Aerobic base

06-06-2019 9:56pm #1

Hi all

Been running now for over 6 months with a few breaks due to dodgey knee

Completed the cork half last Sunday. Problem is my heart rate is consistently high during runs. Like at 180 or higher average. Decided for the month of June I would focus on getting the average down so i am focusing on aerobic running keeping the average under 150. Below are my last few runs including some faster ones

May 26th 20.2km at 5:20min/km average HR 180
May 28th aerobic 5.13km at 6:19min/km average HR 149
May 29th 5km at 4:30min/km average HR 162
June 2nd cork half 21.22km at 5:15min/km average HR 179
June 4th aerobic 5km at 6:41min/km average HR 149
June 6th aerobic 7km at 7:05min/km average HR 148

My aerobic seems to be going backwards, would anyone have any suggestions on how to improve or what I need to do.

I would like to get my overall average to the 150s doing a 10km at around 5min/km

skyblue46 · 06-06-2019 11:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hi all

Been running now for over 6 months with a few breaks due to dodgey knee

Completed the cork half last Sunday. Problem is my heart rate is consistently high during runs. Like at 180 or higher average. Decided for the month of June I would focus on getting the average down so i am focusing on aerobic running keeping the average under 150. Below are my last few runs including some faster ones

May 26th 20.2km at 5:20min/km average HR 180
May 28th aerobic 5.13km at 6:19min/km average HR 149
May 29th 5km at 4:30min/km average HR 162
June 2nd cork half 21.22km at 5:15min/km average HR 179
June 4th aerobic 5km at 6:41min/km average HR 149
June 6th aerobic 7km at 7:05min/km average HR 148

My aerobic seems to be going backwards, would anyone have any suggestions on how to improve or what I need to do.

I would like to get my overall average to the 150s doing a 10km at around 5min/km

A bit of info needed. What's your max and resting HR? Is your HR monitor reliable? By the way doing a run just short of HM distance and pace a week before the event wasn't a great idea.

smurfsturf · 07-06-2019 8:08am

In addition to what skyblue said, how are you doing weight-wise? It takes a lot more effort carrying around excess weight so is there the opportunity to lose a few pounds too?

07-06-2019 9:10am

skyblue46 wrote: »

A bit of info needed. What's your max and resting HR? Is your HR monitor reliable? By the way doing a run just short of HM distance and pace a week before the event wasn't a great idea.

Hi Skyblue, my max normally can go to 190, resting is about 50. I'm 36, HR is reliable, have checked the heartrate on a few devices.

I was doing a few long distances the weeks leading up to the half, i ran the half without falling over the line.

Need to set up a training plan, but i want to focus on aerobic base first

07-06-2019 9:11am

smurfsturf wrote: »

In addition to what skyblue said, how are you doing weight-wise? It takes a lot more effort carrying around excess weight so is there the opportunity to lose a few pounds too?

Weightwise i could lose some, i am 36, about 82kg, height is 5 7 and about 20% body fat.

skyblue46 · 07-06-2019 9:20am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hi Skyblue, my max normally can go to 190, resting is about 50. I'm 36, HR is reliable, have checked the heartrate on a few devices.

I was doing a few long distances the weeks leading up to the half, i ran the half without falling over the line.

Need to set up a training plan, but i want to focus on aerobic base first

Well then it seems like you are on the right track on your last couple of runs. Based on your race time, age and running history you'd need to be keeping your HR under 140 to get the aerobic benefits you are looking to build. If that means kms in excess of 7 minutes then that's what is needed. Over time you will find you can run faster while staying below that HR.

TFBubendorfer · 07-06-2019 9:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

Hi Skyblue, my max normally can go to 190, resting is about 50. I'm 36, HR is reliable, have checked the heartrate on a few devices.

If your max HR is 190 then there is way you could have run a half marathon with a HR of 179. That is physiologically impossible. Even elite runner run a half at 88% of their max HR at best, which would be 167 in your case.

