|
Aug 2020
9:21am, 24 Aug 2020
11,763 posts
|
larkim
I make the excuse that it's too hilly round here to stick with never exceeding the zone, but I am aware that that is an excuse and I can, if I so choose, select routes which are less hilly. Though a bit boring and repetetive, which can suck some of the joy out of the activity.
|
|
Aug 2020
9:35am, 24 Aug 2020
2,943 posts
|
J2R
I think the answer is 3, larkim, but I don't think it makes sense to be absolutist about it. If, say, you're trying to keep your heart rate below 140, as long as you do so for 90-95% of the run, you've done it right as far as I'm concerned. The idea is to avoid spending too much time in inappropriate heart rate zones, rather than avoid it as if it's original sin.
|
|
Aug 2020
9:41am, 24 Aug 2020
11,766 posts
|
larkim
I suppose the best way to achieve that too is to aim for a HR slap bang in the middle of the zone too, rather than "let's try to keep this under X".
Average over the run definitely has some meaning for me as a quick ready reckoner between pace / effort for tracking improvements, but I can't argue with the logic of trying to keep within zones at all times.
|
|
Aug 2020
9:50am, 24 Aug 2020
20,550 posts
|
Dvorak
Do your first mile as a warm up, save it, then it won't affect your hr readings for the actual session.
Some hardline advocates would claim that if you EVER go over the 70% you undo all the good of the session. I think that's a silly notion.
|
|
Aug 2020
9:55am, 24 Aug 2020
11,767 posts
|
larkim
I could do that Dvorak, but I don't want too many fragmented runs in my log, especially for easy runs where the concept of a warm up seems a little odd. I only break up runs like that for tempos, intervals and marathon pace runs where I'm interested in the pace details unpolluted by the preceding pace etc.
I did post a feature request I think at one point to allow something similar, mainly at the time because I'd get odd spikes in that first mile and they polluted the data even more. Now I get reliable readings all the time, but the principle of marking up a section of a run with "ignore HR" would work to achieve the same thing.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:01am, 24 Aug 2020
157 posts
|
Big_G
When out running, out of those I err towards "the instant HR at all times, with top of zone never to be exceeded" However, if mine creeps over a bit for a small amount of time on the hills I don't stress about it.
After the run, I'm interested in the average HR and pace over the whole run as I have about 10 regular routes that I track average HR and pace, amongst other things. If I've had a good run at a low HR on a particular route it's good to track that, I find, as over time I can see the progress on those different routes. I do track humidity, dew point and temperature, as high humidity in particular seems to impact me (i.e, I run slower at the same HR).
But when I'm actually out running at low HR all I have on my watch are current HR and distance. If I'm doing a session/time trial/race I don't have HR displayed as I tend to run more to pace/feel.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:13am, 24 Aug 2020
2,945 posts
|
J2R
That's probably right, larkim, although I tend to aim for somewhere a few beats down from the top of the zone rather than the middle. On my easy runs I have an upper limit of 140-141bpm, and I tend to keep my HR around 136-137bpm on the flat, if I'm doing one of my more brisk easy runs (I will often run i the 120-130bpm area as well). That way the vast majority of my run is below my 'serious' upper limit. I don't beat myself up if I stray over the limit occasionally, though.
For me, average over a whole run doesn't mean a lot, because usually my HR is steadily climbing for the first 1.5 miles or so, and then every time I stop (to cross the road, do a stretch, whatever), my HR drops back down again and takes a little while to get back up once I get going again.
I suppose this is one of the reasons I've been happy to just use my wrist-based HR monitor for a while now, despite my serious misgivings about their overall accuracy - I'm just using it to get a picture of what HR I'm at during certain representative sections of the run. So I might think, "OK, relatively flat here for the next mile or two, I'll maybe pick up the pace a little but keep HR below 137", and then glance occasionally at my watch to make sure I'm doing so.
|
|
Aug 2020
10:16am, 24 Aug 2020
2,946 posts
|
J2R
Dvorak, yes, some people approach this as if it's religious dogma. You see the same thing with minimalist shoes.
|
|
Aug 2020
2:32pm, 24 Aug 2020
1,381 posts
|
Daz Love
I am with Big G in that if I creep over up a hill (and I always do) then I dont worry.
I have just done 12 weeks of keeping it easy (with the odd session) That is the longest I have stuck at it. For someone who is a fairly low mileage I do think my returns at shorter distance are more suited to the Advanced Road Running plans. Not sure I can really get heaps of benefit from low HR running on 25-35 miles per week. Saying that, I have come to enjoy the easier running and will do a further block after I do this next 12 week plan I have penciled in and use it to get my mileage up to around 40 per week. For the first time in history I have had 12 weeks of c30 miles every week without injury.
Larks - The other thing you could do is really slow down on the hill to not exceed the zone 
|
|
Aug 2020
2:36pm, 24 Aug 2020
37,035 posts
|
Nellers
Daz, I guess it's an obvious leap to suggest that the 12 weeks injury free might have a lot to do with the lower intensity low HR training plan. I think for lower mileage runners it isn't as dramatic in short timescales but the advantages accrue over time and the lower intensity reduces injury risk allowing a greater volume over a longer period, which gives the returns.
|
