|
Oct 2007
1:58pm, 27 Oct 2007
1,911 posts
|
hellen
I have done a couple of max HR tests and get 195, my resting is 47
that means that 70% is 151, 85% is 172, I would be really happy if someone told me my calculations were worng and that 70% was really 156 as I quite like running at 156!!!
I have decided for the time being to do my 'easy' runs at conversational pace rather than to a certain HR. I think my LSRs are about right though. I will still stick to the hard/easy principle but will be redefining 'easy', to me it no longer means below 70%, it now means conversational.
|
|
Oct 2007
2:00pm, 27 Oct 2007
3,019 posts
|
Rebel
I wonder if when I am able to start running again my HR is going to be any different. Am I going to find it harder to keep at 70% on any run. My long runs are not going to be more than 3 miles to start I should think.
|
|
Oct 2007
2:06pm, 27 Oct 2007
950 posts
|
Pammie
hellen just checked for you with those stats
70% = 150.6
85% = 172.8
Can i ask where and when you got your max from. Like how you did the max test. Can't remember if you've already said.
As for 85% avg for a marathon it is possible as another method of low HR training was the Hadd method and i did read his stuff before (what i did in 2005) but i was never doing really enough mileage for it to work - his way but he did say a fully trained runner at his/her best could run a maraton 15-20 beats low than his/her max. But i suspect your max might be different
|
|
Oct 2007
2:09pm, 27 Oct 2007
951 posts
|
Pammie
Rebel how long will it be since you've not run. and did you low HR train before. The body has a memort so if you've done it before it may not be as long a you think.
Been back running 6 weeks now and am probably about 40 seconds a mile quicker under 70%
|
|
Oct 2007
2:12pm, 27 Oct 2007
1,914 posts
|
hellen
so pammie, that must mean I am a fully trained, super fit athelete!!!
I have tried on a few occations to get a higher max.
I saw 195 in a HM, I had flu so shouldnt have been running it but did, it was on a hill that it went to 195, I wasnt really pushing it.
I then did a max test on the TM where I warmed up for a bit then did intervals up a hill where I kept increasing the incline and the pace, cant remember how long the intervals were but around 2 mins I think, I then had a short recovery before the next interval, think I did about 5 in total and it felt very uncomfortable. It was after that that I started having probs with my achilles and that prob has never gone away. Got up to 193 on that, could prob have managed to squeeze another interval out but had to be at body pump, the max had been on the penultimate interval and didnt go any higher on the last one so figured that was it.
I then tried some other time (before the TM session) it was on a hard intervals session again where I really pushed myself, I think I only saw 193 on that
|
|
Oct 2007
2:14pm, 27 Oct 2007
2,254 posts
|
Kieren
resting is back down t0 39bpm as of today 
I've very excited to see how low these long runs will get it before Christmas
|
|
Oct 2007
2:16pm, 27 Oct 2007
10,958 posts
|
Oh and just to clarify about the other day. I *WAS* actually joking. I never tell anyone what to do seriously. All I do is give advice based on my limited experience. My previous post referrred to me not telling anyone anymore but what I actually meant is that I don't TELL anybody to do anything and never will. If I ever gave that impression I apologise.
As I say I was joking the other day and I did think that all of us were joking too - including Hellen and everyone else that 'owned up' to running in the grey area.
What I find a bit sad is that Fetch seems to be far more serious of late and I thought perhaps mistakenly that because we didn't take ourselves too seriously that was what made Fetch different to other places such as RW. I just hope that it doesn't lose its sense of fun and friendliness because it will certainly lose membership if it does...
I find myself being very very cautious with how I choose my words now. So much so in fact that I'm beginning to wonder whether it is worth the hassle bothering to post at all...
I do wonder now if anyting I have got to say is of any help to anyone. Probably not.
|
|
Oct 2007
2:19pm, 27 Oct 2007
952 posts
|
Pammie
World class hellen
I suspect (please note i am not an expert) but it could be a few beats higher i've done a couple of max tests (on my own) hills, track but it was in a race situation where i raised it a bit more normally a short race round 5k or under (maybe 10k)
|
|
Oct 2007
2:24pm, 27 Oct 2007
953 posts
|
Pammie
Good point Ian
The thing is we are all individuals and different things work for each of us.
For me looking what i did in 2005 where i got pbs at 5k and 10k running 2hr long runs tempo run or two during the week. That worked for me. But i had people telling me i don't need to run that much or that far to do well at 5k and 10k
Yes sometimes as well people take some posts so seriously i have often said something jokingly (even in the other place) but its been taken the wrong way sometimes my humour gets mis-intepreted
Do keep posting
|
|
Oct 2007
2:29pm, 27 Oct 2007
1,916 posts
|
hellen
Ian , dont think like that, you have loads of valuable things to say and if you didnt post you would be missed.
I think the thing with this thread though is that it is a HR thread NOT a parker thread. I was trying to say that it wasnt working for me after 10 months of trying. I know I havnt always rested as much as I ought but I do listen to what people say and sometimes take it on board.
I suppose I was hoping that there might be an alternative for me whereby I can use the HR principle but not so rigidly. I have been pleased over the last few days to see that some people have said that more than 70% is OK for an easy run.
I know a lot of people have improved by trianing this way but it could be other things as well leading to the improvement.
for example, girlie has seen her pace come down but is that because she is running more miles than ever before or is it that they are below 70%, she might have improved more if she had doen those at 73%, who knows. I suppose she might say that she has remained injury free, but again, we dont know if she would have been injured running at 73% instead of 70%. (sorry girlie to use you as an example but you are the first to spring to mind and this is your first marathon so I know you have never run this many miles before).
I know for me that I have been injury free doing it the parker way but I just wonder if I would have been less fustrated in the process and enjoyed it more if I had not been so rigid about the 70%.
If I was just going out to run, in the past, I would have been doing around 9/mile, i was only doing 3 or 4 runs a week though. I know that I coudlnt do 6 runs a week at 9/mile now and if I did that last year when 9/miles were easy I would prob have tierd and become injured. So parker has taught me to slow down but I think I have slowed too much as now I am doing 10.30/mile, perhaps slowing to 9.30-10 would have been better, I dont know. What I do know is that I am not happy at the mo about my running so need to do something different.
The other day , I was not offended by things that were said, I did feel a bit got at though, I was feeling down about how things had been going, had been trying really hard and felt I was being told go back and do it again you are not doing it right. I could understand that if it was a parker worshiping thread but it is not.
I am sorry if I have upset anyone, anyway, sis has just come up on msm so need to chat to her!!
|
