quote:<HR>Originally posted by lowry:
Thanks for your input

I went out last night and ran 10k at a warm up pace and was able to keep my heart at 135 the whole way round. But it didn?t feel like a workout it felt more like a scenic tour. I covered about 20% less distance than I normally would have. I was running at 6 min /kilometre. I tried to see if I could get my heart rate up to maximum by sprinting the last kilometre full force and strangely I couldn?t get the monitor to rise above 158. I also noticed that I could increase speed gradually near the end of the run without my heart rate rising. This made me think I might not be running evenly, perhaps starting too fast and not recovering.

There may be another factor involved. I usually run at night, at this time of year in 12 to 18 degrees C. With the monitor I ran during the day so I could read it without having to play with it. Its possible that the extra 5-10C degrees pushed my heart rate higher than normal. But I don?t recall feeling the extra stress.

Next stop is to test my MHR properly, then I?ll know for sure. I?ll let you know ( or have a family member do it)

Thanks all for your help.

Paul

<HR>

Keep in mind that the HR your body will settle upon under a given consistent workload does not happen instantaneously. It takes anywhere between 1 to 10 minutes for your HR to settle in the BPM range where it will become stable, assuming no changes to your speed, pace and terrain, and your level of mental excitability.

It is not uncommon for the HR to drop initially in response to an increased workload, especially if the increase is dramatic. Give yourself time and try a treadmill test at a constant speed and incline, wait for your HR to stabilize and then change the speed or incline and time how long it takes for your HR to stabilize once again while observing your HR changes during that stabilization period. Eventually you will find a pattern.

Also, reaching your maximal HR is seldom achieved by a sudden onslaught of a heavy sprint. Instead, gradually increase your speed over time until you are nearing a full sprint. You?ll probably hit your max HR way before your usual top speed and need to slow down. After a few attempts of this, you should have a good idea of your actual max HR. As an example, try running 2 miles, starting rather slow and entering your anaerobic range at the start of the second mile. Try to stay below 90% of what you think is your max HR and maintain that for 800 meters, then go faster if you can, and try to finish the last 800 meters as fast as possible.

I put everything out there at face value. As long as your
performance is beating the **** out of mine (even in a relative
sense), then post all of your training details and data and
let people know they can do it. I happen to think that the
enormous improvement I saw with this approach is worth
really publicizing. It is very common to say
that the Maffetone's formula doesn't work for someone with a high max
heart rate. I was told that and I believed it. Then I tried it. I'm a
counterexample and that's all one needs to disprove the statement
that "formulas don't work for those with a max heart rate." Why?
Because while age is a poor determining factor for max heart rate,
it's an excellent determining factor for anaerobic threshold, when
you add in the increments for fitness. Why did I say that someone
in his 60s who has been endurance running for many
years can add many beats?

1. During the testing that Maffetone,
Mark Allen, and others following similar approaches have done,
the RQ values stayed lower at higher heart rates than the formula
predicted for ages in the high 50s and beyond. For these ages, I
tell everyone that adding 10-15 beats or so will give similar
benefits to younger runners who are right on the formula. These were outlier cases, just like those that were down in the early 20s and
below. This is based on data from Maffetone and based on
information provided by several posters around here. For those
with very low max heart rates, clearly, the Maffetone formula
will be telling them to run too fast. That's why I point them to
Hadd's approach at setting the heart rate limit.

2. Someone who has been running aerobically using mostly
fat for fuel for many years consistently can get away with adding
5, 10, even 20 or more beats and still get just as much aerobic
benefit. Someone who has not trained himself to use fat as a
primary fuel source will have a high respiratory quotient even
at pretty low heart rates and he may have to subtract beats just
to use enough of a percentage of fat to make something work.

Look, I know most everyone disagrees with me about this and
that's perfectly fine. As far as I know, I'm the only one to provide every
shred of my data to back up everything I say, or give people ammo
to shoot it down. Most others just quote theories and make
general statements like "this type of thing won't work for most"
or "formulas don't work." I was frustrated with my running and
I was told all of the following statements:

1. You've got a high max heart rate, so you shouldn't worry about
those formulas and recommendations - 160s and 170s is fine
for someone that can get over 200. This is such a load of ****,
it's simply incredible and I can't believe people spew it out without
hard data to prove it.

2. You should do more focused speed work.

3. You should follow a Pfitzinger plan (and by the way, I'm
not shooting down Pfitzinger's plan, but it is definitely not for
someone who is an aerobic disaster - it led to my worst marathon
(4:23) in the best conditions. ) I'm sure I would do very well with
it now but now I've learned that you don't need to work hard in order
to run respectable races.

The bottom line is if you are completely happy with what you're doing
and everything is going right for you, then stick with it. I'm not going
to tell you you're doing something wrong. However, if someone is
posting concerns about his performance, I'm going to tell him honestly
what I think the problem is, especially if he's exhibiting the exact
problems I was and is being told the same things I was.

Why don't you post all of your race time improvements (race times
before and race times after) that are associated with the training
regimen that you feel is ideal along with all of your training data, rather
than just making conjectures that I'm wrong? Did you move from
the bottom 50th percentile of races to the top 10th or 5th percentile
in a year with no hard running at all?

------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">

edited to fix several typos ...


http://This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Sep-29-2007).

No doubt we disagree about max heart rate, but that's common
because most people disagree with me on it. Most HRmax-based
recommendations would tell me to run at 160 or higher for most of
my runs. The common response to tell someone here is that
if their max heart rate is high, it's understandable why they can't
run at all at low heart rate. I work hard to dispel that notion. I
used to believe in that notion wholeheartedly. By the way, with regard to
slacking off in runs - I slack off in all training runs - if it ain't easy,
I ain't doin' it. Except on race day. I don't think age is a major
factor in one's ability to improve as long as they haven't already
gone through 5-10 years of solid improvement already. At least
under the age of 60, 65 or so.



------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by tigger:
At 57 I am running faster races than I did when I was 50, but my average annual pace is about the same as it was back then. So I guess I would agree on the age thing.

I think 160 (76%) would be the high end for your easy pace if you used percent of MHR and your max is 210. I would think 70% (147) would be the low end. In my own case I run around 130 (71%) to 142 (77%) depending on how I feel. That's where I feel most comfortable. Today I went 3 hrs at 137, and I purposely kept it low because I have not gone that long for quite a while.

Again I want to emphasize that one should not allow heart rate to control pace any more than one should use cookie cutter numbers from internet prediction tables. Those are all useful guides, but not definitive or absolute. Every runner has to understand how to apply the guides to his/her own situation. The most important training organ is the brain, not legs or heart.

http://This message has been edited by tigger (edited Sep-29-2007).<HR>

No offense, but you are giving people the benefit of the doubt. As if they can diagnose themselves automatically while running. Some people could tell you almost exactly when they hit their anaerobic threshold. Most others, however, couldn't tell you when they were at 80% of max HR within 10 beats either way. This can be the difference between a good aerobic run and overtraining if the miles add up. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree about race time predictors, etc.

In general, people will tend to run faster than they should. They will think they are fitter, stronger, and faster than they really are. Human nature has proved this time and time again. Ask an overweight person how much they weigh, and 8 out of 10 times it won't be as much as it really is.

Regardless of how HR is measured, calculated, analyzed, etc...everyone needs a good aerobic base to be the best runner they can be. (distance runner I mean ) It definitely isn't the only thing, but without it everything else will suffer. By following Maffetone (or others) most people will be far better off, than worse off.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by tigger:
At 57 I am running faster races than I did when I was 50, but my average annual pace is about the same as it was back then. So I guess I would agree on the age thing.

I think 160 (76%) would be the high end for your easy pace if you used percent of MHR and your max is 210. I would think 70% (147) would be the low end. In my own case I run around 130 (71%) to 142 (77%) depending on how I feel. That's where I feel most comfortable. Today I went 3 hrs at 137, and I purposely kept it low because I have not gone that long for quite a while.

