I'm a lawn mower :(

I read an article somewhere which argues that you can't apply one particular number to all 3 sports. It says that your HR swimming could very much be lower than that of running since you are mostly in a prone position. My RPE and heart rates vary considerably when I compare my biking and running.

For those reasons, I've still put off figuring out where I need to be when I start base-building in a few weeks......

I'll try to find the article and post it.

Thanks Katie, but I guess I was not clear with my question.  I know my mhr is different for each sport, which is exactly why I'm asking if, according to the theory of base building with a max areobic heart rate (calculated with the formula he gives) it is applicable to all sports. He discusses a bpm number to stay at NOT a percent of your mhr - so when switching from running to swimming - which have different mhr's - do you go with the Magic Number calculated (146 in my case) or with the percent of mhr that it correlates with for that sport?

Is this a good thing or not though??

Good, I am finding someone else who belives there is a different zone for every sport also. (I'm looking hard for that article!!!!!)

There's so many books out that talk about HRM training - one that comes to mind (that's been recommended to me more than once) is by Dr. Maffetone. I haven't read it yet, but here's the basics:

Like the article put up by trilover, it is based on a 180 method (versus the 220 minus your age, method for calculating MAX HEART RATE), but then using a ZONE, not a set number. Maffetone uses 180 to calculate your MAX AEROBIC HEART RATE...however, he's not the one promoting the notion that each sport has a specific target heart rate....

Here it is: (the longer version of this article can be found at: http://www.trinewbies.com/Article.asp?ArticleID=40 )

_______________________________________________________________

The 180-Formula

Another method of heart rate training that has gained popularity over the past several years is the 180-Formula introduced by Dr. Phil Maffetone. Unlike the 220-Formula, this particular method is not based on your Maximum Heart Rate but rather your Maximum Aerobic Heart Rate (MAHR). And there is a difference. For example, my Maximum Heart Rate on a run is about 185 beats per minute. My Maximum Aerobic Heart Rate, based on the 180-Formula is 143. Once you determine your MAHR, you must then determine your base aerobic zone. This zone will act as a base or foundation from which a more specific zone can be determined based on your current fitness level. To find your base aerobic zone, simply subtract 10 from your MAHR and the result will yeild a number that represents the lower end of the zone.

For example: my MAHR based on my age of 37 years is 143 or 180 – 37. This number also represents the upper end of the base aerobic zone. Now, subtract 10 from 143 and you get 133. This figure represents the lower end of the base aerobic zone. So, in this example, my base aerobic zone would be 133 – 143 beats per minute. This means if I keep my heart rate in this zone during exercise, I am maintaining an “aerobic” pace. Anything over this zone or 143, and I cross into anaerobic training. Now, let’s explore this in greater detail.

Determine Your Maximum Aerobic Heart Rate and Base Aerobic Zone

So for a 35 year old individual, the aerobic zone would be 135 beats per minute (bpm) –145 beats per minute or simply: 135-145 bpm

Now, this “zone” acts as the base or foundation for determining a truer aerobic zone based on current fitness levels. Below we will look how to reach your truer aerobic zone.Adjust your Maximum Aerobic Heart Rate to your Current Fitness Level

The next step is to adjust the base aerobic zone to your present fitness level.

1. If you are currently ill or are recovering from an illness (heart problems, operations, hospital stay etc), or are on any regular medication you will want to adjust your entire zone down 10 beats from your base figures. For the 35 year old adult the results would be an aerobic zone of 125 – 135 bpm.

2. If you have not exercised before; you typically exercise but are currently injured; have cut back on your training; or often suffer from colds, flu’s or allergies, adjust your aerobic zone down 5 beats from your base figures. For the 35 year old adult, this would result in an aerobic zone of 130 – 140 bpm.

3. If you have been exercising for up to two years without any real problems; have been making progress in competition and have remained injury free, no adjustment is necessary. For the 35 year old adult, the aerobic zone would be 135 – 145 bpm.

4. If you have been exercising for more than two years without any real problems; have been making progress in competition and have remained injury free than you can actually adjust your figures upwards by 5 beats. For the 35 year old adult the resulting aerobic zone would be 140 – 150 bpm.

Remember, these numbers representing your aerobic training zone with the upper or higher number of the zone being your Maximum Aerobic Heart Rate, not your Maximum Heart Rate. These numbers are also expressed in beats per minute or bpm.

___________________________________________

Ugh!! Can you imagine 135-145 bpm? I gotta find that other article....

So, is this logic correct then...?

According to Mark Allen's article ( on trilover's base building thread) he speaks of one number being your MAHR (maximum aerobic heart rate)- the formula which actually worked out to fall into my 70% of my maximum heart rate for running, and does therefore match the LSD directions for zone training.

BUT, for those of us who use heart rate zone training, we would then adjust it for each sport as we did for the max heart rate ANYWAY.  So really, it is just telling us the same thing as zone training does - we should (whether we actually manage it is another question!) do our long distance and base building in the 70% of mhr (different for each sport) - which is the "areobic" zone?

Which then leads me to another question (if anyone can bare it) - how many people who use zone hr training manage to keep their LSD runs down to about the 70% range? So far it sounds like most of us don't. 

I agree with that, that base building training is training how you burn fuel..........I missed it: did you find that book's name?

Goldberger! Holy cow those are hardcore max HRs: 177 for running and 168 for the bike!! What's your RHR?

How long did this take to 1. make a difference in fitneess, and 2. feel comfortable? Despite understanding the rationale, it is so awkward and I feel I am wasting my time.  But this is the perfect time to practice it -it is good to know that others feel the same way.

On a practical level though, Laerka......I ran alongside my brother and his wife (pace varied 1:30 to 2:00 slower min/mi. pace than what I would have run) at a half-marathon last month, and felt recovered sooner than 3 hours later, ZERO soreness the next day.

Recovery was great, but my stride was so different that I felt like I was running in someone else's legs!

I don't really have an answer to your question, however I started last Oct using the MHR article on this site by Scott Herrick http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/index.asp?catid=54

When I started out running with the HRM I couldn't run at the pace I felt was comfortable and keep my HR low enough to be in the correct range.  There were days I would take the thing off because I was tired of hearing the beeping telling me I was out of my range.  However, I decided to stick with this method, I did buy the  darn thing I might as well give it a good try.  So I slowed my mile times down to 12-13 min miles, which to me was basically a shuffling walk and kept at it.  I did this for my whole season with no speed work to build a base and concentrate on speed work this coming here.  The good news is that I can now run less than 10 min miles with a HR that is sometimes below my aerobic zone and have run as fast as a 9 min mile within my zone. 

My point being, if you want to get your HR into your zone you will need to forget about running like you have always ran.  It may be slow, probably will seem like a quick walk but results do happen.  It is just like everything else, it takes time.  After one year I can go out and run a quicker 10K than last year and have a lot lower HR in the process and feel a lot less fatigued. 

For swimming, which is a struggle for me, I go by RPE.  I don't wear a HRM in the pool and when I started there was only one speed, stay afloat.  Now I actaully have 3 speeds so I know that is working.

For the bike, well I need to do a MHR test for this because unlike everyone else my bike HR is a lot higher than my run.  I can feel (RPE) like I am just cruising and not labored in anyway but my HR will be in the upper 150's to 160's and if I ran with these my mile times would be in the 8 min range but on a bike they are about 18mph.  I have a lot of work to do on my bike, it is becoming my weakest link.....and that is strange to me because I thought it was swimming as some of you have heard from me in the past. 

My advice and it isn't expert advice only personal experience is to slow down.  Enjoy the fact you are running and if it takes you longer to go the distance than take longer to go the distance, you shouldn't be in a hurry anyway.  Enjoy the solitude of the run and you will get faster.

Ok, I'm going to give it a try (again - but for real this time) 

My running form felt really off last time I tried - is there anything different I should be doing? When I work on my cadence, I just go faster - defeating the purpose. Is there a trick to making your legs turn over quickly but not go anywhere? I know overstriding causes injuries, can understriding also? ( I assume that is what I will have to do?).

TAG Pilot - when you say you felt you were not running on your own legs .... how was it different?

OMG Jim, right there in front of my face.

Sann,

What I should have said is that I didn't feel like it was my body I was running in. I "felt really off" just like you.

With the slower pace, my whole stride was different. I already have a short stride, and it became shorter, my turnover rate felt slower, my footstrike differed, and I even noticed how differently my torso and shoulders moved (or didn't move!).

Again though, I didn't expect to feel so good so soon after the run.

You ask a very good question about whether there is anything different (other than running slower!) you should be doing, because I'd like to know too!

Laerka,

   I would say with any time there is change in form there is the chance for injury, whether it be over or understriding.  What I did to increase my turnover is on my runs I would just run the first 30 min's and not think too much about anything but keeping the HR under control.  Then I would spend 10-15 mins working on form, running upright, quicker turnover (cadence), landing on the middle of my foot vs the heel, ect...whatever I did I just worked on these things and sometimes my HR would go up a bit.  After 15 min's or so I would go back to just running for another 10min's or so and then work on my form again.  By doing this in pieces I get the work in but in my mind I am not changing anything drastically.  Just like my HR lowering my form has gotten better.  One thing I have done in races, once I start to feel tired, about mile 4 in a 10K in my most recent tri, I switched to working on form in the race.  Picked up my cadence and tried to run upright, I am not sure how long it lasted but I felt much better thinking about form than 2 more miles.  It took my mind off the run for a short enough time to 'catch my second wind'. 

I would have to say when you pick up your cadence it is a bit difficult at first to go slower, but it can be done.  I can't really explain it though.

That makes sense Rio - the idea of switching focus from 'just running' (still with the low hr though right?) to form technique.

TAG Pilot  - what you discribed is exactly how I felt. Interesting that you had such a short recovery time from it too .... incentive to keep at it. As are the Jim and Chris's experience. 

I'm sold - anyone else wanna give a go??? 

While Mark Allen's method does indeed give you a number, that number in fact represents a max HR percentage based on the formula he uses. At no time in the article posted on BT, or in others I've read by him, does he EVER say there are different ranges for different activities. I know there are those who would quibble with that, but I'm not prepared to challenge a 6-time Ironman champ on that point. What he says about that number is that during the base building period, you should NEVER exceed it. The other point he stresses that I think many folks have trouble with is patience  during the base phase. If you are going to follow his methods stringently, you must set aside your ego. Believe me, that has been the toughest part for me as I run along the street or down the bike path where many friends see me plodding along, or on a hill on the bike pedaling like I might never make it to the top. Ditto for the pool, where it's really hard to stay afloat and swim at a low HR, especially when cardiac patients are passing me in the next lane! Understand the focus of  his program: by running at the number he gives you, you train your body to burn fat for fuel. I'm certainly able to run faster and feel good about it, but I won't be accomplishing my goal, which is to convert from a carb burner to a fat burner and improve my endurance. As one final aside, my best 5k earlier this year, before I adopted HR training, was 19:58. After one month following Allen's program (I became a paying customer in Agusut), my last 5k last month was 19:08, and I am certain I easily have a sub-19:00 in me.