Running and heart rate training?

[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! 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! 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.... 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!

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