A big part of the Maffetone method of endurance training is the maximum aerobic function test, or MAF test. Its stated purpose is to measure progress and to monitor for potential problems.
You should probably just read the link from above, but in short, it's a periodic test where one measures performance at the target heart rate provided by the 180 formula. A runner, for example, might run three miles, recording lap times of each mile. This is repeated monthly. Each lap within one test should get progressively slower, but from test to test, there should be improvement.
By comparing MAF test results over time, you can see progress. If progress halts or even reverses, that indicates some sort of problem, like under- or over-training, poor diet, or stress.
I don't do MAF tests. I have never done one. Here's the reason: the way I'm doing it, every day is a MAF test. I start at a pace that I can't maintain for the entire run at my target heart rate. My heart-rate-controlled treadmill makes sure I keep my heart rate steady, and adjusts my pace accordingly. When I've improved so I can maintain my starting pace at my target heart rate, I increase my starting pace. If that pace turns out to be a little too fast, my treadmill program takes care of it.
I chart everything over time, so I can see improvement. I watch my pace in particular. Earlier this year I was still improving as I drifted away from the regimen. I was pretty disciplined for around four months, and I saw my training pace improve by about 74 seconds per km, or two minutes per mile, while my heart rate actually slowed by about 5 bpm. It's hard to argue with results like that.
Summer rolled around, I abandoned the treadmill for the road, and I stopped training by heart rate. I mostly didn't even measure heart rate.
I started this in February; this time around I've started in December. I'm curious to see what improvements I'll get during treadmill season. I also hope to extend it to the outdoors. I have the necessary equipment; now I just need to do it.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Maffetone revisited
When I last wrote about the Maffetone Method, I was training at a heart rate a little higher than what Dr. Maffetone recommends, and was trying to slowly work my way down.
All of that went out the window when the weather warmed up and I got off the treadmill and went outside. Although I have a heart rate monitor to wear outside (my treadmill has its own HRM), I just never got into the habit of having it control my pace. I ran less often, and when I did, my HR was well above my target.
Now that it's treadmill weather again, I'm going to try to keep my heart at the recommended rate. On Monday I set my treadmill to adjust my pace and incline to keep my heart rate at 127 bpm. I later realized that since I've had a birthday since I last calculated the formula, it was actually supposed to be 126 bpm.
I was expecting it to be slow, but not as slow as it turned out to be! It was my slowest run of the year by far. The only other run that was even close was a sluggish set of hill repeats.
I was a little worried that I'd be trudging along at a horribly slow pace for weeks, but the next two days went better. In retrospect, I think Monday's pace was a result of a very long day on Saturday at a robotics tournament, and then on Sunday I took a longer-than-usual run. I was pretty tired.
Yesterday and today I managed to keep my heart rate low while at a running pace a full minute per km faster than Monday, and also faster than when I started HR-based training back in February. Back then, I was targeting 138 bpm; now, at 12 fewer beats per minute, I'm going a little faster. I guess my summer of half-hearted non-Maffetone training didn't erase all of my aerobic gains.
I still have the problem of my treadmill sometimes giving me a few extra beats per minute before it slows me down. I may just set it to 123 bpm.
All of that went out the window when the weather warmed up and I got off the treadmill and went outside. Although I have a heart rate monitor to wear outside (my treadmill has its own HRM), I just never got into the habit of having it control my pace. I ran less often, and when I did, my HR was well above my target.
Now that it's treadmill weather again, I'm going to try to keep my heart at the recommended rate. On Monday I set my treadmill to adjust my pace and incline to keep my heart rate at 127 bpm. I later realized that since I've had a birthday since I last calculated the formula, it was actually supposed to be 126 bpm.
I was expecting it to be slow, but not as slow as it turned out to be! It was my slowest run of the year by far. The only other run that was even close was a sluggish set of hill repeats.
I was a little worried that I'd be trudging along at a horribly slow pace for weeks, but the next two days went better. In retrospect, I think Monday's pace was a result of a very long day on Saturday at a robotics tournament, and then on Sunday I took a longer-than-usual run. I was pretty tired.
Yesterday and today I managed to keep my heart rate low while at a running pace a full minute per km faster than Monday, and also faster than when I started HR-based training back in February. Back then, I was targeting 138 bpm; now, at 12 fewer beats per minute, I'm going a little faster. I guess my summer of half-hearted non-Maffetone training didn't erase all of my aerobic gains.
I still have the problem of my treadmill sometimes giving me a few extra beats per minute before it slows me down. I may just set it to 123 bpm.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Race report -- 2012 Brookings Half Marathon
I ran the Brookings Half Marathon on Saturday. Between six and fourteen days* prior to the race, I didn't train at all, so I wasn't as prepared as I would have liked. Even so, it was a good day and a good run. The weather was as good as it gets: almost no wind, and just the temperature I like. It was in the low 40s F at the start, and by the finish it was still cool.
As expected, I had a much easier time than last year, when I was forced by injury to take nearly a month off. In this year's race, I ran at about 12 seconds per km faster than my typical training pace. Had I not interrupted my training for travel, I expect I'd have gone only a little faster. Of my five half marathons, this one's pace was right in the middle.
I briefly considered wearing my Merrell Road Gloves, but in the end decided I needed a little more shoe than that and wore my Brooks Green Silence. I've liked those shoes from the start, and Saturday didn't change my opinion. I think if they had a little less drop from heel to forefoot, I'd like them even more, but I can't complain too much -- they performed very well.
Race director Dr. Matt Bien and his team did their usual exemplary work of putting on an event. I can't think of a single thing to complain about. Thanks to all of the volunteers -- you were great as usual.
* I was travelling with my family on vacation, and also to accompany my son's First Lego League robotics team to the World Invitational Open tournament. It was a ton of fun; maybe I'll write about it.
As expected, I had a much easier time than last year, when I was forced by injury to take nearly a month off. In this year's race, I ran at about 12 seconds per km faster than my typical training pace. Had I not interrupted my training for travel, I expect I'd have gone only a little faster. Of my five half marathons, this one's pace was right in the middle.
I briefly considered wearing my Merrell Road Gloves, but in the end decided I needed a little more shoe than that and wore my Brooks Green Silence. I've liked those shoes from the start, and Saturday didn't change my opinion. I think if they had a little less drop from heel to forefoot, I'd like them even more, but I can't complain too much -- they performed very well.
Race director Dr. Matt Bien and his team did their usual exemplary work of putting on an event. I can't think of a single thing to complain about. Thanks to all of the volunteers -- you were great as usual.
* I was travelling with my family on vacation, and also to accompany my son's First Lego League robotics team to the World Invitational Open tournament. It was a ton of fun; maybe I'll write about it.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Merrell Road Gloves on the Road
I took the new shoes out for about 6 km this morning over mixed surfaces -- mostly concrete and asphalt, but some grass and gravel. They were every bit as good as I had hoped. They are very comfortable, even on gravel. I can feel every pebble, but the shoe offers just enough protection so there's no pain. They certainly don't give as much ground feel as the Vibram Five Fingers Classics, but I think it's a good trade-off. I like having laces so I can get a secure yet comfortable fit. The toe box is nice and roomy just like I like it. I think I've found my new everyday shoes.
I don't think I'll run my half marathon in them, though -- for 21 km, I'll need a little more shoe than this. I'll probably wear my clown shoes (Brooks Green Silence).
[update 2012/04/07]
I ran another 12 km today, and still love these shoes. I'm even thinking about the possibility wearing them for my half marathon. I'll see how I feel about it in five weeks.
I don't think I'll run my half marathon in them, though -- for 21 km, I'll need a little more shoe than this. I'll probably wear my clown shoes (Brooks Green Silence).
[update 2012/04/07]
I ran another 12 km today, and still love these shoes. I'm even thinking about the possibility wearing them for my half marathon. I'll see how I feel about it in five weeks.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Merrell Road Glove
I bought a pair of Merrell Road Glove shoes yesterday, and ran in them this morning. I ran 50 minutes on the treadmill, and I liked the shoes from the first step. I've been running almost exclusively in Vibram Five Fingers Classics, and I like the Road Gloves better. It's not that the Five Fingers are bad, but the Classic model probably isn't the best choice for running. If I buy Five Fingers in the future I expect it would be something like the Bikila LS.
I'll have more to say about the Road Gloves in the near future.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Maffetone 180-formula and HRM-based treadmill training
Since I've started using the Maffetone Method for training, I've run exclusively on a treadmill; specifically, a Life Fitness T3-5. I've had it in my house for five years, and I really like it. It works very well with the Maffetone Method, since my pace can be controlled via heart rate.
