Sorry, yes, some bio: I'm 34year old, male, 5'10'', 71kg. Only started running when i was 30, ran a few 10ks and a couple of HMs and a Marathon (brighton 2010). None of my times were particularly impressive and my "training" was very haphazard (basically running 5k about 3 times per week as fast as possible, and not really finding that I was getting any faster. PB 24:05).
For what it's worth PB for 10k = 0:55:00, HM = 2:00 and Marathon = 5:08
started running again in August with the intention of doing it "properly" this time, which means with consistency, and I think what needs most immediate attention is my aerobic fitness.
I like the idea of running around 70 - 75% MHR (which is what the HADD article seemed to suggest), and so at a comfortable pace below lactate threshold to ensure all the effort is aerobic and not anaerobic, which I guess is what most of my previous running has been, and why i'm still aerobically unfit.
However, assuming my MaxHR is "somewhere" in the region of 185-190 that would put a 70-70% run at 133-142 bpm, which I've recently demonstrated is almost impossible as my slowest possible jog still has my HR around 150. So I guess I'm asking whether continuing to run at this effort level, even given the higher than optimum HR, is going to encourage the same adaptations mentioned in the Hadd article? Will I develop aerobically from this incredibly slow jog that could still effectively be anaerobic? (having had no clinical LT test I can't say definitively what my LT is).
I should probably add that whilst the Hadd article seems to make sense, and he puts forward a good argument, his example (Joe) is in a different league to me, and his 145bpm run is still actually a run, wheras I don't seem to have a 145bpm option in my gears; it's either a brisk walk (100bpm) or an incredibly slow jog (150bpm).
Is this lack of a middle range evidence in itself of poor aerobic fitness? By just plugging away at the 150bpm runs will these come down to 140 and lower?
hope i'm explaining myself well, i appreciate it's a bit waffly
Just need a bit of background info to give a worthwhile response
sure, understood. I appreciate any suggestions you might have.
I don't think 193 is meant to be a substitute for your own MaxHR, that was simply Joe's maxHR in the example Hadd gave.
Also, even if mymax were 193, my problem is that I seem to be unable to train below 150bpm, so not sure if I'm actually training below the anaerobic threshold
andy, the question is raised several posts down in this link as well though it doesn't really get a satisfactory answer - the suggestion is that there could be a mis-print / transposition error in the original document
I pondered this briefly myself when i read it, couldn't think why at the time, but didn't dwell as it didn't affect me. He clearly says in the document there's an HRmax ceiling. Maybe above a certain HRmax, 70% is not squeezing the toothpaste enough and you have to go to a lower %. All rather confusing as there's no justification from HADD and a bit of a spanner in the works if your HR is significantly above 193 !!
Personally, i'd ignore this as it doesn't seem logical. If you take 70% of your true max and you can talk comfortably at that effort then that's what i'd use i think
so, leaving the maxHR issue to one side for a moment, what do you understand as being the impact of not being able to run below 150bpm? whatever my exact maxHR, that's likely to be above 70%, so does that mean i'm training below or above the LT?
Brian- cheers for that, i thought the first mile seemed quick for the HR that was showing. i would of gone round a 10mile loop if it wasn`t the marathon tomorrow, i have to say i wouldn`t describe
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |