Use of heart rate in excercise

breadmonkey

I started running at the turn of the new year and also got a heart rate monitor recently. My goal here is to improve my cardiovascular and respitory systems to the point that I can run 20km. I'm also a bit overweight and need to lose at least 8kg or so. Male, 27, 80kg, 1.78m.

I used the HRM there at the weekend and found that I was going at about 165 when on the flat and up to as much as 180 at the top of long (but not massively steep) inclines. Overall I'd say I was at 165 for about 60 mins and 170-180 for about 15 mins.

I've been searching around a bit today and it seems from the various charts that I'm running in the "anaerobic" zone. Does this mean that I'm not actually gaining the benefits of running at a slower pace in the "cardio" or "fat-burning" zones? Am I also burning muscle rather than fat with this sort of excercise? I haven't lost any weight at all despite reducing my calorie intake to a target of 1700/day in conjunction with the excercise.

I realise that I'm quite ignorant here but there seems to be a lot of myths and misinformation surrounding this heart rate business and I'm trying to get it straight for myself. (My original idea behing getting the HRM was so that I could try to excercise at a set heart rate range and hopfeully see my times to run 5k (for example) decrease with time).

Any input would be appreciated.

Hanley

Generally speaking, as far as I understand it, for maximum "aerobic" benefit and ventricular hypertrophy (ie how much your heart can pump in one go) you should stay in the 60-75% of MHR range (approx 130-150bpm) for 45-90 minutes.

There'll be beneficial adaptations doing what you're doing, but potentially not the sort that builds a big aerobic base like you describe.

I know my endurance was never better than when I was training sustained low level cardio for longer periods of time (that's not to say I was just running tho, it was also light intensity BJJ/pad work which kept my heart rate elevated at a consistent level around the time range above)

breadmonkey

Thanks for that.

I feel slightly snookered with this. I'm already running pretty slowly and that puts me above the 130 - 150 bpm you suggested. Perhaps it's a case of persevering and hoping to improve more slowly to the point where I can run at the same rate with a lower heart rate (as opposed to my initial thinking which was to run at the same heart rate and try to increase speed). Does that makes sense?

I suppose something must be working one way or another because there's no way I'd have been able to do 10k or even 5k a month ago.

BlueIsland

Hanley wrote: »

Generally speaking, as far as I understand it, for maximum "aerobic" benefit and ventricular hypertrophy (ie how much your heart can pump in one go) you should stay in the 60-75% of MHR range (approx 130-150bpm) for 45-90 minutes.

There'll be beneficial adaptations doing what you're doing, but potentially not the sort that builds a big aerobic base like you describe.

I know my endurance was never better than when I was training sustained low level cardio for longer periods of time (that's not to say I was just running tho, it was also light intensity BJJ/pad work which kept my heart rate elevated at a consistent level around the time range above)

Apologies OP for hijacking thread but this in bold is something I been thinking about lately. So many words bandied about its hard to get a grasp of.
Is the above, in bold, what is considered to be training aerobic capabilities? Im presuming the answer is Yes. Thats not really part I have "trouble" with.
What is the anaerobic equivalent style training? Is it above 75% of max?

The reason I am wondering is because I have been trying to explain to a few lads (including the team manager) why long distance style training is very little benefit to GAA players and I want to be able to explain myself fully. I just cant see the benefit of 25-30 minute runs for GAA lads and genuinely think it only teaches them how to run slow.

Hanley

BlueIsland wrote: »

Apologies OP for hijacking thread but this in bold is something I been thinking about lately. So many words bandied about its hard to get a grasp of.
Is the above, in bold, what is considered to be training aerobic capabilities? Im presuming the answer is Yes. Thats not really part I have "trouble" with.
What is the anaerobic equivalent style training? Is it above 75% of max?

The reason I am wondering is because I have been trying to explain to a few lads (including the team manager) why long distance style training is very little benefit to GAA players and I want to be able to explain myself fully. I just cant see the benefit of 25-30 minute runs for GAA lads and genuinely think it only teaches them how to run slow.

Well the manager's right...

Aerobic training's a huge benefit. The bigger your aerobic engine the longer you can stay away from fatigue by being anerobic, and recover faster from exertion.

