HR training - How slow is too slow?

grenage wrote:

I've been upping my running and started trying to focus on endurance a little more - specifically heart rate (chest monitor).

My max HR is around 190 so I've been trying out some 5k runs at 130 or below - but the pace, oh the pace. 7:30 m/km (12m/m) is about the max average I can manage without going over the threshold; I could probably walk faster.

Is there a point at which you just have to disregard it and accept a higher HR?

So basically what you're saying is that you're like super slow and you need people here to come in and tell you that if you dig deep you can really pull out a 201 heart rate max PR?

And then you leave out important details like a game plan. What you're actually trying to specifically accomplish. And etc..

So in reality I don't think anyone here can give you a logical explanation to your illogical problem.

And yeah based on all of this, everyone here is going to have to say that your max HR is now 291.13. Because that 130 was like so easy for you. Yay.

No I came here to ask for advice on training by heart rate and received it. I'm just trying to get better at running.

I don't think there was an illogical problem either, but you do you.

It's nearly impossible to know your max heart rate.

For exemple, my garmin watch can give me very different heart rate.

Sometimes it can jump over 180 in a moderately hard run, and stay as low as 170 during a mile at full effort. Sometime it register a peak at 195 and even a few over 200.

You won't improve if you run a 7:30/km. Don't watch your heart rate. 130 is absurdly low.

If you run the 5k at 23 minutes, never run slower than 6:15/km when you run easy.

grenage wrote:

John_James_413 wrote:

So basically what you're saying is that you're like super slow and you need people here to come in and tell you that if you dig deep you can really pull out a 201 heart rate max PR?

And then you leave out important details like a game plan. What you're actually trying to specifically accomplish. And etc..

So in reality I don't think anyone here can give you a logical explanation to your illogical problem.

And yeah based on all of this, everyone here is going to have to say that your max HR is now 291.13. Because that 130 was like so easy for you. Yay.

No I came here to ask for advice on training by heart rate and received it. I'm just trying to get better at running.

I don't think there was an illogical problem either, but you do you.

Ok well you just said that you could probably walk faster. So then why not just walk faster then since you probably could.

And are you also " just" trying to be good at asking questions that you probably already know the answer to?

grenage wrote:

I'm nearly 40 so I was pleased with 190. Perhaps I'll try and dedicate a morning session to trying to get it to its max.

I have never had the patience/discipline to try it, but there is a training method called the MAF Method (developed by Phil Maffetone) . Almost all training is done at 180 beats per minute minus your age, so for you, it would be 140 beats per minute. From what I have read/watched/listened, most people have to run a slow (for them) pace at the beginning and then the pace eventually gets quicker at the same heartrate because of aerobic development.

This youtube channel has a lot of interviews with people that have tried it with good results:

Poster asks valid training question, is getting help and you feel the need to chime in with this nonsense? Waste your time somewhere else.

Thanks Leston and Ackley.

I'll keep it simple for a few months and get the miles in at a sensible pace. Running quicker feels more productive, but I didn't want to miss out on improving the base at slower speeds. Probably overthinking it!

grenage wrote:

Thanks Leston and Ackley.

I'll keep it simple for a few months and get the miles in at a sensible pace. Running quicker feels more productive, but I didn't want to miss out on improving the base at slower speeds. Probably overthinking it!

It is not a problem to build base at 80% or more of your HRmax, problem is a time... you need a thousand hours to build aerobic base... your heart does not give a sh@t if the intensity 65% or 85% matter is time... but your muscles fatigued...

so that is why all runners run bulk of the easy miles at pace 70-80% very simple. This is physiologically proven range. Why don't you use experience of others and try to create bicycle :))))

grenage wrote:

My max HR is around 190 so I've been trying out some 5k runs at 130 or below - but the pace, oh the pace. 7:30 m/km (12m/m) is about the max average I can manage without going over the threshold; I could probably walk faster.

Is there a point at which you just have to disregard it and accept a higher HR?

I did base building two years back at 120-130 (max 187). It initially was very slow, like 8:00 m/km but after 2/3 months I was running 6:10 m/km at those HRs. So it works, but there are probably better ways to do things.

These days I prefer to do easy runs somewhere in the 130s at just over 5 m/km and keep the super low HR work for recovery work.

The original question is hard to answer. The rate is the point at which your heart rate maxes out in terms of stroke volume, which was believed to be 60% of max HR (many people say 120bpm but that can vary). This has a large standard deviation.

Truth is that value is difficult to measure. 65%HRmax is a safe bet, and 70% would be an even better minimum.

On the other end, the upper level of effective aerobic training would correspond to 1.5-2.0mmol blood La. 75 maxHR is a great starting point, but it can vary from 65-85% (in very well trained). Most people do not have the patience to develop their low end aerobic system, so the first threshold tends to be very low on that spectrum, and corresponding fibers tend to suck at energy production. Even for some 16, 17 min 5k runners. This point is a noticeable ventilatory threshold, or a point where your breathing changes. It is about 30bpm below anaerobic threshold, which you can get from a 15k to 10 miler or 50-60 min TT (painful). Or 95% of 10k average HR.

Max HR is unfortunately not that effective. As you train, both thresholds will shift throughout the season. The best was is to develop feel for these two thresholds, and train under/ around/ over them accordingly. This way as your AerT shifts from 130bpm to 135 to 140 and so on throughout months, you can just adjust your effort by feel.

It's always better to err on the low side if you are unsure. For instance doing easy runs under what you estimate is AerT, and doing hard/long sessions just under estimated AT, and doing "all-out" slightly below 100% so that you don't get injured. This will stave off burnout and allow your body to get the most from it's hard work.

LestonM wrote:

It's nearly impossible to know your max heart rate.

For exemple, my garmin watch can give me very different heart rate.

Sometimes it can jump over 180 in a moderately hard run, and stay as low as 170 during a mile at full effort. Sometime it register a peak at 195 and even a few over 200.

You won't improve if you run a 7:30/km. Don't watch your heart rate. 130 is absurdly low.

If you run the 5k at 23 minutes, never run slower than 6:15/km when you run easy.

How has this advice worked out for you? By the sounds of it you should be receiving advice, not dishing it.

Everyone is an individual. 130 may be absurdly slow to you, but it may be appropriate for someone else. It may be too high for someone else. Humans don't all fit into the same calculator.

Good luck OP!

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

This ^

Use the Karvonen HRR formula. Your beneficial aerobic efforts should fall in the 70-75% range. Using HRR (assuming a RHR of 50), you should be doing these efforts at 148-155 bpm. Recovery runs in the 60-65% range would be done at 134-141 bpm.

This. My MHR and RHR were in these ranges when I was distance training years ago and these zones were about right for me.

The OP should probably set his HRM to alert when his HR goes above, say, 142, for his recovery runs and see how that feels.

Ackley wrote:

grenage wrote:

I'm nearly 40 so I was pleased with 190. Perhaps I'll try and dedicate a morning session to trying to get it to its max.

I have never had the patience/discipline to try it, but there is a training method called the MAF Method (developed by Phil Maffetone) . Almost all training is done at 180 beats per minute minus your age, so for you, it would be 140 beats per minute. From what I have read/watched/listened, most people have to run a slow (for them) pace at the beginning and then the pace eventually gets quicker at the same heartrate because of aerobic development.

This youtube channel has a lot of interviews with people that have tried it with good results:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhJtQYs3Eta6NlaNNvstbQ

I was coached by Phil for a year. All I can say is that the calculator does work for some, but was way off for me. As a triathlete, I did most of my running at 155bpm, which started at 8:00/mile quickly down to ~6:30/mile eventually down toward 6:00. Too bad that was closer to my AT than AerT, and it did not end well. Turned out I was just doing black hole training 100% of the time. It does work for some people. Mark Allen would do a patience phase early in his season, for 3-6 months under his MAF HR. Only difference is, the calculator correctly predicted his AerT, so it worked.

He also heavily preaches the high fat diet, which is a backbone of the aerobic training by increasing metabolic efficiency. Also not something I am a fan of. It's a great way to create an eating disorder.

Thank you guys, I appreciate the input and will take it on board - starting tomorrow. :)

Ackley wrote:

grenage wrote:

I'm nearly 40 so I was pleased with 190. Perhaps I'll try and dedicate a morning session to trying to get it to its max.

I have never had the patience/discipline to try it, but there is a training method called the MAF Method (developed by Phil Maffetone) . Almost all training is done at 180 beats per minute minus your age, so for you, it would be 140 beats per minute. From what I have read/watched/listened, most people have to run a slow (for them) pace at the beginning and then the pace eventually gets quicker at the same heartrate because of aerobic development.

This youtube channel has a lot of interviews with people that have tried it with good results:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhJtQYs3Eta6NlaNNvstbQ

This guy marathon PB was back in 2015. Six years later and no improvements so no it doesn't work.

PBs aside, I can’t take anyone seriously who bases max heart rate (or a derivative of it) off a number and someone’s age. It doesn’t work that way.

Cheers guys. I changed to HRR zones and kept my recent runs in the mid 140s, which was still comfortable and much quicker.

Ackley wrote:

grenage wrote:

I'm nearly 40 so I was pleased with 190. Perhaps I'll try and dedicate a morning session to trying to get it to its max.

I have never had the patience/discipline to try it, but there is a training method called the MAF Method (developed by Phil Maffetone) .

And I think MAF is overly abundant horse-hockey spin on proper heart rate training covered in the scientific literature. Yet people seemingly make a successful career out of it spoon feeding that to the masses . Suit yourself, if that's what you want to do.

grenage wrote:

I've been upping my running and started trying to focus on endurance a little more - specifically heart rate (chest monitor).

My max HR is around 190 so I've been trying out some 5k runs at 130 or below - but the pace, oh the pace. 7:30 m/km (12m/m) is about the max average I can manage without going over the threshold; I could probably walk faster.

Is there a point at which you just have to disregard it and accept a higher HR?

You have just found out Maffetone training is BS