I have used HR monitors for well over 10 years and there are times when an otherwise reliable HR monitor shows wrong results, and the 180 and 179 readings you have posted are definitely wrong.

When using a chest strap, they tend to show HR around 180 or 200 if the contact area is dry or they start slipping. Wrist-based HR monitors are less reliable anyway and if the watch is not very snug on your arm the readings can be all over the place.

07-06-2019 10:28am

skyblue46 wrote: »

Well then it seems like you are on the right track on your last couple of runs. Based on your race time, age and running history you'd need to be keeping your HR under 140 to get the aerobic benefits you are looking to build. If that means kms in excess of 7 minutes then that's what is needed. Over time you will find you can run faster while staying below that HR.

Yeah was thinking it will be just a lot of patience and frustratingly slow speeds

07-06-2019 10:33am

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

If your max HR is 190 then there is way you could have run a half marathon with a HR of 179. That is physiologically impossible. Even elite runner run a half at 88% of their max HR at best, which would be 167 in your case.

I have used HR monitors for well over 10 years and there are times when an otherwise reliable HR monitor shows wrong results, and the 180 and 179 readings you have posted are definitely wrong.

When using a chest strap, they tend to show HR around 180 or 200 if the contact area is dry or they start slipping. Wrist-based HR monitors are less reliable anyway and if the watch is not very snug on your arm the readings can be all over the place.

I have tried it on a few devices where my friends were getting normal heart rates. when i am sitting down and relaxing my heartrate is way down to 50 and below.

I am 36 so what would my max be? I know on a serious intensity i go above 190, i only have the wrist based heart monitor. A Garmin vivoactive

conti · 07-06-2019 10:49am

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah was thinking it will be just a lot of patience and frustratingly slow speeds

Speaking anecdotally, this is working pretty well for me. I've tried and failed a couple of times over the years but I gave it another go starting in April. I stuck pretty close to MAF heart rate or below (144 in my case, I'm also 36) and sometimes added the 5.

For the first few weeks, running below 140bpm was physically impossible, eventually my legs adapted and I was doing 10k's where I was easily able to keep in the 130 zone for over half of the run. It meant slowing down a lot and walking in some cases but I'm noticing a difference for sure. May was the first ever month I managed to run over 500km, anytime I've tried before to consistently do 100K+ weeks I ended up getting injured. Running slower has allowed me to safely add volume, enjoy it more, and sleep better (I used to get awful insomnia). Whether or not this translates to better race times is something I'll find out over the summer.

TFBubendorfer · 07-06-2019 10:50am

Deleted User wrote: »

I have tried it on a few devices where my friends were getting normal heart rates. when i am sitting down and relaxing my heartrate is way down to 50 and below.

I am 36 so what would my max be? I know on a serious intensity i go above 190, i only have the wrist based heart monitor. A Garmin vivoactive

It may well be very accurate in most cases, especially at rest, but when running and bouncing around things get a lot more tricky.

Have a look at that review, if you have a spare hour. It's as in-depth as can be, and it explains a few potential issues with a device like that, especially with HR: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/05/garmin-vivoactivehr-review.html

As for your max HR, age is only very loosely related to it and you can't tell from your age alone what you actual max HR is. The only reliable way to find out is to do a max HR test, but obviously that would also assume that your HRM is working properly.

As for your initial question, I don't think your aerobic base is going backwards. I think you are getting wrong readings. But if you keep doing what you described, namely running at aerobic levels, and doing plenty of it, the results will show, though it may take time.

average_runner · 07-06-2019 11:16am

Are we saying the heart rate monitor on the garmins is not accurate?

I have the 935, max hr for me seems to be 185 going by sessions and 5k races.

I did a half at average 166.

I feel comfortable around 147-155 for my long runs and easy runs.

But for intervals I would struggle to hit a high heart rate

skyblue46 · 07-06-2019 11:23am

average_runner wrote: »

Are we saying the heart rate monitor on the garmins is not accurate?

