How do I lower my running heart rate?!?!

First, welcome to the site!

Second ... find yourself a good few hours and immerse yourself in this thread;

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25733&posts=317&start=1

The easy answer as to lowering your running heart rate is to run slower.  The hard answer is that your heart rate in relation to your pace is what you should be paying attention too, not what percentage of max heart rate for a 30 yr. old female.

Enjoy the read and try not to have your head explode!

First of all, your training heart rate may be higher than you think. My zone 2 is 155-163 I think.

2ndly, cycling fitness does not necessarily equate to running fitness, and it's reasonable that your running hr is higher- though it's individual.

Last, it is possible to run slower than 10 min miles. It took me over a year of running just to get to 10 min miles. A shuffle in my opinion is more in the 12-13 min mile range. Try interjecting walks in your runs at regular intervals to keep bringing your hr down. Maybe do 3-5 min running, 1 min walking, and see how that helps.  Also, try to run on fairly level roads. Inclines will shoot a HR up big time.

I am by no means an expert. Some of the more experienced folks may offer more suggestions. I just know that these things worked for me.

The simple answer is to run more.  As someone else already posted, cycling fitness and running fitness do not cross over (much).

When I first started running 2 years ago, I was running/walking 15 minute miles.  I basically did that until I could run a mile without stopping.  It took me 5 months or more to finally run a 5K without stopping (but that was partly because I would go out too fast and die in the last mile.)

What I would start out doing, is something pretty radical at this point, I would run without the HRM.  Go based only on RPE or how you feel.  Until you have a running base, you don't really have a training zone for running.  If that means you are running 10 minute miles, so be it.  Once you get to the point you can run for 50 minutes without stopping, then you can complete the LT test, and will know what your training zones are.

Good luck, and I hope that helps.

+1 or x2.

Running slower is the key as is run fitness/cycling fitness are different.

You need to do a test to determine what your HR zones are and where you should be running. It seems from your post you are running to fast as you say you couldn't keep up the pace for 13.1 miles. A good guide is you should only have to breath every 6 steps if you are running aerobically and should be able to hold a conversation with a friend if they were running with you.

When I started running I went to fast and it was yucky. 

I'm in my 4th year running and this year I started doing run/walk on my long runs. It took me awhile to find the right ratio of running to walking that worked. When I first started I took breaks to quickly and my HR was always higher so by trial and error I came up with 5/1. Funny thing is that when I run/walk I'm faster than when I just straight out run.

1st forget about max HR to calculate training zones

2nd do a running field test and use that to set up your training zones by either HR, pace or just go by RPE

3rd and most important, just run and run and run. build up to run 4-6x a week and somedays run easy, somedays not easy and some days long; as long as the total weekly stress is just enough that you can do the same or 'a bit' more week after week after week. The fitter you become the lower your HR for a given intensity...

Along with what others have started regarding the HR zone issue. Running form has to be developed, some do it naturally, others need to make a change. The more you run the more efficient you should become. But not always or only up to a point. I modified my running form to become more efficient. If you look around the net you'll see examples of this with Pose running, Chi running, Evolution running, etc. I was a heel striker, this results in too much vertical motion, vertical motion means your using more of your major leg muscles than required and a higher HR. This site (runnersworld) provides some information regarding running form (partial extract below). What's not stated is stride rate. Research will state 85-95 strides per minute (170-190 steps) is the ideal range for most. When I decided to make form change, my stride rate was upper 70's, now it is in the mid 80's without thinking about it. You change speed with changes in stride length while trying to keep the rate in a fairly narrow window. Here's something about coming off the bike and doing the run that opened up my eyes to all this years ago.

"Legs/Stride While sprinters need to lift their knees high to achieve maximum leg power, distance runners don't need such an exaggerated knee lift--it's simply too hard to sustain for any length of time. Instead, efficient endurance running requires just a slight knee lift, a quick leg turnover, and a short stride. Together, these will facilitate fluid forward movement instead of diverting (and wasting) energy. When running with the proper stride length, your feet should land directly underneath your body. As your foot strikes the ground, your knee should be slightly flexed so that it can bend naturally on impact. If your lower leg (below the knee) extends out in front of your body, your stride is too long."

Says who?

This is not true.  There is no "magic" number. 

Jack Daniels, Exercise physiologist,  for one!  He references elite runners are all very close to this.

Elite runners have a stride rate of around 180 steps per minute. You should too. "Your stride length at that stride rate will be your best stride length," says Daniels. Also, a shorter, lighter stride reduces shock and improves running economy. So run your normal pace, counting the number of times one foot hits the ground per minute, then double that number to get your stride rate. If you're not near 180, shorten and quicken your stride until you are. Recheck in the middle of your next few runs, until your new stride becomes habit.

Sure not everyone falls into this due to body composition, etc.  But as a general, this is pretty well accepted otherwise a lot of coaches are full of BS, even those that posted articles here on BT.

I wouldn't trust everything you read here on the BT articles. There are more than a few with controversial statements. Anyway, there isn’t right or wrong in terms of running technique or cadence. There are certain characteristics that the best runners share but then we have others who run as fast or faster with unconventional technique. While the best cadence avg fluctuate between 170 and 190, in terms of running economy it might be even detrimental for some runners to try to increase their natural cadence or changing their running ‘form’. IMO as you run more with an adequate workload your body will adjust accordingly. You can make some small changes to improve your economy but such changes are usually minor.

Thank you, Jorge.

Additionally, Daniels stated that the AVERAGE cadence for elite runners was 180.  That means that some are higher, some lower.  So what is this "magic" number?  It's not the same for everyone.  I'm not saying that cadence isn't part of the equation; it is, along with stride length.  But it makes zero sense to try to train to someone else's efficiency, and not your own.

If you really want to adjust your stride length and cadence, go run steep uphills and gentle downhills. 

Again, I disagree.  Cadence will fluctuate to some extent based on speed, especially since cadence affects speed. 

Haven't read through all the posts, but I was exactly where you are 3 years ago.  10+ minute miles, HR always crept up into the 160s. Anything faster was a blowup.

Fast forward 3 years. Consistency, patience, and running are key.  Do what jorge (amiine) said, run, run run (safely).  Run 20 minutes.  Run an hour.  Run 30 minutes. All kinds of running, but run.

I can now hold an 8:45 pace for at least the first 2 or 3 miles below a 150 HR (creep always gets to me eventually).  For me, with zero running background, that is huge, and I only expect it to get better.

My coach also has me working on shortening my stride so that I am hitting the 180 number in a minute. And I am most comfortable cycling at a 90-100 rpm. She basically said you have to find where your turnover is most efficient, and for me, that number is 180 (or 90 for :30) so that is what I work on. Each week I have a drill to work on this.

This is mainly for race pace type efforts- LSD runs have a much slower turnover.

Okay, I'm just going to ask a couple difficult questions to the original poster. 

How tall are you, and how much do you weigh?

If you can barely shuffle and your HR is skyrocketing, my first thought was that you might be carrying around excess weight.  The stride-length argument might not make a lick of difference for you.

Can you give us some insight as to your build?

 ~B