0-1046,00.html

i don't use my HRM as effectively as i could in training but i do pay close attention to that resting heart rate and find that it is a very good measure of my readiness to train hard.

you must take the automagic calculations of your target heart rate zones based on your age with a grain of salt. my heart rate is about 10 beats faster than it "should" be according to my advanced age of 44. just use the calculations as starting points and pay close attention to how you feel in different heart rate zones.

keep up the good work!

traveller

[VenusdeVelo]

I was not sure how you are calculating your heart ranges....but barring getting tested on the bike, there are a few better ways to calculate HR ranges and MHR outside "220-age" -- try the Karvonen method which takes into RHR as well. See this site for a good calculator, but if you are interested, PM me, I also have the "long-hand" calculation you can do yourself.

http://briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm

My 220-age (I am also 44) would yield 176, however, the Karvonen method plus what I have actually seen on my Polar are a little higher than that. So even using Karvonen, they don't pre-suppose an exact MHR but if you have a good idea what that is based on your own trials, you can work backwards with the percentages and use a bit of a hybrid method for your calcs.

[ladyfish]

Karvonen seems much more realistic for me than the age subtractor method. That method always seemed too low for the max heart rate. In the target rate, I didn't even feel like I was exerting myself.

Good luck. The more you pay attention to your heart rate the more you will discover that after awhile you can tell without looking at the monitor where you are.

[yellow]

try the Karvonen method which takes into RHR as well.
I did this one and it came out 13 bpm lower than my actual! Yikes! But then again, I'm kind of a weirdo as I have a high resting and high max. Always have, probably always will.

[VenusdeVelo]

Yup, unless your textbook perfect :) then no method can replace actual, "what I saw on my watch", or tested numbers. It was not too far off for me, and I even had my MHR tested a few years ago. And then after a year or so, when I took up some running, my MHR hit a few beats higher yet (most likely due to te fact that even with testing, you may not hit your max in all cases, repetitive time trials and testing would be best). So I took the new max I saw occur a couple of times and re-programmed my ranges based on that. But, Karvonen is a good start for someone with no idea what their ranges are or where they should begin.

The best places for me to see a MHR are 1.) on my mtn bike on a particularly nasty climb or 2.) running (which I do not do so well at the moment).

[tamara_69]

I think the Karvonen formula is pretty close for me. Thanks for the suggestions, and help, and expertise!

Tamara

[Lise]

I'm re-upping this thread because I just got my HRM back with a new battery. Last year, when I was training for the marathon, I was so discouraged about my HR that I just stopped monitoring it at all. Over the winter, the battery died, so that was that. I kept running over the winter, but not a lot. Only 6-8 miles a week, sometimes less.

The past two weeks I've been running more, and feeling awful on my runs. Weak, slow, mentally un-tough. I know some of it was emotional, which changes, but it's so discouraging when I had built up some mileage last fall.

So today I used the HRM for the first time in probably 6 months. No wonder I feel like crud. My HR goes up above 160 very quickly. According to Polar, I shouldn't be above 150. I feel fine until about 155, so that's what I've used as my cut off. When I hit 160, I walked until it was back in the 140s. Using the "180 method" that Nanci referrenced above, my max HR should be 130! At that rate, it would be all walking! Sigh.

I'm going to give it a shot though, and go out for longer distances at a slower pace. If that means walking a lot, then I walk a lot. I really, really want to be able to run 5 miles without stopping. I ran 8K a few weeks ago, with only a walk through the water station. Heaven knows what my HR was. But I know that if I go slowly now, it will pay off with speed and endurance over the summer. Or, at least, that's what I tell myself! :o

[VenusdeVelo]

I started running last Fall, first time (I am a cyclist and only a runner by brute force :D ) to "practice" the sport for a duathlon I want to do this year. Same results as you, very discouraging. I missed alot of running over winter, the weather was horrific and no access to treadmills here. And I also had shin problems.

So I started again about a month ago. Except for some annoying little pains that subside quickly, I've been trying to be disciplined about being slow about it and it's seemed to have paid off. My last run on Friday was longer and I was able to walk less and keep my heart rate down. I have been following a plan I had found on the running boards (.pdf file attached) and if you can keep yourself to the disciplined pace, it's like building up the base you need to do in cycling before you go out and hammer. If you are like me, you just want to sprint for 2 miles first time out!! So it's almost harder to pace (walk/run combo) yourself and keep yourself in check. So worth a try, you may be able to alter it if your running base is better than what this coach assumes. I think what you are doing is likely to work!

Good luck, I feel your pain :o

[doc]

Tamara
A few very important points
1. The 220-age calculation is 100% useless. It is not based on any physiologic studies. Completely ignore it.

2. If you can talk while running you ARE aerobic no matter what your heart rate is. If you must breath between every word you are definitely anaerobic. (this has been extensively studied)

3. Professional VO2 and heart rate testing is the only reliable way to get your personal parameters. Your HR ranges are not going to be the same as someone elses, and will change as your fitness level changes. But it is totally unnecessary to do this unless you are racing to win.

4. HR training, while useful, is being over-emphasized in this thread. What are you shooting for? Prolonged aerobic runs? Just make sure you are able to talk the whole time.

5. It's strange, but anaerobic interval training, where you get to or near your max heart rate, (don't need to know what the number is, you can feel it.) is one of the best ways to increase your aerobic capacity. But you need to have a baseline decent aerobic status before doinng intervals.

Good luck with your training. No matter what yuor goals are.

[Lise]

If you are like me, you just want to sprint for 2 miles first time out!! So it's almost harder to pace (walk/run combo) yourself and keep yourself in check.
Yup. That's me! I want to sprint 2 miles every time out. Sigh. I was a sprinter in HS. Not a fast sprinter. But I ran full-out for 50 M, and that was my event. It takes maturity and discipline (for me) to build a base, etc. Thanks for the encouragement. I printed out the plan! Now I'm off to ride my bike, where I can always go fast! :D L.

[tamara_69]

What I want to do is a duathlon sprint in June. It's short, 5K run-12M bike-5K run. But the run portions are going to be my real struggle. My goal is, I guess, prolonged aerobic runs. Right now, I walk and my heart rate doesn't go above 110, and I run and I can't keep it below 160. And the running is SLOW, an 11 minute/mile pace! There's no middle ground. I would love to work up to 3 5-mile aerobic runs per week. And be able to enjoy them!

Another question--in training people talk about a long run, once a week. How much longer than the other training during the week, and how much slower?

[tamara_69]

Now I'm off to ride my bike, where I can always go fast! :D L.


That's why I like cycling, too!

[doc]

What I want to do is a duathlon sprint in June. It's short, 5K run-12M bike-5K run. But the run portions are going to be my real struggle. My goal is, I guess, prolonged aerobic runs. Right now, I walk and my heart rate doesn't go above 110, and I run and I can't keep it below 160. And the running is SLOW, an 11 minute/mile pace! There's no middle ground. I would love to work up to 3 5-mile aerobic runs per week. And be able to enjoy them!

Another question--in training people talk about a long run, once a week. How much longer than the other training during the week, and how much slower?

The long run is in preparation for something else even longer. For example in training for a marathon you might run 6-10 miles several times a week and 13-18 miles once per week. Never actually running 26 until marathon day. Since your goal is a 5k (3.1miles) and you plan on training at 5 miles several times per week, you don't need a longer run.

What's wrong with a HR of 160? I run 4-6 miles and am usually 160-170 and I can talk the whole time. Can you talk? If so, why slow down?

[VenusdeVelo]

I disagree that the statement can be made that 160-170 for the whole run is appropriate. First it depend on your max heart rate. Mine is late 170's so even though I can actually talk at say 165, I am reaching an anaerobic stage. I can actually talk pretty well upto 170 believe it or not, and I have been tested for my max HR, so it was not a guess. Doc, you may have a much higher max than me, so if 160-170 is your zone 3-4 for example, then this works for you, but cannot be predicted for another athlete.

Even if you are not yet anaerobic, you are always then running in your highest zones, so later attempts at trying to run at lower aerobic zones, or to train for longer runs will be difficult. Second, you need to learn how to train where you manage your exertion throughout the duration of your event. You cannot maintain your highest zone (say zone 4-5) or high on the RPE scale for very extended sessions....you need to learn how to manage your HR during long endurance sessions and ensure you can maintain a good aerobic pace thru the entire event/race/etc. The more time you spend anaerobic and beyond your lactate threshold, the higher risk for burnout...management of this is crucial.

I am also a believer that one does not train for the end goal only, so you would not necessarily train for a 5K and never further -- you train right for running and then you should be able to scale up (or down) your efforts for longer (or shorter) races. Managing your heart rate over multiple zones throughout a race is a tested predictor of success and wins. Not saying you don't go anearobic or hit your max in a race event, but in most cases, unless you are a physical anomoly, you cannot sustain Zone 4-5 heart rates exclusively on all your runs, esp all your training runs. You will burn out and you will not be training yourself correctly.

If you are interested, authors and endurance runners Stu Mittleman and Phil Maffetone and have some good reading on the subject.

Sorry, I respectfully disagree on this subject as I believe HR monitoring is one of the best things you can do to train your body as well as improve your goals, whether they be burn fat, get in shape, train for a marathon etc. RPE (rate of perceived exertion) is subjective by its nature and therefore prone to error, and most people are not actually accurate in their predictions of HR via RPE.

Everyone finds it funny (well, my non-cyclist friends) that Lance is not ahead of the pack in every race, at the start of the race. Rather he paces himself, to avoid burnout, and uses his max capabilities and high zones where they are most needed -- up the mountain stages, at the line, etc. This is management of HR monitoring and its related impacts to your performance.

Sorry for the long winded response, I am a little "passionate" on this subject....:D I was subject to poor training concepts early on in cycling many many years ago and it was not til I trained right that I saw vast improvements in my performance and studied it further from that point forward.

[han-grrl]

HR is activity dependent. HR targets will be different whether you are biking, running or swimming. that is why it is really important to use RPE (rate of perceived exertion) AND HR together. HR equations are also inaccurate (although some are better than others).

When you are on your bike, your heart works a little differently to pump blood through working muscles than when you are standing (like running) or laying (like swimming). Even recumbent HR targets will be different since laying with legs in front means blood doesn't have to work against gravity to get to the legs.

There are various scales for RPE, 6-20, 1-10...basically giving a value to how you feel (1 is easy, 5 moderate 10 cannot continue and fill in in between).

Chin up!:p

han

[doc]

Venus
I'm not even sure with what you are disagreeing. I merely said there may not be anything wrong with a HR of 160. That is perfectly true. It may be zone 3 for someone. I didn't say she HAD to train at that level, I said don't be afraid to.

If she keeps her heart rate at 110 she will never get anywhere. For short runs like those under 5miles, perceived exertion is perfectly fine. She is training to complete a race, not to become a professional. Therefore enjoyment is of paramount importance. If she can talk at 160 and is comfortable there for the whole distance there is absolutely no reason to slow down just to decrease her heart rate.

I am very clear on what HR training can and can't do for you. However, a newbie should NOT be focusing on HR. They should focus on perceived exertion and enjoyment. Later when they have a reliable base different training techniques can be employed to either increase distance, increase speed, or change aerobic and anaerobic thresholds.

[tamara_69]

Okay, doc and Venus, I've been reading your replies and wondering when I would ever get to the point where I could run and not be anaerobic, and then, this morning, it happened! I did my usual 3 miles, and stayed under 160! Until the end, that is. I felt so good, I did another half mile. But most importantly, I ENJOYED it! And I could have talked, albeit breathlessly. Thanks for your suggestions and encouragement! It has helped me a lot!

Tamara

[VenusdeVelo]

Yeah!! Congrats Tamara, it's got to feel great, now you're probably looking forward to the next run, right? ;)

I'm an analyst and a data-geek at heart, I love my heart rate monitor, it's the best tool I have for really knowing where I am, where I should be. Different methods work for everyone, but once it happens, like today, it feels great.

[tamara_69]

For the first time, I am looking forward to it. :) I bought my HRM at the suggestion of the spinning instructor at the gym, who is a triathlete. And now, I feel like I can't do anything without it. I like to have a way to measure my progress, and it also keeps track of my exercise sessions without the computer, so I like seeing all that info as well. It's a great tool!

[doc]

Keep enjoying yourself out there. That's the whole point. The health benefits are a lucky lucky side effect. No one can keep pounding pavement or spinning in little circles unless they are getting a decent endorphin high ;)

[SnappyPix]

I'm so glad I found this thread as I've been experiencing exactly the same problems as Tamara.
I've been dabbling with running for the last 6 months (mainly to compete in triathlons/duathlons), but have been so sporadic and undisciplined that every run feels like the first time. My heart rate rockets, my pace never increases, etc. etc.
I start with the best of intentions, then lapse for a few weeks and maybe a month or so, then pick back up at the beginning.
The run/walk method also feels like failure - even though all the cycling magazines/websites recommend it.
One thing that I thought was interesting, after reading the Runner's World handbook, was that measuring your runs in minutes, rather than miles/kilometres was a better indicator for training. This stops you being focused on pace and, for example, trying to run 5 miles within a set time limit.
It also states that you shouldn't increase your running by more than 10% per week.

For me, I know that consistency is the key. I need to develop a base running fitness to progress - just as I did with cycling. I find it frustrating, however, that I've reached a reasonable level in cycling, but this hasn't carried through to the running, and one discipline doesn't gain you automatic results in the other.

Ironically, I've now competed in all the running events I planned to do for this year (managing to somehow wing my way through them), and winter is drawing near here, but I'm even more determined to crack the running for next year, so will be upping the training through the dark mornings/nights and the colder weather. :(
I want to be able to incorporate hills and intervals into my regime, but feel that I need to be able to at least run for 30 minutes at a fresh, easy pace, before I should try. Is this realistic? At what point should you introduce additional stuff into your training?

[Deborajen]

Snappypix - I can relate to what you're saying about the skyrocketing heart rate, the never changing pace, etc. I just bought a heart monitor in January - same story.

When I first started running four years ago, although I'd been working out for a few years, I'd never tried any endurance activities so I started with 10 minutes of easy running and built up from there to over an hour. It was a training regimen from an article in Shape magazine about training to run a 10K. Sounds corny, but it was one of those life-altering reads for me because it focused on setting small goals and gradually building up to something that seemed out of reach. I never could've started with running/walking to achieve any sort of running goal. It was too much of a mental hurdle to overcome to convince myself I could run a certain distance or for a certain period of time.

Now with the HRM - well, I'm still not sure of my MHR. Using the formula of 205 minus half my age (I'm 44), my MHR should be around 183. However, I tried some intervals shortly after I bought the monitor and my heart rate got up to 187, and last week doing more intervals (and I didn't think I was pushing all that hard?) -- 190. Keeping my heart rate between 65-75% for a recovery run (124-143) means walking 1/3 to 1/2 of the time and even a tempo run at 87-92% (165-175) has me running slower than before. The one improvement I have noticed, though, is that increasing my distance is going much easier than before, both at the recovery rate and at the tempo rate. I'm still learning and adjusting, but I assume the HRM benefits are going to be more long-term.

Do focus on time with your training instead of distance. I've heard this lots of times and although I'm no expert, it does seem like if you're too concerned with how long it takes you to run a distance you're more likely to push too hard in the beginning instead of warming up into the run. The Shape article suggested hills and intervals after a few weeks but keep those runs a little shorter. They're good for variety and keep you from getting bored and getting burned out.

Deb

[SnappyPix]

Deb,

Thanks so much for you reply - it's so good to hear that someone else can relate to my love-hate thing with running!
You're so right about setting small goals, that's really what I need to do, rather than growing despondent with the (seemingly) lack of improvement in my performance (although structured training would do wonders in my case, I'm sure!).
The article you mention seems a really good one, with sensible advice that I can relate to.
In terms of heart rate, my supposed maximum heart rate is 183 for my age (38), and typically it usually hits 184 when I'm at my maximum effort (ie 10 on a 1-10 scale), but I've managed to push it to 191 before now, albeit unwittingly - both on the bike and running - so logic tells me that 191 is actually my max (I was just short of throwing up!).

Your advice has really inspired me to structure my programme, with sets of achievable targets (and maybe bigger goals, like 10km races further down the line) and to focus on time and a manageable/realistic pace. It's always easier to see the bigger picture when you know that what you're doing can bring improvements, as it has with you.

Again - thanks for the input, it's been really helpful. Hopefully I'll be reporting that things are progressing over the next few weeks!

[Deborajen]

Good luck and stick with it. That's the main thing. It does pay off.

I'm going to do my first 10K event a week from Saturday (although I've run the distance before, I've never done an actual 10K event). I'm just going to go at a nice, easy, steady pace and focus on the finish - not worry about my time. Let the heart monitor be the boss of me for awhile and see if I can train myself a little better. :)

Deb

[SnappyPix]

Deb,

Good luck with the 10km!
I'm thinking of training for a 10km being held as part of the Auckland Marathon, later in the year (if I'm still here in NZ). Figure it would give me something to aim for. I've managed a 8.5km event - but like you, 10km would be a first for me!
Hope all goes well a week on Saturday.:)

[Try-Chick]

I got a triahtlon bike last year but found I had a hard time planning my workouts so I asked for Mike Pigg's Triathlon PC Coach for Christmas last year. I found it did a great job of planning my workouts using my HR. You can even put in your races and it plans your tapers for you. Pretty awesome for a newbie especially.

I got frustrated though with my basic Polar HRM so my husband and I sprang for the new 725SX with the cycling speed sensor. I LOVE IT!

This thing estimates your max HR...though it was about 20 bpm slower than my actual max of 200. It also allows you to do 2 tests: one estimates your VO2Max and the other tells you when you've worked too hard and need to take a rest day or do some light training. I can upload my PC coach workouts (except the swim ones) into my watch and then when I'm done, download the results into the planned data on my computer. It's wild to see the graphed out HR changes over changing altitude and temperature.

Sally Edwards also has a great book out that talks about the different HR zones and explains how there are 5 HR zones and what each one helps you accomplish: healthy heart, temperate, aerobic, threshhold, and redline. It tells you how to calculate your max HR and how to take your resting heart rate. I read it cover to cover and really learned a lot.

[colby]

Lots of info!

Wow, great post, Try-Chick. :cool:

I had never seen the PC Coach before. Simple investment, great return. Pretty tempting. :)