Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Low Heart Rate Training and Running

I took a look at how my running has progressed this year (I'm usually very on-and-off with running, usually preferring weight training to running, especially this time of year) and was pleasantly surprised that I'd taken 5 minutes off my 5k parkrun time, in 10 months, which is huge for such a short distance:

2017-11-26_23-51_results - parkrun UK.jpg


(Ignore the 41 min parkrun time; I was the parkrun tail runner that day)

Of course, huge gains are possible when you start with a low fitness base, and I do realise the law of diminishing returns is kicking in. Also - I think this is relevant - Lydney parkrun isn't a fast parkrun, what with some forest trails and small hills; it's about 30 seconds slower than a flat and fast parkrun.

I've also ran a 46 mile ultra marathon in the Brecon Beacons (last week).

The method I used was 'low heart rate training'; basically running slowly. I keep my heartrate - when training - under 180 minus my age. At the beginning it's slow and frustrating; you walk a lot, especially up hills.

But as time passes you get faster - yet still not going over that heart rate - and I find myself cruising up hills that I once had to walk.

And at a race, despite the lack of speed training, I find I can still push hard and go fast (fast is relative, I'm not fast compared to some other - quicker - runners; it's fast for me).

The benefits are that it's a heart-healthy way to train and it reduces the risk of injuries. And it doesn't hurt as much as speed work. Which is nice.

It's created a huge aerobic engine, and now I'm going to start with a little speed training. It was explained to me that speed training is like adding a turbo, and you want to add a turbo to the biggest engine you can.

More here if you're interested:

Run Faster With This Suprisingly Simple Technique
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
I've pondered this for a while. I try to run 12km at least 5 times a week but struggle to make any time gains. Maybe I need to do this.
 
I've pondered this for a while. I try to run 12km at least 5 times a week but struggle to make any time gains. Maybe I need to do this.

Intervals. Stopping plodding around.

Half Mile reps are the starting point. Work out your estimated marathon time, turn that from hours:mins to mins:second, and then run half a mile in that time.

Repeat six times with 1:1 work/rest ratio, work up to 8 reps with 1:0.5 work/rest ratio.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
Intervals. Stopping plodding around.

Half Mile reps are the starting point. Work out your estimated marathon time, turn that from hours:mins to mins:second, and then run half a mile in that time.

Repeat six times with 1:1 work/rest ratio, work up to 8 reps with 1:0.5 work/rest ratio.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Did I mention I'm inherently lazy too?
 
I've pondered this for a while. I try to run 12km at least 5 times a week but struggle to make any time gains. Maybe I need to do this.

I think you ought to vary your running a little. Have you any training aims?

A normal running routine would involve mostly easy runs, with one or two speed sessions and a long weekend run.

Depending on your training aims, the distances and intensity would vary.

That's a normal running routine. But I know a guy who runs 10 miles every day and he runs one slowly and the next a little bit harder, repeat, repeat (etc) and he gets some fantastic times at 5 and 10k races. It's not a normal running routine, but it seems to work for him.

Running the same distance, regularly, is a kind of laziness in that you're being lazy in changing your routine.

Them's my thoughts and I'm no running expert.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
I think you ought to vary your running a little. Have you any training aims?

Thats the main problem, the only real aim is to keep 'fit' and relatively slim, more for health than appearance sake.

I know I'm inherently lazy, I might mix up some rowing/weights with running see if that's more interesting. I was at a Xmas ball last night and one of my mates was hounding me all night to do a sprint tri with him. Maybe thats the goal I need.
 
Thats the main problem, the only real aim is to keep 'fit' and relatively slim, more for health than appearance sake.

I know I'm inherently lazy, I might mix up some rowing/weights with running see if that's more interesting. I was at a Xmas ball last night and one of my mates was hounding me all night to do a sprint tri with him. Maybe thats the goal I need.

I find running with other people a pretty good incentive. I'm in a running club, but if you're in the UK, there's Parkruns absolutely everywhere; they're ran on a Saturday morning, free, and there's often some fit women there in tight fitting lycra.

Or blokes (I note your Arsse name).

parkrun UK

Running's boring; you've got to make it interesting as possible somehow:
 
Glad you're still at it, I made some decent gains with the 180 method and it made running a pleasure rather than the embuggerance it usually was.
I'm laid up with a torn meniscus at the moment.Doesnt feel painful enough to need surgery and seems to be healing so I'll be back to square one with the 180 method after Xmas.
I'm gagging to get started again. I like cycling but really miss the running
 
I took a look at how my running has progressed this year (I'm usually very on-and-off with running, usually preferring weight training to running, especially this time of year) and was pleasantly surprised that I'd taken 5 minutes off my 5k parkrun time, in 10 months, which is huge for such a short distance:

View attachment 305000

(Ignore the 41 min parkrun time; I was the parkrun tail runner that day)

Of course, huge gains are possible when you start with a low fitness base, and I do realise the law of diminishing returns is kicking in. Also - I think this is relevant - Lydney parkrun isn't a fast parkrun, what with some forest trails and small hills; it's about 30 seconds slower than a flat and fast parkrun.

I've also ran a 46 mile ultra marathon in the Brecon Beacons (last week).

The method I used was 'low heart rate training'; basically running slowly. I keep my heartrate - when training - under 180 minus my age. At the beginning it's slow and frustrating; you walk a lot, especially up hills.

But as time passes you get faster - yet still not going over that heart rate - and I find myself cruising up hills that I once had to walk.

And at a race, despite the lack of speed training, I find I can still push hard and go fast (fast is relative, I'm not fast compared to some other - quicker - runners; it's fast for me).

The benefits are that it's a heart-healthy way to train and it reduces the risk of injuries. And it doesn't hurt as much as speed work. Which is nice.

It's created a huge aerobic engine, and now I'm going to start with a little speed training. It was explained to me that speed training is like adding a turbo, and you want to add a turbo to the biggest engine you can.

More here if you're interested:

Run Faster With This Suprisingly Simple Technique

Just curious, what %age of max HR, did your MAF hr come out at?
 
Have to say when I did a 40 min walk around the block a few times a week I noticed the running times come down HR would be up but no where near 180-age.
Hopefully circumstances allow me to go back to that soon.

May regular 4.5-5km route involves a steep long hill which does help. Plus I enjoy sprint intervals.
 
Yes, if you are doing nothing at the moment.

But to make to make big gains in distance running requires consistency of volume and frequency over the long term. Make it a lifestyle and think more in terms of years than months.

sorry I should have said I’m doing 3 x 4.5-5 km (including 1 major steep long hill) a week.

like sometimes replacing with a shorter interval and hill training every few weeks.

would doing the 4-5km walk once a week help?
 
Just curious, what %age of max HR, did your MAF hr come out at?

It is not related with max HR.

The calc is 180 minus your age. If you're 60 years old, add 10 beats to that number.

MAF stands for Maximum Aerobic Function; it's meant to be where you burn most fat.

A bit of background is that (according to Phil Mafetone) that most runners are carbohydrate burners and our ability to utilise fat as fuel is seriously degraded. Carbs (he says) are a dirty fuel.

So by running at MAF (your 180 minus your age) and within ten beats below (not above) you increase your aerobic fitness and improve your fat burning energy pathways. It also reduces the risk of injury.

Most running - outside of sprinting - even a 5k is mostly aerobic fitness. So he advocates running at MAF to build a big aerobic engine. After a few months of building up a base, you then add in a little - HIGH INTENSITY - speed work. This - he says - is the turbo you attached to your big aerobic engine.

To be honest, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of it, but I do know from my own experience, and from my missis, that it works.

I do understand a bit about your max heart rate and how to calculate training zones from that also though. But this is nothing to do with that.
 
It is not related with max HR.

The calc is 180 minus your age. If you're 60 years old, add 10 beats to that number.

MAF stands for Maximum Aerobic Function; it's meant to be where you burn most fat.

A bit of background is that (according to Phil Mafetone) that most runners are carbohydrate burners and our ability to utilise fat as fuel is seriously degraded. Carbs (he says) are a dirty fuel.

So by running at MAF (your 180 minus your age) and within ten beats below (not above) you increase your aerobic fitness and improve your fat burning energy pathways. It also reduces the risk of injury.

Most running - outside of sprinting - even a 5k is mostly aerobic fitness. So he advocates running at MAF to build a big aerobic engine. After a few months of building up a base, you then add in a little - HIGH INTENSITY - speed work. This - he says - is the turbo you attached to your big aerobic engine.

To be honest, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of it, but I do know from my own experience, and from my missis, that it works.

I do understand a bit about your max heart rate and how to calculate training zones from that also though. But this is nothing to do with that.

Just to add; the Mafetone method is for training. For racing, you just race. There's lots of different ways you can 'play about' with your carb intake too.

Some people reduce their carbs while training, but have the odd 'high carb week' to keep their gut biome used to carbs and to keep their carb burning pathways in good nick.

Some train low carb but race high carb.

Some don't bother reducing carbs at all because they like them too much.
 
It is not related with max HR.

The calc is 180 minus your age. If you're 60 years old, add 10 beats to that number.

MAF stands for Maximum Aerobic Function; it's meant to be where you burn most fat.

A bit of background is that (according to Phil Mafetone) that most runners are carbohydrate burners and our ability to utilise fat as fuel is seriously degraded. Carbs (he says) are a dirty fuel.

So by running at MAF (your 180 minus your age) and within ten beats below (not above) you increase your aerobic fitness and improve your fat burning energy pathways. It also reduces the risk of injury.

Most running - outside of sprinting - even a 5k is mostly aerobic fitness. So he advocates running at MAF to build a big aerobic engine. After a few months of building up a base, you then add in a little - HIGH INTENSITY - speed work. This - he says - is the turbo you attached to your big aerobic engine.

To be honest, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of it, but I do know from my own experience, and from my missis, that it works.

I do understand a bit about your max heart rate and how to calculate training zones from that also though. But this is nothing to do with that.

The MAF formula can be a hit or miss if your max hr is outwith the norm. Intensity has to be measured on max hr, e.g. Running at 85% of max hr is more intense than running at 65% of max hr. The MAF formula could throw out a hr with an intensity of 65% or 85% depending if one has a low or high max hr for their age. 65% is too low for aerobic gains and 85% is a bit intense for high volume running. It sort of works for me, and if it is working for you that is good and stick with it. Most coaches define easy running as circa 70% to 80% of max hr, and MAF formula will put most people into that range.

I am a total convert to low hr/easy running (usually average about 124 bpm per run). I only wish I had learned about this 40 years ago.
 
Top