|
|
Post by psquared on Jun 29, 2008 16:20:28 GMT -5
I am having trouble getting my HR down on easy runs. If I go any slower I would be crawling. I don't have problems on the bike staying in the target zones. My target heart rate is 186. I am a clydesdale so I wonder if that has anything to do with it. I am really new at using the HRM for training. Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve1835 on Jun 29, 2008 19:40:39 GMT -5
had the same issue when I began running.....it helped to use the treadmill a couple times a week. I found I was able to hit my target zones and still not be crawling.
Hope this helps.....SP
|
|
|
|
Post by karming on Jun 30, 2008 7:12:20 GMT -5
What exactly do you mean when you say your target HR is 186? Is that your lactate threshold (LT) or is that your max HR or the HR you achieve with nice easy runs? I realize that people have different HR zones but that seemed a tad on the high side for a aerobic HR zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by RoviChris on Jun 30, 2008 8:40:31 GMT -5
I'd also make sure that really is your heart rate, take on your wrist and compare sometime.
My Nike HRM likes to read superficially high when I start running and typically doesn't drop until I mess with the strap.
Ditto on the 186, seems very high for a target zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Jun 30, 2008 13:03:25 GMT -5
Do an LT test and set your zones that way. You need numbers that are specific to you, not setting them at 220 - age or any similar formula. www.performancetrainingsystems.com/newstips/tips_lttp.htmlFor example, my LT on the run is about 170, but many people the same age with similar fitness seem to be able to sustain a much higher HR. |
|
|
|
Post by TimAckley on Jul 2, 2008 8:58:55 GMT -5
Rob.. That link is very useful.. I wish I could of seen this one a few months back..
Patrick... Are U using the same numbers for the bike as U are on the run? Your run numbers will be higher.. I ran into this problem setting mine up..
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Jul 2, 2008 22:47:00 GMT -5
When I started training with a coach years ago using HR for a marathon he had me doing long runs at 119 - 126 when I started my long runs. I was really crawling and told him I didnt understand how this would help. He told me I needed to learn to run slow to get fast and sure enough as the training progressed i ran much faster at the same HR. It is really cool to see it and feel it happen. We then mixed in speed work and tempo work and i made amazing progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by keaveny on Jul 15, 2008 12:41:28 GMT -5
When I started training with a coach years ago using HR for a marathon he had me doing long runs at 119 - 126 when I started my long runs. 119-126!? I achieve that on a brisk walk! I was thinking about this today when my average heart rate for a 40 minute ride over lunch was 168. I peaked my 40 minute run yesterday at 191 with an average of 165. Granted I only started training last July, and last week was my first week of training since February because of injuries. Still, I am wondering if I could ever achieve a long run of any kind in that range. Having been riddled with injuries over the last four months (including a stress fracture) I think it would be mentally demoralizing for me to start this sort of training. How long did it take for you to see enhancement? |
|
|
|
Post by jodi on Jul 15, 2008 16:32:01 GMT -5
my average heart rate for a 40 minute ride over lunch was 168... I peaked my 40 minute run yesterday at 191 with an average of 165... last week was my first week of training since February because of injuries... Having been riddled with injuries over the last four months (including a stress fracture)... Sounds like your intensity might be the problem here. Have you considered that you may be training at too high an intensity for your current fitness or body composition? Jodi |
|
|
|
Post by keaveny on Jul 16, 2008 8:09:32 GMT -5
my average heart rate for a 40 minute ride over lunch was 168... I peaked my 40 minute run yesterday at 191 with an average of 165... last week was my first week of training since February because of injuries... Having been riddled with injuries over the last four months (including a stress fracture)... you may be training at too high an intensity for your current fitness or body composition? Jodi You really know how to butter a guy up. My self esteem just took a swan dive off Everest. Admittedly, I have a tough time dialing back. Trying to keep my long run last year at 10 min pace was brutal. I always want to go all out (which I know isn't productive). I am new to the sport, but I don't feel like I am pushing myself "too" hard. I keep reading "listen to your body" and I feel pretty good. Very good, actually. I chalked my high heart rates up to getting back to training after nursing injuries for several months. I don't know, what else should I consider? |
|
|
|
Post by jodi on Jul 16, 2008 16:08:19 GMT -5
Injuries happen for numerous reasons, but increasing training load too quickly is a huge culprit. Training load is roughly equal to intensity x volume. If you are going out with too much intensity, it doesn't leave you a lot of room to increase your volume, which is much more important when you are coming back from injury. Actually, if you really want to protect yourself from re-injury from running you will run easy and short and very often. Nothing long or hard until you get yourself up to at least 20 miles per week of running without pain (I got myself up to 35 this winter before adding intensity of any sort after not running for 5 months because of a broken kneecap). My trick was to bring my dog with me. We ran together every day for 6 weeks. I know that she can't run much faster than 9:30 miles so it was a nice little arrangement.
The other thing you can do for injury prevention is to lose body mass. I've never met you, so this is of course a general statement. Lighter is not only easier on the joints, but also much faster. By lighter I mean losing excess muscle mass or fat. It's all the same to your joints and bones.
Absolute heart rate means nothing. You and I and everyone reading this forum will train at a different absolute heart rate. Your functional threshold could be 200 for all I know. My comments were more in response to your endless injuries. However, if you don't know how to judge your own heart rate you should really do a test to determine your FT. Wait until you are free of injury (like a few weeks of consistent running with no pain). Then run 30 minutes all out. The average heart rate of the last 20 minutes is the top of your zone 4. The top of your zone 2 will be approx. 85% of that number. That's your bread and butter long run right there. Over time you will be able to guess your HR to within a couple beats at any given time in your rides or runs. Then you'll dump that miserable ball and chain and train by perceived exertion. It's a beautiful thing.
:-)
Jodi
|
|
|
|
Post by keaveny on Jul 17, 2008 7:53:02 GMT -5
Jodi,
Got it. Very helpful.
I am 6', 195#. I know if I were lighter I would be faster and more pain-free. I wouldn't mind getting down to 185 but I really think much below that and I will lose muscle mass to a degree I prefer not to reach.
I really don't want to lose muscle mass. Okay, I like how I look. I can't imagine myself less than say, 180. I think I would look emaciated. I have the typical heavier, muscular build (i.e. broad shoulders, and tree trunks for thighs). Not exactly the "body of choice" for triathletes, but I am giving it a go.
At the risk of this sounding more like a personal ad, I will stop now. But I have thought about this; at what weight can I be proficient in tri, yet retain muscle mass (and comensurate weight) that I want.
|
|
