for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Hadd's Approach To Distance Running

168 watchers

glucotab Jan 2017 5:11pm, 11 Jan 2017 90 posts	Quote Pin glucotab Bruns- I did have a little of what you say about the moving up to higher bpm myself. Today I chilled on letting the revs/bpm rise real slow until I was in the zone I wanted, and then ended up using a counting method to sustain that. Just became a rhythmic thing - but faster. (This is at a supposed 85% HR max). I still need to increase the pace I ended up with (sporadically on the other wrist`s garmin) for sure, but I reckon this will happen as my body finds this pace more normal. Your 170 bpm is about 85% of your max I think.
glucotab Jan 2017 5:13pm, 11 Jan 2017 91 posts	Quote Pin glucotab this HR xone rather
Brunski Jan 2017 5:49pm, 11 Jan 2017 125 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Thanks gluco, very encouraging getting up into those zones, nice one! I've an option of joining a 10 mile training run group on a Tuesday evening and there will be people running 6:10-6:20 per mile in that, it's just that it'd be a job to get to (with the wife more than anything else), and may mean I had to cut down the Monday running a little so I was fresh enough to complete it. Just wondering how essential if is to run close to LT in order to raise it, or is all running below going to push it up? (Just maybe slower)
SPR Jan 2017 6:04pm, 11 Jan 2017 23,391 posts	Quote Pin SPR If you produce less lactic at slower paces, you will produce less at faster pace. Research seems to suggest that LT running is not that effective at improving LT (quite a bit has been posted on the polarised thread). You know my thoughts on your HR numbers Brunski. They jump around too much for me to trust them (for example 1:30 change in pace for a mile with minimal HR change in one run).
Brunski Jan 2017 6:11pm, 11 Jan 2017 126 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Cheers for the pointer t the polarised thread, will check that out. I'm gaining much more confidence in the accuracy of my HRM since someone on here said to shave the wrist and fit it tightly. I check it against my pulse and it tracks across well. By the way we're in the 11th day of January and I'm at over 2,000 metres of elevation already...I don't swerve hills and adjust HR to match the effort.
Brunski Jan 2017 6:27pm, 11 Jan 2017 127 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Sorry, couldn't find a polarised thread on the search. Have you got a link please?
SPR Jan 2017 6:32pm, 11 Jan 2017 23,392 posts	Quote Pin SPR Fair enough Re hills. Thread link below: http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtopic.php?id=55778 Might be worth looking at Canute's blog (he posts on the thread and link to blog is in his profile) as I'm sure he'd have summarised the evidence at some point.
Brunski Jan 2017 6:35pm, 11 Jan 2017 128 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Cheers SPR - bloomin' Americanised spelling meant my search failed 😂
stuart little Jan 2017 6:53pm, 11 Jan 2017 1,230 posts	Quote Pin stuart little Brunski - there's usually a 7-6:30 group out as well that'd fit a bit better...
Daz Love Jan 2017 7:31pm, 11 Jan 2017 487 posts	Quote Pin Daz Love My mate just for a wrist based HR Garmin and his BPM seems a lot lower than the strap. He is going to use the strap for running. I have read that the higher the HR the more iffy the readings become on a wrist based. Have you tried a strap Brunski? Would be great to do at same time as wrist and see the difference. My guess is you will see lots of variation but I could be wrong.