From rmg3@access5.digex.net Thu Apr 30 08:36:40 EDT 1998

In article <6i5r4u$8bb@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Domenico Vitarella  wrote:

>I went out for my first run with it and set a target range of 65-75%   AT
>this rate, my pace was extremely slow. It took me 28 min. to run 2 miles,
>whereas normally, I'd be running the same distance in about 20 mins. It felt
>like I was barely running.

  At 28 min for 2 miles, it might be worth a try to try walking quickly
and see if you hit the target HR that way.  If so, ... probably worth
going to the walking for a while, particularly since you note:
>
>It practically felt like I was
>walking. I could barely stand to run the 2 miles so slowly.
>
  As a general matter, it seems that there is much to be said for
running slower than you think you should.  Glover and Schuder, 
New Competitive Runner's Handbook note that one of the things
done in their running clinic is almost always to slow down the
new members.  That's for competitive rather than fitness runners,
so presumably this is more than just injury avoidance.

>BTW, about a month ago I ran a 5K and was able to complete in 29:21. I plan
>on running another 5k in about a month, and was hoping to make a significant
>improvement on that time, which is one reason for the purchase of the HRM.

  I'm surprised your HRM is leading to a pace so much lower than your
race pace.  You're under 10 minute miles for the race.  The Glover
and Schuder rule of thumb is long slow distance pace at 1:30 to 2:00 slower
than 10 k race pace.  That should top out at something like 13 minute 
miles.

  On the other hand ... it is also possible that in slowing down, you
are doing so by getting less efficient rather than by efficiently 
running slowly.  tangled syntax.  What I mean is that you can run
slower either by expending less energy but with the same efficiency,
or by expending the same energy but less efficiently.  One way of doing
the latter is to run 'vertically' -- your steps don't take you forward
much, but you rise and fall even more than usual.  Beware of doing this;
it is the single most common large error (IMHO) in running (of course
I know this because I do it).

>If I slow down my training pace so significantly, how will it affect my race
>pace in a month? Which leads to another question, during a race, what should
>my working HR range be?

  Race pace for most of us is not the real problem.  If I go out and
run a fast mile (which I did last weekend), I run at a pace that is
ludicrously faster than I have any right to expect to run for 5k.  The
problem isn't 'speed', it is DON'T SLOW DOWN (a mantra of distance
runners, I believe).  Most running for a distance runner is aimed at
training your body to keep going (in good running form).  The pace,
therefore, need not be race pace.  What you do instead is to run for
the _time_ (or longer) of the race.  Your body learns that it is entirely
capable of running for 30 minutes without a stop (eventually).  You
get it comfortable with 30 minutes at a 'gentle' pace.  Then, come race
day, you spring out like a gazelle and say 'surprise, today's 30 minutes
is going to be faster than normal'.

  You can moderate the surprise by taking the occasional day (I'm doing
once a week) where you run at race pace -- but for less than race 
distance.  I'm working on the mile, so I started race pace for 200m at
a time, then 400m, and tomorrow will probably do 800m (which I expect
to be very difficult.  Usual standard is repeats at 1/4th the length
of the race.  1/2 for a rough day, less than 1/4 to learn how to pace
it at all.).  

  I can't answer on the HR question.  I run both a high max HR, and a 
high HR for a given level of effort.  Race pace for me, pretty much
regardless of distance up to my longest race (6k) is 100% max HR (in
the sense that I've counted the same at the end of all races as for
a hard 800m).  Training pace, and I've backed off in training, is 
now 80-85% (used to be 100% -- used to be I was incapable of running
any pace for any distance without pegging out at my highest counted
rate).  I think these figures are generally high, so if any heart 
rate gurus have futher insight, I'm interested too.
 
-- 
Robert Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net http://www.access.digex.net/~rmg3/
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences