Can stupid training lower your max HR?

Peter Guidry said:

Now after weeks of these antics. If I try a flat out
effort my max HR peaks at just over 160. So this is my
number one question. What is happening here? I haven't
really read any effect of training on max HR. (resting
is ~48 ).

It has been posted a few times. MHR often does drop with
training, especially heavy training. I've ovsered drops of
at least 10bpm.

Quoted message said:

The question is what to do now. If I go to 70% max HR
guidelines for building an aerobic base, What HR do I use
as my max in that formula.

Given that you've probably got some all-out efforts to base
your training on, you could use a "race" performance
instead. This online calc computes training paces as well as
recommended paces for intervals:

panix.comvdot.htmlOpen ↗

You may not know the exact distance for the course, but
that's OK -- just use a rough estimate of the distance (say
the course is 5 miles) and punch in your course PR. Then you
can pace yourself again (for that course) based on the same
estimate of the distance (the formulas are ultimately time-
based, so if you botch the distance estimate by a small
margin it doen't change any thing)

Quoted message said:

I mean 70% of 160 is 112. I don't think I can walk up a
gentle hill on a hike without hitting 130. I also don't
think I can jog at any pace with a HR under 130.

Wouldn't worry too much about this too much for now. Should
get better with training.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Peter Guidry said:

When it comes to fitness I have a type A mentality. No
pain, no gain. I am not a racer. I simply want to get fit.
But I am thinking my personality has me doing really
stupid things that really prevent sensible fitness gains.

Background: I don't do a lot during the winter.

Your actions don't match your words. If you want to get/stay
fit, you exercise year round. No excuses 😉

I am 38 YO. On a full

Quoted message said:

out effort in the spring my max HR will be around 180.
Unfortunately I usually start running by doing 7kms my
first day flat out (which is around 5min/km for me). I
cycle and go hiking with my friends and we tend to do
everything flat out. Hiking (ahem racing) uphill with
extra weight in packs for added challenge. Gasping all
the way.

Now after weeks of these antics. If I try a flat out
effort my max HR peaks at just over 160. So this is my
number one question. What is happening here?

possibly increased fitness or possibly too tired to get the
effort up? or at the least, doing too much too soon after
winter and your body's complaining. Not sure how long
"spring" is for you - whether this is a several month
effort or 2 wks.

I haven't really read any effect of training on max

Quoted message said:

HR. (resting is ~48 ).

google the group and you'll find some previous threads and I
think references to literature, iirc.

Quoted message said:

Writing this down, it is obvious that I have been
exercising like a moron, I could get away with this when
younger, but now I think it is time to get more sensible.

The question is what to do now. If I go to 70% max HR
guidelines for building an aerobic base, What HR do I use
as my max in that formula. I mean 70% of 160 is 112. I
don't think I can walk up a gentle hill on a hike without
hitting 130. I also don't think I can jog at any pace with
a HR under 130.

and 70% of 180 = 126, where you'd likely have the same
issues. You might want to look at protocols for testing max
hr. What you are achieving may be something lower.

If you don't know your true max hr, I've found a good
approximation is to find VT/LT (where you start gasping on a
hard effort = on your hikes where you're gasping, use the hr
where your conversations with your buddies start breaking up
- no longer at conversational pace), then divide by 0.9.
VT/LT is frequently around 90% max hr, although it can be
trained to a higher pct. This is just a first approximation,
but it works better than most formulas unless you use a
fairly complex one (it takes a couple lines, I've posted it
in the past and don't have time to look at the moment). The
complex one still has the limitations of the short ones but
it does seem to work across a larger population of people
since it takes fitness and training into account - but it
still doesn't work for some (looks very close for me). You
might want to base estimates on your perceived current
effort at the present, then retest again if you've backed
off and recovered a bit and see if your hr returns to where
it was. It could be a positive training effect but it could
also be an indication of being tired, at least that's my
experience. OTOH, I'm perceiving "spring" workouts of only
being at most a month (Alaska) so far this year - probably
not enough time for a positive training effect. You might be
somewhere where you've had 4 months of spring so far.

Just my $.02, worth exactly what you paid for it 😉

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

At least you push yourself which is more than I can say for
a lot of these bozos on this board who are afraid to do so.
On top of that you have gone to another stage than most of
the people on this board as you have surely become addicted
to the adrenaline rush that hard training can give and so
you push yourself like that all the time.

But for racing, it is the wrong attitude. You are not
training right to race. What you are doing is training to
train. That is a big mistake and can result in injury. The
object is to run faster in a race not to run faster on a
daily basis. The way you are training is going to limit
the times you can run in a race in a big way. It's the
same mistake I have seen made by a lot of potentially
great high school and college runners.

Now that said, even by doing what you have done, because
you are in shape and can tolerate a lot of physical
stress, it is very possible to quickly turn things
around in just a few weeks by switching over to proper
training and then watch your racing times skyrocket.

I did that to a runner once who had serious flaws in
his training only running a 4:36 mile each week. I
constantly proded him to change and he wouldn't until
he got so frustrated that he decided to give my
system a try. The very next week, one week into my
system and his last race of the college season, he
ran 4:13 which totally shocked him but which I still
found slow to his capabilities as he should have been
running under a 4 minute mile and would have surely
done so had he continued to run but he didn't.
Another great talent wasted by years of horrible
training and ignorant coaching.