Again I want to emphasize that one should not allow heart rate to control pace any more than one should use cookie cutter numbers from internet prediction tables. Those are all useful guides, but not definitive or absolute. Every runner has to understand how to apply the guides to his/her own situation. The most important training organ is the brain, not legs or heart.

http://This message has been edited by tigger (edited Sep-29-2007).<HR>

An observation over the last 3 decades of "neighborhood class" runners. I have observed the vast majority would run too fast--too often and leave the running scene due to injury or burn out--or both. Prior to all the gadgets we have now--a lot of runners ran intuitively. Sadly, most read elitist runner publications and figured if Frank Shorter could run comfortable 20 milers at 6 min miles many attempted that
and ended up disappointed.

I post a lot on the Newbies Forum. My message is always the same. Slow down--especially if you want to be running the rest of your life. Why be in a hurry?

In December I am returning to Huntsville, Al to celebrate the 30th anniverary of my first marathon there in 1977 and plan on running quicker than I did 30 yrs ago. I attribute my longevity to some decent genes and running 2-3 minutes slower than my race pace over the past 31+ yrs and 64,700+ miles. With LHR training I train even slower but feel a lot stronger. I am starting my sharpening for the marathon and have to work a lot harder to get my heart rate up--even though I am running at a quicker pace. That with about 1,000 LHR miles. Not too bad for a 64 yr old ****. Nick

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Docster:
No offense, but you are giving people the benefit of the doubt. As if they can diagnose themselves automatically while running. Some people could tell you almost exactly when they hit their anaerobic threshold. Most others, however, couldn't tell you when they were at 80% of max HR within 10 beats either way. This can be the difference between a good aerobic run and overtraining if the miles add up. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree about race time predictors, etc.

In general, people will tend to run faster than they should. They will think they are fitter, stronger, and faster than they really are. Human nature has proved this time and time again. Ask an overweight person how much they weigh, and 8 out of 10 times it won't be as much as it really is.

Regardless of how HR is measured, calculated, analyzed, etc...everyone needs a good aerobic base to be the best runner they can be. (distance runner I mean ) It definitely isn't the only thing, but without it everything else will suffer. By following Maffetone (or others) most people will be far better off, than worse off. <HR>

I pretty much agree with everything you are saying.

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying disregard heart rate. I wear a HRM on almost every run myself. But I don't control my pace by my heart rate. I control it by how I feel and I monitor my HR as a means of feedback. If I feel like pushing the pace I do. If I feel tired and lethargic I take it a little easier. Over time I've learned to recognize what my heart rate will be at various paces, although on any particular run I could be out by 5 or even 10 beats per minute due to conditions. Most notable is temperature. I normally run in cooler conditions, and my HR will naturally be lower because I don't need to use a lot of my reserve to push blood out to my skin for cooling. On hot days I really suffer and my HR rises accordingly if I try to run the same pace I could achieve when it's cool

I think everyone can learn to diagnose themselves through biofeedback rather than data. For us data freaks it's tougher to learn, but we can!

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Long Run Nick:
An observation over the last 3 decades of "neighborhood class" runners. I have observed the vast majority would run too fast--too often and leave the running scene due to injury or burn out--or both. Prior to all the gadgets we have now--a lot of runners ran intuitively. Sadly, most read elitist runner publications and figured if Frank Shorter could run comfortable 20 milers at 6 min miles many attempted that
and ended up disappointed.

I post a lot on the Newbies Forum. My message is always the same. Slow down--especially if you want to be running the rest of your life. Why be in a hurry?

In December I am returning to Huntsville, Al to celebrate the 30th anniverary of my first marathon there in 1977 and plan on running quicker than I did 30 yrs ago. I attribute my longevity to some decent genes and running 2-3 minutes slower than my race pace over the past 31+ yrs and 64,700+ miles. With LHR training I train even slower but feel a lot stronger. I am starting my sharpening for the marathon and have to work a lot harder to get my heart rate up--even though I am running at a quicker pace. That with about 1,000 LHR miles. Not too bad for a 64 yr old ****. Nick<HR>

I'm glad you've stayed healthy and learned what works best for you. Thirty years ago HRM's were not available, so you must have been very intuitive to realize fast training was a no no.

All the new gadgets are great tools, but we should recognize that's all they are. Running at exactly the same HR every time out, simply because some formula says that's what you should do is just plain wrong! You say you run 2-3 minutes slower than race pace. That's a full minute, or 50% variation! Earlier I gave an estimate of 30 seconds for about 10 beats per minute, so we are really not that far apart are we?