Heart Rate Running

[Sweder]

This maybe an old chestnut for the RC thinktank - apologiesif this is well trodden ground.

Met a bloke last night who raved about the heart rate method of fitness training. He'sa pretty fit ex Army chap so I listened intently. The formula goes something like:

Heart Rate: 220 minus your age X 75% = ideal training heart rate.
You walk/ run to get your HR up to this magical figure but you don't exceed it - if you do you slow down until you're back to the magic number. He reckons this ensures fat and not muscle is burned, and the long term effects are excellent for marathon runners.

Nutshell - anyone tried this/ concur?
I seem to remember reading about HR stuff in one of the diaries (too lazy/ overhung to search).
If so, did it work for you?
Finally, any definitive reading recommended on the subject?

I'm intrigued. Seems my current regime may be doing more harm than good.
I'd be happy to sacrifice short term time goals for long term benefits.

[El Gordo]

I've dabbled.

I bought a HRM (Polar S410) when I first started running. Religiously logged my average and max heart rates for every run for, I dunno, a year or more. Then I got fed up with it and sold it, partly because I never did any analysis of the figures.

But.

But I keep thinking I should give it another go, and have a pencilled-in plan to upgrade to the (rumoured) new Garmin 305, due out in a couple of months that combines HRM and distance measurement.

The other reason I got fed up with it originally was that I couldn't find anywhere to properly measure my max heart rate. Without this, it's impossible to calculate how you're doing. I know you mentioned a formula, and there are various formulas but these can only be estimates, and I think that for something like this you need to get an accurate measurement. It usually involves going to a sports clinic and going through a series of supervised tests.

A lot of people swear by heart rate training, and it's hard to argue otherwise. It should make sense. So my plan, such as it is, is to try again, on the strong caveat that I make a better effort to find somewhere to get my max HR.

There are often threads on this subject on the RW forum, ususally under either Training or Gear. From what I read, you can get serviceable HRMs for as little as £20 from Tesco and Aldi et al.

One minor word of warning -- you have to wear a chest strap which some people find uncomfortable, though I found you get used to it and forget it's there a few minutes into each run.

So in conclusion, yes, I think they are worth a go. There are 2 or 3 books on Amazon on the subject.

[Sweder]

Thanks Andy, useful insight.
I think I will give it a go. I agree it would be useful to know one's own max HR, but in lieu of the full test I'll double check the 'general' formula and look out for a HRM. Feedback to follow.

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

I have used a HRM for oh, about 18 months now (Polar S210), and I find it a very useful tool for people like me who can't help but run too fast. If you can stick to old adage of running your LSDs at a comfortable "carry on a conversation" pace, and are not training to win races, HRMs may not be necessary. But if you're like me and need something to hold you back, then a HRM is definitely very useful. I find it very difficult staying at or below 75% of maxHR without one. And for endurance running, this seems to be really important, so I use mine every run (and on many walks, for that matter).

The chest strap might get annoying toward the end of a marathon - one day I'll let you know , otherwise I don't find it much of a problem. They are making HRMs with the sensors built into the wrist strap, but I don't know how effective these are.

As for calculating MaxHR, the formula may not be wholly accurate, but you get a good idea of what's going on, so as long as you're comparing apples with apples, a rough formula seems to be OK.

MLCM

[El Gordo]

old adage of running your LSDs at a comfortable "carry on a conversation" pace

Hmmmm.

Old adage indeed. It worries me that even on the gentlest of jogs with the running club, I find it hard to have a conversation without feeling nauseous after a minute or two.

Mind you, most of them like Harry Potter, Eastenders, Chelsea and David Cameron, so there may be other forces at play here.

[Sweder]

MLCMan, have I got that formula right?
220 minus age = MaxHR?

If so that makes my target (75% of maxHR) 132.
Seems pretty low - I've not measured it yet but I'm fairly sure it gets way over that on some of the hills. Come to think of it, it was way over that just brushing my teeth this morning . . .

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

I know what you mean Sweder!

I modified my MaxHR slightly, using a combination of the 220-age formula and a knowledge of my HR at maximum, lung-busting, all-out sprint pace, which I took to be 95% of max. I then came up with a theoretical maxHR of 184, which for me is pretty darn close I think.

Even so, 75% seems really low, but to be fair, I think keeping at that pace (and you really CAN carry on a conversation at those levels) does help with the endurance.

BUT, I also remember Khannouchi saying something along the lines of "Long slow runs? Long SLOW runs?? Why on earth would I want to train myself to run slow??" I guess we are speaking about a different category of running however

[Sweder]

Ah yes - 'Long, slow runs produce long, slow runners' or something like that.
That's as maybe, but this HR malarky sounds like a good way to build a strong, lasting base fitness. I'm in this for the long haul - thinking about exceeding the 26.2 in 2007, probably in the Two Oceans in Cape Town.

The last three years have been a bit Norman Lamont - boom and bust.
Frantic uncontrolled training leading to heroic, death-defying madness followed by months of enforced abstainance. I need to break the cycle, even if it means shelving plans for a PB next Spring. Like Toad I'm ready to embrace the next Big Thing (although this is hardly new). This from the man who almost died 3 years ago attempting his inaugural Kite Surf on the Dorset coast under an 8.5 metre wing in a force 5.

[El Gordo]

I've often heard/read HRM users complain, or at least remark, that they can only stick to the heart rate they are supposed to be at by running much slower than they are used to.

I might join you on the HR trail in a while, when the new Forerunner appears.

"A bit Norman Lamont" -- I like that, and I suspect it sums up just about everyone who pops in here. You're right about consistency; it's the holy grail.

[JP the Dream Chaser]

Hi guys

Here's my experience:

1. Been using a HR monitor for 10-12 years now and found it VERY useful. Now upgraded to the Garmin 301, which I adore. I would take it for my second wife if I could! It tells me my speed, distance and average HR for all my runs. Plus it tells me the same for intervals, when I do those. The comparisons on previous runs are bloomin' fantastic.

2. Now, your army fella is talking about something a bit different. He is specifically referring to a type of training where you train, train, train your aerobic threshold. You get your body used to doing long distances with abosulutely minimal change in you HR.

3. I tried exactly this aerobic threshold style of training when I started my FLM training last November. I gave it 2 months (which proponents will tell you isn't long enough), but here's the evidence:
Starting pace for recommended HR 9.20 per mile.
After 1 month - 8.45 per mile
After 2 months - 10.10 per mile

4. This type of training also pushed a daily run, building to 1 hour minimum, with occasional days off, based on the fact that you are running within yourself, so the increae in distance doesn't tire you. Let me tell you, I was knackered for weeks, then got a virus which stayed with me for 2 months, eventually leading to my withdrawal from London.

This year I have gone back to a multi paced training approach and my long runs are now knocked out at 8.25 pace, with race times around 6.30-7min pace. My HR also changes extremely little over a long distance.

The moral of the story:

HR training is brilliant, but find the style/method that suits you. Multi pace works for me, but some of the guys on the RW Forum have had incredible results with the other approach. Oh, and the Garmins are superb!

[JP the Dream Chaser]

By the way, the aerobic threshold training is called 'Base Training' and there's a humumgous thread on the Training section of the RW forum if you fancy looking in detail.

Cheers

JP

[Sweder]

Cheers JP, much obliged. I'll potter along in a while and periuse said thread.
I must say it doesn't sound like my sort of bag, this steady base training, but if it means building core strength I'm all for that. Paris is no longer another 'burn or bust' race for me; it's a training run on the longer road to the Cape. If I can keep that in mind I might just manage to run sensibly and make progress. This approach may even ward off injury.
Now that would be a bonus.

[El Gordo]

Good info, JP, thanks for that. I think it just illustrates (yet again) that it's almost impossible to lay down rules for anything in this running lark. We can talk about tendencies, and we can listen to advice and guidance but ultimately we have to find what works best for us.

[Riazor Blue]

I'll throw in my experiences aswell. HRM very useful for me and I always wear it. I don't fint the strap annoying, in fact I don't notice it at all. To use an HRM for training I reckon that you need to be at a certain fitness level otherwise the heart rate is much too high for the pace you wish to go. Once you are at a decent fitness level, which I think you probably are, then the pace isn't so bad.
I too have the Polar S410 and am quite content with the functionality etc. The older models, S120, S210, S410 S610 and the S625x have great options for interval training, with recovery according to time, heart rate or distance in the case of the 625. The newer models - RS100 RS200 and RS200SD don't have such good features for intervals, but have something called 'own zone' which is a test to establish your aerobic training zone on a daily basis - for example, if you have run a hard half marathon the day before, you will not be fully recovered so the test will suggest you run at a lower heart rate - all to do with heart rate variability, so they tell me. The speed and distance models are good and give you other options for training, and are pretty good straight out of the box.
Andy is right, you do need to know what your maximum heart rate is (more or less), but also beware that the fitter you get, the lower your max will be, albiet only temporarily. When I'm just running three times per week for fun my HR max is 201 but when near the end of marathon training it will have fallen to around 192. The 220 minus age is a place to start but you will need to measure it yourself or have a test done. The polar HRMs have a feature to predict your HRmax, but for some (like me) it can be way out.
I would suggest an HRM with connection to PC or internet and a good book to get hold of would be the one by Sally Edwards.

[Sweder]

That's great feedback RB. Always good to hear a positive review.
Research begins in earnest over the Christmas - reports to follow.