[email hidden] (Peter Guidry) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

When it comes to fitness I have a type A mentality. No
pain, no gain. I am not a racer. I simply want to get fit.
But I am thinking my personality has me doing really
stupid things that really prevent sensible fitness gains.

Background: I don't do a lot during the winter. I am 38
YO. On a full out effort in the spring my max HR will be
around 180. Unfortunately I usually start running by
doing 7kms my first day flat out (which is around 5min/km
for me). I cycle and go hiking with my friends and we
tend to do everything flat out. Hiking (ahem racing)
uphill with extra weight in packs for added challenge.
Gasping all the way.

Now after weeks of these antics. If I try a flat out
effort my max HR peaks at just over 160. So this is my
number one question. What is happening here? I haven't
really read any effect of training on max HR. (resting
is ~48 ).

Writing this down, it is obvious that I have been
exercising like a moron, I could get away with this when
younger, but now I think it is time to get more sensible.

The question is what to do now. If I go to 70% max HR
guidelines for building an aerobic base, What HR do I use
as my max in that formula. I mean 70% of 160 is 112. I
don't think I can walk up a gentle hill on a hike without
hitting 130. I also don't think I can jog at any pace with
a HR under 130.

Thoughts.

Quoted message said:

Just my $.02, worth exactly what you paid for it 😉

Dot

I recently cut back and diversified elliptical/running
weights and I'm now achieving more. Hence I think of that as
a better goal. Used to push 180 bpm at age 43 and
overweight, not smart.

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Peter Guidry said:

Now after weeks of these antics. If I try a flat out
effort my max HR peaks at just over 160. So this is my
number one question. What is happening here? I haven't
really read any effect of training on max HR. (resting
is ~48 ).

It has been posted a few times. MHR often does drop with
training, especially heavy training. I've ovsered drops of
at least 10bpm.

Quoted message said:

The question is what to do now. If I go to 70% max HR
guidelines for building an aerobic base, What HR do I
use as my max in that formula.

Given that you've probably got some all-out efforts to
base your training on, you could use a "race" performance
instead. This online calc computes training paces as well
as recommended paces for intervals:

panix.comvdot.htmlOpen ↗

I tried this. But since I just run where-ever it is a lot
easier to go by HR. I might be able to say after I am done
what my pase was, but I don't have mile markers on my trail.

Quoted message said:

You may not know the exact distance for the course, but
that's OK -- just use a rough estimate of the distance
(say the course is 5 miles) and punch in your course PR.
Then you can pace yourself again (for that course) based
on the same estimate of the distance (the formulas are
ultimately time-based, so if you botch the distance
estimate by a small margin it doen't change any thing)

Quoted message said:

I mean 70% of 160 is 112. I don't think I can walk up a
gentle hill on a hike without hitting 130. I also don't
think I can jog at any pace with a HR under 130.

Wouldn't worry too much about this too much for now.
Should get better with training.

I guess I think my problem is I never build an aerobic base.
I always do my thing at 85-90% of max HR. I now wonder what
negative affects that might have.

I guess I will limit myself to 130 for a while and see what
happens. I'll walk if I have to.

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Peter Guidry said:

Now after weeks of these antics. If I try a flat out
effort my max HR peaks at just over 160. So this is my
number one question. What is happening here? I haven't
really read any effect of training on max HR. (resting
is ~48 ).

It has been posted a few times. MHR often does drop with
training, especially heavy training. I've ovsered drops of
at least 10bpm.

Quoted message said:

The question is what to do now. If I go to 70% max HR
guidelines for building an aerobic base, What HR do I
use as my max in that formula.

Given that you've probably got some all-out efforts to
base your training on, you could use a "race" performance
instead. This online calc computes training paces as well
as recommended paces for intervals:

panix.comvdot.htmlOpen ↗

I tried this. But since I just run where-ever it is a lot
easier to go by HR. I might be able to say after I am done
what my pase was, but I don't have mile markers on my trail.

Quoted message said:

You may not know the exact distance for the course, but
that's OK -- just use a rough estimate of the distance
(say the course is 5 miles) and punch in your course PR.
Then you can pace yourself again (for that course) based
on the same estimate of the distance (the formulas are
ultimately time-based, so if you botch the distance
estimate by a small margin it doen't change any thing)

Quoted message said:

I mean 70% of 160 is 112. I don't think I can walk up a
gentle hill on a hike without hitting 130. I also don't
think I can jog at any pace with a HR under 130.

Wouldn't worry too much about this too much for now.
Should get better with training.

I guess I think my problem is I never build an aerobic base.
I always do my thing at 85-90% of max HR. I now wonder what
negative affects that might have.

I guess I will limit myself to 130 for a while and see what
happens. I'll walk if I have to.

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Peter Guidry said:

When it comes to fitness I have a type A mentality. No
pain, no gain. I am not a racer. I simply want to get
fit. But I am thinking my personality has me doing
really stupid things that really prevent sensible
fitness gains.

Background: I don't do a lot during the winter.

Your actions don't match your words. If you want to
get/stay fit, you exercise year round. No excuses 😉

I do stuff year round, but it is pretty much weekend only in
winter. I don't like the gym and getting out weekdays in
winter is a drag. Since it is dark when I get home.

