posted Jun-09-2007 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
Ok - what I read makes it sound like performance has a lot to do with increasing your lactate threshold...and not much to do with being able to run hard when it hurts.

I wonder if this applies to new runners.

---

Are you trying to increase your AT? That's more for the end of a training program. The low heart rate training is more for base building. IMO, you really can not have one without the other. You build the base first and worry about LT later. Tempo runs once a week will get the AT up, but I save that for after base phase. Jesse and Jimmy will probably chime in if you give them a day or two, Tony.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted Jun-09-2007 10:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
I haven't started LHR training; however I am now wearing a HRM during my runs and wanted to know what % max HR would be considered "race pace"?

It seems that the LHR training is the best way to build aerobic base but I think I also need to learn to deal with the pain of exerting at an intense level for a long period of time.

Any input would be appreciated.

---

That really depends on how fit you are. I personally run a half-marathon at about 90% of max HR. I've seen several others with similar percentages. Usually people can maintain about 95% of their half-marathon HR for the full marathon. Elite runners are able to sustain greater percentages of their max HR than mid-packers.

------------------
My Profile

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged

posted Jun-09-2007 11:20 PM            

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jun-10-2007 09:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
I haven't started LHR training; however I am now wearing a HRM during my runs and wanted to know what % max HR would be considered "race pace"?

It seems that the LHR training is the best way to build aerobic base but I think I also need to learn to deal with the pain of exerting at an intense level for a long period of time.

Any input would be appreciated.

---

Too many variables. What kind of race? What temperature? How long have you been running? Did you taper? How do you calculate % max HR (e.g. take your fitness into account through Karvonen or other formulas)? Etc. The numbers will vary and are personal to you. If you're just interested in broad generalities, I'd say: 10k 90-94%. Marathon: 82-89%.

Quick example: I ran a 10k yesterday at 94% "max" (just simple math). Two months ago, I ran a 10k at 92% max. Equivalent? No. Yesterday I was @13 seconds/mile slower -- heat, humidity, different course, what have you. Jesse's numbers would be far different because through his low heart rate training he's developed the ability to sustain faster paces at lower heart rates -- that's what it's all about Alfie.

You can learn to deal with pain in a race, not in training where it will just sap your energy, present a risk of injury, and limit your workouts. If you want to do some lactate threshold runs to get used to sustained efforts of comfortably hard, then you're veering way off the low heart rate course.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-10-2007 07:41 PM            

http://www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp

Just thought I'd shaaaaarrrrre.

If anyone over 60-65 is working the program with success, and have managed to overcome some physical problems by slowing down and getting under the suggested MAF, please reply. I'll be able to pass on the information to my friend.

Thanks.
--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jun-10-2007 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
[B] found this page on Mark Allen on-line that suggests 5 beats extra to the final adjusted MAF number if you are over 60 or under 20:

http://www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp

Just thought I'd shaaaaarrrrre.

---

IP: Logged

posted Jun-10-2007 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Munko:

The way I read that, I think you add 5 beats if you are over 55 and an additional 5 beats if you are over 60, for a total of 10 if you are over 60.

---

Thank you. You're right. Excellent.
--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jun-10-2007 09:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Munko:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
[B] found this page on Mark Allen on-line that suggests 5 beats extra to the final adjusted MAF number if you are over 60 or under 20:

http://www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp

Just thought I'd shaaaaarrrrre.

---

I'm 41 now...soooo could I borrow 10 beats and not use them when I get 60?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-11-2007 01:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
I have a 67-year old friend whose legs are completely beat up...
I suggested to him to give this training a try, hopefully it would help. I was looking in the FAQ about guys over 60. His MAF would be 113. I was wondering if there was an adjustment for age....
If anyone over 60-65 is working the program with success, and have managed to overcome some physical problems by slowing down and getting under the suggested MAF, please reply. I'll be able to pass on the information to my friend.

---

Jimmy -

I'm a couple years older than your friend, and I'm starting to have some success with the LHR training, specifically in not getting injured.

First, though, I have a caveat about the 180-age formula and the little adjustments to it. I've had access to a small database of over 75 people who were VO2 tested, and although the machine did not give full RQ vs HR graphs, it did show an Aerobic Threshold (AeT) and Anaerobic Threshold (AT), The AeT here might have been at an RQ of 85%, i.e. where energy from fat sources and carb sources were equal. An individual's aerobic threshold can vary quite a bit from where the formulas would predict it. Here are three examples:

age 58 AeT 134
age 61 AeT 110
age 68 AeT 139

Although all these guys got to a VO2 between 45 and 50 at some point above their AT, they were not pushed up to max out.