I have the 935, max hr for me seems to be 185 going by sessions and 5k races.

I did a half at average 166.

I feel comfortable around 147-155 for my long runs and easy runs.

But for intervals I would struggle to hit a high heart rate

I use a chest strap and find that I get much fewer traces which I would reason to doubt than those who I see using optical HR monitors or watches.

As an aside, I can feel very comfortable running at a broad range of paces but the fact is that unless I keep my heart rate in the right range (in my case less than 133) then I am not getting the full aerobic benefit.

07-06-2019 12:37pm

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

It may well be very accurate in most cases, especially at rest, but when running and bouncing around things get a lot more tricky.

Have a look at that review, if you have a spare hour. It's as in-depth as can be, and it explains a few potential issues with a device like that, especially with HR: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/05/garmin-vivoactivehr-review.html

As for your max HR, age is only very loosely related to it and you can't tell from your age alone what you actual max HR is. The only reliable way to find out is to do a max HR test, but obviously that would also assume that your HRM is working properly.

As for your initial question, I don't think your aerobic base is going backwards. I think you are getting wrong readings. But if you keep doing what you described, namely running at aerobic levels, and doing plenty of it, the results will show, though it may take time.

Thanks i will read that over the weekend.

Cheers for the comments, been running fairly regular since around november and the heart rate is something that is bothering me.

07-06-2019 12:38pm

conti wrote: »

Speaking anecdotally, this is working pretty well for me. I've tried and failed a couple of times over the years but I gave it another go starting in April. I stuck pretty close to MAF heart rate or below (144 in my case, I'm also 36) and sometimes added the 5.

For the first few weeks, running below 140bpm was physically impossible, eventually my legs adapted and I was doing 10k's where I was easily able to keep in the 130 zone for over half of the run. It meant slowing down a lot and walking in some cases but I'm noticing a difference for sure. May was the first ever month I managed to run over 500km, anytime I've tried before to consistently do 100K+ weeks I ended up getting injured. Running slower has allowed me to safely add volume, enjoy it more, and sleep better (I used to get awful insomnia). Whether or not this translates to better race times is something I'll find out over the summer.

Cheers, hoping that would be the end result for me as well. I will increase the quantity of runs but keep the distance limited until i see improvements coming and then start increasing by 10% increments in distance.

Murph_D · 07-06-2019 5:30pm

average_runner wrote: »

Are we saying the heart rate monitor on the garmins is not accurate?

I have the 935, max hr for me seems to be 185 going by sessions and 5k races.

I did a half at average 166.

I feel comfortable around 147-155 for my long runs and easy runs.

But for intervals I would struggle to hit a high heart rate

Mine is certainly inaccurate. Garmin 235. I’ve hd better results wearing it on inside of wrist, fairly tight. But still hit and miss. Readings when worn the normal way are just plain wrong.

Re intervals - takes a while for HR to catch up with effort so even if device is working well, the average number is meaningless. The max HR is probably useful, but only on longer reps - 600 and above, I’d argue.

Casey78 · 07-06-2019 5:42pm

The HR monitor in most watches are fairly accurate when it comes to slow and steady runs. It's perfect for zone 2 runs and the like. Anything above that they usually struggle.
For someone doing zone 2 training they are grand.
Not a fan of the MAF method myself. It doesn't take into account a person's max hr or resting. Two 40 year olds for example would have to train under 140bpm. What though if one of those 40 year olds had a max HR of 205(which is what mine is) and the other of 185 for example . They would be both training at the same HR but would be in different "zones"
I prefer the HR Max and the Resting HR method, aka the Karvonen method.
This guy here gives a better explanation than I ever could on the flaws of the MAF method.
https://youtu.be/qICo11gdtuY
Like he says it will work for some but it's most likely a fluke of the numbers matching up than anything else.
The book Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot by John L. Parker Jr is a great resource for anyone wanting to do HR training.