Quoted message said:

possibly increased fitness or possibly too tired to get
the effort up? or at the least, doing too much too soon
after winter and your body's complaining. Not sure how
long "spring" is for you - whether this is a several month
effort or 2 wks.

Ottawa Canada 6 weeks maybe. I only have a small speed
improvement. Just feels like I lost headroom. The last KM I
run screaming all out gasping for breath and my max only
hits 160. Then I feel like I am made of lead the rest of
the day. Feels like something is wrong, not like I am
making headway.

Quoted message said:

google the group and you'll find some previous threads and
I think references to literature, iirc.

I tried but when you try to google the topic you just get
generic hits about HR and training. I didn't find hits on
dropping max HR.

30.

Quoted message said:

and 70% of 180 = 126, where you'd likely have the same
issues. You might want to look at protocols for testing
max hr. What you are achieving may be something lower.

If you don't know your true max hr, I've found a good
approximation is to find VT/LT (where you start gasping on
a hard effort = on your hikes where you're gasping, use
the hr where your conversations with your buddies start
breaking up - no longer at conversational pace), then
divide by 0.9. VT/LT is frequently around 90% max hr,
although it can be

Frankly this always seemed extremely subjective to me. Since
breathing picks up in a continuim, and how much interuption
it places on conversation is also subjective.

Quoted message said:

trained to a higher pct. This is just a first
approximation, but it works better than most formulas
unless you use a fairly complex one (it takes a couple
lines, I've posted it in the past and don't have time
to look at the moment). The complex one still has the
limitations of the short ones but it does seem to work
across a larger population of people since it takes
fitness and training into account - but it still
doesn't work for some (looks very close for me). You
might want to base estimates on your perceived current
effort at the present, then retest again if you've
backed off and recovered a bit and see if your hr
returns to where it was.

My thoughts were this might be the effect of ZERO base
traing. Every run, every hike, every bike is pretty much
till I hit the wall, usually sort of racing with one of my
competitive buddies. I think I must depleted something or
strained something and it might be good to back off.

Reading different training stuff recently, it made it sound
like it should get easier to maintain a HR say 160 for
longer periods as you got aerobically stronger. I am finding
the opposite. I find it harder and harder to maintain that
rate. Now it might look like a good training effect but my
times are staying the same.

Say for example (compressed in time)

Week 1: 10K (50 minutes Avg HR 165) Week 3: 10K (50 minutes
Avg HR 160) Week 4: 10K (50 minutes Avg HR 155) week 6: 10k
(50 minutes Avg HR 150)

Now the problem is percieved effort is the same-Maximal. I
can't now run 160 HR at all and do a better pace. And even
with a 150HR average I still feel wiped out afterwards. I
only seem to be training(straining) my heart to beat slower
without performance benefit.

I think I will chuck all the complex stuff and just stick
with a (220-age)x.70 for a while or ~130(if going that slow
doesnt drive me nuts) and see what happens.

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Given that you've probably got some all-out efforts to
base your training on, you could use a "race" performance
instead. This online calc computes training paces as well
as recommended paces for intervals:

panix.comvdot.htmlOpen ↗

I tried this. But since I just run where-ever it is a lot
easier to go by HR. I might be able to say after I am
done what my pase was, but I don't have mile markers on
my trail.

Of course it's not practical to use this all the time
because you may not always run on measured courses or
courses for which you've performed an all-out run. It's more
useful as a starting point than anything else. Eventually,
you will simply develop good instincts for proper training
pace and at that stage you will neither require heart rate
monitors nor pace charts.

If you do go with the heart rate monitor approach, I think
it's unrealistic to insist on <70% until your fitness
improves. Try to keep it at about 80% (136), and stay under
85% (145) for now. What's may happen is that your heart rate
will get to 85% or so very easily, and much less easily
beyond that point (I've observed this when I was relatively
inexperienced as have some others)

During a long run, especially in the heat, your heart rate
may climb, but as long as it stays at around 80% for the
first two miles I wouldn't be too worried.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

You might not be hitting your real max because from day to
day hard efforts, you aren't recovering. If you took a day
or two off, then did an easy day, then went really hard the
next day, I bet you could see higher numbers.

But a high max heart rate, or low resting heart rate aren't
going to make you faster or stronger, so who gives a fart
about them. You are right, if you want to get better, stay
fitter year round and incorporate a lot more easy stuff.

Peter Guidry said:

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message news:<LNroc.84479$Xj6.1409152@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Quoted message said:

Peter Guidry said:

When it comes to fitness I have a type A mentality. No
pain, no gain. I am not a racer. I simply want to get
fit. But I am thinking my personality has me doing really
stupid things that really prevent sensible fitness gains.

Background: I don't do a lot during the winter.

Your actions don't match your words. If you want to
get/stay fit, you exercise year round. No excuses 😉

I do stuff year round, but it is pretty much weekend only
in winter. I don't like the gym and getting out weekdays
in winter is a drag. Since it is dark when I get home.

Just a thought. LED lights work wonders for running or
snowshoeing in dark. Mt biking and xc skiing might require a
brighter light or one of the heavy duty led's. Your
background sounds a little like some of my earlier
background - weekend warrior with an assortment of
activities with some running mid-week for maintenance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not sure how long "spring" is for you - whether this is a
several month effort or 2 wks.

Ottawa Canada 6 weeks maybe. I only have a small speed
improvement. Just feels like I lost headroom. The last KM
I run screaming all out gasping for breath and my max only
hits 160. Then I feel like I am made of lead the rest of
the day. Feels like something is wrong, not like I am
making headway.

I'm not sure that's enough time to see a positive training
benefit of reduced hr, probably not of the magnitude you're
reporting. I'm still guessing you're tired.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

google the group and you'll find some previous threads and
I think references to literature, iirc.

I tried but when you try to google the topic you just get
generic hits about HR and training. I didn't find hits on
dropping max HR.

Sorry, I was in a rush to leave for out-of-town meeting and
no time to respond until now.

"Heart Rate Monitor Strategies" from early Sep 2003. Look at
Sam's comments I googled on "max hr decrease author:Sam" (of
course, I knew approximately what key words to look for)
There's several other threads, but that was the one with
Sam's observations. You'll note that your decrease of about
20 bpm or 11% is outside the range for trained athletes -
based on the one reported research and Sam's observations
with the athletes he works with. The relatively short time
involved, the magnitude of your drop, and your comment about
tired/dead legs are what's suggesting tiredness to me (not a
doctor, just a beginner runner).

Quoted message said:

30.

Quoted message said:

and 70% of 180 = 126, where you'd likely have the same
issues. You might want to look at protocols for testing
max hr. What you are achieving may be something lower.

If you don't know your true max hr, I've found a good
approximation is to find VT/LT (where you start gasping on
a hard effort = on your hikes where you're gasping, use
the hr where your conversations with your buddies start
breaking up - no longer at conversational pace), then
divide by 0.9. VT/LT is frequently around 90% max hr,
although it can be

Frankly this always seemed extremely subjective to me.
Since breathing picks up in a continuim, and how much
interuption it places on conversation is also subjective.

It's possible yours might be a linear change or maybe try it
on a hill. Mine changes very abruptly if I go up a hill
hard. But I noticed the other day when doing fartleks on
dry, snowfree ground, with no footing issues ( a rarity for
me), it was a much smoother transition than what I'm used to
when running hills. With many people, like myself when
running 20-30% slope hills if I'm not careful, I can go from
conversational to unable to talk pretty quickly. (It's more
obvious on my mt bike when going uphill - generally 10-20%
slopes.) My body also starts complaining (early warning
indicator for me) just before I hit that breathless point.
That also means, the exact bpm may not be that accurate. But
the techniques I've used for estimating my max hr do seem to
result in training zones that have the same verbal
descriptors that I've seen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

trained to a higher pct. This is just a first
approximation, but it works better than most formulas
unless you use a fairly complex one (it takes a couple
lines, I've posted it in the past and don't have time to
look at the moment).

Check my post in "Max HRM calculation question" on
12/26/2003 for more background. Formula isn't quite as
complex as it looks when you recognize that several of the
terms drop out, depending on activity level.

HR max = 199.1 + 0.119 x AEF4 + 0.112 x AE + 6.28 x EF3
+ 3.485 x F2 +.468 - 0.0006 x A4 - 0.591 x A A = age; A4
=(age4)/1000; E = exercise type, if run = 1, if bike =
0; if sedentary F2 = 1, otherwise F2 = 0; if active F3 =
1. otherwise F3 = 0; if endurance trained F4 = 1,
otherwise F4 = 0

I'm guessing you might use F2=0, F3=1, F4=0, which will drop
out 2 of the terms.

Quoted message said:

My thoughts were this might be the effect of ZERO
base traing.

yep.

Quoted message said:

Every run, every hike, every bike is pretty much till I hit
the wall, usually sort of racing with one of my competitive
buddies. I think I must depleted something or strained
something and it might be good to back off.

yep.

Quoted message said:

Reading different training stuff recently, it made it
sound like it should get easier to maintain a HR say 160
for longer periods as you got aerobically stronger.

yep.

Quoted message said:

I am finding the opposite. I find it harder and harder to
maintain that rate. Now it might look like a good training
effect but my times are staying the same.

Say for example (compressed in time)

Week 1: 10K (50 minutes Avg HR 165) Week 3: 10K (50
minutes Avg HR 160) Week 4: 10K (50 minutes Avg HR 155)
week 6: 10k (50 minutes Avg HR 150)

Now the problem is percieved effort is the same-Maximal.
I can't now run 160 HR at all and do a better pace. And
even with a 150HR average I still feel wiped out
afterwards. I only seem to be training(straining) my
heart to beat slower without performance benefit.

This post as well as your other followup posts suggests to
me that you're tired, but hey, I'm just a beginner. Most of
the time I have an avg hr that I hit for easy runs fairly
easily - can chat with passers by on the trail, etc. When
I'm tired (first back from a few months of field work or 3
wks of extended travel), my hr is generally about 5-6 bpm
lower than normal on those easy runs at my usual perceived
effort. After field season, it takes about 2 wks for me to
get back to more usual normal slow and hit my normal easy
hr. However, that's also made me wonder if my "easy" effort
might be too high. But it's the minimum effort I can do in
winter and not freeze to death when it's subzero F so
practicality over rules theory 😉

<from original post>

Quoted message said:

I am not a racer. I simply want to get fit.

IMHO, using hr or some measure of effort is a good way to
improve fitnesss in this situation since you're dealing with
multiple sports / activities, hills, trails, etc. You can
just go and not have to worry about wind, footing, etc
effects on speed.

As others have already pointed out, you might need to alter
the intensity and/or duration of workouts. Your body usually
needs some easier days to recover and build strength.
Alternate hard / easy or at least don't do 2 hards back-to-
back until you've got more base. Your winter reduction would
be your rest cycle in a periodization plan, then gradually
build base (month or so? - just a shot in the dark) after
you pick up things in the spring - maybe during breakup 😉
Then pick up the effort on your activities. A recovery day
or so or even a week might not hurt in there somewhere. I
tend to work my hard / easy weeks in with snow conditions /
breakup so I can take advantage of good conditions and use
the soggy conditions as recovery before starting main
buildup toward early summer.

It also wouldn't surprise me if your original max hr
estimate of 180 may be low. If you haven't done much
training, most people can't reach it. Just a thought.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<slrnca5np0.pmc.

Quoted message said:

Of course it's not practical to use this all the time
because you may not always run on measured courses or
courses for which you've performed an all-out run. It's
more useful as a starting point than anything else.
Eventually, you will simply develop good instincts for
proper training pace and at that stage you will neither
require heart rate monitors nor pace charts.

If you do go with the heart rate monitor approach, I think
it's unrealistic to insist on <70% until your fitness
improves. Try to keep it at about 80% (136), and stay
under 85% (145) for now. What's may happen is that your
heart rate will get to 85% or so very easily, and much
less easily beyond that point (I've observed this when I
was relatively inexperienced as have some others)

During a long run, especially in the heat, your heart rate
may climb, but as long as it stays at around 80% for the
first two miles I wouldn't be too worried.

First non flat out run ever...

I kept my HR in near 130 for a route I did last saturday in
34 minutes (I think it is about 7kms). Today it took 42mins.
Very tough to hold a consistent slower pace and consistent
breathing. I assume that will come with practice. I think I
will keep it slow for the next two weeks, then allow myself
one day to run free.

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message news:<EBZoc.55227$Ut1.

Quoted message said:

Just a thought. LED lights work wonders for running or
snowshoeing in dark. Mt biking and xc skiing might require
a brighter light or one of the heavy duty led's. Your
background sounds a little like some of my earlier
background - weekend warrior with an assortment of
activities with some running mid-week for maintenance.

I have and LED headlamp which I have used for hiking/snow
shoeing. But I live 40km+ from any decent winter trails. So
in the winter, driving 80kms after work to get some exercise
just doesn't strike me as appealing. In the summer I get mid
week exercise by biking or running out my front door. I am
not fond of winter running because of footing (we get
freezing rain followed by powder; nasty) issues. I just
recently purchased a Mag trainer for my bike that I figure I
will use through the winter next year, to build a solid
aerobic base before spring.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I was in a rush to leave for out-of-town meeting
and no time to respond until now.

"Heart Rate Monitor Strategies" from early Sep 2003. Look
at Sam's comments

Thanks, I will be reading/digesting the HR threads later.

Quoted message said:

This post as well as your other followup posts suggests to
me that you're tired, but hey, I'm just a beginner. Most
of the time I have an avg hr that I hit for easy runs
fairly easily - can chat with passers by on the trail,
etc. When I'm tired (first back from a few months of field
work or 3 wks of extended travel), my hr is generally
about 5-6 bpm lower than normal on those easy runs at my
usual perceived effort. After field season, it takes about
2 wks for me to get back to more usual normal slow and hit
my normal easy hr. However, that's also made me wonder if
my "easy" effort might be too high. But it's the minimum
effort I can do in winter and not freeze to death when
it's subzero F so practicality over rules theory 😉

Hey I bet you don't have to deal with smog warnings which we
are already getting in Ottawa, even though we still get down
to -30C in the winter (-20F?).

Quoted message said:

<from original post>

Quoted message said:

I am not a racer. I simply want to get fit.

IMHO, using hr or some measure of effort is a good way to
improve fitnesss in this situation since you're dealing
with multiple sports / activities, hills, trails, etc. You
can just go and not have to worry about wind, footing, etc
effects on speed.

As others have already pointed out, you might need to
alter the intensity and/or duration of workouts. <snip>

My problem is I love the all out feeling, and get a bit
bored when going easy.

But I agree. One big factor is that I want to better manage
energy reserves. I think I never trained my body to rely on
fat as an energy source. On longer strenuous mountain hikes
I often get bad blood sugar crash. Most of my "training"
tends to be an hour or shorter and of a harder nature. I
think this is relying too much on Glycogen stores. This is
the major benefit I am looking for.

But I wouldn't mind trying a running race just for the heck
of it as I am a bit of an adrenaline junky. Once I entered
an amateur cycling time trial. My HR was 160 waiting for the
go signal. I flew up the hills, it was awesome! I would like
to recapture a bit of that.

My weekends will look like this: Sat - LSD Run ( previously
just an all out longer run) Sun - Hike/ longer bike (
possibly competitive speed bursts in here)

But it gets hard to figure out how to mix strength, rest,
biking and running into the other 5 days. Yesterday I ran
easy in the morning, and biked easy in the evening (mag
trainer) Today I will do some light strength training and
tomorrow the weekend starts.

