Building A Better Bumblebee

At the risk of looking at another navel, I hit 201 in 2009 doing a 10K.  I hadn't been training, but I could run a 10K.  So, my HR efficiency at that time wasn't great.  That's why I set my max at 200.

Don't mind the lint.

ounce wrote:At the risk of looking at another navel, I hit 201 in 2009 doing a 10K.  I hadn't been training, but I could run a 10K.  So, my HR efficiency at that time wasn't great.  That's why I set my max at 200.

Don't mind the lint.

It's my understanding that MaxHR is less associated with fitness than it is the characteristics of your heart. In other words, your max will be your max whether you're a couch potato or marathoner. Fitness is measured by what it takes to get you to the max, and what getting to the max does to you.

I have heard that some extremely fit elite-types may see their max HR actually drop with conditioning, so that's another bit of confusion to add to the mix. You're welcome!

So, a preface: This is all Mike's fault.

---

Extra-Low HR Run: 45 minutes (3.11 miles)

Weather: Mostly cloudy, cool. 48 degrees. Gear: Bare feet, shorts, long-sleeved T, windbreaker.

I had been thinking about going out on a local trail this morning, but a question about target heart rates had me revisiting an old internal debate about exactly what heart rate I should be targeting on my runs. I've been targeting 138, higher than it probably should be, and I've had a devil of a time even hitting that. So an experiment seemed in order.

I headed out to do some laps around the block to see if I was even capable of running slow enough to ratchet my heart rate back to my "textbook" MAF rate of 129. I wanted to run below that heart rate and walk if needed if it rose above 130. What complicates the situation is that each lap has dips and rolls, so I had to manage the effort level going up and down.


(Before you get impressed, check the number of feet between the peaks and valleys.)

The good news: I was able to do it, with an average HR no greater than 127 in my second and third miles. I peaked at a max of 135 once but immediately brought it down. It was surprisingly easy to roll along in the mid 120s, though my pace was obviously much slower than when I was banging along at 141 trying to satisfy my ego.



I guess there really isn't any bad news.

I experimented with breathing while I was out there and found that a 3-in, 6-out seems to work pretty well. When I had some difficulty keeping my heart rate down going uphill, I experimented with a 3-in, 8-out that may have helped. I wonder if it's helping push out more CO2 or something... Anyway, it seems to work, and it has that lovely odd-even mix that switches up the feet.

I feel pretty refreshed after the run, so that's a good thing, too. Who knows? Maybe I'm on to something here.  (Thanks, Mike!)

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run: 120 (!)

I'm a bit more sore than expected after my two days of running. It probably has more to do with me scooting around on the roof Sunday than anything else. Working the super-slow-twitch muscles may have played a role, too. It's probably just as well that it was busy at work and I couldn't go out for a walk at lunch.

Before work, I did hip, core and calf work.

Hips: 3x50 each side of clamshells, side leg lifts and leg circles, 150 reps total.
Core: 3x50 bridges. (First time I tried doing more than one set. Oof!)
Calves: 3x50 single-leg heel raises each side, with knee locked.

I'm not sure about progression beyond this: Whether I need to keep increasing reps or sets (or days doing it), or if this is sufficient accomplish what I need. I do this routine once a week now, with a second day with single-leg stork poses for as long as I can stand it, with another round of heel raises. (My PT had said storking accomplishes the same thing as the leg lifts and bridges.)

---

Roof update: I found a water spot on the ceiling of the garage (nothing below, which is good, since we still have stuff stored in there), and the builder agreed to send out a roofing person to check it out and figure out what need to be done. I think it's a construction defect, and I hope they agree. Either way, it needs to be fixed before it gets worse.

The weather isn't cooperating for me to get out at lunch today for a walk, so I guess I'm taking today as a rest day. Probably just as well. I'm feeling that strength work I did yesterday, especially in the ol' glute max. I think that's actually a good thing, so taking a day off is fine. Maybe I'll be able to do more Thursday and Friday as a result.

What! I'm off the grid for a couple days and return to find out you have another leak???? I guess that's better than another injury... Sounds like Mike is keeping you honest.

Nice job on the PT work. You're much more dedicated than I am.

nkrichards wrote:What!  I'm off the grid for a couple days and return to find out you have another leak????  I guess that's better than another injury...  Sounds like Mike is keeping you honest.

Nice job on the PT work.  You're much more dedicated than I am.

Yes, another leak, but not quite as catastrophic. A roofing guy is coming today to check it out. My hope is that he'll see it's the result of a construction defect and the homebuilder will pay to have it fixed.

And yes, Mike managed to ask an annoyingly appropriate question. It's prompted a change in strategy for me, though it's possible I might grumble something about Mike as I'm trying to hit a HR target lowered by 10 bpm.

