Ran a 10k in June (5 Viewers)

[ChiefD]

I know it's a bad word around here, but have you considered running on a treadmill once in a while? If the hills are messing you up, it might be interesting to see what your HR does on a flat surface.

Haven't really thought about the treadmill.

I guess my thought process is - these are the types of roads I will be running for my races here in the KC area. Contrary to popular belief, our city and area is pretty hilly and not perfectly flat. So pretty much every course we have here is going to have the same conditions as what I train under.

I know Ned will be along shortly to tell me: don't think so much. But that's what I do.

 

[FUBAR]

Chief, I'm curious. What is frustrating? Do you feel like your heart rate is forcing you slower when your breathing and effort level seem reasonable? Or, are all parts frustrating?

Just the fact I have to run real slow to keep my heart rate down. I know the benefits will be awesome long term, but the analyst in me wants to see progress. I'm just one of these guys that likes to see results, even small, to help validate what I'm doing.

And really, you are right on the breathing and effort level. I feel like my body is telling me to GO, but I look at that HR monitor and I can't.

The frustration really is that at some point I know I'm going to get there - I just want to see it. Now.

Seriously, almost all of us who have tried low HR training have gone through this exact issue. It does get better.

 

[FUBAR]

Trying to convince the wife to be happy about me doing the Wet Dog triathlon two weeks after we arrive in Alabama.

I've never done a sprint tri.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wet-Dog-Triathlon/201384599888880?sk=info&tab=page_info

http://www.active.com/decatur-al/running/races/16th-annual-wet-dog-triathlon-2015

 

[Juxtatarot]

I know it's a bad word around here, but have you considered running on a treadmill once in a while? If the hills are messing you up, it might be interesting to see what your HR does on a flat surface.

Haven't really thought about the treadmill.

I guess my thought process is - these are the types of roads I will be running for my races here in the KC area. Contrary to popular belief, our city and area is pretty hilly and not perfectly flat. So pretty much every course we have here is going to have the same conditions as what I train under.

I know Ned will be along shortly to tell me: don't think so much. But that's what I do.

I think you should reconsider my treadmill suggestion, perhaps even running on one just once a week. (Or use a track, or a shorter, hill-less loop if you can find one.) My reasoning is you'll be able to get a better understanding of what your HR does at various paces since the hills seem to be creating HR confusion for you.

 

[SFBayDuck]

Then I try to make it up on the flat ground and downhills and try and stay in the mid 130's to balance out my HR for the entire run.

This jumped out at me. It's my understanding that average HR for a run is meaningless. The HR/zone you are running in at that moment is what you are running in, and you're working the associated metabolic processes, muscle fibers, oxygen utilization, etc for that effort. So if you're trying to stay aerobic and build that base, stay aerobic, under 145 for you. If in the middle of a 5 mile run you do a mile at 165, you're working different systems for that mile.

Now if you're spiking up to 10 beats/minute higher for a few seconds here and there, no big deal. But if you're running hilly routes with climbs long enough for your HR to climb 10 beats or so for more than a minute, then you've effectively shifted what you are working.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I must admit that I'm glad I never used a heart rate monitor until after several years of running and multiple marathons.

 

[tri-man 47]

Chief, does your HR climb 10 ticks or more on the inclines? Unless it's a long incline, that would seem like a lot. However, when you talk about needing 130s to balance out, then I suspect you are seeing quite a spike on the inclines. My (and two thoughts): First, have you historically been comfortable with inclines/hills? Maybe you need to prepare more for those conditions by working on leg strength (squats, lunges ...I know, I know, broken record here). Also, you could use a day a week just for hill repeats to directly develop those skills. Second, instead of slowing down the post-incline segments, maybe just pause your running at the peak for 10-15 seconds to let the HR drop back ...less frustrating than crawling along for the next stretch of road. And as Duck cautions, a quick break could avoid you moving out of the aerobic zone.

Juxt, in a sense, I hear you about years without the HRM. Then again, I'll always wonder what I could have done - way back in the day - with HR training as well as access to all this on-line information.

 

[beer 30]

10 mile runs at 4am suck...just saying. Upside is I have supplier taking me to lunch at a local BBQ and I'm gonna run the bill up something fierce

But the challenge then is staying awake. I'm fortunate enough to be a mile from work, so I don't need to factor in a commute after the morning run (8 this a.m.). Also, I can scoot home for lunch and a 15 minute nap (a trait I inherited from my grandpa). Then again, I'm of that age where I need that nap ...

I live 4 miles away from work so the commute allows me some latitude as well. I came home from the run and went straight to the couch for a quick 15 minute power nap because I knew I was going to be whooped. Getting old blows!

Just the fact I have to run real slow to keep my heart rate down. I know the benefits will be awesome long term, but the analyst in me wants to see progress. I'm just one of these guys that likes to see results, even small, to help validate what I'm doing.

The frustration really is that at some point I know I'm going to get there - I just want to see it. Now.

I was getting ready to post you've only been doing this for a few weeks so you're not going to see the results you are wanting yet and you followed up with 4 weeks. I posted a few days ago about doing pretty much the same type of stuff as you using the Maffetone method as a line in the sand. After 2 months I dropped about a minute off my pace. Honestly I don't think about it, I just run.

If I'm on a recovery day or a long run or just feeling lazy I'll run at MAF pace, if I'm doing hill repeats or speedwork ( ) then MAF goes out the window. I try to run at MAF pace at least 3 times a week but it's not written in stone. Some day I should really look into getting on a program and sticking to it

 

[Ned]

Chief, I'm curious. What is frustrating? Do you feel like your heart rate is forcing you slower when your breathing and effort level seem reasonable? Or, are all parts frustrating?

