Forums >General Running>Heart Rate Training Question
Now that makes sense to me, Tom. (Or, perhaps it's just the answer I was looking for.) For me, my pace on a easy run naturally increases a bit. Resulting in, at least, small negative pace splits. If I were to try to get to goal pace quickly, instead of let it happen naturally, It would probably result in positive splits. And that is not something that seems right. (I think I'll pose this question at Tom's site as well and see what he and his community have to say.)
Now that makes sense to me, Tom. (Or, perhaps it's just the answer I was looking for.)
For me, my pace on a easy run naturally increases a bit. Resulting in, at least, small negative pace splits. If I were to try to get to goal pace quickly, instead of let it happen naturally, It would probably result in positive splits. And that is not something that seems right.
(I think I'll pose this question at Tom's site as well and see what he and his community have to say.)
I would not argue the part that I underlined.
I would, however, argue that is a good thing if you're doing HR training. If you exclude mile 1, and focus on the other miles, your HR should not increase as you provided. I'm guessing (as Buzzie and AK Trail also guessed) that you are lacking some aerobic fitness.I would guess that a good part of your 4th mile (with an AVG HR @ 153) is above your Lactate Threshold and your miles prior to it were inching toward LT.
But, I really don't know much. This subject is too confusing.
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
I would not argue the part that I underlined. I would, however, argue that is a good thing if you're doing HR training. If you exclude mile 1, and focus on the other miles, your HR should not increase as you provided. I'm guessing (as Buzzie and AK Trail also guessed) that you are lacking some aerobic fitness.I would guess that a good part of your 4th mile (with an AVG HR @ 153) is above your Lactate Threshold and your miles prior to it were inching toward LT. But, I really don't know much. This subject is too confusing.
Yes, I am not discounting the idea that I'm lacking in aerobic fitness. That is exactly why I've decided to undertake this approach. (That, and a need to have something new to focus on.) I am taking on my first marathon at the end of October. I want to slowly build up my miles and endurance before starting a formalized training plan. Using a heart-rate reliant method makes sense to me.
... If my goal for a run is, say, 5 miles at my easy pace, and my easy pace is 143 bpm, is that number what I'm looking to average for the 5 miles? Or am I trying not to exceed that number during the 5 miles?
...
If my goal for a run is, say, 5 miles at my easy pace, and my easy pace is 143 bpm, is that number what I'm looking to average for the 5 miles? Or am I trying not to exceed that number during the 5 miles?
As said in my first post, I'd average the 143 bpm, give or take a few bpm after a warmup (15-30+ min for me). Or you can feel free to use the whole "easy" zone, which is usually about 10bpm or so wide. If 143bpm is top end of your easy zone, then I'd top out at that and try to average in the 138-143 range.
For what it's worth, I did a 2.5hr run, relatively flat so out/back makes sense, I (66F) had about a 4-min positive split of which at least 3 min can be accounted for by potty break, pictures, and having to stop for more traffic (outbound was only 1 tracked ATV, no pictures; inbound was 1 tracked ATV, 1 snowmachine, 1 sled dog team; maybe 5 or so pictures). It was about +27F, although it felt warmer and is warm for us this time of year. One 1.66mi section about 15min from the start was run in
outbound: 26:26, avg HR 144 (80% HRmax), net elev gain of 52 ft
inbound: 25:56, avg HR 138 (77% HRmax), net elev loss of 74 ft (obviously some altimeter variation)
Snow conditions were fairly similar in both directions - about the firmest I've run on all winter, although the one snowmachine loosened things up making things a bit harder to run inbound. I was just running to get some miles in before watching start of an ultra. I looked at watch mostly to check time for turnaround, getting back to start - not HR. I know what "easy" feels like without looking at watch. Most sections had a variation of <10bpm without me trying to hit anything. No fuel, maybe 5oz of water - but I was happy to get the turkey wrap and chocolate milk waiting for me in my car. (I did have a few mental lapses on the way back as well as playing with hills or soft patches, which accounts for some variation.)
That said, if it were in the 70s, I'd be dying of the heat and not getting very far. Not to mention the swamps and creeks would be open water, instead of nice frozen trail.
But I'm sure others can show you similar examples of constant effort after warmup.
Thanks again for your input, AK.
Wow, your experiences are far more exciting than mine. I'm a little jealous. All I had today was strong winds, palm trees, a temperature of 82 and a heat index of 84. In February.
August is gonna be a bitch.
Have you tried the Karvonen formula? I'd be interested in seeing how those numbers compare to your real-world results. That formula is also the one used in the Running Wizard training plans.
If by Karvonen Formula you mean this, 206.9 - (0.67 x age) as stated here http://exercise.about.com/od/healthinjuries/g/maxheartrate.htm
Yes I've used that formula, as well as others, but they all differ by only a few points. For example if I use the Kavonen formula I get a value of 174.74 bpm, which is only ~2 points off the 220-age formula which puts me at 172 bpm. I've done hour-long runs at between 165 - 170 bpm and that's not redlining.
However, I should say that I'm somewhat new to running, most of my aerobic conditioning is from hiking and cycling. So that may be a factor in why I see cardio creep. I've never really paid much attention to my HR while cycling and hiking, so I'm not sure if I have the same issues with cardio inconsistencies.
If by Karvonen Formula you mean this, 206.9 - (0.67 x age) as stated here http://exercise.about.com/od/healthinjuries/g/maxheartrate.htm ...
Just curious, but what on that page suggests to you that that is the Karvonen formula? I'm not seeing anything about Karvonen there (there is a link to another site). It's generally accepted that anything age-based may not be really accurate (see Roberg's paper).
