RunningAHEAD - Topic: Low HR Training

MidPacker

posted: 2/8/2008 at 9:12 PM

Hey gang since I'm 55 I thought I'd pose this question here though there is another specific group here. I'm curious about using a HR monitor to train. I'm looking to increase mileage from 15 miles a week to run a half marathon sometime this year. I see people that make a note on their runs of xx miles..average HR xx. the HR is usually low. Has the low HR method worked for any of you folks and if so how did you approach it? Or do you use an average HR for each run? If it's easire to reply with an e-mail feel free, and thanks! Wink

ultrachick

Ultrachick

posted: 2/8/2008 at 10:18 PM

Low HR training has worked really well for me. I had my best season yet last year-maybe that's why I'm having a hard time coming up with a race schedule. I want to do some of the same races as last year to do even better (hopefully) but I also want to try some new ones. I approach low HR training by having a VO2 max test done at least once a year usually after racing is over so I know what my new base rate is to spend the off season training there. I'm fortunate I have a friend who has his own business doing this testing. There's no blood work involved which would be a difference between him and going to a sports lab and having it done. I know there are a bunch of formulas to figure out the different HR zones but a VO2 test takes the guess work out. When I first started 2 years ago my base HR for training was 142 which slowed me down to 11:30/mile pace outside. Now I'm up to 150 BPM for base rate which outside in optimal conditions I may run a 9:30ish mile or just yesterday on a flat treadmill I ran for 3 miles at 8:57/mile. Outside in the snow, I'm around a 10 min/mile. All my easy runs are at base rate and I know how high I need to get for intervals. I feel I know my body well enough that when I'm not wearing my monitor I know where my heart rate is. It's hard to slow down and put in the base miles but it's well worth it in the end. I hope this helps. Kelly

If you never go fast, you'll never go fast.

MidPacker

posted: 2/8/2008 at 10:50 PM

Thanks kelly. Does that mean keeping my HR under 145 (my HRR) even if I have to slow down and walk? Must be damn frustrating but rewarding it seems.

bap

posted: 2/9/2008 at 12:52 AM

Quote from MidPacker on 2/8/2008 at 10:50 PM:

Thanks kelly. Does that mean keeping my HR under 145 (my HRR) even if I have to slow down and walk? Must be damn frustrating but rewarding it seems.

145 sounds a little high.

Certified Running Coach
Crocked since 2013

The Jogger

posted: 2/9/2008 at 7:13 AM

MP hi, I do low HR training based on my WHR my max is 194 and resting about 48, 70% is about 150 which I try to stay around and about. Parkers book HR training for the Compleat Idiot is good. Is there a HR thread on here? Roy

Runrtim57

Marathon Maniac #3309

posted: 2/9/2008 at 9:25 AM

Good topic. I started low HR training about a year ago, when all my runs were to fast and I could only run 2 or 3 times a week. I recently compared my logs from then to now. Wow, what a difference. Last year running the same distance and time my ave HR would be about 155 to 170 with 196 being my max. Now running the same distance and times, my ave Hr is around 128 to 135...that is a huge deal. Plus, now I can run almost everyday and not be so sore and tired all the time. I just run easy most of the time, and run a tempo run maybe once or twice a week....or when I'm feeling super fast that day. Tim

Running has given me the courage to start, the determination to keep trying, and the childlike spirit to have fun along the way - Run often and run long, but never outrun your Joy of running!

bap

posted: 2/9/2008 at 12:18 PM

I keep my heart-rate at 130-140 for easy runs, 130-ish for long runs. My max heart-rate is about 180.

Certified Running Coach
Crocked since 2013

MidPacker

posted: 2/9/2008 at 2:00 PM

Hey thanks for the feedback. Yup Roy there is a low HR forum here here's the link and I hope it works..http://runningahead.com/groups/LOWHRTR/ I did a MaxHR test 2 years ago and maxed out @ 188. My resting HR is 52. So using the Kavoreen Formula of Heart Rate Reserve my 70% rate is 144. I feel pretty good running anywhere from 150-160. Unfortunately that rate creeps up quicker than slower and usually after 3 miles. Soo....that's where I am. Any suggestions are welcome and appreciated. I'd like to be like bikemtn and run all the time and not feel sore.

bap

posted: 2/9/2008 at 4:39 PM

Try 135-140. You'll avoid the heart-rate creep and the soreness.

Certified Running Coach
Crocked since 2013

ultrachick

Ultrachick

posted: 2/9/2008 at 11:10 PM

And yes it means you may be doing some walking. Maybe not a lot on the flats or any on downhills but maybe some on the uphills. It's worth it in the end. I prefer the ultra distances so walking isn't a big deal to me anymore. If you could get tested that's what I would do to get your heart rate zones. My friend who tests me just gave a lecture at our local running club annual dinner tonight and he was saying the formulas could be 8-12 beats off. Plus you're using numbers from 2 years ago and you're in a different place now as far as your fitness goes. It's a small investment so you're not wasting your time potentially running at too high of a heart rate. I don't have an exercise physiology degree but I am a certified personal trainer. Kelly

If you never go fast, you'll never go fast.

slowgino

posted: 2/10/2008 at 1:05 AM

Quote from ultrachick on 2/9/2008 at 11:10 PM:

... he was saying the formulas could be 8-12 beats off...

Absolutely. I got a brief look at the results from between 50 and 100 VO2 tests, and though I didn't see HR vs RER (RQ) data, the software did print out an "Aerobic Threshold" (AeT) as well as training ranges and Anaerobic Threshold (AT). I'd have to dig out some of the numbers I worked out, but it was something like this for the people who took those tests (average folks who run/bike etc., not elite athletes): About 50% had an AeT within +/- 10 bpm of formulas, About 25 to 30% had an AeT 10 - 20 bpm above or below formulas, About 20 to 25% had an AeT more than 20 bpm above or below formulas. I checked the results vs a number of common formulas, and the formulas just didn't predict accurately for everybody. Just too much individual variation. I don't know how that equipment/software computed its Aet numbers. Probably either the "deflection point" re Maffetone or some % of fat burning via RER (RQ). Like you, I would recommend a good VO2 test for those who can get one and can afford it (within the running budget... for me less than 2 pairs of shoes... ok, a pair for me is $120, when on sale...) If I graph RER (RQ) vs HR, my "deflection point" where the slope of the curve changes somewhat dramatically is right at the point where I am burning the max fat calories per hour. It happens to be where I'm burning 80% fat, 20% carbs (RQ = 0.76)... this I find to be a great point for building base mileage up. Very enjoyable and pleasant, maybe I should think about doing some ultras again (last ones were about 30 years ago.)

bap

posted: 2/10/2008 at 1:23 PM

http://www.sarkproducts.com/targetzonecalculator.htm

Certified Running Coach
Crocked since 2013

Masters Running

Low HR Training (Read 305 times)