07-24-2008, 04:24 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Running with a HR monitor
How many of you runners incorporate a monitor in your training/racing? As far as your training schedule goes, how often do you train in each zone? I tend to spend most of my workouts in the 80-90% range. I feel like I'm walking if I try to stay in an aerobic zone. How do you guys mix it up?
|
07-26-2008, 04:02 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,919
|
As you probably already know, I always train with a HRM. For my tempo runs, my HR stays in that 80-90% range that you talk about. For intervals, it goes up slightly above lactate threshold, but it hurts so much its hard to keep it there or go much higher for very long.
After a hard bike ride day, I've been using a run as a sort of "recovery day". Then I slow it down about 60-90 secs per mile and the HR is down to the 130s-140s. It hardly feels like I'm doing anything, but I'm sure it is good for me. |
07-26-2008, 04:09 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
How did you guys determine your max heart rate? I have been using a HRM while riding and I find that my heart rate is frequently in the high end or over the 80-90% level, but this is based on a calculated max HR as opposed to a measured max HR and so it makes me wonder if trainging based on that number is nay good or not.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
07-26-2008, 04:36 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
FWIW, during my 6 miles on Tuesday the same perceived exertion yielded a pretty consistent 168-171 which made a lot more sense. |
|
07-26-2008, 09:46 PM | #5 |
house-elf 3rd class
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 386
|
I would be that once your HR gets that high the accuracy of the instrument goes down. It is hard for medical EKG's to capture a HR that high.
I have and wear a Polar F6 as well. At my gym my wife and I did VO2 max testing and it was quite interesting. For about 5 years I have been running about 15-20 miles a week at a level pace 160-170 BPM. The science shows that at this range you are mostly burning carbohydrates. I found that after running at this pace for so long, my HR goes up that high b/c I have conditioned the motor to run at that speed, almost regardless of how hard I am running. I put myself on a interval running / eliptical machine plan: Day 1: 129-139 x 4 139-154 x2 for 50 minutes Day 2: 129-139 x4 139-154 x4 154-170 x2 Day 3 154-170 Day 4 139-154 x4 154-170 x4 I was pretty skeptical and it was torture to reign in the workout. After doing this for a couple of months, I have seen a difference in that it takes me much longer to reach the 160's than before. The whole premise is that at the lower HR levels you burn a greater percentage of fat, and this is analyzed by the CO2 emission levels when you exhale. CO2 is a by product of aerobic metabolism. Some may argue that fat or carbohydrate metabolism just doesn't matter, your body has a total pool of energy reserves from which it draws. As I considered this what made sense to me is that constant stimulation of carbohydrate receptors in the myocardium (heart) and in muscles increases the total number of receptors and therefore I condition my heart to work more efficiently at higher HR's. What I want to do is increase the lipid metabolism of the heart and muscles, so training at levels where the body can use fat, lower HR's (it makes sense, but trust me you don't want to read about it). And, the most important reason why I use a HR monitor is that it give the ADHD part of my brain something to do when I am running.
__________________
<---- Mikewaters drives the lane... |
07-26-2008, 10:57 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
One more question. On the run where my HR was reading very high but perceived exertion was much lower it was 100 degrees and I was probably not well hydrated. Could those conditions be a cause? |
|
07-27-2008, 04:29 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
So ZUlu, do you think the lower rate for fat burning approach really makes a difference? WOuld it allow one to avoid bonking if you keep the heart rate low? IOW< say you rode without eating much, if you are fat burningm, couldn't you theoretically ride a LONG ways before your fat was converted, as opposed to your glycogen stores?
Also, if you (me) were trying to loose weight, would you be very careful to stay in the fat burning zone? And finally (and I really apprecaite it if you have actualy been willing to respond to these), how likely is it that smone's HR is not accurately calculated based on the standard fomrula? IOW, can I rely on that? It seems to fit my observed perfromance, but if it is off by 10% that would screw up all the other assumptions about HR range.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
07-28-2008, 12:49 AM | #8 | |
house-elf 3rd class
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 386
|
Quote:
__________________
<---- Mikewaters drives the lane... |
|
07-28-2008, 04:44 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,589
|
I first heard something akin to Zulu's theory about 10 years ago in a talk from Dave Scott (the triathlete). He was talking to a group of triathletes and encouraging everyone to work out with a HRM, which at the time was fairly new. I went home and bought one and have used one pretty faithfully since. Like Zulu, it gives my ADHD brain something to do to distract from the boredom of running.
I'm a doctor with a special interest in sports medicine (not fellowship-trained, however) and have tried to keep up on the research regarding HRM training. On the other hand, I'm pretty slow, due to a combination of lack of time to train and genetics. I'm more of a teacher than a doer, so take this for what it's worth. I did try the Zulu approach where I tried to keep all my runs within my aerobic zone. End result: I was much slower at all distances. Which parallels both common sense and the consensus on HRM training. Most runners will do four different types of workouts: Track/Speed, Tempo, Long, and recovery. To figure out your optimal HR, you need to figure out which type of run you're doing. An athlete's maximum HR is variable depending on the person, and slowly declines as you age. You can't influence it with training. Your anaerobic threshold is typically about 85% of your max HR, and signifies the point at which your muscles can no longer undergo aerobic metabolism (the most efficient, but requires oxygen) and swith to anaerobic metabolism (less efficient, doesn't require oxygen, produces lactic acid as a byproduct). You CAN influence this anaerobic threshold with training; well-trained athletes can go up to 90-95% of their max HR without going anaerobic. For most people 85% of estimated max HR is a good guess; if you want an exact number, you have to go into a lab to get tested. The other feature of a well-trained athlete is that they can tolerate much higher levels of lactic acid in their muscles before failure; typical person can tolerate lactic acid levels of 1-2 while an athlete can go as high as 6-7. So, a well-trained athlete can both go at a higher HR before going anaerobic, and can go anaerobic for much longer times before muscle failure. Your stroke volume (amount of blood pumped with each beat of your heart) can be influenced by aerobic training, which will allow you to reach moderately higher levels of exertion without your heart rate increasing. However, the lactate threshold and anaerobic threshold, both very important to performance, cannot be influenced without exiting your aerobic zone. Additionally, the neuromuscular training gained particularly from track/speed workouts, and one of the most important aspects of speed, will be ignored with solely aerobic workouts. So, back to the four workouts: 1) Speed/Track - Your point is to increase your lactate and anaerobic threshold and improve your neuromuscular training ("step turnover"). For these, you can go 90-95% of your max HR. 2) Tempo - You're combining aerobic efficiency with some effect on anaerobic threshold. You should not exceed an hour, but probably should be in the 80-90% range with a brief interval up to 95%. 3) Long - Your point is solely to get your muscles used to the pounding and motion they'll receive. You should NEVER go above 85% on these. Remember, that once you're going anaerobic, you're building up waste byproducts and the muscle cells are not being adequately nourished. You're risking injury by combining length and speed. 4) Recovery - The point is active recovery, i.e. less than an hour, never anaerobic. To answer creekster's question about "bonking". Your muscles always burn their glycogen stores first, regardless of your speed. These are gone in 30-45 minutes; if you want to burn fat while exercising, you need to exceed this time. You'll be able to go much longer (and burn more fat) if you stay aerobic. |
07-28-2008, 04:48 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,589
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|