Ok, back to your question. I'm 69 now, but a couple years ago I was 67 like your friend. In addition to a bit of easy jogging and walking I ran 150m intervals and some steady-paced runs where I wouldn't want to do more than 4-5 miles. I also ran the steps in the bleachers at the track, under 7 seconds all-out bursts. I was prone to injury. Hamstring pull. Quad pulls or small tears. Nagging heel spur. You get the idea, it was just from one injury to another. Then I slowed down a bit and just started steady, longer runs. I got rid of the hamstring and quad pulls, but still had the heel problem and developed TFL syndrome (hip area muscle, top of IT band.) Then I attended an HRM workshop and got a basic HRM. Last summer I trained with the HRM, after having PT to cure my TFL problem. Finally, no injuries, although I didn't really know where my aerobic threshold was.

Ok, an admission: I'm the guy who was the 68 year old above when my AeT was measured at 139 last September. I'm not in shape right now, and am only about 3 weeks into a nice easy LHR training regime... and I love it. You just have to get past the idea that you don't want someone to see you going slow (or walking.) Once that mental hurdle is past you can just enjoy the freedom. Yesterday I did a local Half Marathon with a few thousand participants and took it nice and easy using the HRM. Started at Aet-25, worked up to AeT-20, and settled in at AeT-17 to AeT-15... nice easy running, didn't even have to breathe through my mouth. Got to talk to a lot of folks along the way... one volunteer directing traffic said "What are you doing back here? You're usually faster than this." It was a nice easy training run... I got up to AeT-10 a sometimes in the last 3 miles, breathing a little bit through my mouth. I met a lot of great people and had a lot of good conversations. At the finish I felt like I could go out and do it again. No injury problems. No recovery problems. Note that I'm out of shape, 15 lbs overweight, and am starting with a low mileage base. This easy running just feels great.

If I applied the 180-age formula and did the adjustments ala Maffetone, and did the other adjustments for age, I'd be almost 30 bpm below my measured AeT from September. If your friend can get VO2 tested that would really nail down some target training range values. Otherwise I'd say try the Maffetone formula and make sure to run easy and relaxed.

The bottom line for me is that running down here in that aerobic zone has left me injury free and with no recovery problems.

Gino

IP: Logged

posted Jun-11-2007 02:34 PM               

Most speed work was done in races (have done over 400 races from 1 mile to 50 miles. 15 marathons and around 10+ ultras)

Ok, I marveled at Jesse and his amazing improvement in a few short yrs. I couldn't completely buy slowing my HR to 180-my age--63 giving me a 117. I gave myself an extra 5 for yrs of running, gave myself another 5 for being over 55 and added another 5 for being close to 64. Total =132. Hadd's formula actually makes more sense to me. He works with Max HR. Anyways, I started back in April and have amassed over 350 miles of low hr training. Actually I have averaged a 133 HR for all those miles. Also, being in Florida as the temps and humidity rise has made this a little tougher. I did a 13 mile run this AM. Started out around 0830 with temp at 74. Finished 2 1/2 hrs later with the temp at 93. Humidity around 60-70%. Avg pace around 11:30. 136 avg HR. Last few miles it headed up. Phitz's book addresses HR drift and it appears very close to my observations over the yrs. I know I had one of the first Polars on the market in the early 90's--I think--it was back then.

My observations: Being a life long notoriously slow trainer--slowing from around 140 HR to low 130's wasn't real tuff. I have added more miles per week--added another runnng day per week: up from 5 to 6 days. Ran for over 25 yrs--6 days a week. Cut back 5-6 yrs ago to 5.

I am amazed at how good I feel. My legs don't feel tired. Even after my 13 miler this AM. I will continue the base training through August. I will probably follow Hadd's plan and gradually build to a comfort zone of 170 or so so I can get in under 4 hrs in my December marathon. Did run a 4:07 in Feb --my first marathon in 21 yrs. My marathon PR back in '85 was a 3:16. I seem to be better at the shorter distances. had PR's of 17:46 in the 5 K in my early 40's--after 10 yrs of running. 10K PR 36:41. This Spring I ran a 22:38 5K and a 46:20 10 K.

I can ramble-and I hate to type--must be my age. Several weeks ago I had a 60 mile week--haven't seen one of those in over 20 yrs--and then it was very, very rare. Totaled 220 miles for May. A total I have rarely exceeded in my hay days of running--in the early 80's. Best of all I feel stronger.

