Heart rate question (Read 1810 times)

This begs for another question. 10 bpm more or less — is it important? How precise should the measurements be? If I use the Maffetone formula, overestimate my fitness and add 5 to 137 (180-43) instead of subtracting, how would that affect my results?

My advice would be to invest some time into reading about the Maffetone Method before you go and customize it to suit you. If your interested in it, follow the method and see where it leds you, then tweak it.

To start with the MAF formula in your case would be 180 - 43 (age) - 5 (for new runner or returning from injury) = 132. That is your MAF (Maximum Aerobic Function) and is the upper limit of your HR range. That means if you need to take walk breaks to lower your HR, then walk. Your aerobic system will develop, mine did. Again, go to the forum that I hyperlinked in my eariler post and ask some questions and read the boilerplate thread.

What Scout said about running by effort is also true and most runners here use that method, but the problem I had was I didn't know what easy was until I started to use the MAF Method. I was never a runner until I started two years ago to lose some weight. Now I know what easy paces are and only check my HR monitor to confirm the feeling I'm getting from the run.

There are a variety of definitions of optimum heart rate for training. What few take into consideration is how efficiently you run, rather than just a number on a meter. Since your physical size, and even heart size are variables, I'm not one to religiously follow any set limits; unless your doctor tells you to do so.

 

Yes and since the Maffetone Method was specifically cited by the OP, my advice was to commit to Dr. Maffetones method fully and see what benefits you can achieve by it before useing his formula and tweaking it to suit your needs.

Maffetone and I have very similar philosophies to training. He argues that low heart rate is a functional training goal. I simply figured out how to achieve the lowest heart rate possible. 

 

And running with a forefoot landing is a highly artificial way to run for optimum economy. That's why I listed the study proving it.

If it could run at all...http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/march6/tyrannowalk-36.html

 

Do they make vibrams for T Rex?

Great, now it's going to be a fasting race against an ornithomimus....

Betcha the T-Rex is gonna enjoy the fasting race. Except for being highly diverted by a meal break at the first anything he catches.

How to run a 800M using your arms and legs like a human: http://www.universalsports.com/video/assetid=b288c82b-fdd1-441b-9810-3ff0cf159c1a.html

After reading a few of the threads on heart rate training, I read the article by Mark Allen, which I thought was interesting:

http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

 

Then I got the book "Heart rate training" by Roy Benson and Declan Connolly. They essentially break down the training heart rates into four phases:

 

less than 75% of max heart rate: Endurance (phase I)

between 75% and 85% of max heart rate: Stamina (phase II)

between 85% and 95% of max heart rate: Economy (phase III)

over 95% of max heart rate: Speed (phase IV)

 

The authors also provide a couple of methods to get your max heart rate without relying on a formula, which is good. The authors present about 5 different formulas to calculate max heart rate and training zones. They all give you a slightly different answer, which is why the authors suggest you actually figure out your max heart rate. Interestingly enough, Maffetone is not mentioned in the book at all.

 

Although I can't say that this book copies a lot of the ideas from Jack Daniels' "Daniels' Running Formula", I had a distinct feeling that the authors shared a similar philosophy, as they both talk about periodization, breaking out training into 4 phases, etc. Daniels uses some sort of VDOT thing (a derivation of VO2max?), but I don't recall much effort on Daniels' part to push for a heart rate monitor.

 

Personally, I'm looking forward to training with a heart rate monitor. It looks like a good tool to track progress. 

I haven't seen this book of Benson's, but I did start with one of his HRM programs that I bought when I got my hrm in 2001. Maffetone and other LHR methods generally take a different approach, but in some people, the approaches overlap. (I haven't read any recent LHR training, so they may have reworked them so there's more similarity. When I was first learning, the max hr that LHR training had me using was at the bottom level that standard training had me use.) 

Of all the random books I could have picked up to learn as a clueless newbie, I think Benson's program was probably the best. And I regret any attempts I made to deviate from its basic principles.  I learned to run by feel.  I learned basic periodization. I learned to run throughout the aerobic zones, not limiting it to just easy stuff or things above LT. I never got hung up on distances or paces. It had neat drills called heart rate fartleks.  It was adaptable to lots of conditions. And the book that went with the program was small enough that it  was easily digestible for an eager newbie to start with. (I think Noakes was one of my early books also - at the opposite end of spectrum.)

I think you'll find the periodization approach of Benson, Daniels, Pfitz, and others is patterned after Lydiard - with their own tweaks. Of course, Livingstone is essentially Lydiard. (Daniels is the only one with no-man's-lands, iirc. Lydiard has you use the full aerobic zone from being able to talk in complex sentences to short phrases.) When I first started, I had never heard of Lydiard, so I thought either Benson or Owen Anderson had invented periodization since that's where I first saw it.   (reasons why it helps to continue reading )

The phases and HR zones you refer to probably refer to the point where you first introduce those effort levels or do much of them, not that all the time in that phase is spent in that zone. For example, the Endurance phase may range from 70 to 85-90% HRmax (or whatever reference you want to use), but much of it is near 75% HRmax.

I don't have Daniel's 2nd edn, but the first edition mentioned HR, but most of his stuff was focused on distance and pace rather than time and intensity. I've heard the 2nd edn addressed HR training more and might be more accommodating of slower runners.

Have fun.

FWIW, I run with a HRM most of the time, but mostly for logging the data. I can generally tell by feel (breathing) about what my HR is without looking - or at least close enough to know if I'm hitting a zone or not.

MTA: I tend to be slow, but I don't think that's a reflection of the training pgm.