| |
Main
Date: 25 Nov 2006 11:34:33
From: Beginning runner
Subject: 11/25 run
|
I slowed it down today to Tuesday's pace; I was within 0.03 miles for
the same 33 minutes, and I knew that I could go further if I had wanted.
I did speed up for the last 30 seconds, though.
The HR monitor didn't have spurious highs or dropouts this time. Is
this where I should be in this stage of my progress/development:
<http://members.cox.net/beginning_runner/11-25-06HR.jpeg >
Avg Low High
Heart Rate (%max) 82 59 91
Heart Rate (zone) 4.2 1.9 5.1
Heart Rate (bpm) 152 109 168
Heart Rate Time Distance Speed
Zones (%max) (h:m:s) (mi ) (mph)
Zone 0 0-50 00:00:00 0.00 0.0
Zone 1 50-60 00:00:09 0.01 4.9
Zone 2 60-70 00:00:18 0.02 4.9
Zone 3 70-80 00:07:07 0.52 4.4
Zone 4 80-90 00:25:58 1.86 4.3
Zone 5 90-100 00:00:02 0.00 4.3
The Garmin's elevation data is not to be trusted; it says that I had
+350 -337 elevation changes for the same course that on Tuesday said I
had more than 500 feet each way.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 15:45:17
From: tfactor
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> Avg Low High
> Heart Rate (%max) 82 59 91
> Heart Rate (zone) 4.2 1.9 5.1
> Heart Rate (bpm) 152 109 168
Your HR seems high to me. I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff and I
don't regularly use a HRM, however I'm a bit younger than you (I'm 48)
so I should tolerate higher HRs yet I wouldn't be over 150 for any
prolonged period during training. I think that'd wear me out. Do you
feel like you're over-training? How quickly does your rate return to
normal? Does your resting rate drop a lot after off days?
>
> Heart Rate Time Distance Speed
> Zones (%max) (h:m:s) (mi ) (mph)
> Zone 0 0-50 00:00:00 0.00 0.0
> Zone 1 50-60 00:00:09 0.01 4.9
> Zone 2 60-70 00:00:18 0.02 4.9
> Zone 3 70-80 00:07:07 0.52 4.4
> Zone 4 80-90 00:25:58 1.86 4.3
> Zone 5 90-100 00:00:02 0.00 4.3
Did you determine your max or did Garmin calculate it somehow? It
doesn't seem to be the standard age-based calculation.
>
> The Garmin's elevation data is not to be trusted; it says that I had
> +350 -337 elevation changes for the same course that on Tuesday said I
> had more than 500 feet each way.
Well, unless you're now hovering 13 feet in the air I'd agree that those
data are suspect.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 14:10:11
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
In article <ekaa46$lgn$1@aioe.server.aioe.org >,
tfactor <tfactor.usenet@gmail.com > wrote:
> Your HR seems high to me. I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff and
> I don't regularly use a HRM, however I'm a bit younger than you (I'm
> 48) so I should tolerate higher HRs yet I wouldn't be over 150 for
> any prolonged period during training. I think that'd wear me out. Do
> you feel like you're over-training? How quickly does your rate return
> to normal? Does your resting rate drop a lot after off days?
No, I don't feel like I'm overtraining. Except for Thursday, when I ran
faster than today or Tuesday, I've had stuff in reserve when I finished
the 33 minutes. My heart rates gets down to 100 within a few minutes
after I sit down after my cooldown walk. It used to take 15 to 20
minutes. I've never kept the monitor on after that, so I don't know how
long it takes to get back to normal. I don't test my resting rate all
that often, so I don't know.
> Did you determine your max or did Garmin calculate it somehow? It
> doesn't seem to be the standard age-based calculation.
The Garmin calculates it. I don't know the formula, though. But
nothing in that message indicates what my max HR is.
> Well, unless you're now hovering 13 feet in the air I'd agree that
> those data are suspect.
That would be assuming that my start and finish were at the same point,
which they aren't.
Thanks for the feedback.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 22:21:15
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
On 2006-11-25, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote:
> In article <ekaa46$lgn$1@aioe.server.aioe.org>,
> tfactor <tfactor.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your HR seems high to me. I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff and
>> I don't regularly use a HRM, however I'm a bit younger than you (I'm
>> 48) so I should tolerate higher HRs yet I wouldn't be over 150 for
>> any prolonged period during training. I think that'd wear me out. Do
>> you feel like you're over-training? How quickly does your rate return
>> to normal? Does your resting rate drop a lot after off days?
>
> No, I don't feel like I'm overtraining. Except for Thursday, when I ran
Just keep doing what you're doing. Your heart rate is still going to be
relatively "through the roof" because you're still a beginner. Not much
point "slowing it down" because most people have trouble running much below
4mph. Eventually, you'll be able to do those runs at a lower heart rate,
at which stage you'll find you can run more frequently because you're not
close to maxed out.
I think the relative intensity of these runs does help illustrate why it's
not necessary to do speed work at this stage.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 19:36:27
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
In article <slrnemhger.lno.abuse@panix3.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> Just keep doing what you're doing. Your heart rate is still going to
> be relatively "through the roof" because you're still a beginner.
That's what I had been thinking until some people started to tell me
that it was too high. Actually, it was getting much higher earlier on
in my training.
> Not much point "slowing it down" because most people have trouble
> running much below 4mph.
Understood; I wasn't planning to go any slower than I did today; today,
I just tried to get back to where I was on Tuesday because of what
happened on Wednesday.
> Eventually, you'll be able to do those runs at a lower heart rate, at
> which stage you'll find you can run more frequently because you're
> not close to maxed out.
As implied above, that's what I've been finding out already.
> I think the relative intensity of these runs does help illustrate why
> it's not necessary to do speed work at this stage.
Well, that comment about speed work was only in the context of my doing
shorter runs only once this past week and once next week--I figured that
if I weren't trying to run so far, I could afford to run faster for
those shorter distances. But you all convinced me of the errors of that
idea. <g >
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 05:05:04
From: Dot
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <slrnemhger.lno.abuse@panix3.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just keep doing what you're doing. Your heart rate is still going to
>>be relatively "through the roof" because you're still a beginner.
>
>
> That's what I had been thinking until some people started to tell me
> that it was too high.
I agree. I think you're right on where you should be, based on your
descriptions and clarifications of effort - and why I asked about
conversational effort, since many people don't have good est of their
max hr or zones to start.
FWIW, I've had people tell me this also (going too hard), probably
incorrectly, which is why I stuck my nose in the earlier thread. This is
why I use the converstational effort guideline - it works regardless of
max hr guesstimate, zone estimates, hrm blips, gps reception, sunspots, etc.
I had started out with a beginner's pgm with certain recommendations for
workouts, including the heart rates, and the pgm had been working well
until I had to deal with snow and ice, then deeper snow (that's before I
switched to trails). After a couple years of training using those
approximate zones and general concepts, then some made comments that
they thought I was training too hard effort, I spent a lot of time
re-thinking some things, trying some things, asking questions (usually
on another group where there's more ex. phys., one of whom used to post
here), reading tons of stuff, and re-arrived where I started. Those
zones are what works for me, and they make sense. (and don't try to
confuse me with facts ;) )
If you follow posters through the years, you'll find that training
changes as they get more experienced or they find some things didn't
work or whatever or goals change. So whenever someone makes a
suggestion, with a few exceptions, it's usually from their perspective
and what worked for them - sometimes what they've seen work in some
others, sometimes what they've read for generic runners (frequently 30s
male). It may or may not work for you. People mean well, but sometimes
many posters don't have a broad enough range of experience to recognize
the way different people will respond - just their individual responses
without considering age, sex, size, training background, etc. It's
sometimes good to have training questioned, but sometimes it can be
confusing to a beginner.
There's not that many women in the group and fewer older ones (over 55).
There can be some different things in terms of the way we respond to
training - as I've found out - just things I've bumped into when
reading. And high school kids respond differently than 30-somethings.
>Actually, it was getting much higher earlier on
> in my training.
That's to be expected. Any time one starts something new, the hr will
probably increase, then decrease with improved conditioning and
repeatedly using those same motions. Running backwards will generally
raise the hr above running forward, at least for many people.
Keep up the good work.
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 05:13:59
From: Dot
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
Dot wrote:
It's
> sometimes good to have training questioned, but sometimes it can be
> confusing to a beginner.
>
I should have added. And this exchange of ideas from various backgrounds
is how we all learn. It's just hard for beginners when they're new to
everything.
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 09:04:55
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
In article <4g9ah.105665$Fi1.83112@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote:
> Keep up the good work.
Thanks. And thanks also for the explanations.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 16:50:53
From: tfactor
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> The Garmin calculates it. I don't know the formula, though. But
> nothing in that message indicates what my max HR is.
From that earlier message:
Avg Low High
Heart Rate (%max) 82 59 91
Heart Rate (zone) 4.2 1.9 5.1
Heart Rate (bpm) 152 109 168
This indicates your max HR is ~185. The common age-based formulas like
217-(age*0.85) or 220-age give much lower max values for you, in the
150-160 range. So you're training at a high percentage (80%+) of a max
which seems very high to me. That's why I asked. My heart rate has been
as high as 183, which is higher than what my age would predict but still
lower than what Garmin says yours is and you're 16 years older. And,
again, 152 is much higher than I'd train at. So that's why I asked
whether you feel like you're over-training.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 19:45:31
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
In article <ekadv7$vo7$1@aioe.server.aioe.org >,
tfactor <tfactor.usenet@gmail.com > wrote:
> From that earlier message:
>
> Avg Low High
> Heart Rate (%max) 82 59 91
> Heart Rate (zone) 4.2 1.9 5.1
> Heart Rate (bpm) 152 109 168
>
> This indicates your max HR is ~185.
OK, gotcha. divide the HR by the percentage to get the max HR.
I don't know how accurate that is, but I'm certainly not feeling any
strain. I suspect that it will continually correct itself as I go on.
Using the 217 formula, my max is 162.6. Using that and my 60 BPM
resting HR, 80% is 142.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 22:48:25
From: Dot
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
tfactor wrote:
> Beginning runner wrote:
>
>> The Garmin calculates it. I don't know the formula, though. But
>> nothing in that message indicates what my max HR is.
>
>
> From that earlier message:
>
> Avg Low High
> Heart Rate (%max) 82 59 91
> Heart Rate (zone) 4.2 1.9 5.1
> Heart Rate (bpm) 152 109 168
>
> This indicates your max HR is ~185. The common age-based formulas like
> 217-(age*0.85) or 220-age give much lower max values for you, in the
> 150-160 range. So you're training at a high percentage (80%+) of a max
> which seems very high to me. That's why I asked. My heart rate has been
> as high as 183, which is higher than what my age would predict but still
> lower than what Garmin says yours is and you're 16 years older. And,
> again, 152 is much higher than I'd train at. So that's why I asked
> whether you feel like you're over-training.
This was discussed starting with I2run's post (#20 at this time, 11/24,
3:51pm): http://tinyurl.com/ycsy8m
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 22:14:40
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
"tfactor" <tfactor.usenet@gmail.com > wrote
> Avg Low High
> Heart Rate (%max) 82 59 91
> Heart Rate (zone) 4.2 1.9 5.1
> Heart Rate (bpm) 152 109 168
>
> This indicates your max HR is ~185. The common age-based formulas like
> 217-(age*0.85) or 220-age give much lower max values for you, in the
> 150-160 range. So you're training at a high percentage (80%+) of a max
> which seems very high to me. That's why I asked. My heart rate has been as
> high as 183, which is higher than what my age would predict but still
> lower than what Garmin says yours is and you're 16 years older. And,
> again, 152 is much higher than I'd train at. So that's why I asked whether
> you feel like you're over-training.
I'm no expert, but based on a couple of cases, I've known women to have
higher rates, and to tolerate a higher rate. For instance, my mother used
to run in the 170's when in her mid 50's without distress. She's tiny and
has a hummingbird heart. 170 for me at age 55 is well into the pain zone
(5k pace). I think Dot gets her heart rate up where I rarely go, and she's
close to my age.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 03:08:19
From: steve common
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote:
>I'm no expert, but based on a couple of cases, I've known women to have
>higher rates, and to tolerate a higher rate.
I understand from some of Ms Billat's recent work, that females can
maintain a higher % of VO2 max than equivalent-performing males, when
running in "ultras" (loosely, more than 42k).
Indeed, and as far as I understood the data, further is the distance,
better are the ladies. They smoke our sorry asses on serious stuff.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 23:17:09
From: Dot
Subject: Re: 11/25 run
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> "tfactor" <tfactor.usenet@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>> Avg Low High
>>Heart Rate (%max) 82 59 91
>>Heart Rate (zone) 4.2 1.9 5.1
>>Heart Rate (bpm) 152 109 168
>>
>>This indicates your max HR is ~185. The common age-based formulas like
>>217-(age*0.85) or 220-age give much lower max values for you, in the
>>150-160 range. So you're training at a high percentage (80%+) of a max
>>which seems very high to me. That's why I asked. My heart rate has been as
>>high as 183, which is higher than what my age would predict but still
>>lower than what Garmin says yours is and you're 16 years older. And,
>>again, 152 is much higher than I'd train at. So that's why I asked whether
>>you feel like you're over-training.
>
>
> I'm no expert, but based on a couple of cases, I've known women to have
> higher rates, and to tolerate a higher rate.
I think women's hearts are generally a little smaller from what I've read.
For instance, my mother used
> to run in the 170's when in her mid 50's without distress. She's tiny and
> has a hummingbird heart. 170 for me at age 55 is well into the pain zone
> (5k pace). I think Dot gets her heart rate up where I rarely go, and she's
> close to my age.
About 59. I don't think I can even walk at the hr's you post for running
up and down hills. ;) Much like DK's when he posted them for his
marathons, his marathon (event, not race) hr was usually lower than my
easy hr, iirc.
FWIW, when I first started, an easy effort was about 142 bpm (about 79%
of 180 max) - and with some of my flat routes, I could almost write that
down as "avg bpm" without looking. I'm finding now, that an easy effort
(without trying anything in particular) is probably 134-138. But I *can*
do what I'm calling a "recovery" run (or at least parts of it) in the
high 120s, low 130s - if I try to see how low I can go and still be
running. It's an area that there's no way I could run in a couple years
ago. That's for when I overdo something and feel a need to run *very*
gently. But it's akin to running in place for me as far as any running
benefits (other than recovery - and most times I don't need that level
of recovery or easy) are concerned. As soon as I start pushing a little
more, it's up in mid 130s. I think my Maffetone number is 126, but other
charts say that's too low for any cardio benefits - and that's what it
feels like to me.
That said, I find it harder to get to the low 140s now (not sure if I'm
getting lazy or more economical), but in Sept I did have a couple decent
easy runs (1.5-2 hr) (maybe a shade above easy) averaging near that -
after I finally got out of that slogging from spring. With the colder
weather (been close to 0F for about 2.5 wks, with high winds a week
ago), I'm finding it harder to get the rate up there for normal runs
(and legs tend to gel when close to 1 hr). But I've got my Sat am xt
class (with warm feet and legs), and that hr is about normal and
depending on that for my harder workout right now.
FWIW, I tend to use the heart rate reserve calcs, since then my data
points line up with Benson's chart - and if anybody tells me I'm running
too hard, I just send them there :) http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
|