PS I am a firm believer in Endurox R4 as a recovery drink. I nail one Polar bottle when I finish and another Polar bottle as I shower. I cut the recommended dosage. I use a 1/2 cup+ for about 18 oz of water. Believe me the stuff works. Been using for 5-6 yrs. Fruit flavor will grow on you. Nick

IP: Logged

posted Jun-11-2007 02:38 PM               

Most speed work was done in races (have done over 400 races from 1 mile to 50 miles. 15 marathons and around 10+ ultras)

Ok, I marveled at Jesse and his amazing improvement in a few short yrs. I couldn't completely buy slowing my HR to 180-my age--63 giving me a 117. I gave myself an extra 5 for yrs of running, gave myself another 5 for being over 55 and added another 5 for being close to 64. Total =132. Hadd's formula actually makes more sense to me. He works with Max HR. Anyways, I started back in April and have amassed over 350 miles of low hr training. Actually I have averaged a 133 HR for all those miles. Also, being in Florida as the temps and humidity rise has made this a little tougher. I did a 13 mile run this AM. Started out around 0830 with temp at 74. Finished 2 1/2 hrs later with the temp at 93. Humidity around 60-70%. Avg pace around 11:30. 136 avg HR. Last few miles it headed up. Phitz's book addresses HR drift and it appears very close to my observations over the yrs. I know I had one of the first Polars on the market in the early 90's--I think--it was back then.

My observations: Being a life long notoriously slow trainer--slowing from around 140 HR to low 130's wasn't real tuff. I have added more miles per week--added another runnng day per week: up from 5 to 6 days. Ran for over 25 yrs--6 days a week. Cut back 5-6 yrs ago to 5.

I am amazed at how good I feel. My legs don't feel tired. Even after my 13 miler this AM. I will continue the base training through August. I will probably follow Hadd's plan and gradually build to a comfort zone of 170 or so so I can get in under 4 hrs in my December marathon. Did run a 4:07 in Feb --my first marathon in 21 yrs. My marathon PR back in '85 was a 3:16. I seem to be better at the shorter distances. had PR's of 17:46 in the 5 K in my early 40's--after 10 yrs of running. 10K PR 36:41. This Spring I ran a 22:38 5K and a 46:20 10 K.

I can ramble-and I hate to type--must be my age. Several weeks ago I had a 60 mile week--haven't seen one of those in over 20 yrs--and then it was very, very rare. Totaled 220 miles for May. A total I have rarely exceeded in my hay days of running--in the early 80's. Best of all I feel stronger.

PS I am a firm believer in Endurox R4 as a recovery drink. I nail one Polar bottle when I finish and another Polar bottle as I shower. I cut the recommended dosage. I use a 1/2 cup+ for about 18 oz of water. Believe me the stuff works. Been using for 5-6 yrs. Fruit flavor will grow on you. Nick

IP: Logged

posted Jun-11-2007 02:49 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-11-2007 03:55 PM            

Basically, frozen fruit of choice, some OJ, endurox, and toss in some ice. Hit the blender....it's delicious.

[This message has been edited by Docster (edited Jun-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-11-2007 04:30 PM               

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Jun-12-2007 03:53 PM               

Back in my Ultra days I would run 27 minutes and WALK 3 minutes. That worked to about 6 miles or a little more per hour. Back in the day I found it easier to run for 4-6 hours and be less concerned about miles--thought my sickness would have me validate the miles by riding my bike on my courses. About 10 yrs ago I started running 10 min then walking 1 minute. A great way to buid a long run. With me running easier than I have ever run, I find no need to walk during my longer runs. Furthest so far has been 15 miles.

I have coached and assisted a lot of runners over the years. My mantra was to get them to slow down. Kind of ironic that I needed to slow down some myself. Again, Jesse and other frequent posters on this thread I want to thank you. Who said you can't teach an old horse new tricks? Nick

IP: Logged

posted Jun-12-2007 05:34 PM               

I did, but that was when I was trying to teach Butterscotch to deal cards for our weekly poker game.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-12-2007 06:52 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Jun-12-2007 06:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
Do you guys do a Max HR test or just go by the age calculations? If you do a test, how do you do it?

---

I use Maffetone/Mark Allen's approach, so I use the age calculations.
If you read the Hadd article, it describes a max heart rate test and
suggestions on how to use your max heart rate to determine your
aerobic zone. It's crude, however, because max heart rate doesn't
take into account fitness, anaerobic threshold, or where one's
aerobic limits are.

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Jun-12-2007 07:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I use Maffetone/Mark Allen's approach, so I use the age calculations.
If you read the Hadd article, it describes a max heart rate test and
suggestions on how to use your max heart rate to determine your
aerobic zone. It's crude, however, because max heart rate doesn't
take into account fitness, anaerobic threshold, or where one's
aerobic limits are.

