Low HR Training


Running and Weight Loss (Read 796 times)


    Hey gang. I read this blog quite a bit. Excellent stuff there on all types of subjects. This one seemed right up our alley of using fat for fuel. Enjoy


    Click me



    MTA - adjusted for my linking goof. Sorry 'bout that.

    "He conquers who endures" - Persius
    "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel


      Hey gang. I read this blog quite a bit. Excellent stuff there on all types of subjects. This one seemed right up our alley of using fat for fuel. Enjoy

       Click me



      MTA - adjusted for my linking goof. Sorry 'bout that.



      Thanks, Norm. Good article.


        I learned something new from the article.


        I always new that as your HR increased, the percentage of your energy derived from fat vs carbs decreased.  So, at MAF you are likely burning 60% fat and 40% carb for energy.  At a higher HR, but still at a pretty aerobic HR, the split would be 50% fat and 50% carb.


        But, although the percent fat burned decreased with increased HR, the actual total fat burned still increased when you got to 50-50.


        Based on this, it means that running at an HR where the split is 50-50 has you burning more fat, and for a given time period, you are actually giving your aerobic system a more intense workout.  But, you could give your aerobic system the same overall workout by running at MAF, but just for a longer period of time.


        So, I knew about the above information, but what I did not know is that if you then went to a 40% fat 60% carb split at an even higher HR, not only does your percent fat used decrease, but the overall amount of fat used also decreases. That surprised me.  So, as you get to these HRs you are no longer really exercising your fat burning system as well.  Now you are much more about exercising your carb energy system.


        Below is the link to the particular page where this is referenced.  It shows some interesting graphs on the issue.



          But, although the percent fat burned decreased with increased HR, the actual total fat burned still increased when you got to 50-50.


           The more I read about this, the more I think I made a small mistake, in my interpretation.  The charts in the article seems to show that peak fat burning occurs at about 60% vo2 max.  I read somewhere else that 60% vo2 max corresponds to about 70% hr max which is close to where MAF is for many people.


          So, it does look like the maximum amount of fat burning does occur around our MAF pace.  As we go to higher paces, the amount of fat burned as well as the percent of fat burned appears to decrease.


          Of coarse, this is just based on averages.  The writer of the article indicated that 60% vo2max for one person might be 70% max HR and it might be 60% max HR for another person.


          Just adding reference to the graph.




          What I think is interesting is that I bet the MAF point is on the left side of the peak of this graph.  But, you still burn a lot of fat if you are a little to the right of the peak.  But the slope is steeper going down on the right side of the graph and it would be easy to be too far to the right.


            weightloss (likely fatloss), using running as a tool, and concept of burning max number of cals, in this case max number of cals from body fat, per unit of traing session. How to run (what HR, what %, etc) to maximize the effect of loosing bodyfat - here the choice is specificaly burning bodyfat via running.


            aerobic conditioning, aerobic fitness, improving running performance, improving marathon times, specificaly

            improving the body ability to use own body fat at higher and highjer running speed.



            Both above mentioned goals, using same or similar tools using same words, terms etc.


            Discussion about one gets allways confused by arguments from the other and wise versa.


            Just because to loose weight, somebody has concept of doing it via running and using running to burn bodyfat in the most efficient manner ....


            it odes not mean, that the arguments and conclusions are aplicaple to teh goal of improving fat metabolism for the purpose of marathon training....


            say you train fat metabolism at the state when sugars are not kicking in yet and opushing this state to higher and higher paces, it has nothing to do with fact, that if the running pace was faster you would burn much more overal fat even the fat % is lower.


            what is the goal determines the thinking, the arguments and the use of tools

              very interesting graph. I did have a similar graph in mind when reading about this topic before. so this is why one doesn't need to get worried if accidentally running at MAF+a couple beats sometimes. :shrug:


              btw, my MAF is at 75% unless I have a higher MHR than I thought (easily possible); if I subtract 5 for safety, it is still 73%.


              hehe and my output at this MAF is definitely less than 60% of vo2max, if interpreting it as 60% of the pace/speed I'm able to produce at vo2max. it is maybe 40% of my vo2max output. (tell me if I have the vo2max % interpretation wrong.)



                This graph has fascinated me, ever since I saw it.  It just ties in with everything else I have learned here.  We learned earlier form Jimmy's RQ test that the MAF point occurs just before the deflection point, and that the deflection point is about where our carb energy system really starts to kick in.


                So, when I saw this curve, I was just imagining that the the point to the right of the peak is probably where that deflection point is and the MAF point would be to the left of the peak, or maybe even at the peak.


                But this also ties into my desire to do some occasioinal above MAF running, because I think it might actually be helpful to me for my goals of wanting to race in 5Ks more effectively and to improve aerobically.  As I mentioned in other posts, I do want to experiment with the higher aerobic paces based on Lydiard.


                So, I look at the graph and can see that if you only go a little to the right of the peak, you are still getting a high amount of fat burning, but you are also giving your carb burning system a workout, and a very aerobic workout.  I am thinking that getting some more of this will be helpful to me when I do start running 5Ks again.


                I mean, think about it.  Last year I was running in these 5K races with mostly MAF training which optimizes our fat burning systems and thus makes us much more aerobic, yet if you look at this curve, you are actually burning very little fat in an actual 5k race.  It is practically all carbs.  So, there is a need to get some aerobic training occasionally in the area to the right of the peak in the curve.  That is how I am kind of looking at it these days.


                I still think you stay to the left of the peak during a base phase, and for the majority of your miles, but once you are transitioning to a race season, it would think it would be good to move all around that peak area.  It is still a very aerobic area, with lot of fat burning still going on.

                  yeah, for me my past runs that were just to the right of this peak (HR 155-163 instead of 145-153) did provide me with a lot of improvement. but you must be very careful with not overdoing them. that's the biggest problem with these, I think. workouts at that aerobic-ish intensity do feel very easy and that means you could overdo them. well, at least for me it felt easy enough to overdo it - I just stopped in time.

                  anyway, this is why I like Hadd's approach the most. it will make sure you get training in those higher aerobic intensities while keeping most runs at a low HR (so avoiding the overtraining too).

                  and I like Hadd even more because you could say that my MAF training is really Hadd base building, because they are basically the same HR zone. (well, I re-read Hadd and I realized it says that for 193+ MHR the base zone is still 193 minus 50 or so... and not 204 minus 50, sigh. but this 143 for me is still MAF zone, just not as close to the MAF ceiling, more like the lower end of the MAF zone.)

                  but of course I like MAF too for different reasons. Wink