Something's not jiving.

Support | Event Directors & Organizers

Search Cool Running Community

Browse Cool Running

CoolRunning.com > Cool Running Community > Basic Training >

ccowden

10 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

Nov 29, 2007 9:04 PM

Something's not jiving.

I don't usually train with heart rate, but lately I have been trying to incorporate it to see how it fell into line with my paces. Well, something's not right. At least according to what "they" say.

Without confusing everyone, let me try to expalin.

For the sake of discussion, I will use 3 training zones:

Easy/Long
Tempo
Intervals

According to my 5 and 10k race times, these training paces should be: (roughly)

Easy/Long- 8:00 to 8:30/mile

Tempo- 7:00/mile

Intervals- 6:30 and down

These paces seem right and are effective both according to my race times and for my perceived effort.

According to heart rate zones, based on both calculations and actual track test results of a max HR of 188, these should be:

Easy/Long- 122-140 bpm
Tempo- 163-172
Interval- 178-187

My problem is, when I am training at the paces listed above and at the perceived effort I should be at, my HR is always higher than what the zones suggest it should be. Intervals are ok, but my tempo runs are always at the high end of the scale and push toward the low end of interval zone. And where I see the biggest difference is on my easy runs. No matter hoe slow I try to run, even at a terribly uncomfortable "junk miles" pace, I cannot get my HR down in that Easy/Long HR zone. Not even close. When I run at the suggested pace for an easy run, which also feels easy and feels right for perceived effort, I am up around 160bpm. And even when I slow to a crawl, I can't get it much lower than 157ish. And there are times when I am running very easy and comfortably that it goes into what is suggested for tempo HR zones.

Is this common? Is it anything to be concerned about? I am wondering if some people just don't fall into the same zones as suggested or if I am just doing something wrong, even though everything else is on target, I feel great, there are no issues, etc. My resting HR is about 45-48bpm, so it's not like I have an unusually fasy HR when not exercising or anything.

Any light to be shed??

Dana Becker

392 posts since
Nov 20, 2007

1. Nov 29, 2007 9:16 PM

in response to: ccowden

Read the large basebuilding thread. Then again, if you are happy with your race times and enjoying your running, then forget about it.

However, if your easy run HR is really 160...that is 85% of your max HR. That's awful high.

tox-prof

78 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

2. Nov 29, 2007 9:29 PM

in response to: ccowden

Sounds normal to me. For me, what I used to consider an easy/long run pace by perceived effort was still a HR above aerobic. What I now consider a true "easy" pace (i.e. at aerobic effort) is indeed very slow. Slow enough that I am not even close to being out of breath, often I can barely notice an elevation in my breathing rate.

The point of HR training is to take out the subjective "feel" out of running and instead replace it with an objective measure of effort. I ran a 5 mile race at a heart rate 30 BPM above my easy/long run rate recently. It still 'felt' relatively easy and comfortable, but there was no way I was in aerobic range.

I've experienced the effects of "low heart rate" training first hand so it doesn't bother me that I'm now running much slower than I know I capable of. The hardest part is finding time to get in the mileage I'd prefer to when my daily run paces are 11-12 minutes per mile. I used to run those at 8-9 minutes paces. What was an hour run (~7 miles) is now 1:20 to 1:25. True long runs are even harder to get in. 20 miles used to be 3 hours, maybe 3:10 or 3:15 on hilly/trail courses. Now they take me 4+ hours! For me at least, the benefits of never being sore, never feeling spent, etc are worth the slower pace and snickers I get from people as I'm slogging up the hills!

I just realized I didn't really answer your question. I don't know if certain people have drastically different zones. But what you describe is exactly what I experienced (albeit at overall slower paces).

ccowden

10 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

3. Nov 29, 2007 9:41 PM

in response to: ccowden

Thank you. Yes, it sounds like you and I have experienced very similar things. Good to know I am not the only one.

My main concern is if I am "ok" running my easy runs at such a HR, even though my pace is right in line, or if I really should figure out how to slow it down.

I mean, 155-160 sure SEEMS high according to what the charts all say, but I certainly feel comfortable and easy at that.

tox-prof

78 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

4. Nov 29, 2007 9:55 PM

in response to: ccowden

I'd say go with what works for you! My sister runs at HR that I would consider WAY too high, but it works for her. There are those who advocate low heart rate training as if it were the path to Nirvana. We are all an experiment of 1.

I suspectI I could get faster by doing intervals, speedwork, etc. I also suspect that a lot of runners could benefit from doing more low heart rate training to get more aerobically fit. That doesn't mean that if you don't do it, you are somehow training incorrectly.

If running your long runs feels OK, then I'd say do it. I read a story once about an elite female marathoner who would run a lot of her weekly miles at some insanely slow pace, like 12-13 minute miles when she'd run 6 minute miles in a race. Obviously, that worked for her. Then you get some of the current crop of Olympic hopefuls who run 5 minute miles for a cooldown! Obviously that works for them.

ccowden

10 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

5. Nov 29, 2007 10:12 PM

in response to: ccowden

I certainly appreciate your input. I agree with you on doing what works for each of us. My race times are improving, and everything feels great in my training, but I was just concerned I might be hurting myself or that something may be wrong if my HRs were so much higher than suggested at certain training paces. I suspect I am just overanalyzing. But it helps to have other input for sure! Thanks!

dg12002

622 posts since
Aug 26, 2003

6. Nov 29, 2007 10:16 PM

in response to: ccowden

Your aerobic system is not there yet. You would have to drop everything else for a few months and work on that alone to lay the base.

willamona

384 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

7. Nov 29, 2007 10:39 PM

in response to: ccowden

You are not aerobically fit, but if all you are running id 5k &10ks, who cares? Look at your goals and see if you need more aerobic fitness. If you don't need it then don't bother with the LHR stuff.

------------------
***********
My myspace[/URL" target="_blank">
No Complaining[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ [/URL" target="_blank"> Because many have asked...
You have poopie pants.

Birdog

116 posts since
Dec 15, 2007

8. Nov 30, 2007 1:31 AM

in response to: ccowden

One thing I haven't noticed in the comments:
Are you using a max HR based on a forumla?
Or are you using your actual max HR?

I'm guessing you're using the first. Which often times results in nothing but frustration and detraining.

Here is the first place I have heard intelligent discussion on HR training rates.
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/training4.htm[/URL" target="_blank">
It's ok if you read more than that one section.

------------------
Ron
When being chased by a bear...You don't have to outrun the bear. You just have to outrun the other guy.

ccowden

10 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

9. Nov 30, 2007 9:13 AM

in response to: ccowden

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Birdog:
One thing I haven't noticed in the comments:
Are you using a max HR based on a forumla?
Or are you using your actual max HR?

I'm guessing you're using the first. Which often times results in nothing but frustration and detraining.

Here is the first place I have heard intelligent discussion on HR training rates.
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/training4.htm[/URL" target="_blank">
It's ok if you read more than that one section.

<HR>

I am using both formula and actual track workout results. Both come up with 188 as my max HR.

This is starting to make sense now though, cuz I have not been running longer runs and have been really concentrating on speed workouts for 5k training. I think I need to focus on some LSD runs at a low HR to build aerobically. Going into winter, this is the perfect time.

AKTrail

360 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

10. Dec 26, 2007 8:02 AM

in response to: ccowden

Try calculating your zones based on heart rate reserve (Karvonen formula). Then compare these zones with "% of effort" column with "Perceived Exertion" column in
http://ipb001.ipagedemo.com/users/28255/downloads/135%20Table%20A.pdf[/URL" target="_blank">
and see if those make more sense. (I only plugged in the easy one.)

Zones used to confuse me also, esp. since many pgms used different zones. I've come to accept that these zones are very fuzzy and are really just labels along a gradient (like colors of light spectrum). While there is some variation among authors, there's lots of similarities among most that base it on max hr or some other physiological parameter (not age). For me, I took what worked from several approaches and formed my own zones, based on natural breaks in my workout efforts and justified by breathing. They are consistent with most authors (Maffetone is exception, but he doesn't use max hr.).

If you look at the table in Martin and Coe on heart rate zones and adaptations generated by workouts in those zones, you'll see that there's different kinds of benefits at different efforts (even among the "easy" efforts). No it's not black and white, but rather different zones may provide a greater stimulus for certain benefits and less stimulus for other benefits. Lydiard's base training works all the aerobic range without going into the mumbo jumbo of hr and paces.

What works for many people depends on what their training history is. Some people focusing on performance without a well-developed training pgm may not enough emphasis on base may not have built a base so would need lots of easy running. Others that may have done a lot hiking or jogging after work for relaxation may already have that very low effort (say 65% max hr and below) area covered.

In your case, it does seem like you need to do more aerobic training. But it may not be as low as the heart rates you show given Benson's chart that I posted.

PS: Pfitz suggests the following zones - as percent of heart rate reserve:
LT 76-88% HRR
LSD 65-78%
Recovery <70%

http://This message has been edited by AKTrail (edited Nov-30-2007).

Nov 29, 2007 9:04 PM

Something's not jiving.

New Runners

Training

Competition

Age Groups

Fitness

The Lighter Side

Feedback

Related Links