The Karvonen formula usually referred to takes HRmax and HRresting and converts to Heart Rate reserve (HRR = HRmax - HRresting), which is used to calculate zones. It is not a method calculating HRmax, AFAIK. I've been trying to track down his original 1957 paper again to remember what they actually did say. It may not be as simple as what people say it is, but I can't remember.
Here's the link http://exercise.about.com/cs/fitnesstools/g/karvonen.htm If you open this link (to the left) it will show another link listed as "maximum heart rate" that was my previous link.
The Karvonen formula usually referred to takes HRmax and HRresting and converts to Heart Rate reserve (HRR = HRmax - HRresting), which is used to calculate zones. It is not a method calculating HRmax,
I'm not sure of all the terms you're using; I've been a very active person for over 25 years, but never really delt with measuing my HR until recently. I thought the K. Formula was for calculating training zones, but to do that you need to know your max HR, if I understand it correctly.
I've been trying to track down his original 1957 paper again to remember what they actually did say. It may not be as simple as what people say it is, but I can't remember.
Did you see my link I posted earlier, it basically says that HR zones are somewhat useless ? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Here's what one Doctor said (excerpt)
"Dr. Fritz Hagerman, an exercise physiologist at Ohio University, said he had learned from more than three decades of studying world class rowers that the whole idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate was ludicrous. Even sillier, he said, is the common notion that the heart rate is an indication of fitness.
Some people get blood to their muscles by pushing out large amounts every time their hearts contract, he said. Others accomplish the same thing by contracting their hearts at fast rates. As a result, Dr. Hagerman said, he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220. And he has seen others on the same team and with the same ability, but who get blood to their tissues by pumping hard, with maximum rates of just 160.
''The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing athletes,'' Dr. Hagerman said.
Heart rate is an indicator of heart disease, said Dr. Michael Lauer, a cardiologist and the director of clinical research in cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. But, he added, it is not the maximum that matters: it is how quickly the heart rate falls when exercise is stopped.
An average healthy person's heart rate drops about 20 beats in a minute and the rates of athletes ''nose dive by 50 beats in a minute,'' Dr. Lauer said."
>
Like I said, I'm not really concerned about my HR anymore, basically just got interested in it when I got a HR monitor, which is broken now, so I haven't been using one for a few weeks. Will probably get another one, but it's more of a toy to me, something to play with while I workout.
I train by HR as well. This is what I do when I run on TM particularly for easy runs.
I start running at X speed( X could be 6 mph if that is my comfortable speed). Then I increase my speed little bit every 2-3 minutes until I hit my desired HR. It takes me 10-15 minutes to reach desired HR.
Once I am at desired HR, I check my average HR of last 2-3 minutes. I would check this average HR every 2-3 minutes.
I decrease my speed if my average HR for last 2-3 minutes is higher than desired HR.
I increase my speed if my average HR for last 2-3 minutes is lesser than desired HR.
It is obvious that I would have to decrease my speed gradually to stay at particular HR. But it is my understanding that the amount of speed that I have to decrease would reduce gradually as my fitness would increase.
When I run outside and I cant control speed and elevation as good as I can do on TM, so I run in a HR range and not a particular #. Slowly I am getting better at this and am able to reduce the HR range. If 150 is my desired range, I used to set the range from 143-157. Now I am setting the range from 146-154.
It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
Don't worry about having positive splits on your easy runs, I think it is completely natural to have positive splits. I tend to run mile 2 or 3 about the fastest and then positive split the next few miles and then generally speed up slightly the last mile especially if I'm headed back to the house.
Your HR creep is pretty noticeable, to the point that I would start to question whether that last mile really was "easy".
I think as new runners we all tend to run our easy runs too fast. I know I still struggle with it.
Age: 50 Weight: 224 Height: 6'3" (Goal weight 195)
Current PR's: Mara 3:14:36* (2017); HM 1:36:13 (2017); 10K 43:59 (2014); 5K 21:12 (2016)
Here's the link http://exercise.about.com/cs/fitnesstools/g/karvonen.htm If you open this link (to the left) it will show another link listed as "maximum heart rate" that was my previous link. I'm not sure of all the terms you're using; I've been a very active person for over 25 years, but never really delt with measuing my HR until recently. I thought the K. Formula was for calculating training zones, but to do that you need to know your max HR, if I understand it correctly. That is Karvonen's formula for zones, but you need the HRmax to include in there. I believe that Karvonen used the actual HRmax in 1957, not a calculated estimate from an age-based formula. Did you see my link I posted earlier, it basically says that HR zones are somewhat useless ? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Here's what one Doctor said (excerpt) "Dr. Fritz Hagerman, an exercise physiologist at Ohio University, said he had learned from more than three decades of studying world class rowers that the whole idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate was ludicrous. Even sillier, he said, is the common notion that the heart rate is an indication of fitness. But that says nothing about zones - only that the age-based formulae are useless - much as Roberg's paper has shown. ... This is one of the reasons I usually suggest people read a book about heart rate training, rather than trying to decipher stuff on the internet.
That is Karvonen's formula for zones, but you need the HRmax to include in there. I believe that Karvonen used the actual HRmax in 1957, not a calculated estimate from an age-based formula.
But that says nothing about zones - only that the age-based formulae are useless - much as Roberg's paper has shown.
Thank you Hector & Nathan. That info is helpful to me.
Pace Prophet
I agree with npaden. If your HR is creeping that much, your pace isn't truly easy.
The metric I've read somewhere is that your easy pace is that which you can maintain for 10 miles with no drift. (Of course, that assumes you can run 10 miles easy...) Like AKT, though my HR increases over the first mile, it's stabilized after 10 minutes or so, and although it fluctuates with the terrain it doesn't continue to climb when I'm on an easy run; the last mile's average HR is about the same as the second mile's.