Just the fact I have to run real slow to keep my heart rate down. I know the benefits will be awesome long term, but the analyst in me wants to see progress. I'm just one of these guys that likes to see results, even small, to help validate what I'm doing.

And really, you are right on the breathing and effort level. I feel like my body is telling me to GO, but I look at that HR monitor and I can't.

The frustration really is that at some point I know I'm going to get there - I just want to see it. Now.

What are you targeting to stay under? 75 percent of max? If you run a bit faster but still "easy", how high are you getting up to? Heart rate training is a great tool, but I'm not convinced to you follow it exclusively and ignore breathing rate and perceived effort.

Here is a breakdown that Ned helped me with. I'm going based on an educated guess of my max heart rate being 190. This is based on last year running as hard of a run as I could muster. So I'm trying to stay within the parameters below.

Easy runs and long runs: 145 and below

Higdon Tempo: 145 and below to start - get up towards 180 at the peak - come back down to 145 if you can at the end.

5K Pace: 178+ on each interval

3/1: 145 and under for first 3 - 165-173ish for the final 1.

Pace: 165-173ish

If I try and stay below 145 on my easy runs, I feel like I'm barely moving. Part of the issue, I believe, is that where I run has a lot of hills. I really can't go more than 3/4 of a mile without having an incline to go up. So while I can move pretty good on the flat areas and downhills and still keep my HR down, when I hit the hills I have to either slow way down - literally almost walking - or just know my HR is going to go up on the inclines and don't worry about it. Then I try to make it up on the flat ground and downhills and try and stay in the mid 130's to balance out my HR for the entire run.

If I try to run faster and get into the 150's and even the low 160's, I actually feel pretty good. And even in the 150's I still feel slow - like I have a lot more to give.

What does the bolded mean? I feel great in that HR range too, but I'm putting in some work at that effort. It feels great to me because at my core, I still love to press. That 160 is a fun effort level; its just enough push to feel like you're working, but easy enough you can carry it a long ways. When you're done, you actually felt like you gave yourself a workout. However, this is exactly why HR training shines, IMO. Even though that 160 feels good, your body is telling you that it's too fast for that aerobic building range. The slow aerobic pace (>145) is going to feel stupid until you get really fit.

Duck's response about the hills is spot on.

I keep a detailed training log in Excel, so I did some quick analysis on my <145 runs, excluding recovery runs. It took me a year to improve 8 seconds per mile, but after that first year, it really took off. Stick with it....

Year  Count Avg Pace Avg HR2011  9     09:25    1432012  44    09:18    1422013  43    08:57    1432014  57    08:24    143TOTAL 153   08:52    143

 

[ChiefD]

Then I try to make it up on the flat ground and downhills and try and stay in the mid 130's to balance out my HR for the entire run.

This jumped out at me. It's my understanding that average HR for a run is meaningless. The HR/zone you are running in at that moment is what you are running in, and you're working the associated metabolic processes, muscle fibers, oxygen utilization, etc for that effort. So if you're trying to stay aerobic and build that base, stay aerobic, under 145 for you. If in the middle of a 5 mile run you do a mile at 165, you're working different systems for that mile.

Now if you're spiking up to 10 beats/minute higher for a few seconds here and there, no big deal. But if you're running hilly routes with climbs long enough for your HR to climb 10 beats or so for more than a minute, then you've effectively shifted what you are working.

This totally makes sense. All of my routes are going to be hilly - there really is no way around it unless I run on a treadmill or go to the track. So it looks like if I'm going to remain in that aerobic zone, I'm slowing down going up hills. Wonderful.

 

[ChiefD]

Chief, does your HR climb 10 ticks or more on the inclines? Unless it's a long incline, that would seem like a lot. However, when you talk about needing 130s to balance out, then I suspect you are seeing quite a spike on the inclines. My (and two thoughts): First, have you historically been comfortable with inclines/hills? Maybe you need to prepare more for those conditions by working on leg strength (squats, lunges ...I know, I know, broken record here). Also, you could use a day a week just for hill repeats to directly develop those skills. Second, instead of slowing down the post-incline segments, maybe just pause your running at the peak for 10-15 seconds to let the HR drop back ...less frustrating than crawling along for the next stretch of road. And as Duck cautions, a quick break could avoid you moving out of the aerobic zone.

Juxt, in a sense, I hear you about years without the HRM. Then again, I'll always wonder what I could have done - way back in the day - with HR training as well as access to all this on-line information.

Yeah, it will climb if I don't pay attention to it. If I continue to run the same pace, it will jump from 141 to 155 pretty easily. I have to really, really slow down to keep it in the 140's.

 

[ChiefD]

Chief, I'm curious. What is frustrating? Do you feel like your heart rate is forcing you slower when your breathing and effort level seem reasonable? Or, are all parts frustrating?

Just the fact I have to run real slow to keep my heart rate down. I know the benefits will be awesome long term, but the analyst in me wants to see progress. I'm just one of these guys that likes to see results, even small, to help validate what I'm doing.

And really, you are right on the breathing and effort level. I feel like my body is telling me to GO, but I look at that HR monitor and I can't.

The frustration really is that at some point I know I'm going to get there - I just want to see it. Now.

What are you targeting to stay under? 75 percent of max? If you run a bit faster but still "easy", how high are you getting up to? Heart rate training is a great tool, but I'm not convinced to you follow it exclusively and ignore breathing rate and perceived effort.

Here is a breakdown that Ned helped me with. I'm going based on an educated guess of my max heart rate being 190. This is based on last year running as hard of a run as I could muster. So I'm trying to stay within the parameters below.

Easy runs and long runs: 145 and below

Higdon Tempo: 145 and below to start - get up towards 180 at the peak - come back down to 145 if you can at the end.

5K Pace: 178+ on each interval

3/1: 145 and under for first 3 - 165-173ish for the final 1.

Pace: 165-173ish

If I try and stay below 145 on my easy runs, I feel like I'm barely moving. Part of the issue, I believe, is that where I run has a lot of hills. I really can't go more than 3/4 of a mile without having an incline to go up. So while I can move pretty good on the flat areas and downhills and still keep my HR down, when I hit the hills I have to either slow way down - literally almost walking - or just know my HR is going to go up on the inclines and don't worry about it. Then I try to make it up on the flat ground and downhills and try and stay in the mid 130's to balance out my HR for the entire run.

If I try to run faster and get into the 150's and even the low 160's, I actually feel pretty good. And even in the 150's I still feel slow - like I have a lot more to give.

What does the bolded mean? I feel great in that HR range too, but I'm putting in some work at that effort. It feels great to me because at my core, I still love to press. That 160 is a fun effort level; its just enough push to feel like you're working, but easy enough you can carry it a long ways. When you're done, you actually felt like you gave yourself a workout. However, this is exactly why HR training shines, IMO. Even though that 160 feels good, your body is telling you that it's too fast for that aerobic building range. The slow aerobic pace (>145) is going to feel stupid until you get really fit.

Duck's response about the hills is spot on.

I keep a detailed training log in Excel, so I did some quick analysis on my <145 runs, excluding recovery runs. It took me a year to improve 8 seconds per mile, but after that first year, it really took off. Stick with it....

Year Count Avg Pace Avg HR2011 9 09:25 1432012 44 09:18 1422013 43 08:57 1432014 57 08:24 143TOTAL 153 08:52 143

Thanks Ned. Appreciate seeing this.

I guess my biggest frustration is after running for two years, I'm starting to realize that I really have sucked at this. I've just gone out and run, and I've made it through a HM at a 1:49 pace.

Going backward THIS FAR in terms of pace is just really tough to handle mentally, to be honest.

 

[SFBayDuck]

Then I try to make it up on the flat ground and downhills and try and stay in the mid 130's to balance out my HR for the entire run.

This jumped out at me. It's my understanding that average HR for a run is meaningless. The HR/zone you are running in at that moment is what you are running in, and you're working the associated metabolic processes, muscle fibers, oxygen utilization, etc for that effort. So if you're trying to stay aerobic and build that base, stay aerobic, under 145 for you. If in the middle of a 5 mile run you do a mile at 165, you're working different systems for that mile.

Now if you're spiking up to 10 beats/minute higher for a few seconds here and there, no big deal. But if you're running hilly routes with climbs long enough for your HR to climb 10 beats or so for more than a minute, then you've effectively shifted what you are working.

This totally makes sense. All of my routes are going to be hilly - there really is no way around it unless I run on a treadmill or go to the track. So it looks like if I'm going to remain in that aerobic zone, I'm slowing down going up hills. Wonderful.

I hear 'ya - I spend a lot of time on my long runs power hiking. I think the difference between us is probably our goal races. Running primarily trail ultras walking is part of race day for me, so incorporating it in training is a good thing. I can see how it'd be frustrating to have to walk when you're training to improve your half marathon time!

 

[phatdawg]

So I have been reading all this heart rate discussion and it's making me think.

I am a pretty novice runner ... started exactly a year and a day ago. I did a Couch to 5K program last year, ran a few 5Ks and then faded near the end of the year (in terms of training). Last year, when I was at the peak of the mileage I was running, I typically ran at about a 9:00 mile pace. I ran my 5K races in the 24:10-25:45 range.

I am in my 6th week of training for a HM that I will run in May and I do my normal runs at around a 10:00 mile pace. I rarely wear a HRM. I have run primarily on the treadmill and my heart rate is in the 135-140 range when I run that pace. I have occasionally run at a faster pace and felt comfortable, so I was thinking of trying to use a little faster training pace. But it seems like maybe I shouldn't speed the pace up. I was hoping to finish my HM in 2 hours, so I will need to run a 9:09 pace. BTW, I am 44.

So my questions:

1. Should I be worried about finishing in 2 hours or should I just let it go?

2. What advantage is there to keeping the slower pace in training versus speeding up the pace?

3. Since I am a rather casual runner, is there anything wrong with just running consistently and not worrying about HR?

 

[ChiefD]

So I have been reading all this heart rate discussion and it's making me think.

I am a pretty novice runner ... started exactly a year and a day ago. I did a Couch to 5K program last year, ran a few 5Ks and then faded near the end of the year (in terms of training). Last year, when I was at the peak of the mileage I was running, I typically ran at about a 9:00 mile pace. I ran my 5K races in the 24:10-25:45 range.

I am in my 6th week of training for a HM that I will run in May and I do my normal runs at around a 10:00 mile pace. I rarely wear a HRM. I have run primarily on the treadmill and my heart rate is in the 135-140 range when I run that pace. I have occasionally run at a faster pace and felt comfortable, so I was thinking of trying to use a little faster training pace. But it seems like maybe I shouldn't speed the pace up. I was hoping to finish my HM in 2 hours, so I will need to run a 9:09 pace. BTW, I am 44.

So my questions:

1. Should I be worried about finishing in 2 hours or should I just let it go?

2. What advantage is there to keeping the slower pace in training versus speeding up the pace?

3. Since I am a rather casual runner, is there anything wrong with just running consistently and not worrying about HR?

I can tell you from my personal experience that you can run under 2 hours for a half without training by heart rate. I am 45, so about the same age range. And for me, when I ran, I just ran at the pace I felt comfortable with, and eventually I ended up at a place where I ran a 1:49 HM.

But, I am now on the HR training, mainly because my long term goals are to be more efficient with my running.

 

[phatdawg]

But, I am now on the HR training, mainly because my long term goals are to be more efficient with my running.

Can you unpack this a little for me? What do you mean by more efficient?

TIA

 

[ChiefD]

But, I am now on the HR training, mainly because my long term goals are to be more efficient with my running.

Can you unpack this a little for me? What do you mean by more efficient?

TIA

I'm going to let some of the others here give you a good explanation.

At this point, I'm reading a book called Advanced Marathoning that was recommended by many here, and I'm really relying on what I'm learning there and really just trusting a lot of the guys here.

If I try and explain it the way I understand it, I'm sure I will botch up the information.

 

[SteveC702]

Jux's 5K Training Week 6

My heart rates have lower than in the past but I think my perceived effort has been more difficult than what I'm used to for those heart rates. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Nice week hopefully you can find a 5k to race in soon. I have experienced what you are describing on HR vs effort as my fitness has improved.

For example I used to avg around 184 in 5Ks, but in my most recent 5K a PR I averaged 175.

10 miler was 180 and most recent 176

Half Marathon was 178 most recent 172

Marathon was 170 most recent 163

The only time I recently I got my heart rate really elevated (184 avg/193 max) was a 5K I ran last July and the misery/suck index was at 160.

So hopefully the increased effort needed to achieve a higher heart rate is a sign that you are getting fitter.

Looking at my old data, I seem to be down about 5 beats on tempos than I was a few years ago. I find our experience interesting because it's not something I've read about. Just guessing here but, for me, I wonder if it's a sign that what's holding me back from being faster is not cardiovascular but muscular. I guess I should start doing strides again (I haven't in a long while) and perhaps shorter intervals.

and hill repeats.

That too. Do you think what I wrote makes sense?

Juxt, it seems to me there are two ways to improve performance. First is to have stronger muscles that demand less fuel (oxygen). Second it to improve the fuel delivery system ..aerobic training. An ideal, then, would be to combine those together. Our long, slow training accomplishes the latter, but we help ourselves, too, by having stronger muscles. And I wouldn't say it's always a case of having stronger muscles ...we just need to avoid subjecting muscles to things they haven't experienced. For example, running a hilly race without simulating those conditions in training takes the muscles into unexplored territory, leading to fatigue and the need for more fuel. I see that as a benefit of sub-marathon pacing during marathon training - when running the race at marathon pace, the muscles feel like it's easy-peasy. (It's why I like marathon training runs of 21-22 miles ..to subject my body to a near-equivalent time on my feet.) Your lower beats per minute reflect your (and pbm's) improvement. Some strength/speed training could enhance that even further.

I have been trying to recall how much our super-stud, Steve, trained at and below marathon pace, and what sort of workouts were used. Or, Steve, did the huge mileage you put in accomplish both aspects? Stronger legs, needing less fuel, as well as an improved cardiovascular system?

ETA: It's the point that gruecd likes to stress: Every workout has a purpose. Recovery ...aerobic capacity ...strength ..lactate threshold training.

A technical article I came across on LT training: http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/lactatethreshold.html

Ah I seem to be in the same boat as Gruecd lately, work just kicking my ### and taking up most of my free time outside of family/friends/training. I'll put together a summary of what I did the last cycle though. I have a few workouts that I added to my last marathon cycle that I contribute to being able to close the race as strongly as I did and run my first negative split. But in general I think MP runs and mileage (as much of both as you can handle) is the key for most people. I think once you reach that marathon-pace specific phase of your training the last 6-8 weeks of your cycle anything faster than MP+5-8% doesn't help all that much. (In fact, that's my biggest beef with Pfitz's plans, the 5x1200 and 3-4x1600 sessions late in the schedules seem to be better served if replaced with some more MP runs of LT runs, although I do like his emphasis on midweek MLRs and did a few of these myself or stretched my midweek MP runs out a bit with longer warmups/cooldowns to incorporate them).

 

[MAC_32]

So I have been reading all this heart rate discussion and it's making me think.

I am a pretty novice runner ... started exactly a year and a day ago. I did a Couch to 5K program last year, ran a few 5Ks and then faded near the end of the year (in terms of training). Last year, when I was at the peak of the mileage I was running, I typically ran at about a 9:00 mile pace. I ran my 5K races in the 24:10-25:45 range.

I am in my 6th week of training for a HM that I will run in May and I do my normal runs at around a 10:00 mile pace. I rarely wear a HRM. I have run primarily on the treadmill and my heart rate is in the 135-140 range when I run that pace. I have occasionally run at a faster pace and felt comfortable, so I was thinking of trying to use a little faster training pace. But it seems like maybe I shouldn't speed the pace up. I was hoping to finish my HM in 2 hours, so I will need to run a 9:09 pace. BTW, I am 44.

So my questions:

1. Should I be worried about finishing in 2 hours or should I just let it go?

2. What advantage is there to keeping the slower pace in training versus speeding up the pace?

3. Since I am a rather casual runner, is there anything wrong with just running consistently and not worrying about HR?

I ran off and on for about 14 years before finding this place. I realized a year after finding this thread that I was a very dumb runner. I had some success over those 14 years, but not nearly as much as I could have.I have resisted the heart rate monitor to this point because I just want to be a smarter runner. I use the same ideals, but I don't let data do the talking. It's been a bumpy few years, but I'm better now than I was then. I think I'd be much worse off had I gotten the monitor though. That said, I'm finally at a point in my life in which I think the heart rate monitor could be effective. I know my body, perceived effort, actual effort, and have tested my hand at various races between 3 and 13 miles. I have a ways to gol but I'm just now at a point where I think the hrm may be effective.

That's my long winded way of saying I recommend not using one and just running (smart) for now. Once you get to the point in which you feel you have control of yourself and want to dabble with the hrm then do it. Not before then though. You'll just drive yourself crazy.

 

[FUBAR]

This jumped out at me. It's my understanding that average HR for a run is meaningless. The HR/zone you are running in at that moment is what you are running in, and you're working the associated metabolic processes, muscle fibers, oxygen utilization, etc for that effort. So if you're trying to stay aerobic and build that base, stay aerobic, under 145 for you. If in the middle of a 5 mile run you do a mile at 165, you're working different systems for that mile.

Today's workout - 4 x 800s at 5k pace, with 800 recovery. During the interval my HR was in the 160s, rest got into the 120s. Averaged 151, but this was not almost a MAF run.

Happy with the intervals of 3:08, 3:03, 3:00, 2:59

 

[Juxtatarot]

I think I'd be much worse off had I gotten the monitor though.

I'm curious why you think this. After reading Chief's posts today I've been thinking about this exact same question for myself and I'm on the fence.

 

[Ned]

So I have been reading all this heart rate discussion and it's making me think.

I am a pretty novice runner ... started exactly a year and a day ago. I did a Couch to 5K program last year, ran a few 5Ks and then faded near the end of the year (in terms of training). Last year, when I was at the peak of the mileage I was running, I typically ran at about a 9:00 mile pace. I ran my 5K races in the 24:10-25:45 range.

I am in my 6th week of training for a HM that I will run in May and I do my normal runs at around a 10:00 mile pace. I rarely wear a HRM. I have run primarily on the treadmill and my heart rate is in the 135-140 range when I run that pace. I have occasionally run at a faster pace and felt comfortable, so I was thinking of trying to use a little faster training pace. But it seems like maybe I shouldn't speed the pace up. I was hoping to finish my HM in 2 hours, so I will need to run a 9:09 pace. BTW, I am 44.

So my questions:

1. Should I be worried about finishing in 2 hours or should I just let it go?

2. What advantage is there to keeping the slower pace in training versus speeding up the pace?

3. Since I am a rather casual runner, is there anything wrong with just running consistently and not worrying about HR?

You're still very new to running, so I wouldn't worry about a HRM. However, here's your answers...

1 - How did you choose 2 hours? Since this is your first HM, I wouldn't worry about a finish time. Picking an arbitrary time goal is setting yourself up for failure. You may guess right and crush it, or you may guess wrong and set yourself up for a miserable experience. I'd err on the side of caution for your first one.

2 - This is actually a huge question that I could write pages on, but it all boils down to 2 things. One, it reduces the wear/tear on your body so you're ready for the next workout. If you run all of your workouts too fast, you're going to burn out and/or get injured. Two, each workout should have a purpose. There are times to run faster and times to run slower, however IMO you should be running 85%+ of your weekly mileage at slow/easy pace.

3 - Nothing wrong with it at all. You're new and will make gains regardless of how you run. I'd still strongly urge you to keep the majority of your runs at an easy pace. Conventional wisdom is a conversational pace, where you can easily hold a conversation while running. If you have to stop mid sentence to catch your breath, you're running too fast. Running with a HRM is just a more exact science than going by feel. As I mentioned in my response to Chief, you can feel great and still be running in the "wrong" range. Sure you'll get stronger, but it's not going to be the most optimal way to train. You'll eventually plateau out and be left wondering why. IMO, its because you're training too fast. For now though, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing.

 

[Ned]

Jux's 5K Training Week 6

My heart rates have lower than in the past but I think my perceived effort has been more difficult than what I'm used to for those heart rates. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Nice week hopefully you can find a 5k to race in soon. I have experienced what you are describing on HR vs effort as my fitness has improved.

For example I used to avg around 184 in 5Ks, but in my most recent 5K a PR I averaged 175.

10 miler was 180 and most recent 176

Half Marathon was 178 most recent 172

Marathon was 170 most recent 163

The only time I recently I got my heart rate really elevated (184 avg/193 max) was a 5K I ran last July and the misery/suck index was at 160.

So hopefully the increased effort needed to achieve a higher heart rate is a sign that you are getting fitter.

Looking at my old data, I seem to be down about 5 beats on tempos than I was a few years ago. I find our experience interesting because it's not something I've read about. Just guessing here but, for me, I wonder if it's a sign that what's holding me back from being faster is not cardiovascular but muscular. I guess I should start doing strides again (I haven't in a long while) and perhaps shorter intervals.

and hill repeats.

That too. Do you think what I wrote makes sense?

Juxt, it seems to me there are two ways to improve performance. First is to have stronger muscles that demand less fuel (oxygen). Second it to improve the fuel delivery system ..aerobic training. An ideal, then, would be to combine those together. Our long, slow training accomplishes the latter, but we help ourselves, too, by having stronger muscles. And I wouldn't say it's always a case of having stronger muscles ...we just need to avoid subjecting muscles to things they haven't experienced. For example, running a hilly race without simulating those conditions in training takes the muscles into unexplored territory, leading to fatigue and the need for more fuel. I see that as a benefit of sub-marathon pacing during marathon training - when running the race at marathon pace, the muscles feel like it's easy-peasy. (It's why I like marathon training runs of 21-22 miles ..to subject my body to a near-equivalent time on my feet.) Your lower beats per minute reflect your (and pbm's) improvement. Some strength/speed training could enhance that even further.

I have been trying to recall how much our super-stud, Steve, trained at and below marathon pace, and what sort of workouts were used. Or, Steve, did the huge mileage you put in accomplish both aspects? Stronger legs, needing less fuel, as well as an improved cardiovascular system?

ETA: It's the point that gruecd likes to stress: Every workout has a purpose. Recovery ...aerobic capacity ...strength ..lactate threshold training.

A technical article I came across on LT training: http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/lactatethreshold.html

Ah I seem to be in the same boat as Gruecd lately, work just kicking my ### and taking up most of my free time outside of family/friends/training. I'll put together a summary of what I did the last cycle though. I have a few workouts that I added to my last marathon cycle that I contribute to being able to close the race as strongly as I did and run my first negative split. But in general I think MP runs and mileage (as much of both as you can handle) is the key for most people. I think once you reach that marathon-pace specific phase of your training the last 6-8 weeks of your cycle anything faster than MP+5-8% doesn't help all that much. (In fact, that's my biggest beef with Pfitz's plans, the 5x1200 and 3-4x1600 sessions late in the schedules seem to be better served if replaced with some more MP runs of LT runs, although I do like his emphasis on midweek MLRs and did a few of these myself or stretched my midweek MP runs out a bit with longer warmups/cooldowns to incorporate them).

I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. I've replaced most of those workouts with LT runs. The risk isn't worth the reward when you're 12+ weeks into a tough marathon cycle.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So I have been reading all this heart rate discussion and it's making me think.

I am a pretty novice runner ... started exactly a year and a day ago. I did a Couch to 5K program last year, ran a few 5Ks and then faded near the end of the year (in terms of training). Last year, when I was at the peak of the mileage I was running, I typically ran at about a 9:00 mile pace. I ran my 5K races in the 24:10-25:45 range.

I am in my 6th week of training for a HM that I will run in May and I do my normal runs at around a 10:00 mile pace. I rarely wear a HRM. I have run primarily on the treadmill and my heart rate is in the 135-140 range when I run that pace. I have occasionally run at a faster pace and felt comfortable, so I was thinking of trying to use a little faster training pace. But it seems like maybe I shouldn't speed the pace up. I was hoping to finish my HM in 2 hours, so I will need to run a 9:09 pace. BTW, I am 44.

So my questions:

1. Should I be worried about finishing in 2 hours or should I just let it go?

2. What advantage is there to keeping the slower pace in training versus speeding up the pace?

3. Since I am a rather casual runner, is there anything wrong with just running consistently and not worrying about HR?

1. Don't worry about it. Based on what you've posted, I think 2:00 is a very realistic goal, but if you don't hit it, no big deal. The half marathon is long enough that just finishing your first is a good accomplishment by itself.

2. Slower pace = less wear and tear = you can run more miles without getting injured. Average weekly volume is the absolute key statistic when training for a distance event. When you compare "slow easy running" to "steady state running" (the latter being somewhere between half-marathon and marathon pace, which is what most people run when they're just out for fun), there is almost no benefit at all to the steady state pace. That pace is too slow to make you faster, but it's fast enough to wear you out and cause an overuse injury.

To provide some context, I ran a sub-22 5K and a 1:41 half last spring. If I was training seriously for a half this year as my A race, I would be targeting sub-1:40. I do about 95% of my off-season miles at 9:30-10:00/mi, with a few MP miles sprinkled in for something different. Even when I'm training for something, the overwhelming majority of my miles are that same slow pace. When I do speedwork, it's always at something faster than HMP, often much faster. Steady state pace is the no-mans land of training. There's literally no reason ever to run at that pace for training purposes. You should either be going a lot slower or a lot faster.

3. Totally fine. For novice and intermediate runners, and even a lot of "advanced" runners, you'll make more gains by simply adding volume than you will with specialized workouts.

I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. I've replaced most of those workouts with LT runs. The risk isn't worth the reward when you're 12+ weeks into a tough marathon cycle.

Interesting -- I was literally just thinking about this topic this morning while I was on the TM. I'm going to be doing 18/55 this summer, and I was batting around the idea of dropping all or most of the interval sessions, or at least dialing down some of the longer ones. Glad I'm not the only person who thinks Pfitz is a little heavy in this area.

 

[MAC_32]

I think I'd be much worse off had I gotten the monitor though.

I'm curious why you think this. After reading Chief's posts today I've been thinking about this exact same question for myself and I'm on the fence.

Like Chief, I'd become a micro manager of the numbers. I'm a jack of all trades finance/data analysis guy, so I'd set up programs to analyze this data and when things inevitably didn't add up I'd adjust based on what this data tells me. Without having a better idea what levels of effort feel like and the impact it has on myself both at that time as well as a day, 2, 3 afterwards I'd continue to default to the numbers even if my body disagrees at times, which it will. I made mistakes throughout my first couple of years in here, but in order to succeed I first needed to fail. I needed to experience what training the wrong way was like. I also figured out some things that worked that I probably would not have had I done HRM training.

Now that I have a much better sense of my body and effort levels completing different tasks at different times of day with different pre workout nutrition evaluation I think the HRM stuff could be useful. The data will usually be accurate, but if something doesn't look right I won't be a slave to the numbers. I'm not going to do it right now because of the types of races I plan to do this year, but I'll probably...finally...dive in whenever I begin my next training program for a road half and eventually, full.

In the end, I think the decision to jump in head first into HRM really depends on the type of person you are and to a lesser degree, experience. Time-wise, I'm not all that much better than when I first started in here. However, I've also put on about ten (bad) pounds and my strength levels aren't what they used to be due to a few nagging injuries that date back to December 2013. My times have stayed relatively steady despite those issues, so once I get that weight off and my strength back I think I'm about to take off. Not like I originally wanted to 4 or so years ago, a sub 18 5k, but the middle to longer distances. Outside of the (mild) high ankle sprain that I got this past weekend, I'm finally feeling physically healthy and I can't say I've felt that way in 14 months.

Anyway, I now (think I?) know how to run smart, so the supporting HRM numbers will benefit me more since I can draw a line between how I am feeling and what the data is telling me.

 

[pbm107]

I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. I've replaced most of those workouts with LT runs. The risk isn't worth the reward when you're 12+ weeks into a tough marathon cycle.

Interesting -- I was literally just thinking about this topic this morning while I was on the TM. I'm going to be doing 18/55 this summer, and I was batting around the idea of dropping all or most of the interval sessions, or at least dialing down some of the longer ones. Glad I'm not the only person who thinks Pfitz is a little heavy in this area.

I read Steve's post before I went out for my run this morning and I am thinking about doing the same. Especially since my I am stronger at the VO2 max workouts and races 5K and 10K than the tempo runs and half marathons.

 

[Nigel]

Some great info here the last few posts. I definitely thin I'm doing too much of my training in "no mans land", unnecessarily fast and no more productive than if I slowed them down a bit, while beating myself up more than I need to. Being forced by the snow to do nothing but treadmill runs the last few weeks I think has a lot to do with it, just want to get them over with. But what's 5 or 10 extra minutes? Big picture...

 

[Ned]

I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. I've replaced most of those workouts with LT runs. The risk isn't worth the reward when you're 12+ weeks into a tough marathon cycle.

Interesting -- I was literally just thinking about this topic this morning while I was on the TM. I'm going to be doing 18/55 this summer, and I was batting around the idea of dropping all or most of the interval sessions, or at least dialing down some of the longer ones. Glad I'm not the only person who thinks Pfitz is a little heavy in this area.

I read Steve's post before I went out for my run this morning and I am thinking about doing the same. Especially since my I am stronger at the VO2 max workouts and races 5K and 10K than the tempo runs and half marathons.

It's scary how similar we are.

 

[Ned]

Some great info here the last few posts. I definitely thin I'm doing too much of my training in "no mans land", unnecessarily fast and no more productive than if I slowed them down a bit, while beating myself up more than I need to. Being forced by the snow to do nothing but treadmill runs the last few weeks I think has a lot to do with it, just want to get them over with. But what's 5 or 10 extra minutes? Big picture...

Dude, major kudos for grinding this crap out on a treadmill. I've been forced to the threadmill more recently due to time contstraints and weather. I couldn't imagine doing anything past an hour on the treadmill. #### that.....

The bolded is very true. It's easy to justify that time away just to get things over with, especially on the treadmill, but from the big picture its very important.

 

[Juxtatarot]

When I do speedwork, it's always at something faster than HMP, often much faster. Steady state pace is the no-mans land of training. There's literally no reason ever to run at that pace for training purposes. You should either be going a lot slower or a lot faster.

Excellent post, Ivan, but are you including tempos with "speedwork"? I'm confused by that part. McMillan classifies "No Man's Land" between 2:30:00 and 3:30:00 race pace. (I love the training graph on this page if you scroll down.) Although an hour is a long time, when you think about that in per mile pace, it's really not that large. For example, for me, it's probably about 6:45 to 7:15.

For almost all of us, half marathon pace is in the beneficial "stamina zone". In fact, McMillan writes about including "steady-state tempos" in training programs which are run just barely in that stamina zone.

Marathon pace for runners 3:30:00 and over are getting "endurance zone" benefits. Those faster, however, have marathon paces in "No Man's Land" (with the notable exception of Steve). I still think there it can be a good idea to train in that zone. There are advantages mentally and physically of practicing the pace of your goal. Also, running in "No Man's Land" is still beneficial to your training. It's more of a bang for your buck concept.

 

[phatdawg]

Thanks for the feedback. I've purposely kept a majority of my runs at a slower pace, so I will continue to do that while sprinkling in some faster stuff for variety. I am basically following a Higdon program (though mine is for 16 weeks, so I am repeating a couple weeks). I am gradually adding the mileage and I have felt great so far.

 

[ChiefD]

Thanks for the feedback. I've purposely kept a majority of my runs at a slower pace, so I will continue to do that while sprinkling in some faster stuff for variety. I am basically following a Higdon program (though mine is for 16 weeks, so I am repeating a couple weeks). I am gradually adding the mileage and I have felt great so far.

I've always followed the Higdon program, but my main concern now is it's just not enough mileage. I've always tried to run more than a Higdon plan has prescribed, but I still feel like I just need more miles under my belt.

 

[phatdawg]

1 - How did you choose 2 hours? Since this is your first HM, I wouldn't worry about a finish time. Picking an arbitrary time goal is setting yourself up for failure. You may guess right and crush it, or you may guess wrong and set yourself up for a miserable experience. I'd err on the side of caution for your first one.

I chose two hours because a friend of mine did the same HM in 1:57ish and I can't lose to him ... he's a tool.

Seriously, I just like to keep score and that seemed like a reasonable goal. Ultimately, my only real goal is to finish.

 

[phatdawg]

Thanks for the feedback. I've purposely kept a majority of my runs at a slower pace, so I will continue to do that while sprinkling in some faster stuff for variety. I am basically following a Higdon program (though mine is for 16 weeks, so I am repeating a couple weeks). I am gradually adding the mileage and I have felt great so far.

I've always followed the Higdon program, but my main concern now is it's just not enough mileage. I've always tried to run more than a Higdon plan has prescribed, but I still feel like I just need more miles under my belt.

I'm gradually building to about 25 miles a week and a long run of 10 miles. I have a hard time getting much more mileage than that because I have two small children and a wife who expects me to help with aforementioned children. Last week, I did 16 miles (long run of 6 miles).

 

[ChiefD]

Thanks for the feedback. I've purposely kept a majority of my runs at a slower pace, so I will continue to do that while sprinkling in some faster stuff for variety. I am basically following a Higdon program (though mine is for 16 weeks, so I am repeating a couple weeks). I am gradually adding the mileage and I have felt great so far.

I've always followed the Higdon program, but my main concern now is it's just not enough mileage. I've always tried to run more than a Higdon plan has prescribed, but I still feel like I just need more miles under my belt.

I'm gradually building to about 25 miles a week and a long run of 10 miles. I have a hard time getting much more mileage than that because I have two small children and a wife who expects me to help with aforementioned children. Last week, I did 16 miles (long run of 6 miles).

I feel your pain. I have three young kids too, and it becomes a bit of a source of contention when I run 6 days a week. I'm going to have to start running in the mornings as I crank up my mileage. Gonna wait til it's warmer for that - not sure I can do that transition in winter.

 

[Hang 10]

Speaking of heart rate, mine hit 219 today AFTER an 8 mile run. Yeah my SVT has really be going nuts lately. 3 out of the last 5 days I've had heart palpitations end my workouts. Saturday was very concerning as it was the first time it had ever happened during a long run. 15 miles into a 3 hour run and my heart rate spikes and I can't recover. I tried to keep going but around mile 17.5 I give up and call my wife to come pick me up. Thinking I'm going to bail on the marathon next month. I decided to schedule an appointment with my cardiologist to get a catheter ablation. Hopefully it will fix this garbage. :weary:

 

[Juxtatarot]

That sucks, Hang 10. Be safe!

 

[ChiefD]

That sucks, Hang 10. Be safe!

No kidding. Positive vibes coming your way Hang10.

 

[BassNBrew]

For you swimming nuts.

http://swimswam.com/race-video-watch-katie-ledecky-swim-mind-boggling-426-500-free/

She laps the freaking field.

 

[SteveC702]

Be careful man Hang10.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Speaking of heart rate, mine hit 219 today AFTER an 8 mile run. Yeah my SVT has really be going nuts lately. 3 out of the last 5 days I've had heart palpitations end my workouts. Saturday was very concerning as it was the first time it had ever happened during a long run. 15 miles into a 3 hour run and my heart rate spikes and I can't recover. I tried to keep going but around mile 17.5 I give up and call my wife to come pick me up. Thinking I'm going to bail on the marathon next month. I decided to schedule an appointment with my cardiologist to get a catheter ablation. Hopefully it will fix this garbage. :weary:

Woah. GL with this one, and good decision to get it checked out.

 

[FUBAR]

GL Hang10, we're pulling for you.

For you swimming nuts.

http://swimswam.com/race-video-watch-katie-ledecky-swim-mind-boggling-426-500-free/

She laps the freaking field.

She swims like a girl.

 

[FUBAR]

four day weekend this weekend

2 day work week next

then another four day weekend

BUT - the only reason I have a 4 day next weekend is a colonoscopy Thursday.

 

[ChiefD]

BUT - the only reason I have a 4 day next weekend is a colonoscopy Thursday.

Sweet. Wear your HR monitor and let us know how it goes.

 

[FUBAR]

BUT - the only reason I have a 4 day next weekend is a colonoscopy Thursday.

Sweet. Wear your HR monitor and let us know how it goes.

Assuming the meds work, I should be in zone 0.5

 

[beer 30]

four day weekend this weekend

2 day work week next

then another four day weekend

BUT - the only reason I have a 4 day next weekend is a colonoscopy Thursday.

Yea we're gonna need a CR (colonoscopy report) afterwards. Might be the highlight of 2015 so far. Unlike a typical report, you need to focus more on the day before prep than the actual event itself.

 

[tri-man 47]

four day weekend this weekend

2 day work week next

then another four day weekend

BUT - the only reason I have a 4 day next weekend is a colonoscopy Thursday.

Yea we're gonna need a CR (colonoscopy report) afterwards. Might be the highlight of 2015 so far. Unlike a typical report, you need to focus more on the day before prep than the actual event itself.

But it doesn't seem to be as big a deal now. I've had two, and for the second (a few years ago), I just had to add some stuff to, and drink a ton of, Gatorade. It drained the system nicely, but it wasn't the awfulness that I'd remembered ...certainly easier to just be drinking Gatorade.

 

[beer 30]

four day weekend this weekend

2 day work week next

then another four day weekend

BUT - the only reason I have a 4 day next weekend is a colonoscopy Thursday.

Yea we're gonna need a CR (colonoscopy report) afterwards. Might be the highlight of 2015 so far. Unlike a typical report, you need to focus more on the day before prep than the actual event itself.

But it doesn't seem to be as big a deal now. I've had two, and for the second (a few years ago), I just had to add some stuff to, and drink a ton of, Gatorade. It drained the system nicely, but it wasn't the awfulness that I'd remembered ...certainly easier to just be drinking Gatorade.

Hey hey hey, quit trying to soften the blow here! I want his HR spiked at 198 running intervals from the kitchen to the bathroom!

 

[Ned]

Speaking of heart rate, mine hit 219 today AFTER an 8 mile run. Yeah my SVT has really be going nuts lately. 3 out of the last 5 days I've had heart palpitations end my workouts. Saturday was very concerning as it was the first time it had ever happened during a long run. 15 miles into a 3 hour run and my heart rate spikes and I can't recover. I tried to keep going but around mile 17.5 I give up and call my wife to come pick me up. Thinking I'm going to bail on the marathon next month. I decided to schedule an appointment with my cardiologist to get a catheter ablation. Hopefully it will fix this garbage. :weary:

Woah. GL with this one, and good decision to get it checked out.

This. Glad you're being smart about it, but I know its gotta be weighing on you after all the work you've put in. Kudos for being smart about it.

 

[Nigel]

Good luck With the ablation Hang, hopefully that takes care of it once and for all. Definitely an option for me down the road so interested in following how it goe for you.