Thanks on the PT, but I don't think I have much choice. I'm in the middle of learning a whole new way to run, and I need the appropriate muscles to be strong enough to make it work.

Extra-Low HR Run: 60 minutes (4.02 miles)

Weather: Between rain showers, mostly. 48 degrees. Gear: Sandals, shorts, T, jacket, hat.

I took advantage of a break been rain showers (let's hear it for doppler radar!) to head out on a slightly longer run in my sandals. I decided to stick with the "extra low" heart rate target of 129, and by the time the run was done had decided that I'm going to suck it up, reset, and make that my HR target from now on.

Not that it's easy to hit that target, oh no.



My goal is to run *below* 129 as much as I can, hoping for 126-127, and slowing to a walk until I hit 125 if the HR hits 130+ and I can't lower it back to the target through slow running. (You can see from the chart above that it spiked a couple of times.)

The result is clearly a big reduction in my pace, but that's something I'm just going to have to get used to for now. It'll keep me humble, hopefully, and it will get better with time.

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run: 123

LOW HR Run: 30 minutes (2.02 miles)

Weather: Cloudy, mild. 49 degrees. Gear: Bare feet, shorts, T, windbreaker.

Out for a recovery-esque barefoot run, at my new-and-improved low HR target (129).

Not much to report. It's getting a little easier to keep the HR in check -- with a HR of ~127-128 for most of the running parts of the workout -- and I can't help but notice that my first mile (even with the walking warmup) was 14:16 vs 14.42 earlier this week. My body seems to be realizing I'm serious about this.

Part of me wanted to go a bit longer, but I decided to not push it.

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run: 115 (!)

What I dislike about HR based running is that the heart adapts quicker than breathing or the legs.  When the heart is used to the pace, it sits back and relaxes and waits for the legs to catch up.

Last summer when I started cadence-based, the legs weren't too far behind the heart.

Enjoy your renovation.

ounce wrote:What I dislike about HR based running is that the heart adapts quicker than breathing or the legs.  When the heart is used to the pace, it sits back and relaxes and waits for the legs to catch up.

Last summer when I started cadence-based, the legs weren't too far behind the heart.

Enjoy your renovation.

Hm. Interesting. Usually my legs are wanting to go-go-go but my HR says no-no-no, and I have to slow down to keep at my HR target. That's what makes the slow-twitchers improve, but it's not always scintillating. It makes me wonder what percentage of fast- to slow-twitch I have sometimes. Wish there was a way to find out short of an expensive and painful biopsy.

And yes, I did just change my avatar today. As much as I love that rock and will remember the race, I have escaped its gravitational pull. Forward ho!

LOW HR Run: 5.35 miles

Weather: Foggy and chilly. 33 degrees. Gear: Lunas with socks (peeled off after ~25min), tights, T, pullover, jacket, hat, gloves (on and off) Fuel: Coffee and granola bar before.

Threw my training partner a curve ball this morning, what with my new lowered (129) heart rate target. He was game to try it, though, and we trolled along the Salmon Creek Greenway trail. It was tougher keeping my HR from spiking, what with the talking and lack of concentration on breathing patterns, but I did keep the average HR for each mile below my target.



Here's a view of the route from above. It shows how we have this great natural area passing through the heart of suburbia. (Apparently we can thank the ice age floods for carving out that valley that makes the greenway.)



It was a damp, penetrating cold this morning (fog), so I experimented with my wool toe socks on my sandals. I wasn't in the mood to freeze the tips off until I warmed up. Still, I was happy when I warmed up enough to peel the socks off and stash them. It feels much better sockless.

This was my longest run in quite some time, but it felt easy. The lower HR probably has something to do with that, and that's probably a good thing.

Walked first and last 5. Average HR for entire run: 124

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:What I dislike about HR based running is that the heart adapts quicker than breathing or the legs.  When the heart is used to the pace, it sits back and relaxes and waits for the legs to catch up.

Last summer when I started cadence-based, the legs weren't too far behind the heart.

Enjoy your renovation.

Hm. Interesting. Usually my legs are wanting to go-go-go but my HR says no-no-no, and I have to slow down to keep at my HR target. That's what makes the slow-twitchers improve, but it's not always scintillating. It makes me wonder what percentage of fast- to slow-twitch I have sometimes. Wish there was a way to find out short of an expensive and painful biopsy.

I've never ran a marathon at a single digit pace.  So, who do you think has more slow twitchers between us?

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:What I dislike about HR based running is that the heart adapts quicker than breathing or the legs.  When the heart is used to the pace, it sits back and relaxes and waits for the legs to catch up.

Last summer when I started cadence-based, the legs weren't too far behind the heart.

Enjoy your renovation.

Hm. Interesting. Usually my legs are wanting to go-go-go but my HR says no-no-no, and I have to slow down to keep at my HR target. That's what makes the slow-twitchers improve, but it's not always scintillating. It makes me wonder what percentage of fast- to slow-twitch I have sometimes. Wish there was a way to find out short of an expensive and painful biopsy.

I've never ran a marathon at a single digit pace.  So, who do you think has more slow twitchers between us?

Me, probably. How are you at a short sprint?

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:What I dislike about HR based running is that the heart adapts quicker than breathing or the legs.  When the heart is used to the pace, it sits back and relaxes and waits for the legs to catch up.

Last summer when I started cadence-based, the legs weren't too far behind the heart.

Enjoy your renovation.

Hm. Interesting. Usually my legs are wanting to go-go-go but my HR says no-no-no, and I have to slow down to keep at my HR target. That's what makes the slow-twitchers improve, but it's not always scintillating. It makes me wonder what percentage of fast- to slow-twitch I have sometimes. Wish there was a way to find out short of an expensive and painful biopsy.

I've never ran a marathon at a single digit pace.  So, who do you think has more slow twitchers between us?

Me, probably. How are you at a short sprint?

The shorter, the better.  I do best at 5 feet.

But you really think you have more slow twitch than I??  Oh, poppycock.  (I even reviewed 'fast twitch' and 'slow twitch' just to make sure.)

ounce wrote:But you really think you have more slow twitch than I??  Oh, poppycock.  (I even reviewed 'fast twitch' and 'slow twitch' just to make sure.)

Don't be so sure, Ounce. There's this lovely bit of counterintuitive science that links distance running performance with a higher relative percentage of slow twitch vs. fast twitch muscle fibers.

To quote from this website:

Fiber Type and Performance
Our muscle fiber type may influence what sports we are naturally good at or whether we are fast or strong. Olympic athletes tend to fall into sports that match their genetic makeup. Olympic sprinters have been shown to possess about 80 percent fast twitch fibers, while those who excel in marathons tend to have 80 percent slow twitch fibers.

So, if you follow that logic into mortal runners like us and don't take into account any other factors, it'd suggest that those who tend to run slower at distance have a smaller percentage of slow twitch muscles than those who can manage to go faster.

It's impossible to know exactly without a biopsy. (You go first!) But it's safe to say that neither of us are close to that 80-percent level...

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:But you really think you have more slow twitch than I??  Oh, poppycock.  (I even reviewed 'fast twitch' and 'slow twitch' just to make sure.)

Don't be so sure, Ounce. There's this lovely bit of counterintuitive science that links distance running performance with a higher relative percentage of slow twitch vs. fast twitch muscle fibers.

To quote from this website:

Fiber Type and Performance
Our muscle fiber type may influence what sports we are naturally good at or whether we are fast or strong. Olympic athletes tend to fall into sports that match their genetic makeup. Olympic sprinters have been shown to possess about 80 percent fast twitch fibers, while those who excel in marathons tend to have 80 percent slow twitch fibers.

So, if you follow that logic into mortal runners like us and don't take into account any other factors, it'd suggest that those who tend to run slower at distance have a smaller percentage of slow twitch muscles than those who can manage to go faster.

It's impossible to know exactly without a biopsy. (You go first!) But it's safe to say that neither of us are close to that 80-percent level...

Well, let us go metaphorically to high school class rankings.  In the world of slow twitchers, we don't excel.  So, we're in the bottom quarter.  But you're higher in the bottom quarter than I.  Personally, I think I'm on the threshold of moving from the 'no-twitch' club to the 'slow-twitch' club.  I think my hamstring is the last hold out of no twitch muscles.

ounce wrote:Well, let us go metaphorically to high school class rankings.  In the world of slow twitchers, we don't excel.  So, we're in the bottom quarter.  But you're higher in the bottom quarter than I.  Personally, I think I'm on the threshold of moving from the 'no-twitch' club to the 'slow-twitch' club.  I think my hamstring is the last hold out of no twitch muscles.

I think you're selling yourself short, my friend.

Look at the population as a whole, not just the "slow twitchers" subset. Consider the percentage the total population who can manage to run a mile, let alone 5, or a half marathon, or a marathon or more.

Bottom quarter? I think not, unless you're talking about the bottom quarter of the top 10 percent.

LOW HR Run: 30 minutes (2.09 miles)

Weather: Partly cloudy, cool. 45 (cooler in the shady spots) Gear: Bare feet, shorts, T, windbreaker.

I was feeling yesterday's slightly longer run, so I decided to stick close to home and do barefoot laps and keep practicing at the lower HR target. It's kind of a challenge, though I can usually tell when my heart rate is about to pop -- because I feel my body tensing up and wanting to power up. I was able to get the heart rate back down by breathing and relaxing from the top of my shoulders, through my upper arms, elbows. Once that loose, everything settles down.

My pace is continuing to improve at this heart rate, so I must be doing something right. Woot!


(Disregard the HR strap error during the first mile.)


Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run: 117

It's good to see the continuing improvement, but I took today off and decided to make this a step-back week after two weeks of pushing it. I've been feeling a bit tired and testy, which is never a good combination, and I've been a bit sore and craving all sorts of unhealthy food.

It's pretty clear: I really am starting from scratch here, with new muscles, mechanics and MAF heart rate. Part of me wants to abandon all that and hope for the best doing the same old thing... but then I sense what these changes are already doing for me, and I know I need to stick with it.

---

Roof update: The builder said the roof situation is far beyond any warranty they had, but then added that they'd be willing to go halfsies with us on the repair cost. Deal! They're supposed to do the work next Monday. It'll be nice to have a roof that doesn't leak -- it'll make me less twitchy when it rains.

Mark B wrote:It's good to see the continuing improvement, but I took today off and decided to make this a step-back week after two weeks of pushing it. I've been feeling a bit tired and testy, which is never a good combination, and I've been a bit sore and craving all sorts of unhealthy food.

It's pretty clear: I really am starting from scratch here, with new muscles, mechanics and MAF heart rate. Part of me wants to abandon all that and hope for the best doing the same old thing... but then I sense what these changes are already doing for me, and I know I need to stick with it.

---

Roof update: The builder said the roof situation is far beyond any warranty they had, but then added that they'd be willing to go halfsies with us on the repair cost. Deal! They're supposed to do the work next Monday. It'll be nice to have a roof that doesn't leak -- it'll make me less twitchy when it rains.

You're a n=1, Mr. B.  You have a lot of time to try something new.  I learned that if it doesn't work, that you have nothing worse than going back to what you've done.  What do you have to lose?  You have NOTHING to lose.  Do it.

---

I'd let the roof leak because it would make Fluff think he's done something else.  

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:It's good to see the continuing improvement, but I took today off and decided to make this a step-back week after two weeks of pushing it. I've been feeling a bit tired and testy, which is never a good combination, and I've been a bit sore and craving all sorts of unhealthy food.

It's pretty clear: I really am starting from scratch here, with new muscles, mechanics and MAF heart rate. Part of me wants to abandon all that and hope for the best doing the same old thing... but then I sense what these changes are already doing for me, and I know I need to stick with it.

---

Roof update: The builder said the roof situation is far beyond any warranty they had, but then added that they'd be willing to go halfsies with us on the repair cost. Deal! They're supposed to do the work next Monday. It'll be nice to have a roof that doesn't leak -- it'll make me less twitchy when it rains.

You're a n=1, Mr. B.  You have a lot of time to try something new.  I learned that if it doesn't work, that you have nothing worse than going back to what you've done.  What do you have to lose?  You have NOTHING to lose.  Do it.

---

I'd let the roof leak because it would make Fluff think he's done something else.  

Thanks for the pep talk, Ounce! And you're right, as an n=1, I have plenty of data points from doing it the other way. Now it's time to try doing it what may well be the right way. Though I'm kind of surprised at how much more difficult it is doing it this way. (But if it works? Zowie! It's going to be amazing!)

Fluff's already confused enough with our Christmas tree. It's a Douglas fir that I got as a seedling after my first marathon in Portland and have been growing in a pot in our backyard. It makes us feel sort of warm and green to have a living tree, rather than something fake, or a ritual tree sacrifice for the holiday.

---

Did one-legged stands this morning, the harder way, making sure that I engaged my side butt and kept my pelvis level side-to-side. It adds to the difficulty (I could only do 6 minutes each side), though it may have improved my balance. Hm. Not going to have time to go for a walk today at lunch, but maybe I can rip out some calf raises when I get home from work.

Thanks for making me feel bad that I have a fake tree - but I can't grow anything here and I don't like to leave a real tree up when I'm going away the day after Christmas.  JK!

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Thanks for making me feel bad that I have a fake tree - but I can't grow anything here and I don't like to leave a real tree up when I'm going away the day after Christmas.  JK!

Don't feel bad about an artificial tree, Michele! There's a lot of convenience, and ease of display for quick post-Christmas getaways, or those month-long displays like some folks have.

Besides, do you really want that fresh-cut fir to go zombie some night and devour the sofa in revenge?