Maybe: Mon: rest/Light strenght training (a rest from
aerobics, mainly just chins, pushups, etc.). Tue: easy run
morning/cycle evening (purely aerobic 1-2 hours total) Wed:
eays run morning/cycle evening (purely aerobic 1-2 hours
total) Thur: Hard/short run morning. Fri: Another rest/light
strenght workout

Putting that together. it gives me 3 easy pure aerobic days.
(sat, tue, wed) 2 days where I will likely push the upper
limits at least occaisonally (thur/Sun) 2 days where I just
do light strength/rest. (Mon/Fri)

Seem a reasonable plan?

Main goals: get fitter, have fun outdoors, switch body
to rely less on glycogen reserves, and maybe try a 10km
race for fun.

In article said:

First non flat out run ever...

I kept my HR in near 130 for a route I did last saturday
in 34 minutes (I think it is about 7kms). Today it took
42mins. Very tough to hold a consistent slower pace and
consistent breathing. I assume that will come with
practice.

The pace sounds about right. And yes, running at an easy
pace takes practice. You may be more comfortable with a
slower breathing rhythm at that pace (e.g. 3-3-2 as
opposed to 2-2)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Peter Guidry said:

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message
news:<EBZoc.55227$Ut1.

I have and LED headlamp which I have used for
hiking/snow shoeing. But I live 40km+ from any decent
winter trails. So in the winter, driving 80kms after
work to get some exercise just doesn't strike me as
appealing. In the summer I get mid week exercise by
biking or running out my front door. I am not fond of
winter running because of footing (we get freezing rain
followed by powder; nasty) issues.

understood - and a valid reason. We sometimes (not always)
have enough snow underneath the freezing rain layer on our
trails, that snowshoe running (built-in cleats) works out
quite well. It's gotten me past some icy patches this year,
but yea, if you have to drive far to get to a decent trail,
then it's a hassle.

I just

Quoted message said:

recently purchased a Mag trainer for my bike that I figure
I will use through the winter next year, to build a solid
aerobic base before spring.

sounds like an option. And definitely the right approach to
keep fit all year.

Quoted message said:

Hey I bet you don't have to deal with smog warnings which
we are already getting in Ottawa, even though we still get
down to -30C in the winter (-20F?).

No, although my neighbor's fireplace is *very* noticeable
when we get inversions. We occasionally get volcanic
eruptions with their dust clouds, but haven't for about
10 yrs now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<from original post>

Quoted message said:

I am not a racer. I simply want to get fit.

IMHO, using hr or some measure of effort is a good way to
improve fitnesss in this situation since you're dealing
with multiple sports / activities, hills, trails, etc. You
can just go and not have to worry about wind, footing, etc
effects on speed.

As others have already pointed out, you might need to
alter the intensity and/or duration of workouts. <snip>

My problem is I love the all out feeling, and get a bit
bored when going easy.

But I agree.

Right. As you've already seen, all out every day, results in
all out every day, not necessarily longer or faster efforts.
The recovery day(s) or periods, allow you to go harder,
longer, higher when you do go 😉

One big factor is that I want to better manage energy

Quoted message said:

reserves. I think I never trained my body to rely on fat
as an energy source. On longer strenuous mountain hikes I
often get bad blood sugar crash. Most of my "training"
tends to be an hour or shorter and of a harder nature. I
think this is relying too much on Glycogen stores. This is
the major benefit I am looking for.

yep. One way to use all body resources is to go longer and
have days at varying intensities. You might look at some of
the previous discussions on energy sources or if you have
Tim Noakes' Lore of Running, but it sounds like you're on
the right track. you might also look at fueling / hydration
issues for longer outings.

Quoted message said:

But I wouldn't mind trying a running race just for the
heck of it as I am a bit of an adrenaline junky. Once I
entered an amateur cycling time trial. My HR was 160
waiting for the go signal. I flew up the hills, it was
awesome! I would like to recapture a bit of that.

yep, that's doable 🙂

Quoted message said:

My weekends will look like this: Sat - LSD Run (
previously just an all out longer run) Sun - Hike/ longer
bike ( possibly competitive speed bursts in here)

But it gets hard to figure out how to mix strength, rest,
biking and running into the other 5 days. Yesterday I ran
easy in the morning, and biked easy in the evening (mag
trainer) Today I will do some light strength training and
tomorrow the weekend starts.

Maybe: Mon: rest/Light strenght training (a rest from
aerobics, mainly just chins, pushups, etc.). Tue: easy run
morning/cycle evening (purely aerobic 1-2 hours total)
Wed: eays run morning/cycle evening (purely aerobic 1-2
hours total) Thur: Hard/short run morning. Fri: Another
rest/light strenght workout

Putting that together. it gives me 3 easy pure aerobic
days. (sat, tue, wed) 2 days where I will likely push the
upper limits at least occaisonally (thur/Sun) 2 days where
I just do light strength/rest. (Mon/Fri)

Seem a reasonable plan?

I'll let others comment on this, since I'm just beginning to
feel like I'm getting it figured out for myself. But it
looks reasonable to me. You've got the LSD on Sat preceded
and followed by easy days. You might want to switch Wed and
Thurs to space the mid-wk hard from the long efforts on
weekend, although you might want the 3 days rest or easy for
recovery from the weekend. Another thought, depending on
where you are for lsd, is that you might want to do them
every other week - building by 5-10% duration. The week in
between do an intermediate length run is shorter than lsd,
but a little higher intensity.

Try what you've got and see if it works. If you're finding
yourself too tired or not challenged enough, then adjust
appropriately - either frequency, duration, effort.

Quoted message said:

Main goals: get fitter, have fun outdoors, switch body to
rely less on glycogen reserves, and maybe try a 10km race
for fun.

Sounds great. Good luck.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

First, endurance training will likely lead to a decrease
in maximal HR. This effect is reversed with detraining or
even a taper.

Second, if you do too much and get over-tired (possibly
overtrained) HR response can be muted.

Third, it could also be that you are too fatigued to run
fast enough to get the HR to max.

"Peter Guidry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When it comes to fitness I have a type A mentality. No
pain, no gain. I am not a racer. I simply want to get fit.
But I am thinking my personality has me doing really
stupid things that really prevent sensible fitness gains.

Background: I don't do a lot during the winter. I am 38
YO. On a full out effort in the spring my max HR will be
around 180. Unfortunately I usually start running by
doing 7kms my first day flat out (which is around 5min/km
for me). I cycle and go hiking with my friends and we
tend to do everything flat out. Hiking (ahem racing)
uphill with extra weight in packs for added challenge.
Gasping all the way.

Now after weeks of these antics. If I try a flat out
effort my max HR peaks at just over 160. So this is my
number one question. What is happening here? I haven't
really read any effect of training on max HR. (resting
is ~48 ).

Writing this down, it is obvious that I have been
exercising like a moron, I could get away with this when
younger, but now I think it is time to get more sensible.

The question is what to do now. If I go to 70% max HR
guidelines for building an aerobic base, What HR do I use
as my max in that formula. I mean 70% of 160 is 112. I
don't think I can walk up a gentle hill on a hike without
hitting 130. I also don't think I can jog at any pace with
a HR under 130.

Thoughts.

"Peter Guidry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Guidry said:

Now after weeks of these antics. If I try a flat out
effort my max HR peaks at just over 160. So this is my
number one question. What is happening here? I haven't
really read any effect of training on max HR. (resting
is ~48 ).

It has been posted a few times. MHR often does drop with
training,

especially

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heavy training. I've ovsered drops of at least 10bpm.

Quoted message said:

The question is what to do now. If I go to 70% max HR
guidelines for building an aerobic base, What HR do I
use as my max in that formula.

Given that you've probably got some all-out efforts to
base your

training on,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you could use a "race" performance instead. This online
calc computes

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

paces as well as recommended paces for intervals:

panix.comvdot.htmlOpen ↗

I tried this. But since I just run where-ever it is a lot
easier to go by HR. I might be able to say after I am
done what my pase was, but I don't have mile markers on
my trail.

Quoted message said:

You may not know the exact distance for the course, but
that's OK --

just use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a rough estimate of the distance (say the course is 5
miles) and punch

in your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

course PR. Then you can pace yourself again (for that
course) based on

the same

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

estimate of the distance (the formulas are ultimately
time-based, so if

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

botch the distance estimate by a small margin it doen't
change any

thing)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I mean 70% of 160 is 112. I don't think I can walk up
a gentle hill on a hike without hitting 130. I also
don't think I can jog at any pace with a HR under 130.

Wouldn't worry too much about this too much for now.
Should get better

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

training.

I guess I think my problem is I never build an aerobic
base. I always do my thing at 85-90% of max HR. I now
wonder what negative affects that might have.

It impairs your aerobic development. Having just read
"The Perfect Mile" your training sounds like the
training that Roger Bannister and John Landy
undertook in their pursuit of the 4 minute mile. I
believe that limited their ability and is the reason
it was so hard for them to achieve it and the reason
that they never progressed. If they had done a more
modern (Lydiard) approach, they would have broken the
barrier sooner and also run much faster as evidenced
by their successors.

Distance running is an aerobic sport!

Quoted message said:

I guess I will limit myself to 130 for a while and see
what happens. I'll walk if I have to.

Peter Guidry wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message
news:<EBZoc.55227$Ut1.

Quoted message said:

Just a thought. LED lights work wonders for running or
snowshoeing in dark. Mt biking and xc skiing might
require a brighter light or one of the heavy duty led's.
Your background sounds a little like some of my earlier
background - weekend warrior with an assortment of
activities with some running mid-week for maintenance.

I have and LED headlamp which I have used for hiking/snow
shoeing. But I live 40km+ from any decent winter trails. So
in the winter, driving 80kms after work to get some
exercise just doesn't strike me as appealing. In the summer
I get mid week exercise by biking or running out my front
door. I am not fond of winter running because of footing
(we get freezing rain followed by powder; nasty) issues. I
just recently purchased a Mag trainer for my bike that I
figure I will use through the winter next year, to build a
solid aerobic base before spring.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I was in a rush to leave for out-of-town meeting
and no time to respond until now.

"Heart Rate Monitor Strategies" from early Sep 2003. Look
at Sam's comments

Thanks, I will be reading/digesting the HR threads later.

