Low HR Training

1

I figured out my max hr, but ... (Read 525 times)

Julianne R


    How low should you let it drop? Mine is 138, and I'm just starting out after a long layoff from an injury. I just did 30 mins on a treadmill with a avg hr of 115. What is the zone to train in? Thanks
      If I were you I would stay in the 118-138 range. Just try not to go over 138 and you are all good!! Of course people who have been maffing longer can still "run" even lower than maf-20 but for me I would be crawlingSmile Hopefully someone smarter than me will chime in though.


      run-easy-race-hard

        How low should you let it drop? Mine is 138, and I'm just starting out after a long layoff from an injury. I just did 30 mins on a treadmill with a avg hr of 115. What is the zone to train in? Thanks
        What's 138? Your max heart rate? Your MAF heart rate? Something else? How old are you? What approach are you using?
        Julianne R


          MAF of 138. 37 yrs old. Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "approach." I just put on my Garmin stuff and hop on the treadmill, go for 30 mins and make sure my hr doesn't go over 138. That's as sophisticated as I am at this point. Just not sure if there is a range to keep it in, like if your MAF is 150, do people try to keep it 140-150 or 130-150, etc. Just wondering what other people do. I'm just starting out after a long time in the hospital recovering from an injury, so my goals are increased fitness and running a 5k. Right now, if I did a 5k it'd probably take an hour for me to walk it. My goal is to run one...and I don't have a time goal.


          run-easy-race-hard

            MAF of 138. 37 yrs old. Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "approach." I just put on my Garmin stuff and hop on the treadmill, go for 30 mins and make sure my hr doesn't go over 138. That's as sophisticated as I am at this point. Just not sure if there is a range to keep it in, like if your MAF is 150, do people try to keep it 140-150 or 130-150, etc. Just wondering what other people do. I'm just starting out after a long time in the hospital recovering from an injury, so my goals are increased fitness and running a 5k. Right now, if I did a 5k it'd probably take an hour for me to walk it. My goal is to run one...and I don't have a time goal.
            Ok, gotcha. If you're following generally the Maffetone low HR approach then you're doing it just right. You can start targeting different sub-MAF zones after you get a feel for running at the lower heart rates, but certainly, as marktman suggests, 118-138 is a good goal. You don't really need to get more sophisticated.
              *commence threadjack*
              You can start targeting different sub-MAF zones after you get a feel for running at the lower heart rates...
              I see some people doing this. What's up with it? I've tried it a couple times (MAF of 156, but occasionally I try to stay below some lower number like 150 or so) and it makes for a nice (even more) relaxed run, but I'm curious what the extra benefit is. Perhaps your body burns a little more fat and a little less carb? *cease threadjack* Good luck on getting fit, Julianne! This approach makes it easy to run, at least for me.
              sean


              run-easy-race-hard

                *commence threadjack* I see some people doing this. What's up with it? I've tried it a couple times (MAF of 156, but occasionally I try to stay below some lower number like 150 or so) and it makes for a nice (even more) relaxed run, but I'm curious what the extra benefit is. Perhaps your body burns a little more fat and a little less carb? *cease threadjack*
                Perhaps you're burning more fat, less carb. I don't think it really matters but it keeps things interesting and I'd say you're working your muscles in slightly different ways so it may be less cumulative stress. Nothing scientific with that assessment.
                Julianne R


                  Thanks, everyone, for your advice and encouragement! I appreciate it.
                    Perhaps you're burning more fat, less carb. I don't think it really matters but it keeps things interesting and I'd say you're working your muscles in slightly different ways so it may be less cumulative stress. Nothing scientific with that assessment.
                    Only my opinion, but here goes. I agree with the different muscle theory, when I started running more slowly I couldn't believe how sore I was! In addition, I believe there are blocks of intensity where you are training the same physiological systems. For example, from 65%-80% of max HR I believe the primary benefits you gain are aerobic development from increased number of mitocondria and increased capillary density. You also improve connective tissue stength. These benefits take place whether you're running at 80% or 65% of max HR. Running for one hour at either of these intensities provides you basically the same benefits. Daniels says you should train at the lowest intensity that still provides the physiological response you are looking for out of that workout. Using max HR examples will make Jesse cringe, sorry buddy. Again, everything other than the Daniels idea is purely my opinion whatever that's worth Wink
                    www.mnultrarunner.blogspot.com


                    run-easy-race-hard

                      Only my opinion, but here goes. I agree with the different muscle theory, when I started running more slowly I couldn't believe how sore I was! In addition, I believe there are blocks of intensity where you are training the same physiological systems. For example, from 65%-80% of max HR I believe the primary benefits you gain are aerobic development from increased number of mitocondria and increased capillary density. You also improve connective tissue stength. These benefits take place whether you're running at 80% or 65% of max HR. Running for one hour at either of these intensities provides you basically the same benefits. Daniels says you should train at the lowest intensity that still provides the physiological response you are looking for out of that workout. Using max HR examples will make Jesse cringe, sorry buddy. Again, everything other than the Daniels idea is purely my opinion whatever that's worth Wink
                      I think that's useful and logical information. As you mention, I don't agree with most anything that depends on max heart rate because for some anaerobic threshold will be at 70% max heart rate, for others it may be at 92% max heart rate, and for the rest it will be anywhere in the vicinity or in between any of those. Given that the anaerobic threshold represents the real upper limit (by some definitions) of the aerobic system in terms of effort level, stuff that happens above that will not be very relevant to aerobic development and, with regard to this form of training, will have absolutely no relevance to training the body to use fat as a primary fuel source. It surprises me that it's such a commonly-used quantity by highly educated and renowned coaches. I'm neither of those (well, I'm highly educated, but exercise physiology ain't rocket science), so one should take what I say with a grain of salt! With that said, the aspect of %HRmax was not the critical part of what you mentioned anyway.