> I'd like to think my HRM is more than an expensive watch,
> but I don't know if I'm getting any fitness gains from moving
> this slowly.
Forget all the "your age minus 220, multiplied
by .756, divided by the square root of 223"
type formulas, none of which are worth anything
whatsoever for practical purposes. What you
do is this:
Go to a running track or find a really flat
trail to run on for a mile or two. Then you
resolve to determine three or four things.
Do 4 trial runs (not necessarily on the same
day, of course) and determine your average
heart rate in each of these 4 trial runs. Then
use those figures as your basis for training.
(1) Slow-casual running pace which you can
keep up for several miles. You should be able
to talk easily and joke around with a running
partner at this pace. This will be like a "recovery
run" pace.. You can forget this if you don't usually
run at a really slow pace for recovery.
(2) Brisk pace which you keep up for only
3-5 miles (i.e. a brisk 5km training pace).
This should be just fast enough so that
you really dont want to engage in conversation
when your doing this. But not a race pace.
(3) An extremely brisk run. Calculate your
heart rate when doing 1 mile intervals. The
pace should be such that you can repeat
(4) Calculate your average heart rate for
high intensity intervals. Example 400, 800
or 1km intervals; whichever you would
be more likely to do.
This is basically the, go-by-feel method
and it works better than any formula does
for determining your own heart rate limits
at various intensities..
Then... whenever you want to do a training
session, be it a slow recovery jog, a brisk tempo
run, or high intensity intervals; you will thusly know
what the appropriate heart rate range is for that
And might I point out the obvious... that since
you already have a HRM, theres no reason that
you can't attempt to figure out your maximum
heart rate. It can actually be pretty hard to get
your heart rate to its very very maximum.. but
usually you get get close enough; ceartainly more
reliable than the 220-age type formulas.