HRM, training zones and maths

Hi all.  Quick stats before I get to my query: I'm a 27 year old woman, 4'11 (apparantly I could be officially classified as a pygmy) and 137lbs.  I'm a medium build, quite stocky by nature and I'm aiming for about 119lbs.

So recently I bought a Polar F4 HRM to help me get the most from my training.  I got the training zone set on it for between 50-70% of my max heart rate, and I went out today for a run with it for the first proper time.  I have been using it before this on my rowing machine and when lifting weights.  Anyway, two things from my run:

1. To stay in the zone, I was running at the sort of pace that made me worried I'd be overtaken by someone on an energetic walk.

2. At this pace, I honestly felt I could have happily gone on forever.  As it was, I stopped after 2 miles.

Now I have no problem with either of these facts if this is exactly how other people have felt and thus probably the way I am meant to feel.  Historically, in my teens, I ran a lot and played county tennis, so I'm not a complete stranger to running even if I've had a 10 year gap.  I do a job that can require quite a bit of movement, and I do a reasonable amount of walking, so I would say I'm lightly active in daily life. My resting heart rate is between 55-60bpm I think.  I used the figure of 55bpm to get the training zones, and yes I did use the inadequate 226-age formula to calculate my maximum.  I know this isn't exactly the best, but I don't know how else to get it without complex testing that I have neither the time nor the inclination for.

So what this really comes down to is: was my run today quite normal and will it be beneficial?  Or should I change my figures?

Read the thread How do we Dispell the "Fat Burn Zone" in cardio??

Basically, you don't need to hold yourself back to stay in that zone. If you like cardio, and you want to go for hours, you'd probably have to stay in that zone, but if you are trying to work out for fat loss in the shortest amount of time, higher intensity will have more calories lost.  And HIIT (high intensity interval training) will be better than steady state.

Original Post by cjtrigg:

1. To stay in the zone, I was running at the sort of pace that made me worried I'd be overtaken by someone on an energetic walk.

2. At this pace, I honestly felt I could have happily gone on forever.  As it was, I stopped after 2 miles.

I've recently started re-training with really slow running and HAVE been passed by lots of walkers (I'm stuck on an indoor track until the snow melts).

BUT it is really working well for me, going on about 6 weeks now, with my 2 nights a week of soccer and cross country skiing once a week or so. I've been feeling really good, no injuries, and I'm slowly increasing the length of each run "segment" without trouble. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this will help me avoid injuries this year. I decided that at 50 lbs overweight I had just accelerated too quickly last year (my first year back to serious running in a decade, and I wasn't overweight ever before) and I needed to do it right.

SO, after all that long blathering commentary, I say stick with it IF you want to build up to healthy, long-distance running now that you are older and heavier. IF your only goal is weight loss, yeah, you can burn the same cals running faster for a shorter period of time. BUT if you have other goals, then just keep training at the lower heart rate. I started with 1/2 mile segments, (6 laps running, one lap walking), doing 3-4 "sets" like this (I would walk 1/2 mile, run one, walk one, run 2, walk one, run 3, walk one, then stretch, as a warm up). I'm now up to nearly one mile intervals, with walking only 1/2 lap in between, doing about 3 miles running (plus the 1.5 miles warm up). It's been great.

The target heart rate zone is NOT just about fat burning. Too many would-be runners start out too hard, too fast, and about the only way to REALLY know what is a good starting speed is to watch the heart rate. Yeah, it means going really, really slowly but that is the way it SHOULD be for most new runners, especially those who are overweight!

 Zone training is for performance, with weight loss as a side effect at best - if you're only looking for fat loss going all-out for shorter will lead to more results.

 If you're looking to be a distance runner again, heart rate training will support your goals better - as you said, at the pace you could have gone on forever ;)

 Well, wouldnt recommend "forever" straight off, but if you're minded to have your fitness results in the endurance space, you've gotta put in the miles.

+1 on what Melkor said.

Also check out the link, they talk about how to do a field test to determine your Max HR. It does take some discipline and ability to suffer, since you are pushing yourself hard (thats the point).

http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/hrmax.ph p

UD

Thanks for the advice, everyone.  I do already know about HIIT and I'm trying to work out a way to fit it into my day shift weeks when I don't have to time to go for a long run (can I get away with doing HIIT running on the spot?  I work in an area of south London where you don't really want to go out!!). 

Having never been a very decisive person, I am torn between the benefits of HIIT when it comes to fat loss, but at the same time I really enjoy a good distance run.  I feel more of an achievement from that.  My goals are not all about weight loss, so I'm going to keep plugging away.

mkculs, it's good to hear from someone else getting funny looks for going so slow!  And also good to hear that it's working.  There is of course the basic idea to come back to that whatever the running is, it's more active than sitting in front of the TV so it has to be good!  When you're running, do you break the distances up with walking because you feel like you need to to recover heart rate, or because it's part of the training plan?  Because on my 2 mile run I never felt like I needed to stop and walk.  Am I meant to do this anyway?  Or can I just keep running?!