I've recently changed my routine just a bit, for three reasons:
Between 12 Feb and 22 March, my pace at 138 beats per minute dropped by about 58 seconds per kilometer (just over 1 1/2 minutes per mile). The main reason I didn't use the 180-formula to begin with was that my pace at 127 beats per minute would have been very slow; almost a walk. It probably would have been a walk at the end of an hour, although I admit that I didn't actually try it.
Rather than abruptly change from 138 bpm to 127 bpm, I'm doing it gradually. Before I was keeping my heart rate at 138, but bumping up my speed once I had been able to maintain a given pace for two days. I'll continue to do that; but I'll also drop my target heart rate by 1 bpm as well.
This has slowed my pace progress a little; I'd been speeding up every two days like clockwork for more than two weeks. My last two up-ticks in pace, along with a down-tick in heart rate, have both required more than two days to maintain. I'm currently at 136 beats per minute. I don't know if I'll ever get all the way down to 127. Before I get there, I'll probably have moved from Maffetone's category B ("inconsistent [training] or are just getting back into training") to category C ("training consistently"), which will move my target up 5 beats per minute.
I've recently changed my routine just a bit, for three reasons:
- I haven't been following Maffetone's 180-formula, and I'd like to get closer to it.
- The way the Life Fitness heart rate control works puts me even farther away from the 180-formula. It allows me to go 3 or 4 beats per minute faster than my set target without slowing me down; this happens often near the end of longer runs.
- Although when I started I was skeptical of the practicality of 180-formula for me personally, the improvements in my maximum aerobic function surely allow me to run at a much lower heart rate than when I started.
Between 12 Feb and 22 March, my pace at 138 beats per minute dropped by about 58 seconds per kilometer (just over 1 1/2 minutes per mile). The main reason I didn't use the 180-formula to begin with was that my pace at 127 beats per minute would have been very slow; almost a walk. It probably would have been a walk at the end of an hour, although I admit that I didn't actually try it.
Rather than abruptly change from 138 bpm to 127 bpm, I'm doing it gradually. Before I was keeping my heart rate at 138, but bumping up my speed once I had been able to maintain a given pace for two days. I'll continue to do that; but I'll also drop my target heart rate by 1 bpm as well.
This has slowed my pace progress a little; I'd been speeding up every two days like clockwork for more than two weeks. My last two up-ticks in pace, along with a down-tick in heart rate, have both required more than two days to maintain. I'm currently at 136 beats per minute. I don't know if I'll ever get all the way down to 127. Before I get there, I'll probably have moved from Maffetone's category B ("inconsistent [training] or are just getting back into training") to category C ("training consistently"), which will move my target up 5 beats per minute.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Maffetone Method
For about a month, I've been training using principles of the Maffetone Method. I mentioned this indirectly; at the time, though I knew a little of Dr. Maffetone, I really hadn't read much of his work.
That didn't stop me from jumping in and start using the one part of his method that I knew -- at least, I nearly used it. I fudged a little.
You can read about it on his web site. In particular, here's a page describing how to pick an appropriate heart rate for training. He dismisses the usual "220-age" formula that you may have seen, and has his own formula. It is mainly based on age, but makes some adjustments for health and fitness. What it does not adjust for, which seems strange to me, is the rather wide variation in maximum heart rate. My own max rate, for example, is fairly high for my age. I haven't done a max test in a number of years, but during a not particularly hard run just this month, I hit 186 beats per minute. I'm sure my actual max is at least a little above that. In past years, I've measured my heart rate at over 200.
All of this suggests to me that my own heart rate range is probably about 20 beats per minute higher than the mean for my age. I'm 48.
Using Maffetone's 180-formula, I get to 127 beats per minute. I can hit that at a walking pace.
Using Mark Allen's slight variation I get to 132 beats per minute. Let's say a moderately brisk walking pace.
I'm no expert, but neither of those seemed like a reasonable benchmark.
I did a little experimenting on the treadmill, and found that I could keep a slow run going at 138 beats per minute, so that's what I've been using.
Here's my routine: I run every day (though I skipped 5 days when I had a viral infection and couldn't run without falling off the treadmill in a coughing fit). My minimum run is 30 minutes, and my maximum is 60. Each day I pick the duration mostly by how I feel and how much time I have available. I hope to get a bit more structure as I progress, and also do some longer runs, but as of now, this is what I'm doing.