LSD training still very much has a place.

ghogie91

OP I think your getting too technical with your HRM as I was guilty of aswell when I first got mine.

I wouldnt say you have gone without losing any weight at all? If this is so you are eating too much or eating too bad. There is no problem training in the anerobic (fitness) zone aswell as the fat burning zone.

If you run your hour keeping within the 70/80 or whatever your fat burning zone is to lose weight and I done the same exercise in the anerobic zone with you, I would destroy that 20km run before you would get near it.

You have to take into consideration the muscle you are building while running. If you are out plugging the roads with the steep to little inclines and the downhills to flats you have to think of the work your different types of muscles are getting.

Id say on closer inspection you have more toned thighs, calfs and arse!

You lose weight by working muscle groups, if you added a light weight session 2 to 3 times a week with compound lifts etc you might see better results.

The whole mentality of running in misconceived as you started running at the start of Jan, We havnt gotten to the start of Febuary yet, you will have to have patience to see results, all about consistency, come back to this thread after a consistent Feb and even march and you will be singing a different song.

I would advise you to educate yourself until its spilling out your ears, not to say you dont know anything, but to increase motivation and willingness to ate the road out of it!

Good luck with your running and dont get pissed off on a plateau, when it passes you will enjoy it way more and find excuses to get out on the road!

Arthurdaly

The lower hr zones are required in order to build endurance, and common training programes recommend that you work on endurance during the off season and gradually introduce higher intensity sessions as the racing season approaches.

Once you have established a good aerobic base then you want to start introducing threshold intervals and increasing the time spent at threshold over a period of time. Close to the race/event season then start introducing anerobic intervals and the very high intensity sprint efforts. It's not advisable to dive into anerobic efforts without a good base or having done some lactate threshold work.

Goals and distance you intend running are a factor also.

Training in zones will mean you build up endurance and strength and lessen the chance of injury or burn out.

For example your lactate threshold might be 170, constantly training at 165+ for every run is not advisable. Depending on the time of year you variety, long and slow sessions, short and fast. Google training periodisation.

BlueIsland

Hanley wrote: »

Well the manager's right...

Aerobic training's a huge benefit. The bigger your aerobic engine the longer you can stay away from fatigue by being anerobic, and recover faster from exertion.

LSD training still very much has a place.

Thanks for that!
So many conflicting views. I just thought they were two different systems in play/ independent of each other. So a full forwards ability to say consistently sprint 20m to 30 m was based on your anaerobic system whilst a midfielder jogging up and down the field all days needs his aerobic system more.

Suppose a bigger issue is sacraficing actual football for long distance stuff.

breadmonkey

OP I think your getting too technical with your HRM as I was guilty of aswell when I first got mine.

Yes definitely. I'm trying to educate myself a bit so I'm better able to interpret what it tells me and use it as more of a guide.

I wouldnt say you have gone without losing any weight at all? If this is so you are eating too much or eating too bad. There is no problem training in the anerobic (fitness) zone aswell as the fat burning zone.

Yeah haven't really lost anything as far as I can tell. I think I've been pretty good on the eating front, having cut out junk food (there have been a couple of slips) and generally taking in less calories. You mentioned later about weights sessions which I have been doing as well. Basically I've been doing one day legs & core, one day upper body, two days running (about 10km total) per week. Perhaps it's all this muscle I'm building keeping the weight constant :pac:

If you run your hour keeping within the 70/80 or whatever your fat burning zone is to lose weight and I done the same exercise in the anerobic zone with you, I would destroy that 20km run before you would get near it.

So is that to say that the overall benefit from excercising in the anaerobic zone is greater?! This is what's really confusing me!

Good luck with your running and dont get pissed off on a plateau, when it passes you will enjoy it way more and find excuses to get out on the road

Thanks! Last weekend I ran 10.5km which is the most ever for me and honestly felt like I could have gone on for ages at a steady rate (i.e. not running uphill!). Then when I read stuff suggesting I wasn't really increasing aerobic fitness I got really confused as I do feel like I'm improving rapidly, rather than being stuck on a plateau.

For example your lactate threshold might be 170, constantly training at 165+ for every run is not advisable. Depending on the time of year you variety, long and slow sessions, short and fast. Google training periodisation.