---

I read the HADD article about max hr test but I haven't done it yet. Are anaerobic threshold, and aerobic limits subjective or are there tests for them also?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-12-2007 08:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpenn40:
I read the HADD article about max hr test but I haven't done it yet. Are anaerobic threshold, and aerobic limits subjective or are there tests for them also?

---

No, they are not subjective at all, although there are varying definitions.
If you want to follow a training approach as indicated by Mark Allen,
Maffetone, Mittleman, and to some extent, Hadd, then the anaerobic
threshold is the point where the respiratory quotient just reaches
unity, i.e., 100% glycogen is used for fuel. This has very little to do
with max heart rate.

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 07:29 AM            

Thanks,, again.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 08:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I use Maffetone/Mark Allen's approach, so I use the age calculations.
If you read the Hadd article, it describes a max heart rate test and
suggestions on how to use your max heart rate to determine your
aerobic zone. It's crude, however, because max heart rate doesn't
take into account fitness, anaerobic threshold, or where one's
aerobic limits are.

---

I don't understand why an approach that uses max heart rate to determine training paces "doesn't take into account fitness" while it is believed that a method like Maffetone's does.

Is the fact that Maffetone uses a +/- 5 bpm reward/penalty where it is believed that fitness is taken into account?

Thanks.

(I'm in my 7th week of Maffetone training.)

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 12:05 PM            

MAF=129 (180-46)-5 (for injury in last year)

pace...aveHR
12:38 103
12:23 114
12:21 118
13:00 119
13:30 122 (.86m hill)
11:43 123 (downhill)
11:58 123
12:02 125
12:01 127
12:01 128

Average pace: 12:22

I was mildly, yet almost intangibly, pleased with the even pace the last 4 miles. I have a lot of work to do.

--Jimmy
Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 01:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who Dey:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leitnerj:
[b] I use Maffetone/Mark Allen's approach, so I use the age calculations.
If you read the Hadd article, it describes a max heart rate test and
suggestions on how to use your max heart rate to determine your
aerobic zone. It's crude, however, because max heart rate doesn't
take into account fitness, anaerobic threshold, or where one's
aerobic limits are.

---

I don't understand why an approach that uses max heart rate to determine training paces "doesn't take into account fitness" while it is believed that a method like Maffetone's does.

Is the fact that Maffetone uses a +/- 5 bpm reward/penalty where it is believed that fitness is taken into account?

Thanks.

(I'm in my 7th week of Maffetone training.)[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know if Maffetone takes fitness into account, but max HR is essentially a static number. It can change slightly with age, but generally you can't make it go up or down depending on how fit you are (maybe very slightly). If you want an "approach" that takes fitness into account, you can use methods that include your resting HR, which will go down with training. The Karvonen formula is one example. http://www.radix.net/%7Ebobg/run/hr.html.

Thus, for me, 70% max HR is either 118 using standard math, or 130 using the Karvonen formula. By comparison, my MAF # is 143 (too fast) and Hadd recommends an "easy" pace of 118-27 bpm.

None of these formulae t tell you your anaerobic threshold or aerobic limits. That's something that you just figure out over time.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-13-2007 02:37 PM               

I understand where you're coming from. Here's my opinion for what it's worth. Running as a % of max HR is not as valuable as other methods for the reason Jesse mentions. If two people decide to run at 70% of their max HR, the first person might be in tremendous shape and be running at 80% of their aerobic threshold, while the second person might be a new runner and could be running at 95% of their aerobic threshold. These two individuals with the same max HR and the same training HR appear to be training identically...in reality they are training in very different ways.

With that said, I'm a person that doesn't believe the Maff formula does a good job of defining a training HR for most people. In my opinion, sorry Jesse, Maff's formula is as arbitrary as using max HR. What Maff WILL do for almost everybody, is get them to slow the hell down. Using the maff formula doesn't bring everybody to their ideal training HR most likely, but it almost universally slows people down, which is what many people need...depending on their running goals and aspirations.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything other than my own body, but after researching many methods I settled on using 70% of max HR for a majority of my training miles and mixing higher intensity work for about 10%. It's very possible that as my condition has improved, by AT has improved as well and I could be getting better results with a different training HR. Maybe that's another experiment, that's what I love about this stuff.

Ideally everybody could walk into their neighborhood laboratory and have a VO2max test and blood lactate testing done on a quarterly basis. If this were the case we wouldn't have anything to discuss and/or argue about on this forum...what fun would that be?

------------------
My Profile

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
http://www.hrmarathontraining.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged