Easy run. 70-75%?

Dude, with such nebulous objectives, just go run then, and quit trying to split hairs on heart rate training.

mapa-turystyczna.pl

Szlak Wygasłych Wulkanów

Żółty szlak turystyczny Złotoryja – Legnickie Pole, dystans: 96.7 km.

Link:mapa-turystyczna.pl/trail/szlak-wygasl...

Objective

There's an old thread (probably 15 years ago) by a gentleman named Hadd who first introduced me to the ideas behind heart rate training. I suspect you might search this out as it is a long discussion that covers much of what you are looking for insight into.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you’re trying to say you want to run a hilly 60mile race as fast as possible, and you want to know how best to train by heart rate.

My advice still pretty much stands. That is all aerobic running. You will experience HR drift. Obviously, if you train running a bunch of miles slow and steady, you will reduce the chances of injury, while building your body/aerobic-engine, assuming you RECOVER.

Obviously, to have some success, the vast majority of your miles are going to be be <75% Max HR. On your long training runs, when the HR drift pegs up into the 80%’s, you want to slow down (and even take some walk breaks) to get it back down.

Some physiologists would argue training up in the 80%’s on those long runs is not maximizing the potential objectives of those training runs.

I couldn't find the original thread, however someone made a PDF of it that might interest you.

In answer to this specific question, “Should you force yourself to run below 75% HRmax or 75-80% will also be good?“

Physiologists would argue beyond 75% HRmax, one is incorporating some anaerobic glycolysis, besides mostly aerobic glycolysis that occurs below 75% HRmax. As you go lower in the aerobic zone, the fat/glycogen burn-ratio increases.

I meant as you go lower than 75%HRmax into the (mainly all) aerobic zone, the fat/glycogen burn-ratio increases.

What that theoretically means is that training at lower HR values, like around 65% HRmax, one could be burning mostly fat, and not have to rely so much on glucose replenishment, teaching your body to become a “better butter burner”, as the old saying goes. But they came up with that saying before the invention of GU’s, and even Lydiard advocated taking extra honey in the diet as necessary.

Per the theory, the key HR demarcation to be aware of, is some aerobic threshold beyond 70-75% HRmax, when the percentage of anaerobic glycolysis greatly increases, so that you would be expending some amount of oxygen just to handle muscle waste products from it, whereas, the only byproducts of aerobic glycolysis are CO2 and water.

It's not a race. It will be a lonely journey. I don't care about time, but about running freely and pleasantly (not walking).

Thank you for the PDF, but I will be looking on the forum to use the translation.

Physiologically, it is probably similar to the oxygen threshold?

So about 70% of HRmax is mainly the burning of Free Fatty Acids and at 80% of oxygen glycolysis?

If you mean “aerobic threshold” (the normal term I’m aware of ) for “oxygen threshold”, then yes, the same thing.

Aerobic—-with Oxygen

Anaerobic—-without Oxygen

No. Maybe the simplistic (approximate) numbers below make it clearer:

80%HRmax…Burning Free Fatty Acids and Glycogen but resulting in some Anaerobic Waste Products (that will require some oxygen to process and remove).

74%HRmax…Burning Free Fatty Acids and Glycogen but resulting mostly in only Aerobic Waste Products (I.e., CO2 and water).

65%HRmax…Burning mostly Free Fatty Acids (and much less Glycogen), resulting in Aerobic Waste Products.

65-70% is very slow. It is said that it works miracles after a few months 😀

It’s slow, but allows one to be out there (time on feet) much longer.

There isn’t a reason to think that HR zones below threshold have strict limits on how much you can run in them. The LT HR estimate is special because it represents the point or narrow regime where the slope of the HR/intensity curve increases the fastest.

The polarized training school of thought with suggests that you can get by with most of your mileage in base and a small fraction in workouts. The pyramidal training school of thought would suggest splitting it across base and aerobic power zones with more in the former. The difference isn’t that much and what works better for you may not be what works better for someone else for your stated goal of building an aerobic base.

In the Norwegian zone model we have 2 easy zones:

Zone 1: 60-72% HRmax, Zone 2: 73-82% HRmax; (below 60%Hrmax is recovery)

Stay in these zones 75-90% of your weekly endurance training time. For your event, i would suggest more so 85-90%. The rest 10-15% can and should be trained higher, otherwise you miss further aerobic adaptations.

Volume is the most important parameter for your event.

Runalyze shows that the last 2 months have been an average of 75% HRmax. Sometimes it's nice at 70% and sometimes at 77% and I don't slow down because it's a hard day. Sometimes I run 6'30 / km and sometimes 6'00 with the same heart rate. Besides, I don't live in the lowlands and I always have some small ascents.