I'll read up and get back to you on that one, thanks.

Hanley

BlueIsland wrote: »

Thanks for that!
So many conflicting views. I just thought they were two different systems in play/ independent of each other. So a full forwards ability to say consistently sprint 20m to 30 m was based on your anaerobic system whilst a midfielder jogging up and down the field all days needs his aerobic system more.

Suppose a bigger issue is sacraficing actual football for long distance stuff.

There shouldn't be any conflicting views.

Repeated sprints are primarily anerobic, but you recovery aerobically. The deeper your aerobic base, the faster you recover, the more efforts you can out put.

No energy system operates independently of the other either.

Read some of Joel Jamieson's stuff.

AntiVirus

Arthurdaly wrote: »

constantly training at 165+ for every run is not advisable.

Why?

I think for the past 3 years about 95%+ of my runs are 165+, the only time its not is if I'm running with my girlfrind. Run, gym, run, gym, etc... hasn't done me any harm at all

Arthurdaly

AntiVirus wrote: »

Why?

I think for the past 3 years about 95%+ of my runs are 165+, the only time its not is if I'm running with my girlfrind. Run, gym, run, gym, etc... hasn't done me any harm at all

I don't know your max hr or lactate threshold so 165 may actually be a very comfortable effort for you personally.

I was referring to someone with a lactate threshold of say 170 and constantly training at 165+.

Clearlier

Breadmonkey - This article is long but worth a read. It explains why you would train slowly to run faster. It also offers a (fairly crude) method of determining your maximum heart rate which is essential if you want to train by heart rate as the rules of thumb such as 220 - your age aren't worth actually using in real life (as my 5 year old would say) scenarios. One thought to keep in mind is that at this stage you want to focus on time on your feet and let the distance look after itself.

If running is something that you're interested in might I suggest that you head over to the Athletics/Running board? You'll find a range of people from total, total beginner to elite athlete, loads of resources in the stickies and plenty of friendly posters.

One thing that I have learned from this board is that diet is for losing weight and training is for fitness. For sure they are interrelated but if you recognise that a mile of running burns about 100 kcals then you'll realise that you need to run 35 miles in order to lose a pound of weight!

AntiVirus

Arthurdaly wrote: »

I don't know your max hr or lactate threshold so 165 may actually be a very comfortable effort for you personally.

I was referring to someone with a lactate threshold of say 170 and constantly training at 165+.

It would be wise of me then to learn what the lactate threshold means before commenting. I've no idea what mine is but yes I do feel comfortable running at that rate. I assumed wrongly that you where referring to anyone running at that rate :-)

Mellor

AntiVirus wrote: »

It would be wise of me then to learn what the lactate threshold means before commenting. I've no idea what mine is but yes I do feel comfortable running at that rate. I assumed wrongly that you where referring to anyone running at that rate :-)

It's the point at which lactate starts to accumulate, ie its being produced at a great rate than can be removed.

The threshold can be raised with the right training, but i'm not sure of the specifics.

Arthurdaly

AntiVirus wrote: »

It would be wise of me then to learn what the lactate threshold means before commenting. I've no idea what mine is but yes I do feel comfortable running at that rate. I assumed wrongly that you where referring to anyone running at that rate :-)

It's the point at which breathing becomes difficult and you generally feel uncomfortable, you would not be able to maintain a conversation at this pace. Training just below this has great benefits at the correct time of year.

You can get a lab test to determine your lactate threshold which normally costs about 100 euro. It's money we'll spent if you are serious about your training and wish to see the greatest gains from your training.

The LT varies between sports, running may be different to cycling.

It's tranformed my training from "I'm heading out for a run/cycle" to actually knowing what area I am working on.

Probably more useful for cycling than running but still has some merit.

BlueIsland

Hanley wrote: »

There shouldn't be any conflicting views.

Repeated sprints are primarily anerobic, but you recovery aerobically. The deeper your aerobic base, the faster you recover, the more efforts you can out put.

No energy system operates independently of the other either.

Read some of Joel Jamieson's stuff.

Makes sense.

I suppose my other issue is in regards to long distance training and cortisol levels. Would I be correct in saying long distance running increases stress level on body and therefore cortisol levels and then fat?

nice_guy80

BlueIsland wrote: »

Makes sense.

I suppose my other issue is in regards to long distance training and cortisol levels. Would I be correct in saying long distance running increases stress level on body and therefore cortisol levels and then fat?

cortisol doesn't make you fat

eating crap and no exercise does that

Clearlier

BlueIsland wrote: »

Makes sense.

I suppose my other issue is in regards to long distance training and cortisol levels. Would I be correct in saying long distance running increases stress level on body and therefore cortisol levels and then fat?

No.

Hanley

Clearlier wrote: »

No.

Yup. This.

It's not a concern. Strength train, eat great quality food, sleep enough and do a limited amount of LSD/LIT and you'll be fit, healthy and look awesome.

BlueIsland

nice_guy80 wrote: »

cortisol doesn't make you fat

eating crap and no exercise does that

I understand that 100%. I never said it was a sole cause!

BlueIsland

Hanley wrote: »

Yup. This.

It's not a concern. Strength train, eat great quality food, sleep enough and do a limited amount of LSD/LIT and you'll be fit, healthy and look awesome.

Yeh everything there is a given. I suppose Im more hungry to understand in laymans terms how different types of training effects body. Ill read up the guy you mentioned above.

BlueIsland

Clearlier wrote: »

No.

ok

metamorphosis

Arthurdaly wrote: »

I don't know your max hr or lactate threshold so 165 may actually be a very comfortable effort for you personally.

I was referring to someone with a lactate threshold of say 170 and constantly training at 165+.

Id also point out that nowhere has the OP stated that he has been tested for his ranges ... unless he has undertaken a Test whether a FTP test, LT test, estimated or otherwise, everything is merely conjecture. Following RPE maybe of more use to the OP and perhaps time to time for the moment, seeing average HR figure's popping up for PE and making small links

menoscemo

AntiVirus wrote: »

Why?

I think for the past 3 years about 95%+ of my runs are 165+, the only time its not is if I'm running with my girlfrind. Run, gym, run, gym, etc... hasn't done me any harm at all

While I have no idea of your Max HR, LT level etc, I can only comment that you are doing all your runs over the same distance and approximately at the same pace/HR.
While it might not have done you any harm, it is not an effective way to improve your running.
I suspect you are generally running most of your runs at close to your best effort? If so you would be much better served doing moe like the one on January 5th in order to improve your aerobic capacity.

Have you done any 'best effort' runs/Races/Time trials?

breadmonkey

I suspect you are generally running most of your runs at close to your best effort? If so you would be much better served doing moe like the one on January 5th in order to improve your aerobic capacity.

This is basically what I'm trying to understand. Could you elaborate on this?

menoscemo

breadmonkey wrote: »

This is basically what I'm trying to understand. Could you elaborate on this?

In order to improve your running (both in terms of speed and distance) the obvious way for improvement is to run more.
The more you run the more your body will adapt to running. This means not only that your form will improve but also that your bodies abaility to intake and utilize oxygen, clear and remove lactate etc will improve. Each run you do should have a particular purpose:

Want to build endurance and improve your aerobic capacity? Run long and slow.

Want to get faster? Run short bursts at faster than race effort

Want to Improve your bodies ability to clear lactic? Run at just below your 'Lactic threshold' (this is the point where the muscles produce lactic acid quicker than the body can clear it)-

Most likely most of the runs you are doing now are the third type, which while useful as a part of training, they are not helping you either improve your speed, endurance or Aerobic capabilities.

A typical runners week would consist of 3 main runs per week:
1. A 'Speed session'. (kind of like 'HIT' only longer intervals). Typically something like 10 x 400m or 6 x 800m with a minute or two rest/jogging between reps.
2. A tempo session. This is where you run at or Just below your Lactic threshold (LT) for a extended period of time. LT pace is typically a pace that a well trained runner could hold for an hour in race conditions. An Tempo run would consist of 20-30 minutes at LT with 20 minutes 'easy' either side.
3. A Long slow run (LSR) this is where you run for a further distance than usual but at a much slower speed. It helps improve endurance and aerobic capacity, in the long run it will ensure you can hold your fast pace for longer than before.

If someone was running 3 times per week the above would be a typical weekly programme. Serious runners will however normally run 6-7 times per week (elites would run 2-3 times per day) so they will normally include 3-4 easy days on top of the above. An easy day would be when you run at a slow pace (like in your long run) but for a shorter distance. An easy run should not only not exert the body but should help it actively recover from a tough run the day before.

The Problem with Speed and tempo session for a beginner is that they put a lot of strain on the body and leave you more prone to injury. If you follow the Atheltics/Running forum you will typically see logs of new runner where they jump straight into training at a high intensity and end up injured or burnt out. Running at a high tempo is also difficult and much less enjoyable than running 'easy'. Easy means that your HR is relatively low and you would be able to maintain a conversation while running (or answer the phone and not be noticeably out of breath).
The great thing about running easy is that it is very beneficial to improved running performace as it is building up your aerobic abilty while not putting your body under undue stress or risk of injury. Aerobic ability is actually the most important thing for a new runner over and above 'Speed' and ability to clear lactic acid as it will ultimately allow you to run faster and for longer. Running easy also allows you to run more as you are not overly fatigued after each workout.

Therefore my adice to you would be to learn to run at a low effort most of the time. Extend the length of one of your runs each week and make it your 'long run'. Add an extra run or two each week over time. You will typically find that your 'easy' pace becomes a little faster as the weeks progress but if you are curious to see your improvements then time a run over a set distance once every 3-4 weeks and give it your best effort. You will see that the above approach will do wonders for your speed and endurance.

Over time your body will get stronger and you can start introducing speed session and tempo runs into your training, but I wouldn't advise this until you are comfortably running 4-5 times per week over relatively decent distances.

Most of all you should enjoy your running.

Sorry for the rambling long post but like everything 'it's complcated' and I havent even covered a quarter of it. Other posters on the A/R forum (like clearlier) would be much more qualified than me to give you even more detailed answers.

Hanley

menoscemo wrote: »

In order to improve your running (both in terms of speed and distance) the obvious way for improvement is to run more.
The more you run the more your body will adapt to running. This means not only that your form will improve but also that your bodies abaility to intake and utilize oxygen, clear and remove lactate etc will improve. Each run you do should have a particular purpose:

Want to build endurance and improve your aerobic capacity? Run long and slow.

Want to get faster? Run short bursts at faster than race effort

Want to Improve your bodies ability to clear lactic? Run at just below your 'Lactic threshold' (this is the point where the muscles produce lactic acid quicker than the body can clear it)-

Most likely most of the runs you are doing now are the third type, which while useful as a part of training, they are not helping you either improve your speed, endurance or Aerobic capabilities.

A typical runners week would consist of 3 main runs per week:
1. A 'Speed session'. (kind of like 'HIT' only longer intervals). Typically something like 10 x 400m or 6 x 800m with a minute or two rest/jogging between reps.
2. A tempo session. This is where you run at or Just below your Lactic threshold (LT) for a extended period of time. LT pace is typically a pace that a well trained runner could hold for an hour in race conditions. An Tempo run would consist of 20-30 minutes at LT with 20 minutes 'easy' either side.
3. A Long slow run (LSR) this is where you run for a further distance than usual but at a much slower speed. It helps improve endurance and aerobic capacity, in the long run it will ensure you can hold your fast pace for longer than before.

If someone was running 3 times per week the above would be a typical weekly programme. Serious runners will however normally run 6-7 times per week (elites would run 2-3 times per day) so they will normally include 3-4 easy days on top of the above. An easy day would be when you run at a slow pace (like in your long run) but for a shorter distance. An easy run should not only not exert the body but should help it actively recover from a tough run the day before.

The Problem with Speed and tempo session for a beginner is that they put a lot of strain on the body and leave you more prone to injury. If you follow the Atheltics/Running forum you will typically see logs of new runner where they jump straight into training at a high intensity and end up injured or burnt out. Running at a high tempo is also difficult and much less enjoyable than running 'easy'. Easy means that your HR is relatively low and you would be able to maintain a conversation while running (or answer the phone and not be noticeably out of breath).
The great thing about running easy is that it is very beneficial to improved running performace as it is building up your aerobic abilty while not putting your body under undue stress or risk of injury. Aerobic ability is actually the most important thing for a new runner over and above 'Speed' and ability to clear lactic acid as it will ultimately allow you to run faster and for longer. Running easy also allows you to run more as you are not overly fatigued after each workout.

Therefore my adice to you would be to learn to run at a low effort most of the time. Extend the length of one of your runs each week and make it your 'long run'. Add an extra run or two each week over time. You will typically find that your 'easy' pace becomes a little faster as the weeks progress but if you are curious to see your improvements then time a run over a set distance once every 3-4 weeks and give it your best effort. You will see that the above approach will do wonders for your speed and endurance.

Over time your body will get stronger and you can start introducing speed session and tempo runs into your training, but I wouldn't advise this until you are comfortably running 4-5 times per week over relatively decent distances.

Most of all you should enjoy your running.

Sorry for the rambling long post but like everything 'it's complcated' and I havent even covered a quarter of it. Other posters on the A/R forum (like clearlier) would be much more qualified than me to give you even more detailed answers.

Absolutely excellent reply.

breadmonkey

menoscemo wrote: »

...

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply. I think I will take this to the A/R forum but before I do, I'd like to do one more run over the weekend and reassess my pace, heart rate etc.

From what I've observed to date, I would probably have to go so slowly to bring myself down to <70% of max that I might actually be walking. So if I am indeed running close to my lactic threshold, I actually need to pin it back to a walk to maximise aerobic improvement even though I could jog 10km with a higher heart rate and feel fine by the end?!

If I have been running at say 165bpm and have noticed significant imrovement in endurance over a month (I could probably just about do 3km when I began), is it within the realms of possibility that my lactic threshold is actually naturally quite high or something? Is there any way to safely measure that?

I know I keep referring to heart rate but I'm actually trying to get away from that by asking these questions!

menoscemo

breadmonkey wrote: »

If I have been running at say 165bpm and have noticed significant imrovement in endurance over a month (I could probably just about do 3km when I began), is it within the realms of possibility that my lactic threshold is actually naturally quite high or something? Is there any way to safely measure that?

I know I keep referring to heart rate but I'm actually trying to get away from that by asking these questions!

Of course it is.
It really depends on what your Maximum HR is. Most people assume their Max HR is 220-age (or some such formula) but in reality this is seldom the case. For example I know two guys of the same age, one has a Max HR of 165 and the other 210.

Just be honest with yourself with regards speed and effort. During your so called 'easy runs' ask yourself if you could hold a conversation or sing a song right now. If not, slow down. If slowing down means walking then fair enough it might be more beneficial to keep going (not always). Mix your runs up in terms of distance as well as speed. Just because you can run for 10k without stopping doesn't mean you have to do that every time. It is ok to run for 5k only at your 10k speed. Running 5k 3 times is better than running 10k once and probably less impactful on your body.

As your running improves remember it is ok to often run at your old pace even though it is much easier than it used to be.

AntiVirus

menoscemo wrote: »

While I have no idea of your Max HR, LT level etc, I can only comment that you are doing all your runs over the same distance and approximately at the same pace/HR.
While it might not have done you any harm, it is not an effective way to improve your running.
I suspect you are generally running most of your runs at close to your best effort? If so you would be much better served doing moe like the one on January 5th in order to improve your aerobic capacity.

Have you done any 'best effort' runs/Races/Time trials?

I don't have any kind of running plan at all, I just like going out to run. I find for me that pace is more fun than running at the slower pace. The other run is with the girlfriend, she prefers that pace.

I've never run in any races or time trials, to old for that now, I just run for enjoyment, but I appreciate the input :-)

2 Hell and Back

I went through my old garmin forerunner records, and this is what I found. I have actually since sold the device, but might buy it again.

The routes below are very hilly, lots of ascent and descent. My heart rate appears to be alot better at the first Log (may 2011).

Still, hope to improve on that time despite ageing.

Being doing high intensity circuit training stuff in the gym recently, 3x week; not sure how to combine that with trying to improve my jogging time on the route shown. I may order a new forerunner and wear the heart rate monitor during the gym session and see what it produces.


Log