12-06-2019 8:26am

Just wondering, should i introduce 1 or 2 fast runs during the week whilst doing the rest as aerobic

judeboy101 · 12-06-2019 8:35am

Deleted User wrote: »

Weightwise i could lose some, i am 36, about 82kg, height is 5 7 and about 20% body fat.

Your bmi is in the 28's and your in the 65 percentile for your age weight. Your muscles are writing cheques your heart can't cash. You have pace but your hr reflects having to carry extra mass. Have u done a 24hr bp thing. Sometimes theirs an underlying issue.

pconn062 · 12-06-2019 9:58am

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering, should i introduce 1 or 2 fast runs during the week whilst doing the rest as aerobic

Try and build up so that you are running 10k or so 5 days a week and 16-21k once a week. If you're not sure how accurate the HR monitor is for the minute then don't use it. A great saying I like is "easy is a feel, not a pace".

Start those runs at 9 min miling pace or 5.25-30 per k pace and keep it easy. What's easy? You should be under no pressure and be able to talk in full sentences. After you get up to 60-70k per week of easy running you can add in some "faster" work. Once a week do a 2-4 mile tempo run, start at your 1/2 pace of 5.15 per k or so and pick it up a bit until you are moving well by the end, but not in the red zone. Then another day of the week do some short reps with lots of recovery, 12-16x200m or 30 secs fast with 60-90 secs slow jog recovery. Do this for a few months and you will be flying.

So again, first build up the volume and then add that intensity.

Sample week:

Mon: Rest
Tues: 10k w/4-6k tempo in the middle
Wed: 10k easy
Thurs: 10k easy
Friday: 12-16x200m off 60-90 secs jog
Sat: 8-10k easy
Sun: 16-21k v. easy

Don't skip the build up part first though.

skyblue46 · 12-06-2019 10:10am

I think that suggesting a pace so close to his HM pace is a bit on the fast side for easy base building. Just wondering what the thinking behind that is?

pconn062 · 12-06-2019 10:28am

skyblue46 wrote: »

I think that suggesting a pace so close to his HM pace is a bit on the fast side for easy base building. Just wondering what the thinking behind that is?

Well I said that should be included after he had built up to 60k of mileage a week. Which will take some time. Also, I think there is a misnomer out there that base building should be easy? It shouldn't be, it's about building a strong aerobic base for the tougher training coming down the line. It shouldn't be jusy easy miles. Half marathon pace shouldn't be that taxing especially for such a short distance (4-6k). It is a largely aerobic pace that will add some much needed aerobic stimulus and lactate threwhold work to the base building.

skyblue46 · 12-06-2019 10:35am

pconn062 wrote: »

Well I said that should be included after he had built up to 60k of mileage a week. Which will take some time. Also, I think there is a misnomer out there that base building should be easy? It shouldn't be, it's about building a strong aerobic base for the tougher training coming down the line. It shouldn't be jusy easy miles. Half marathon pace shouldn't be that taxing especially for such a short distance (4-6k). It is a largely aerobic pace that will add some much needed aerobic stimulus and lactate threwhold work to the base building.

I get you up to a point. But it raises questions in my mind as to whether I'm doing things wrongly. By the plan above there will be 2 sessions, a long run and 3 days at or near HM pace. That would kill me! Haha. I do 2 sessions, a long run and 3 easy but easy is 90 secs/ 2 mins per mile slower than HM pace.

pconn062 · 12-06-2019 10:44am

skyblue46 wrote: »

I get you up to a point. But it raises questions in my mind as to whether I'm doing things wrongly. By the plan above there will be 2 sessions, a long run and 3 days at or near HM pace. That would kill me! Haha. I do 2 sessions, a long run and 3 easy but easy is 90 secs/ 2 mins per mile slower than HM pace.

