|
Nov 2018
12:52pm, 15 Nov 2018
2,905 posts
|
steve45
I first began running to a HR plan (until then I'd played at it) in 2001 and followed a method by Ken Maclaren ("The Heart Rate Monitor Training Guide" which of course included a method of calculating max HR and subsequent training zones. It was ok but I didn't improve at all on any level but maintained where I was at! I was 52 then so maybe improvement thoughts were unrealistic anyway! I revised my HR zones every couple of years (should be annually!) and the last time I did it was in 2014 having got fed up with it! There is a "Fetch" method described somewhere on the home page which seemed "sensible" and fitted broadly with my ability. I've also read about the Maffetone Method which had an appeal based on the guy's creds--I started having a go at this a few months ago--it seems simplistic and aerobic training is calculated by subtracting one's age from 180 (plus several corrections according to personal circumstances). On that basis my max aerobic training should be done at a mere 110bpm plus a few beats for personal circumstances taking it to 120. This is often impossible and in just a few weeks it seems to have made me ...slow. However, according to Maffetone (and previously according to Arthur Lydiard) the benefits and speed increase will come after a period of laying down the firm foundations. I'm too old and have run too long for that! The idea that slow training makes slow runners might be true..when I DID race many years ago I used to train at high intensity most of the time and although nowhere near elite or top club runner I did some fairly good times off the back of hard training. Somewhere along the line natural ability must come into play because try as I might I could never break 60 minutes for 10 miles (managed 62 once) etc etc. Now I run because I like it and not to get good times in events (because I don't do them) and keep a periodic eye on my HR on some runs just so that I don't over do it and keel over!
|
|
Nov 2018
12:59pm, 15 Nov 2018
65,355 posts
|
Gobi
I tried Maff and I lack the discipline
I have read and employed a lot of Lydiard through the years.
The HR approach I now use is mine
|
|
Nov 2018
3:11pm, 15 Nov 2018
13,480 posts
|
Chrisull
Steve - interesting thoughts, yeah I agree, Maffe is simplistic because of course max HR can vary widely for people of the same age. Why should someone with a max of 200 and the same age run the same paces as someone with a max of 160. It makes no sense. Also some of his dietary advice is ludicrous "don't eat in restaurants". Lydiard however does makes sense.
Gobi - you must be the most disciplined with regards to HR on here I would have thought? Your HR approach is quite similar to the polarised approach to training it's fair to say? Polarised makes a lot of sense to me.
I did 9 weeks Maffe and after initial improvements 4-5 weeks in, it crashed and burned towards the end resulting in my slowest flat half marathon for several years despite having record high mileage. I reinstated high intensity training, relaxed the HR requirements - so I was running at what felt easy not what the HRM said was easy - over the next month and managed a pb at 5 miles at the end of it. You could argue that the easy stuff laid the base. I don't know.
|
|
Nov 2018
3:28pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,534 posts
|
J2R
Chrisull, interesting point. Canute on the polarised training thread has made the point a number of times that heart rate isn't always the best way of determining effort level, and that it's helpful to monitor breathing as well. Certainly I've found myself quite often running at a pace where breathing is comfortable, clearly below first ventilatory threshold, yet according to my HRM my heart rate is too high.
|
|
Nov 2018
3:30pm, 15 Nov 2018
13,481 posts
|
Chrisull
J2R - I run 8 minute mile pace at lower HR then several years ago. Again my faster times have not changed. I don't think my max has moved much at all.
However there is a separate issue here, which Badger and HappyG have discussed, the reliability of HR monitoring tools fullstop. This was raised by the unreliability of optical monitoring BUT this has also discredited the chest strap in my eyes as well. Chest straps may well be more trustworthy than optical but badger's finding have shown the amount of mathematical "massaging" of the figures that must be done, and will be done by either data capturing tool raises big question marks against the data.
Yesterday, I had a similar spike in my data to badger's where halfway through a run it suddenly jumps up 10bpm while running up hill, but never really comes back down again. The gradient and goes up a bit but not so massively that my HR would have jumped like that, so it looks like it might have moved to a different way of smoothing the data. The last 2 miles of high intensity exercise show a new max HR of 182bpm. Is this correct or is this wrong?
So I surmise that the chest strap would have shown (if I'd have worn both), data similar to the optical HRM for the first 4 miles of the run, generally slightly higher (I've run several times with them both) . It then wouldn't have changed or jumped, it would have progressed in line with the gradient and effort.
IMO The optical HRM starts too low, and ends up possibly too high, but possibly not. The only reasons that the chest strap is preferred in terms of data is that it sits between both and doesn't tend to jump up massively apart from when static is encountered. But is this reason enough to trust the data it returns.
HOWEVER I have reasons to believe it's suspect also, when I run at low HR, my Maffe times actually predict far slower race times than I achieve. In fact I run at far higher efforts according to the chest strap than most people here. Yet I don't get injured, and I seemingly don't overtrain. Also I have a sweet spot between 8.00 and 7.30 pace where my HR can decrease as my pace ups. Is this accurate, or is the chest strap data being unreliable? Without knowing in depth about how both record and amend data I can't answer that.
|
|
Nov 2018
4:14pm, 15 Nov 2018
6,045 posts
|
larkim
I appreciate the broad mantra of training easier to avoid injury, but surely that's about biomechanics rather than HR. Yes, an easier run will have a lower corresponding HR and put less strain on the biomechanics, but the difference in injury rates between two runners will surely be more closely related to any faults / flaws in their muscles / bones / gait than it will be to where they are on the HR intensity scale?
So for someone like Chrisull perhaps you can point to your bones and muscles (excluding your heart) as to why you don't get injured?
|
|
Nov 2018
4:30pm, 15 Nov 2018
29,553 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
But isn't it just a measure of intensity (not sure I agree perceived effort or counting breaths is better than HR. It's better than a bad HR monitor reading, but HR is a direct correlation to work/energy surely? e.g. if your body needs additional energy to fight a virus or infection, no amount of breathing or perceived effort will show up what a 10bpm increased resting HR and elevated running HR will show?)
Anyhoo, what I meant was yes strength, gait, genes etc. matter, but HR is a simple, single way of measuring objectively and repeatably, hard vs. easy. And more easy = less injury.  G
|
|
Nov 2018
4:45pm, 15 Nov 2018
6,047 posts
|
larkim
Am I less likely to get injured running a lot at 9m/mile than 6min/mile? Yes of course, that seems self evident. (Though equally I should not fear doing some running at high paces).
But am I measurably less likely to get injured at 60% HRR than 65% HRR? That might depend on the form I am able to utilise at both of those HRs much more than the actual HR itself. For some that impact may be measurable, for others may be not? And if for *MY* bones and *MY* muscles it seems that operating 1 zone higher does not in fact actually increase my injury risk, then at the very least that removes one of the reasons for training in a lower zone.
It seems proven to me that lower HR running volume does work very effectively to improve the body's aerobic system, so there's no argument from me on that aspect.
But I'm less convinced that, particularly in the broad range of "easy" running paces and HRs, that the rationale that it always correlates with lower injury rates is anything other than a broad assumption that is more related to the bones and muscles than it is to the HR being trained at.
In broad terms, averaged across all developing runners, I'm sure it will correlate. But whereas it seems that HR training for aerobic improvement is likely to work for *everyone*, I think the injury reduction will only impact a proportion in a meaningful way.
|
|
Nov 2018
4:59pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,535 posts
|
J2R
I actually think that running much slower than your normal pace can lead to injury, as you're more likely to get a breakdown in running form. As regards the link between running at a higher heart rate and injury - I always assume that a higher heart rate means you're running faster, therefore putting more strain on your muscles, tendons, etc., but I don't think that's the main issue, it's running hard when tired which is. So if you do this day after day, you're more likely to get injured.
I would say, though, that running gait is probably far more relevant to whether or not you get injured than heart rate is. But spending too much time running in a high heart rate zone does, I think, predispose you more to illness. You're more vulnerable to infections, as well as other things associated with overtraining syndrome.
|
|
Nov 2018
6:35pm, 15 Nov 2018
39,101 posts
|
GlennR
I seem to recall that there’s evidence for damage to the heart itself from running long distances at upper aerobic or threshold pace, but I’ll leave the science of that to Canute, if he’s around. More mundanely, not going easy enough between harder sessions can simply lead to burnout.
|