Quoted message said:

This post as well as your other followup posts suggests
to me that you're tired, but hey, I'm just a beginner.
Most of the time I have an avg hr that I hit for easy
runs fairly easily - can chat with passers by on the
trail, etc. When I'm tired (first back from a few months
of field work or 3 wks of extended travel), my hr is
generally about 5-6 bpm lower than normal on those easy
runs at my usual perceived effort. After field season, it
takes about 2 wks for me to get back to more usual normal
slow and hit my normal easy hr. However, that's also made
me wonder if my "easy" effort might be too high. But it's
the minimum effort I can do in winter and not freeze to
death when it's subzero F so practicality over rules
theory 😉

Hey I bet you don't have to deal with smog warnings which
we are already getting in Ottawa, even though we still get
down to -30C in the winter (-20F?).

Quoted message said:

<from original post>

Quoted message said:

I am not a racer. I simply want to get fit.

IMHO, using hr or some measure of effort is a good way to
improve fitnesss in this situation since you're dealing
with multiple sports / activities, hills, trails, etc.
You can just go and not have to worry about wind,
footing, etc effects on speed.

As others have already pointed out, you might need to
alter the intensity and/or duration of workouts. <snip>

My problem is I love the all out feeling, and get a bit
bored when going easy.

But I agree. One big factor is that I want to better manage
energy reserves. I think I never trained my body to rely on
fat as an energy source. On longer strenuous mountain hikes
I often get bad blood sugar crash. Most of my "training"
tends to be an hour or shorter and of a harder nature. I
think this is relying too much on Glycogen stores. This is
the major benefit I am looking for.

But I wouldn't mind trying a running race just for the heck
of it as I am a bit of an adrenaline junky. Once I entered
an amateur cycling time trial. My HR was 160 waiting for
the go signal. I flew up the hills, it was awesome! I would
like to recapture a bit of that.

My weekends will look like this: Sat - LSD Run ( previously
just an all out longer run) Sun - Hike/ longer bike (
possibly competitive speed bursts in here)

But it gets hard to figure out how to mix strength, rest,
biking and running into the other 5 days. Yesterday I ran
easy in the morning, and biked easy in the evening (mag
trainer) Today I will do some light strength training and
tomorrow the weekend starts.

Maybe: Mon: rest/Light strenght training (a rest from
aerobics, mainly just chins, pushups, etc.). Tue: easy run
morning/cycle evening (purely aerobic 1-2 hours total) Wed:
eays run morning/cycle evening (purely aerobic 1-2 hours
total) Thur: Hard/short run morning. Fri: Another
rest/light strenght workout

Putting that together. it gives me 3 easy pure aerobic
days. (sat, tue, wed) 2 days where I will likely push the
upper limits at least occaisonally (thur/Sun) 2 days where
I just do light strength/rest. (Mon/Fri)

Seem a reasonable plan?

I tried a similar plan, though I've never liked multiple
workouts in a day; I prefer to go longer for either my run
or bike. You might consider doing your hard/short run after
a rest day followed by aerobic days. Right now I'm doing a
plan that isn't taliored around a weekend long run. For me
that is too frequent and its unappealing to have the same
day every week to go long. My plan is simple: Run day 1,
bike day 2, and walk or rest and do weights day 3. This
cycle is repeated over and over, varying the intensity and
length depending on what was done the last time, with long
runs and bikes thrown in every 10 day to 2 week or so. For
example, if I run moderately long, say 1:40, the next day
I'll bike only an hour or so. The next time I will reverse
it. When I'm ready to do the long run 3-4 hours, then the
next day I do an easy bike, or if I'm planning to go long on
the bike, I just run 40 mins or so the day before. Why this
works for me is that its a consistent pattern, my running
legs always get 2 days rest from running, and I never have
to think about which activity should I do. So far I love it.

Quoted message said:

Main goals: get fitter, have fun outdoors, switch body
to rely less on glycogen reserves, and maybe try a 10km
race for fun.

"qTrader" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seem a reasonable plan?

I tried a similar plan, though I've never liked multiple
workouts in a day; I prefer to go longer for either my run
or bike. You might consider doing your hard/short run
after a rest day followed by aerobic days. Right now I'm
doing a plan that isn't taliored around a weekend long
run. For me that is too frequent and its unappealing to
have the same day every week to go long. My plan is
simple: Run day 1, bike day 2, and walk or rest and do
weights day 3. This cycle is repeated over and over,
varying the intensity and length depending on what was
done the last time, with long runs and bikes thrown in
every 10 day to 2 week or so. For example, if I run
moderately long, say 1:40, the next day I'll bike only an
hour or so. The next time I will reverse it. When I'm
ready to do the long run 3-4 hours, then the next day I do
an easy bike, or if I'm planning to go long on the bike, I
just run 40 mins or so the day before. Why this works for
me is that its a consistent pattern, my running legs
always get 2 days rest from running, and I never have to
think about which activity should I do. So far I love it.

Yes. I am headed in that direction too. My current goal is
to hit 1hour of aerobic exercise minimum on aerobic days. If
I do a short morning run before work I will top off with a
short bike. More often than not, I am just doing the one 1hr
workout thus far. I intend to have 5 aerobic days a week.

The toughest thing so far is training my legs to run at a
slower pace. It just feels wrong. Muscle usage is even
different. On a bike I can go at whatever pace easily.