Just saying that I am still alive and running while I am logged in.

Hi Jesse:

I've been running for a while now, and did the LHR training last winter for a few months.  It worked pretty well for me.  Then, race season started and I went back to normal training.  I am now pregnant (about 6 months) and was running 20-25mpw throughout the pregnancy, just until 2 weeks ago.  I began to have contractions after my runs and it just got too uncomfortable for me.  My doctor instructed me to Stop running, to prevent further contractions and potential problems.  So, I have been doing the elliptical trainer about 4 days per week and walking 1 or 2.  I have also begun lifting weights to try to maintain some strength.  I didn't do much cross-training before.  Honestly, I'd much rather be running.  But, I know that I must do what is best for myself and child.  Anyway, my question to you is this:  If I do the LHR training w/o running....all crosstraining, how might this affect my running once I start again (hopefully in about 3 months)?  I am just wondering if I'd be better off doing the LHR training now, since I cannot run anyway.  Do you think that it will have any affect on my heart rate when I start running again, or will I have to start completely over with the LHR training?  I guess I'm just trying to figure out how to make the most of my "break" from running.

Thanks for any input!

Thanks for your response, Jesse -

To answer your question, I selected 140 as my Maff HR for a few different reasons:

I am 24 years old, so 180 -age for me would equal a Maff HR of 156.  I technically would not need to add or subtract anything based on the guidelines.  However, I felt this number was a bit high given that my RQ at rest is 0.82 and my body does not easily convert fat for fuel.  A final reason was due to the recommendation of a running coach I worked with briefly.  After my RMR and VO2 max testing, i met with a coach a few times to get some "professional" insight on how to problem of a poor aerobic base.  He strongly recommended that I do my easy and endurance runs at a HR between 130 and 140 --- never creeping above 144. 

So, the decision wasn't very technical or scientific, I just felt 140 was a good, safe number.

Hhmm, as I'm writing this, I started looking over some of the paperwork from the testing.  One of the pages specifically breaks down my HR based on "Aerobic Base" and "Anaerobic Threshold".  It gives 128 as my HR for Aerobic Base, and 140 for my HR as Anaerobic Threshold.  With this, I'm starting to question if 140 is even too high to be using as my Maff?!?!

I don't know if this matters, but my VO2 max is 52.4 ml/kg/min.  I'm told this is considered above average, and probably why I was able to sustain exercising in an anaerobic state for so long (for example - doing a one hour run at an average HR of 175 bpm...well above my aerobic base).

As for downhill running - I do get to do a bit of it, but not much.  I don't live in a very hilly area.  And even when I do run downhill, I still can't go very fast without my HR flying up.  If I'm "trotting" along at a 15 min/mile pace on a flat surface, I may only be able to drop that by a minute os so on a downhill.

Any further thoughts and opinions would be very, very appreciated.

Shannon

Jesse,

Unfortunately, I do not have further RQ data.  The resting RQ was taken from my RMR test.  I do not believe there was additional information taken during my VO2 max test (at least none that I can find in my documents).  And yes, the VO2 test was done on a treadmill.

I do have the ability to cross train - both on my bike trainer at home and on the Elliptical machine at the gym.  Both allow me to move a bit faster and get quicker leg turnover, but it's still not much.  And i had been doing those with the 140 HR in mind. 

If I really need to be below a 128 HR in order to improve my aerobic base, than that is what I'll do.  But I know that it'll mean a lot of "power walking", and easy rides on my trainer.  I'm willing to be patient but I want to ensure I'm doing it right.

In your opinion/experience, is it worth training below 128 HR if it means having to walk?  Will I still get the same long term benefits, and eventually build up to running at that same HR range?  Or do I just work with what I've got and learn to adapt to running at a higher HR and a poor aerobic base?  Neither sound too apealing, but like I said, I'm willing to do whatever needs to be done.

-Shannon

Thanks for the information.  Actually, it does seem like I have to work pretty hard to get my heart rate up to about 149 (I'm 31...so this should be my target, right?).   When I'm doing the ET, I try to mimick the motion of running as much as I can.  I try to keep my legs moving fairly quickly and I hold my arms as if I were running (I don't hold onto the handles.  So, I'm just thinking of this as a good opportunity for me to focus on building aerobic strength and improving muscle tone.  I think I'll probably start swimming too, as I've always wanted to do a triathalon, but swimming is my weakest spot.  Anyway, thanks again for the information!

Thank you very much for your advice and opinions.  I understand that you are not a "professional" in the matter, but I really do value your opinion and appreicate you taking the time to respond. 

I am going to try and do as much training at a HR below 128 as possible.  If I have to walk, so be it.  I'm going to incorporate more cross training to hopefully help build some leg turnover without increasing my HR out of the aerobic range.  I guess it's all trial oand error from here....

Most of the regulars from this thread have moved on...

http://runningahead.com/groups/LOWHRTR/Forum