I started with a pace that I guessed would be close to the fastest I could manage at a heart rate of 138 beats per minuted. I have a treadmill that will adjust both incline and pace based on heart rate, so each day I just set that up and run. I think my guess was reasonably close. The first seven days I just stayed at that same pace, and the treadmill didn't have to slow me down because my HR went up. On the eighth day I bumped up my pace a tick (i.e., by 0.1 km/hr), and that day I did have to slow down to maintain my target rate.
My original idea was that if I could maintain a given pace all the way through for three days in a row, and keep my heart rate at my target, I would speed up another tick. I kept this up for a couple weeks, and the only times the treadmill program slowed me down were the one I mentioned before (the eighth day), and just after I took those five days off from being sick.
After that, I've never had to slow down, so about a week ago I decided that just two days in a row with no slow-down would be my new standard for picking up the pace. Tomorrow I'm set to go up another tick; that'll be four times in a row on a two-day schedule.
Every run is at a comfortable pace. I'm never pushing myself really hard, and as a result, I'm never dreading a run, and I'm never spent at the end.
But here's the thing: after just over a month (minus sick days), I find myself running each kilometer more than 37 seconds faster than when I started, but my heart rate is the same. In standard (i.e., non-metric) terms, I've dropped just over a minute per mile.
This is all predicted by Dr. Maffetone. He says don't kill yourself. "No Pain, No Gain" is for chumps. You don't have to injure yourself, or be tired all the time, to improve.
I'm part-way through one of Maffetone's books. and it's already changed how I'm going to proceed. I said about a week ago that I was soon going to incorporate some intervals. I've changed my mind. Part of the reason is what I've read (he says to build your aerobic base at a low heart rate for three to six months), but mostly I've just looked at my results so far, and thought about it.
Why change something that's working so well?
That didn't stop me from jumping in and start using the one part of his method that I knew -- at least, I nearly used it. I fudged a little.
You can read about it on his web site. In particular, here's a page describing how to pick an appropriate heart rate for training. He dismisses the usual "220-age" formula that you may have seen, and has his own formula. It is mainly based on age, but makes some adjustments for health and fitness. What it does not adjust for, which seems strange to me, is the rather wide variation in maximum heart rate. My own max rate, for example, is fairly high for my age. I haven't done a max test in a number of years, but during a not particularly hard run just this month, I hit 186 beats per minute. I'm sure my actual max is at least a little above that. In past years, I've measured my heart rate at over 200.
All of this suggests to me that my own heart rate range is probably about 20 beats per minute higher than the mean for my age. I'm 48.
Using Maffetone's 180-formula, I get to 127 beats per minute. I can hit that at a walking pace.
Using Mark Allen's slight variation I get to 132 beats per minute. Let's say a moderately brisk walking pace.
I'm no expert, but neither of those seemed like a reasonable benchmark.
I did a little experimenting on the treadmill, and found that I could keep a slow run going at 138 beats per minute, so that's what I've been using.
Here's my routine: I run every day (though I skipped 5 days when I had a viral infection and couldn't run without falling off the treadmill in a coughing fit). My minimum run is 30 minutes, and my maximum is 60. Each day I pick the duration mostly by how I feel and how much time I have available. I hope to get a bit more structure as I progress, and also do some longer runs, but as of now, this is what I'm doing.
I started with a pace that I guessed would be close to the fastest I could manage at a heart rate of 138 beats per minuted. I have a treadmill that will adjust both incline and pace based on heart rate, so each day I just set that up and run. I think my guess was reasonably close. The first seven days I just stayed at that same pace, and the treadmill didn't have to slow me down because my HR went up. On the eighth day I bumped up my pace a tick (i.e., by 0.1 km/hr), and that day I did have to slow down to maintain my target rate.
My original idea was that if I could maintain a given pace all the way through for three days in a row, and keep my heart rate at my target, I would speed up another tick. I kept this up for a couple weeks, and the only times the treadmill program slowed me down were the one I mentioned before (the eighth day), and just after I took those five days off from being sick.
After that, I've never had to slow down, so about a week ago I decided that just two days in a row with no slow-down would be my new standard for picking up the pace. Tomorrow I'm set to go up another tick; that'll be four times in a row on a two-day schedule.
Every run is at a comfortable pace. I'm never pushing myself really hard, and as a result, I'm never dreading a run, and I'm never spent at the end.
But here's the thing: after just over a month (minus sick days), I find myself running each kilometer more than 37 seconds faster than when I started, but my heart rate is the same. In standard (i.e., non-metric) terms, I've dropped just over a minute per mile.
