heart rate zone interval length for beginners

On 10 Jan 2004 08:09:46 -0800, [email hidden] (Running

Newbie) said:

Forgive me if these questions have been answered already, but I tried a search and couldn't find
what I wanted.

I'm a beginner runner using a heart rate monitor. I use an interval routine whereby I run up to
160bpm, then walk down to 141bpm, then run up again.

i'll not pose an any kind of expert so i'm just passing on what i've read and absorbed here
and there.

NO running coach would ever advise a new runner to do what you're doing. ALL advise starting slow,
building an aerobic base and then after a long time (like a few months or so) going faster with a
correspondingly higher heart rate.

this interval idea comes from the muscle comics. that should tell you something. ...thehick

Running Newbie said:

Forgive me if these questions have been answered already, but I tried a search and couldn't find
what I wanted.

I'm a beginner runner using a heart rate monitor. I use an interval routine whereby I run up to
160bpm, then walk down to 141bpm, then run up again. While I haven't measured with a stopwatch,
it's my impression that I get from 141 to 160 pretty quick, so that every few minutes I have to
start walking down to 141 again. Should I slow my pace so that the run up to 160 takes longer? Or
maybe increase my ceiling hr from 160 to something a little higher?

Some info that might help: I'm 29, trim, mostly sedentary, but have weight-trained 1 hour, 3 times
a week for a year. Formulas give me a max heart rate of 191 or so but I'd guess it's a little
higher. My resting heart rate is 73 but any sort of basic activity sends it into the 90's, and
even higher. That said, I feel like I could jog slowly and keep my heart rate at about 154-160 for
at least 45 minutes or so relatively comfortably.

Any thoughts?

Couple thoughts:

1. Your max hr might be underestimated (see end for max hr discussion). What I did initially since
the formulas didn't seem right and beginners probably can't run hard enough to get near their max
nor is it appropriate, is to find my hr when I started getting breathless (couldn't carry on
conversation). In my case, at the end of a run, I'd "sprint" up the small hill to my home and
called the "breathless" point the AT or LT or VT (anaerobic, lactate, or ventilatory thresholds).
These are physiologically different but are frequently used to approximate one another (see past
discussions here). That is about 90% of max hr. So divided that number by .9 to get an
approximation of max hr. While I'm non-competitive, the various zones that resulted from that
calculation have worked well for me for about 2.5 years of assorted types of training. YMMV. BTW,
hills are an easy way of elevating hr without having leg speed to go hard.

Also, many training programs are based on easy, below AT, above AT (and maybe some divisions in
here) zones, so getting an approximation for that number seemed more important than a max hr. More
importantly was recognizing that zone without the hrm so I didn't become too dependent on the tool.

2. Someone mentioned speed work was inappropriate for beginner. Let's plug in the numbers. I'm not
sure if you're using straight max hr % or Karvonen formula so will give both (it's in my
spreadsheet): HRR = hr reserve = max - rest = 191-73 = 118 141 = 58% HRR = 74% max HR might be at
lower levels of aerobic zone, possibly lower (the chart I'm using is based on lactate threshold)
160 = 74% HRR = 84% max HR corresponds to an upper level of what's sometimes called aerobic zone.

These seem like reasonable values except the 141 seems like a low % for running with your hr
values. BTW, did you get your resting hr when you wake up in bed (recommended) or is it a value
when sitting?

3. You mentioned you get to 160 pretty quickly - like a few minutes. That's probably about right,
maybe. I've read somewhere that recommended fartleks be 2-6 min, although that is certainly
longer than a telephone pole to telephone pole approach that is also recommended, and I've heard
of people going longer. Fartleks, by definition, are very loose and would depend on the purpose.
In beginners' programs, they're there to have some diversity in the stride, as much as anything
else, and provide an introduction faster / harder efforts.

I used to get to my upper limit in about a minute or less and had trouble getting mine back down to
whatever while jogging and had to walk (ended up upping the lower limit a little and slowing down my
initial acceleration). If you're concerned about the hard vs easy ratio having too long a recovery,
you might try doing them on easy hills - go up until your hr hits the uppper limit, then down until
easy limit.

4. Being able to run at 154-160 (69-74% of hrr, 81-84% of max hr) for 45 minutes seems logical based
on your numbers. However, if you couldn't run longer than that for aerobic reasons, then that
probably *is* toward the upper end of your present aerobic zone, and hence an appropriate upper
limit for hr fartleks where the intent is to keep them aerobic. (if the intent is to get above AT
or become breathless, then it is probably low) Not having musculoskeletal system adapted to
running may be another reason.

