Do I have to walk before I can run?

Steveire

Hi,

Having consumed too many Doner Kebabs and beers I've developed a pouch and decided to start running again. A few years ago I was quite fit and ran regularly (maybe at 20 - 22 years), but mostly the running was to compliment rowing and squash. I didn't run with a heart monitor before.

I've been running semi regularly over the last few months (once a week or so). I bought a heart monitor recently though to keep track of progress, and to make sure that my pace is suitable to losing weight. I tried it out today for the first time with some disappointing results. It beeped about me being above the HRmax range any time I tried to jog, so I ended up walking almost the whole time (1hour 18 mins).

The manual that came with the device gave the following formula for calcuating the HRmax:

210 - (age / 2) - (0.11 * weight in kg) + 4

At 26 years and about 88kg (I think), that gives me a rate of about 192.

The fat-burning range is also given as 55 - 70% of that, so 106 - 135.

I found that jogging at my usual pace on the flat would bring me up to 148 (77%) and about 155 (80.7%) uphill.
While fast-walking I was staying around 121.
I did some hill sprints afterward and reached 180 (93%).

It was quite boring to walk instead of jogging. Here's what I'd like to know:

Have others had the same experiences what 'starting again' and with a monitor? Should I just be patient and walk around the park instead of jogging until my heart rate can handle it?

Krusty_Clown

What have you got the HRMax set to?

RayCun

Is there any particular reason why you're training with a HRM? Doctor's advice? Because most people don't use them when they're starting out, just follow something like this couch to 5k programme to build up slowly

huskerdu

I agree with RayCun. Have you a medical reason for using one, or is it just to measure progress as you get fitter. If so, maybe you are over analysing things.

Steveire wrote: »

The fat-burning range is also given as 55 - 70% of that, so 106 - 135.

Who told you that you only burn fat when your heart rate is at a particular rate ?

You burn fat if you consume less calories than you use. Exercise ( any exercise) helps by burning some extra calories compared to a sedentary lifestyle. As it says in the small print in all the ads "Can help weight loss
as part of a calorie control diet".

Use a program as Ray suggested and the fitness will come. Most of
all, try to enjoy it.

Oryx

Put away the hrm for now and listen to your body. If you are able to run, then run. If you have to stop, then stop. The hrm will come into play later when youre working more on your fitness levels, imo. For now, just keep it simple, dont get caught up so much on what a display is telling you and do what you feel able for.

Steveire

> What have you got the HRMax set to?

192

I'm not watching the HRM on doctors advice, but after reading the info manual that came with the heart monitor watch. I've heard that when running, there is a pace at which you will burn fat/excercise your lungs (lower intesity, longer distance), and a faster pace at which you will work out muscles instead (higher intesity, shorter distance), so I want to stay in the first zone.

The percentages also come from the material that came with the watch.

I'll have a look at the couch to 5k stuff. The page linked to doesn't seem to say what the three workouts at the end are, and how to choose one. As they're identical up to week 5 I guess you can pick one then depending on how you're doing?

Thanks for the tips.

RayCun

Steveire wrote: »

I'll have a look at the couch to 5k stuff. The page linked to doesn't seem to say what the three workouts at the end are, and how to choose one. As they're identical up to week 5 I guess you can pick one then depending on how you're doing?

The three workouts are your three runs a week - workout 1 on Monday, 2 on Wed, 3 on Fri. They're the same until week 5

Krusty_Clown

Steveire wrote: »

> What have you got the HRMax set to?
192

If you're regularly going over 192, then there's something wrong. You're running too fast, or else there's something wrong with the heart rate monitor (or you need a medical check-up). You shouldn't be able to hit 192 unless you're at 'all out' effort. How do you feel (perceived effort) when it's going over 192? Could you try taking your pulse manually and compare the results against the HR monitor?

RayCun

My read is his max recorded heart rate was 180, doing hill sprints, but he was trying to stay in the fat-burning zone under 135.

Krusty_Clown

Steveire wrote: »

It beeped about me being above the HRmax range any time I tried to jog, so I ended up walking almost the whole time (1hour 18 mins).

.

RayCun

Steveire wrote: »

I found that jogging at my usual pace on the flat would bring me up to 148 (77%) ...
I've heard that when running, there is a pace at which you will burn fat/excercise your lungs (lower intesity, longer distance), and a faster pace at which you will work out muscles instead (higher intesity, shorter distance), so I want to stay in the first zone.

plodder

FWIW. The faster you go, the more carbohydrate you burn relative to fat. But, you'll still be burning the same amount of fat regardless and the faster you run, then the further you're likely to go, meaning you'll probably end up burning more fat.

It's a common misconception, that you have to walk or run slowly to burn fat. Having said that, for someone older or significantly over weight, then it probably is a good idea to build up to running by walking vigorously first.

Steveire

Steveire wrote:

It beeped about me being above the HRmax range any time I tried to jog, so I ended up walking almost the whole time (1hour 18 mins).

Oops. Caused confusion here. The highest I reached was 180. The range I was above was not above HRmax, but was above the 106-135 range.

Krusty_Clown

Steveire wrote: »

Oops. Caused confusion here. The highest I reached was 180. The range I was above was not above HRmax, but was above the 106-135 range.

Don't worry about going over 135. It's not a big deal (most of us would only have our HR under 135 rarely, e.g. recovery runs). Best thing to do is forget about the 'fat burning zone' and use a more realistic alarm trigger, in the 150-155 range.

Pherekydes

Your fat-burning zone would be about 130-150 BPM (55-70%). In this zone, a greater proportion of the calories you expend will come from fat.

Of course, the faster you run the more distance you will cover and the more calories you will burn, but you need more time to recover from these intense workouts. You will recover quicker from workouts in the fat-burning zone and these longer, slower workouts will also improve your aerobic capacity, which will allow you to add more intense workouts later.