Heart rate
298 watchers
Nov 2015
9:56am, 13 Nov 2015
6,807 posts
|
FenlandRunner
And by walking I mean walking like you mean it. Not bimbling to the shops.
|
Nov 2015
10:18am, 13 Nov 2015
2,135 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
To my mind, Body adapts to stimulus. If stimulus is unchanged, body doesn't change. Adding walking and keeping running same, increases stimulus, increases fitness. Replacing running with walking, decreases stimulus, decreases fitness. Replacing sitting on ass with walking, increase stimulus, increases fitness. Traditionally, best aerobic pace/hr is most effective (in terms of time) in terms of developing aerobic fitness. Lower speeds can be used, but the duration must be increased to compensate. I often substitute walking for 30 minutes for recovery runs, when don't have time for change/shower at work. Walk at 15 - 16 min miles. |
Nov 2015
10:56am, 13 Nov 2015
15,532 posts
|
GlennR
Ninky Nonk, I agree with most of what you say, but take issue with some of the logic. If we take "replacing running with walking, decreases stimulus, decreases fitness" and substitute "replacing grey zone running with aerobic zone running" then I would suggest that this approach might increase fitness. I'm also not convinced about the best aerobic pace point. I suspect that lower pace is fine, even if duration remains the same. Indeed I would suggest that duration is the most important factor. |
|
Nov 2015
10:57am, 13 Nov 2015
15,533 posts
|
GlennR
At the personal level this means that by choice I would train at 65% WHR on easy days rather than 70%. Given my current state that means run-walk, but so be it.
|
|
Nov 2015
11:50am, 13 Nov 2015
2,136 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Tbh defining the aerobic zone absolutely accurately for an individual and then sticking at exactly day to day it is an exercise in futility. If 65% whr does it for you who am I to argue? If by easy you mean recovery then do this as easy as you like. Point is to recover for next hard workout. |
Nov 2015
12:28pm, 13 Nov 2015
9,243 posts
|
Bazoaxe
When I cut my knee back in the summer and couldnt run or cycle, I found I could walk quite briskly and so included that as a means of filling the time I normally would have spent running and in the hope that it would maintain some level of fitness
|
Nov 2015
1:19pm, 13 Nov 2015
2,488 posts
|
Huntsman
FR - I was commenting on the original question which was can a walk be the same as a long slow run and imo it can't. I didn't say anything about instant results.
|
Nov 2015
3:16pm, 13 Nov 2015
200 posts
|
J2R
As the poster of the original question, I wouldn't say that was in fact that - it was about at what point as your heart rate goes above the resting state do you start to get some aerobic benefit. I would always imagine you'd get more benefit from a long slow run. One thing I didn't make clear, which others have alluded to, is that I am taking greater duration into account, which must balance things a little. The walks I was talking about were around 1 hour 25 minutes in length, done at 14:30 to 15 minute mile pace. So even if I'm only exercising at 55% of my HRmax, I'm doing it for a decent length of time - which must count for something, I assume? |
|
Nov 2015
3:36pm, 13 Nov 2015
15,544 posts
|
GlennR
Of course it does J2R. Certainly good for your heart and general wellbeing.
|
|
Nov 2015
3:47pm, 13 Nov 2015
2,489 posts
|
Huntsman
Fair enough J2R. I misunderstood the question.
|
Related Threads
-
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023
-
Jack daniels marathon plan help
May 2014
-
Polarized training
Jan 2024
-
Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate
Jan 2021
-
No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease
Jan 2021
-
Resetting Max Heart Rate
Dec 2020
-
Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal
Oct 2020
-
Heart rate zones
Jul 2020
-
Running Heart rate
Jun 2020
-
Heart Rate monitors
Jun 2020