_________

Since you bring it up, the "standard" formulas for max hr frequently are not very accurate for
population of people who exercise. Also I think the std error or deviation (don't remember which) of
the forumlae are something on the order of 10 bpm.

I found this formula the other day (don't remember the url but might have it somewhere or in earlier
post), which takes activity level into account: (don't panic it's not as bad as it looks - just a
simple formula with some adjustments thrown in based on person's activity level- formula is already
spreadsheet-ized)

max HR
=199.1+0.119*zA*zE*zF4+0.112*zA*zE+6.28*zE*zF3+3.485*zF2+2.468-0.0006*zA4-0.591*zA
zA = Age zA4 = Age/1000 zE = Exercise type: 1=run; 0=bike zF2 = Sedentary: 1; otherwise 0 zF3 =
Active 1; otherwise 0 zF4 = Endurance trained 1; otherwise 0

This may or may not work for you, but it's worked better than other forumulas for me - and gave
about the same number I've been using. You might compare it with the number you get when you exceed
"conversational" pace. I'm more comfortable with the test that I used rather than the formula, but
thought I'd post it for a check.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

RN my data maxHR=200 restHR=40 70%HR=152 i do 75% of my miles run at this % plodzilla

Running Newbie said:

Forgive me if these questions have been answered already, but I tried a search and couldn't find
what I wanted.

I'm a beginner runner using a heart rate monitor. I use an interval routine whereby I run up to
160bpm, then walk down to 141bpm, then run up again. While I haven't measured with a stopwatch,
it's my impression that I get from 141 to 160 pretty quick, so that every few minutes I have to
start walking down to 141 again. Should I slow my pace so that the run up to 160 takes longer? Or
maybe increase my ceiling hr from 160 to something a little higher?

Some info that might help: I'm 29, trim, mostly sedentary, but have weight-trained 1 hour, 3 times
a week for a year. Formulas give me a max heart rate of 191 or so but I'd guess it's a little
higher. My resting heart rate is 73 but any sort of basic activity sends it into the 90's, and
even higher. That said, I feel like I could jog slowly and keep my heart rate at about 154-160 for
at least 45 minutes or so relatively comfortably.

Any thoughts?

I would say stay away from intervals until you have some miles in your legs. The weight is fine but
really means nothing when it comes to running.

--
Sam, glad to be back after a bit of a hiatus. "Running Newbie" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Forgive me if these questions have been answered already, but I tried a search and couldn't find
what I wanted.

I'm a beginner runner using a heart rate monitor. I use an interval routine whereby I run up to
160bpm, then walk down to 141bpm, then run up again. While I haven't measured with a stopwatch,
it's my impression that I get from 141 to 160 pretty quick, so that every few minutes I have to
start walking down to 141 again. Should I slow my pace so that the run up to 160 takes longer? Or
maybe increase my ceiling hr from 160 to something a little higher?

Some info that might help: I'm 29, trim, mostly sedentary, but have weight-trained 1 hour, 3 times
a week for a year. Formulas give me a max heart rate of 191 or so but I'd guess it's a little
higher. My resting heart rate is 73 but any sort of basic activity sends it into the 90's, and
even higher. That said, I feel like I could jog slowly and keep my heart rate at about 154-160 for
at least 45 minutes or so relatively comfortably.

Any thoughts?

frank-in-toronto <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(Running Newbie) said:

Forgive me if these questions have been answered already, but I tried a search and couldn't find
what I wanted.

I'm a beginner runner using a heart rate monitor. I use an interval routine whereby I run up to
160bpm, then walk down to 141bpm, then run up again.

i'll not pose an any kind of expert so i'm just passing on what i've read and absorbed here
and there.

NO running coach would ever advise a new runner to do what you're doing. ALL advise starting slow,
building an aerobic base and then after a long time (like a few months or so) going faster with a
correspondingly higher heart rate.

this interval idea comes from the muscle comics. that should tell you something. ...thehick

Actually I got it from the Runners World website -- here's the link. I'm very new to all of this and
may not have figured out the good and bad sources of information on the web, but what's wrong with
the interval itself? it's possible that my heart rate ranges are too high, but the idea of combining
running and walking slowly phasing into all running seems like a good one to me.

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Running Newbie said:

Forgive me if these questions have been answered already, but I tried a search and couldn't find
what I wanted.

I'm a beginner runner using a heart rate monitor. I use an interval routine whereby I run up to
160bpm, then walk down to 141bpm, then run up again. While I haven't measured with a stopwatch,
it's my impression that I get from 141 to 160 pretty quick, so that every few minutes I have to
start walking down to 141 again. Should I slow my pace so that the run up to 160 takes longer?
Or maybe increase my ceiling hr from 160 to something a little higher?

Some info that might help: I'm 29, trim, mostly sedentary, but have weight-trained 1 hour, 3
times a week for a year. Formulas give me a max heart rate of 191 or so but I'd guess it's a
little higher. My resting heart rate is 73 but any sort of basic activity sends it into the
90's, and even higher. That said, I feel like I could jog slowly and keep my heart rate at about
154-160 for at least 45 minutes or so relatively comfortably.

Any thoughts?

Couple thoughts:

1. Your max hr might be underestimated (see end for max hr discussion). What I did initially since
the formulas didn't seem right and beginners probably can't run hard enough to get near their
max nor is it appropriate, is to find my hr when I started getting breathless (couldn't carry
on conversation). In my case, at the end of a run, I'd "sprint" up the small hill to my home
and called the "breathless" point the AT or LT or VT (anaerobic, lactate, or ventilatory
thresholds). These are physiologically different but are frequently used to approximate one
another (see past discussions here). That is about 90% of max hr. So divided that number by .9
to get an approximation of max hr. While I'm non-competitive, the various zones that resulted
from that calculation have worked well for me for about 2.5 years of assorted types of
training. YMMV. BTW, hills are an easy way of elevating hr without having leg speed to go hard.

Also, many training programs are based on easy, below AT, above AT (and maybe some divisions in
here) zones, so getting an approximation for that number seemed more important than a max hr.
More importantly was recognizing that zone without the hrm so I didn't become too dependent on
the tool.

2. Someone mentioned speed work was inappropriate for beginner. Let's plug in the numbers. I'm not
sure if you're using straight max hr % or Karvonen formula so will give both (it's in my
spreadsheet): HRR = hr reserve = max - rest = 191-73 = 118 141 = 58% HRR = 74% max HR might be
at lower levels of aerobic zone, possibly lower (the chart I'm using is based on lactate
threshold) 160 = 74% HRR = 84% max HR corresponds to an upper level of what's sometimes called
aerobic zone.

These seem like reasonable values except the 141 seems like a low % for running with your hr
values. BTW, did you get your resting hr when you wake up in bed (recommended) or is it a value
when sitting?

3. You mentioned you get to 160 pretty quickly - like a few minutes. That's probably about right,
maybe. I've read somewhere that recommended fartleks be 2-6 min, although that is certainly
longer than a telephone pole to telephone pole approach that is also recommended, and I've
heard of people going longer. Fartleks, by definition, are very loose and would depend on the
purpose. In beginners' programs, they're there to have some diversity in the stride, as much as
anything else, and provide an introduction faster / harder efforts.

I used to get to my upper limit in about a minute or less and had trouble getting mine back down
to whatever while jogging and had to walk (ended up upping the lower limit a little and slowing
down my initial acceleration). If you're concerned about the hard vs easy ratio having too long a
recovery, you might try doing them on easy hills - go up until your hr hits the uppper limit, then
down until easy limit.

4. Being able to run at 154-160 (69-74% of hrr, 81-84% of max hr) for 45 minutes seems logical
based on your numbers. However, if you couldn't run longer than that for aerobic reasons, then
that probably *is* toward the upper end of your present aerobic zone, and hence an appropriate
upper limit for hr fartleks where the intent is to keep them aerobic. (if the intent is to get
above AT or become breathless, then it is probably low) Not having musculoskeletal system
adapted to running may be another reason.

_________

Since you bring it up, the "standard" formulas for max hr frequently are not very accurate for
population of people who exercise. Also I think the std error or deviation (don't remember which)
of the forumlae are something on the order of 10 bpm.

I found this formula the other day (don't remember the url but might have it somewhere or in
earlier post), which takes activity level into account: (don't panic it's not as bad as it looks -
just a simple formula with some adjustments thrown in based on person's activity level- formula is
already spreadsheet-ized)

max HR
=199.1+0.119*zA*zE*zF4+0.112*zA*zE+6.28*zE*zF3+3.485*zF2+2.468-0.0006*zA4-0.591*zA
zA = Age zA4 = Age/1000 zE = Exercise type: 1=run; 0=bike zF2 = Sedentary: 1; otherwise 0 zF3 =
Active 1; otherwise 0 zF4 = Endurance trained 1; otherwise 0

This may or may not work for you, but it's worked better than other forumulas for me - and gave
about the same number I've been using. You might compare it with the number you get when you
exceed "conversational" pace. I'm more comfortable with the test that I used rather than the
formula, but thought I'd post it for a check.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

Dot

Thanks for all the responses so far! Some miscellaneous thoughts and responses to ideas
above follow:

Yeah, my max HR probably is higher, but I like the idea of "breathless point" because that's what
ultimately will stop me from running further. I think my breathless point is somewhere between 163
- 165, but will monitor my heart rate a little more closely on the next run to see. It seems that
the simplest approach, and indeed one that could have saved me the $80 spent on the HR monitor,
would be to simply run just under the breathless point for my hard runs as long as I can. Does that
seem alright?

I'm not sure if I have a runner's body. I'm heavy for my size (187 lb, 5'11"😉 and dimensions (I look
pretty skinny). I guess that I have big bones. I have a slightly disproportionately high amount of
lean body mass around the upper legs and most importantly, have VERY FLAT feet (however, I do have
recently purchased custom orthotics for that and good running shoes approved by the doctor). Is this
a big limiting factor?

Dot, I determined resting heart rate in bed by strapping on the chest strap immediately upon waking
and then laying in bed for the next twenty minutes and taking the lowest reading that I get. I admit
I've only done this once, and probably need a few more readings to get a more conclusive number.

I should say that one of my biggest goals is to lower my resting heartrate, and my normal daytime
heartrate. It seems that my heart simply works too hard for normal daily activity. Other than my non-
athletic cardio state, I feel my body is more or less in great shape, and can handle the stress of a
more "advanced" running regime, and so want to try to push myself a little.

On 10 Jan 2004 15:07:39 -0800, [email hidden] (Running

Newbie) said:

frank-in-toronto <[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted message said:

this interval idea comes from the muscle comics. that should tell you something. ...thehick

Actually I got it from the Runners World website -- here's the link.

OK. I wrote a little too quickly I skipped over your age part. So the HR you get aren't that high.
Dot, as usual, gave a very complete response. I would suggest you go back to Runners World and see
what other advice hey give. Like Hal Higdon's articles.

Try to come up with a weekly routine that suits you. It won't all be intervals. Some will be short
easy runs. Some will be longer slower. That would be my approach. Others will have different ideas.
That's why you'll develop your own.

It's way early, but give some thought to an eventual goal. Perhaps just fitness, perhaps 5K, 10K or
whatever. Later on this goal will have a direct influence on your training. good luck and keep it
up...thehick

Running Newbie said:

Yeah, my max HR probably is higher, but I like the idea of "breathless point" because that's what
ultimately will stop me from running further. I think my breathless point is somewhere between
163 - 165,

If this is true, then the 161 you're using may be about right or a little on the high side for
aerobic hr intervals / fartleks.

Maybe I should back up a little also. I didn't see the RW url you posted, so maybe it didn't come
through on my server. Could you repost that? Was it a drill they had listed or was it part of a
beginners' program or ...? Where I learned about hr fartleks / intervals was the Coach Benson
running module that I bought with my hrm, and I was somewhat confused by them. That's why I'm
interested in seeing RW description to see if any different. Although fartleks are free form and
just do what works. Intervals are more rigid in terms of either time, distance, or pace.

Just in case you haven't used the Karvonen formula (I can't remember the exact abbreviations used):
RHR = resting heart rate HRR = heart rate reserve = max hr - resting hr (determined when waking) tr
= training heart rate ptr = tr as percent of HRR = (tr-RHR)/HRR

On that basis, "easy" is somewhere around 65-75%. Most of my "easy" runs are about 68-70%. What's
sometimes referred to as aerobic speed or steady state is about high 70's to low 80's - a few bpm
below breathless point. If I'm doing fartleks, I try to cycle between those 2 zones.

My understanding (subject to me misinterpreting things) is that the "best" (perhaps for higher
efforts) aerobic conditioning is in the aerobic speed zone, BUT it's not good to do all your runs
there. However, in the easy zone (65-75%) which is recommended for beginners, you will be building
the cardiovascular infrastructure - capillaries, mitochondria, etc. I can't remember if blood volume
increase is in easy zone also or if it's in a higher zone. You can run longer at these efforts and
there's less risk of injury. By building cv infrastructure before you start adding hard work, you're
enabling your hard work to have higher quality. Think of it like a fuel delivery system - initially,
you've got a few small hoses. After training aerobically for awhile, you've got more hoses and a
higher quality pump. Then when you try to go harder there's more fuel there for your muscles.

Quoted message said:

but will monitor my heart rate a little more closely on the next run to see. It seems that the
simplest approach, and indeed one that could have saved me the $80 spent on the HR monitor, would
be to simply run just under the breathless point for my hard runs as long as I can. Does that seem
alright?

Since you're new to running, I'd give your body time to adjust and keep many (most?) of your runs
below that. But the hr fartleks are a fun way to introduce harder efforts. One way I "cheated" on
them so I could spend more time in the "work" portion was to slow my acceleration and approached the
upper hr limit asymptotically, but not go over it until I was ready to slow down, which sometimes
never happened (deliberately) - not sure that was the intent of them 😉

What I tend to do now is cycle between the easy zone and aerobic speed zone. In my case, between
about 68-70% (79-80% mhr) and 76-80% (84-86% mhr) or so using Karvonen formula. I stay away from the
breathless point (about 85% karvonen, 90% mhr) unless I'm intending to push anaerobic threshold
work. Rather than breaking off immediately when I hit the upper hr, I may hold it there for a while,
if I can (usually can on good trails, but not for long if snowshoe running). I think you'll find a
sweet spot that works for you. My "speed" efforts are somewhat limited by trail conditions, so on a
road, I might do them a little differently. Harder efforts (AT work) for me involve hills rather
than speed. YMMV. Just trying to give you some ideas.

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure if I have a runner's body. I'm heavy for my size (187 lb, 5'11"😉 and dimensions (I
look pretty skinny). I guess that I have big bones. I have a slightly disproportionately high
amount of lean body mass around the upper legs and most importantly, have VERY FLAT feet (however,
I do have recently purchased custom orthotics for that and good running shoes approved by the
doctor). Is this a big limiting factor?

It shouldn't be. But if you have pronation issues, doing some foot / ankles strengthening besides
the orthotics might be a good idea. I have high arches, but overpronate and have orthotics, *and* my
PT gave me exercises to help correct some of the issues (both structural and functional).

Quoted message said:

Dot, I determined resting heart rate in bed by strapping on the chest strap immediately
upon waking and then laying in bed for the next twenty minutes and taking the lowest
reading that I get.

Yep, that sounds like a good way to do it.

I admit I've

Quoted message said:

only done this once, and probably need a few more readings to get a more conclusive number.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea. I know I found that when I started doing any movement, even putting
the hrm on, my hr goes up.

Quoted message said:

I should say that one of my biggest goals is to lower my resting heartrate, and my normal daytime
heartrate. It seems that my heart simply works too hard for normal daily activity.

Everybody's heart is different and some beat slower/faster than others, although frequently good
exercise does help lower resting hr as well as the hr at which those exercies are performed. That's
why the book I learned from suggested talking in terms of percentages, rather than actual bpm.

Other than my

Quoted message said:

non-athletic cardio state, I feel my body is more or less in great shape, and can handle the
stress of a more "advanced" running regime, and so want to try to push myself a little.

Try "beginning" first before worrying about "advanced" 😉 You're only 29 and you have a lifetiime to
run. Build gradually to reduce probability of injury and have fun.

Depending on other interests and what you have around you, things like snowshoeing, xc skiing,
hiking up steep hills, mt biking, etc can all get your hr up. Using multiple sports may enable you
to have a higher volume in a week, than running alone. Although I think you did mention you were
already lifting 3 days/wk. But in your log keep track of all your activities. They all interact in
both positive and negative ways.

Enjoy!

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

The idea is that you need to build a base and that starts with running at a much easier pace. I
recommend at least 8 weeks before beginning intervals. In some cases, more time is necessary. Why
hurry things? When you began weight training did you start lifting heavy weights from day 1?

I wonder if the RW article addresses building a base (I did not see a link)

--
Sam, glad to be back after a bit of a hiatus. "Running Newbie" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

frank-in-toronto <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Running Newbie) said:

Forgive me if these questions have been answered already, but I tried a search and couldn't
find what I wanted.

I'm a beginner runner using a heart rate monitor. I use an interval routine whereby I run up to
160bpm, then walk down to 141bpm, then run up again.

i'll not pose an any kind of expert so i'm just passing on what i've read and absorbed here and
there.

NO running coach would ever advise a new runner to do what you're doing. ALL advise starting
slow, building an aerobic base and then after a long time (like a few months or so) going faster
with a correspondingly higher heart rate.

this interval idea comes from the muscle comics. that should tell you something. ...thehick

Actually I got it from the Runners World website -- here's the link. I'm very new to all of this
and may not have figured out the good and bad sources of information on the web, but what's wrong
with the interval itself? it's possible that my heart rate ranges are too high, but the idea of
combining running and walking slowly phasing into all running seems like a good one to me.