The 3 runs aren't really at or near HM pace. The pace is just a suggestion, for slower runners there is less of a discrepency between their race and training times. You'll often find slower runners aiming for a 4hr marathon (9 min mile pace) running their long runs at 9.15-30 pace. But as I said, those easy days should be EASY! Pace is largely irrelavant- no heavy breathing, conversational pace. So really it's 3 easy jogs, a very easy slow long run, 1 run with some 1/2 marathon pace stuff (outside the lactate threshold so shouldn't be too hard) and a speed focused day or short reps with lots of recovery.

rom · 14-06-2019 12:08am

Having owned about 10 different Garmins at this stage the HR on them at high HR is very inaccurate. Easy runs it fine. I have 935xt and thinking of offloading it as it so bad. Incidentally https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/06/competitor-software-instability.html

If you use a polar watch for HR you will see a huge improvement. I have mounted my 935xt on my bike and it gives a 120 HR. Never knew my bike was alive. I remember using the Motorola active and it did the same. No HR data thats ok we will just show the last reading for a few mins.

14-06-2019 7:48am

Cheers for all the feedback. It is very helpful and i am trying to incorporate it.

Regarding the Garmin, i have noticed a seeming delay in the readings as when i go up hill my heartrate seems fine and its like the uphill heartrate only comes through on the downhill.

Just tested it there on the table and the heartrate was active for at least 30 seconds.

Think i may need to invest in a Polar if the heartrate is more accurate

Dudda · 14-06-2019 8:12am

Deleted User wrote: »

Cheers for all the feedback. It is very helpful and i am trying to incorporate it.

Regarding the Garmin, i have noticed a seeming delay in the readings as when i go up hill my heartrate seems fine and its like the uphill heartrate only comes through on the downhill.

Just tested it there on the table and the heartrate was active for at least 30 seconds.

Think i may need to invest in a Polar if the heartrate is more accurate

If its a wrist based Polar it will be the same. A watch HRM can only do so much. A chest strap will give a lot more accurate (but still not perfect) measurement which can connect to your garmin. This could be a better route.

rom · 14-06-2019 9:04am

Deleted User wrote: »

Cheers for all the feedback. It is very helpful and i am trying to incorporate it.

Regarding the Garmin, i have noticed a seeming delay in the readings as when i go up hill my heartrate seems fine and its like the uphill heartrate only comes through on the downhill.

Just tested it there on the table and the heartrate was active for at least 30 seconds.

Think i may need to invest in a Polar if the heartrate is more accurate

If its up to 2 mins thats normal and down to you and not the watch.

TFBubendorfer · 14-06-2019 9:09am

rom wrote: »

Having owned about 10 different Garmins at this stage the HR on them at high HR is very inaccurate. Easy runs it fine. I have 935xt and thinking of offloading it as it so bad. Incidentally https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/06/competitor-software-instability.html

If you use a polar watch for HR you will see a huge improvement. I have mounted my 935xt on my bike and it gives a 120 HR. Never knew my bike was alive. I remember using the Motorola active and it did the same. No HR data thats ok we will just show the last reading for a few mins.

I started using a Polar HR strap together with my Garmin watch a few years ago and noticed a remarkable increase in quality of the HR data. It's Garmin's chest strap that's the issue, not the watch itself (and the one Wahoo chest strap I once had was even more useless)

rom · 14-06-2019 3:12pm

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I started using a Polar HR strap together with my Garmin watch a few years ago and noticed a remarkable increase in quality of the HR data. It's Garmin's chest strap that's the issue, not the watch itself (and the one Wahoo chest strap I once had was even more useless)

Yes I did the same also. Just stopped using the strap as it gave me skin irritation. But with my Garmin 935xt the HR doesn't work often. I restart the watch and it's fine. I used to test for software bugs many years ago and Garmin does my head in.

TFBubendorfer · 15-06-2019 7:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Regarding the Garmin, i have noticed a seeming delay in the readings as when i go up hill my heartrate seems fine and its like the uphill heartrate only comes through on the downhill.

No, that's correct. There is always a delay in the HR reacting to changes in effort, both up and down. For example, it's perfectly normal when doing hill repeats that the HR will peak when you're already on the downhill.

Aerobic base

Comments