This is all predicted by Dr. Maffetone. He says don't kill yourself. "No Pain, No Gain" is for chumps. You don't have to injure yourself, or be tired all the time, to improve.
I'm part-way through one of Maffetone's books. and it's already changed how I'm going to proceed. I said about a week ago that I was soon going to incorporate some intervals. I've changed my mind. Part of the reason is what I've read (he says to build your aerobic base at a low heart rate for three to six months), but mostly I've just looked at my results so far, and thought about it.
Why change something that's working so well?
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Science Friday: exercise and DNA
A segment on Science Friday discussed the effect of exercise on DNA. The headline is a little misleading -- DNA itself is not changed; rather, DNA methylation changes. Says Dr. Juleen Zierath:
[W]e found that 35 minutes of high-intensity exercise was sufficient to have a removal of these methyl groups from the DNA and a production of proteins which would support the metabolism of sugar and fat after exercise. So it's not just to exercise. In this case, you needed to do an exercise bout which would be at the level of where you might not be able to comfortably talk if you're running with a running partner. It's not like walking. Running or biking at a level of exertion where it's hard to carry on a conversation for about 35 minutes.I've been deliberately avoiding high-intensity running lately, but I'm about to introduce some interval training in the next week or two. I have nine weeks until my half marathon.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Trying a new training regimen
I'm training for the local half marathon again. Like last year (before I was interrupted), I started using Runner's World's SmartCoach. Unlike last year, however, I wasn't really enjoying the plan. This is no fault of SmartCoach -- I still recommend that anybody looking for a plan should give it a look. The problem was the parameters that I plugged in were so terrible that it gave me a training schedule that just didn't fit what I was looking for.
The way it works is you put in a recent race time, your current weekly mileage, and how hard you'd like to train. I didn't really have any recent race times. I put in last year's half marathon, which I had run on three weeks of training after nearly a month off. Needless to say, it was slow, even for me. Also, my weekly mileage at that time was puny.
So SmartCoach had me running only three times a week for the first eight weeks, and four times for the remaining ten weeks. This was reasonable for a plodder with my recent training and speed.
I had two major problems with this schedule. First, I'm more enthusiastic about running now than I have been for a long time, and so I really wanted to run more than 24 times in eight weeks. The second thing is my assessment of what I need in order to improve on last year's fiasco in the half: I need to weigh less. Yes, I need the miles on the road, some speed work, all of that, but mostly I need to shrink my big belly. It's been my experience that the best way for me to do that, by far, is to exercise every day.
So after about five weeks of the SmartCoach schedule, I was really ready for a change.
Meanwhile, I started reading Kyle Kranz's blog. It's good. Read it. Coincidentally, he's the first guy I ever saw running in Vibram FiveFingers. It was in the Jack 15 a few years ago. I saw him just ahead of me early in the race, and I was so interested that I rushed up to him and pestered him with questions. Little did I know then that he didn't just run the 15 mile race that day; he ran several miles prior to make it a 26.2-mile day. These days he's running ultra-marathons.
Anyway, one of his posts mentions heart-rate-based training. Kyle doesn't really give much detail in that particular post, but the two pages he links go into the nitty-gritty. I don't remember exactly when, but some years ago I had read that second link. Along with a lot of training theory, it tells the story of a former runner who started up again, and the methods his friend & coach (the writer) suggested to him.
I won't go into much detail here, but it boils down to running exclusively at a low heart rate for several weeks before moving on to anything faster. The idea is to turn oneself into an efficient aerobic machine.
So about a week ago, I started running every day, at an easy pace. I have a Life Fitness T3-5 treadmill that is very good for this kind of thing. I tell it my target heart rate, initial speed, and how long I want to run, and it adjusts the incline and speed to keep my heart near that target.
Typically it gives me about three minutes before making any adjustments. Invariably, my heart rate at that point is well below the target, so it raises the incline. It gradually increases the incline until I've reached the target heart rate. From then on, it raises and lowers the incline as required. If I'm at zero incline, and my heart rate is too high, it will decrease the speed. It never increases the speed, even back to the starting speed -- once it's slowed down, it stays there or goes even slower if need be.
I picked an initial speed based on what SmartCoach had as my easy pace. So far, after a week, I haven't had to slow down to maintain my heart rate. I figured I'd give it a week at this pace, to see how I adjusted to running every day.
I ran just 30 minutes every day until today, when I ran 60 minutes. Still no slowdown at an hour, and indeed the treadmill even had me at a non-zero incline for most of the run. By the end I felt that in another 15 minutes or so I would have had to slow down a bit. I think this means I'm not too far under my best speed for this low heart rate.
So my plan is to slightly increase the speed starting tomorrow, and to stay at the same heart rate. Each time I can maintain the initial speed for the entire run three days in a row, I'll speed up 0.1 km/hr. I'll also run more than 30 minutes most days.
I'm very curious to see how this goes. I've always been a pretty slow runner, but this is slow even for me. If it works, I should be steadily speeding up. I'll try to post my findings in the coming weeks. I'll also say a bit about how I chose my target heart rate.
The way it works is you put in a recent race time, your current weekly mileage, and how hard you'd like to train. I didn't really have any recent race times. I put in last year's half marathon, which I had run on three weeks of training after nearly a month off. Needless to say, it was slow, even for me. Also, my weekly mileage at that time was puny.
So SmartCoach had me running only three times a week for the first eight weeks, and four times for the remaining ten weeks. This was reasonable for a plodder with my recent training and speed.
I had two major problems with this schedule. First, I'm more enthusiastic about running now than I have been for a long time, and so I really wanted to run more than 24 times in eight weeks. The second thing is my assessment of what I need in order to improve on last year's fiasco in the half: I need to weigh less. Yes, I need the miles on the road, some speed work, all of that, but mostly I need to shrink my big belly. It's been my experience that the best way for me to do that, by far, is to exercise every day.
So after about five weeks of the SmartCoach schedule, I was really ready for a change.
Meanwhile, I started reading Kyle Kranz's blog. It's good. Read it. Coincidentally, he's the first guy I ever saw running in Vibram FiveFingers. It was in the Jack 15 a few years ago. I saw him just ahead of me early in the race, and I was so interested that I rushed up to him and pestered him with questions. Little did I know then that he didn't just run the 15 mile race that day; he ran several miles prior to make it a 26.2-mile day. These days he's running ultra-marathons.
Anyway, one of his posts mentions heart-rate-based training. Kyle doesn't really give much detail in that particular post, but the two pages he links go into the nitty-gritty. I don't remember exactly when, but some years ago I had read that second link. Along with a lot of training theory, it tells the story of a former runner who started up again, and the methods his friend & coach (the writer) suggested to him.
I won't go into much detail here, but it boils down to running exclusively at a low heart rate for several weeks before moving on to anything faster. The idea is to turn oneself into an efficient aerobic machine.
So about a week ago, I started running every day, at an easy pace. I have a Life Fitness T3-5 treadmill that is very good for this kind of thing. I tell it my target heart rate, initial speed, and how long I want to run, and it adjusts the incline and speed to keep my heart near that target.
Typically it gives me about three minutes before making any adjustments. Invariably, my heart rate at that point is well below the target, so it raises the incline. It gradually increases the incline until I've reached the target heart rate. From then on, it raises and lowers the incline as required. If I'm at zero incline, and my heart rate is too high, it will decrease the speed. It never increases the speed, even back to the starting speed -- once it's slowed down, it stays there or goes even slower if need be.
I picked an initial speed based on what SmartCoach had as my easy pace. So far, after a week, I haven't had to slow down to maintain my heart rate. I figured I'd give it a week at this pace, to see how I adjusted to running every day.
I ran just 30 minutes every day until today, when I ran 60 minutes. Still no slowdown at an hour, and indeed the treadmill even had me at a non-zero incline for most of the run. By the end I felt that in another 15 minutes or so I would have had to slow down a bit. I think this means I'm not too far under my best speed for this low heart rate.
So my plan is to slightly increase the speed starting tomorrow, and to stay at the same heart rate. Each time I can maintain the initial speed for the entire run three days in a row, I'll speed up 0.1 km/hr. I'll also run more than 30 minutes most days.
I'm very curious to see how this goes. I've always been a pretty slow runner, but this is slow even for me. If it works, I should be steadily speeding up. I'll try to post my findings in the coming weeks. I'll also say a bit about how I chose my target heart rate.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Running on the White Line: One Good Earbud Review
I often use headphones when I run on the treadmill, but never when I run outside. I consider it to be a safety hazard, since 'phones prevent me from hearing traffic. Here's an interesting solution to the safety problem: just use one ear, not both. Kyle at Running on the White Line reviews:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)