|
Sep 2013
12:25pm, 6 Sep 2013
8,135 posts
|
GlennR
Rev, do you have a pace that's really comfortable for you - so comfortable that you could sing, if you were so inclined?
|
|
Sep 2013
1:11pm, 6 Sep 2013
19,000 posts
|
eL Bee!
Rev
Just to muddy the waters a little.....
Having been associated with the thread since there were fields and all that, I feel I should point out that the 'numbers' have all been extrapolated from studies involving young male athletes.
Now whereas I have no studies of my own own back this up, I have found from experience that a significant number of those of a female persuasion appear to be statistical 'outliers' when it comes to HR response to activity.
Even a couple of the Guru books admit that the numbers may have to be 'tweaked' for women! 
So - rather than getting completely hung up on the numbers, especially at the start, do a number of runs at an effort level where you are able to hold a full on, 'gossiping with a best mate' conversation, and then retrospectively look at the average HR for those runs.
If you are able to hold a conversation in full sentences without gasping then you ARE running in that lovely aerobic "Slow Enough" zone.
Have a play
|
|
Sep 2013
1:15pm, 6 Sep 2013
16,719 posts
|
FR
Anecdotal, people try HR training, don't see instant results, give up.
It's a long haul, IMHO.
|
|
Sep 2013
1:17pm, 6 Sep 2013
19,003 posts
|
eL Bee!
FR, actually not!
The people I'm talking about actually tried this for an age and saw no results.
It CAN take up to 3 months to see things move on - once you get to 8-12 months, it's time for another approach, and those for whom this WAS the case have shown huge improvements since
|
|
Sep 2013
1:19pm, 6 Sep 2013
16,720 posts
|
FR
How many people have tried this approach for over a year?
Where are the results?
Are they outliers of outliers?
|
|
Sep 2013
1:21pm, 6 Sep 2013
8,136 posts
|
GlennR
That was where I was going eL Bee!
I'm a bit cynical as to whether, as you put it, those of a female persuasion are really different under properly controlled conditions, by which I mean proper stuck on ECG electrodes on a treadmill. My untested suspicion is that certain distinctive features of the female anatomy lead to more movement up top and hence to the build up of static that plays havoc with the standard HRM straps.
This may affect some men too and if so they should really lay off the pies.
|
|
Sep 2013
1:27pm, 6 Sep 2013
19,004 posts
|
eL Bee!
Glenn you could be right - but then the limitations of the kit STILL have people running too slowly!
FR - we've been here before. Feel free to read back (again!)
|
|
Sep 2013
1:29pm, 6 Sep 2013
19,005 posts
|
eL Bee!
Glenn - worth putting the pick up strap on the back to test out that one!
|
|
Sep 2013
1:34pm, 6 Sep 2013
27,030 posts
|
Velociraptor
Outliers of outliers? As in, international-level ultra-runners like, say, hellen?
I might be an outlier among outliers too, in that my numbers are not Parker's numbers (I'm walking at 70%, singing at a little under 80%, still yattering away at 85%, and not really at "tempo run" effort level until 90%. But it's like having a rare disease - even if the disease only affects a handful of people, if YOU'VE got it, you've got it 100%.
|
|
Sep 2013
1:35pm, 6 Sep 2013
8,137 posts
|
GlennR
You're right eL Bee!, in fact it's worth trying by anyone who's having iffy readings.
There's nothing wrong with rule of thumb methods of course. If I remember correctly Parker suggests 90 seconds per mile slower than HM pace. I've also heard 3 minutes per mile slower than 5k pace. Both of those come close to the same number for me.
The usefulness of the HRM is in telling you when you're a bit knackered and you need warning to slow down a bit. Or, as in my case when I'm able to train again, in situations when past performance is no guide to current fitness.
|
