Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training

Dec 15, 17 11:00

Post #1 of 80 (7115 views)

Long time lurker. First time poster. Sorry if I missed a thread similar to this, but I checked and couldn't find an answer to my question.

About me: I'm a 40 y/o F, and coming back from a long [long] break from training. This year I've had a couple attempts to get back into the swing of things--especially running--scuttled by going out too hard, too far, too soon. So, for the last five months I've been taking the safe and sane approach by trying to stay at <150 bpm while running.

My most recent (beginning of Dec.) max HR was ~194, so I should be at or around 135 for most of my runs. But when try to stay in that zone I inevitably end up scrunching up my gait and slowing down to a shuffle that is physically-uncomfortable-bordering-on-actively-painful. And this isn't a "marathon pace" shuffle: this is a full-on "getting passed by everyone while I curse at my watch because I don't know how I could slow down anymore and not **literally** be crawling on the ground" shuffle. I end these "runs" with a sore lower back, a kink in my right calf, and a red-hot hatred of running. I've tried everything I can think of to run efficiently at 140ish, but I always end up hobbling in looking like this.

However, when I run at my regular [still very slow] pace and let my HR shoot up to 160+, my stride becomes natural, relaxed, and comfortable. Running is a pleasure again, instead of a chore. I can't run as far or as long as when I'm shuffling, but frankly it's such a joy to be really running that I don't care if I ever do even a half-marathon again.

So I'm frustrated because it seems I have two choices: 1) slow down, stay in my HR zone, and get injured from my gimpy shuffle; or 2) speed up, blow my HR zone, and never build aerobic fitness. It's starting to make me hate running, too, which is the greatest shame of all.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Should I put my HR monitor away and "run by feel" or should I keep shuffling, hoping for a breakthrough and not another injury?

By the way, none of this is problem when I bike or swim. I can maintain a +/-125-140 range on the bike with no problem, even while pushing it on solo rides.

Thanks in advance for any advice or suggestions!

TL;DR I can run outside of my HR zone and be physically comfortable or I can run within my aerobic HR range and hate every minute of it to the point that I never want to run again.

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:09

Post #2 of 80 (7082 views)

I'm in the same boat. I have been taking the advice from the forum and trying to do a lot of "slow" runs. These are about 1:30-2:00 min/mi slower than a tempo pace for the same distance. My stride/form feels off and I feel an injury coming on. I feel more smooth and efficient at a tempo pace.

With that said......I am in no means a "runner", but someone who enjoys multisport and took up running in college as a form of stress relief.

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:14

Post #3 of 80 (7063 views)

What happened before when you just 'ran' at the faster paces? You seem to mention it didn't go well, but what exactly happened? Injury? Less performance? Makes a difference.

Also, part of the issue might be that you're just not running enough, but I'm speculating here. If you go from 25mpw of running 'fastish' to 15mpw of 'aerobic-zone-easy running', you're not going to improve, ever. You typically would need like going from 25mpw of fastish running to 40mpw of aerobic-zone-easy + a smidgen of fast work to get faster. More volume for the slower paces.

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:16

Post #4 of 80 (7056 views)

I'll be curious to see what others think, I can relate to this, I pretty consistently run at a somewhat higher HR than zone-based training based on something like the 80/20 rule would suggest.

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [treyedr] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:17

Post #5 of 80 (7050 views)

treyedr wrote:

I'm in the same boat. I have been taking the advice from the forum and trying to do a lot of "slow" runs. These are about 1:30-2:00 min/mi slower than a tempo pace for the same distance. My stride/form feels off and I feel an injury coming on. I feel more smooth and efficient at a tempo pace.

With that said......I am in no means a "runner", but someone who enjoys multisport and took up running in college as a form of stress relief.

Ditto, and ditto. I'm much happier--physically and mentally--just going at tempo.

Running is my coping mechanism, too, and it drives me nuts that it's been driving me nuts. I also started running in college, and it's always been a source of relief and pleasure, so it's a bummer that it's not something I enjoy at the moment.

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:18

Post #6 of 80 (7049 views)

Well...getting injured is a bad solution. Probably obvious.

Its pretty typical for my running HR to be elevated when I first start back compared with what feels "easy". It usually takes a week or two of regular running for it to start to come into line with expectation. My approach is to sort of split the difference and run on the slow side of what feels easy/comfortable, and keep the durations well within the comfort band.

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [lightheir] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:23

Post #7 of 80 (7024 views)

lightheir wrote:

What happened before when you just 'ran' at the faster paces? You seem to mention it didn't go well, but what exactly happened? Injury? Less performance? Makes a difference.

Mostly I just can't go very far. Now that I think about it, most of my injuries have either been from running *very slowly* or something unrelated to running (e.g., I pulled my bicep while swimming).

lightheir wrote:

Also, part of the issue might be that you're just not running enough, but I'm speculating here. If you go from 25mpw of running 'fastish' to 15mpw of 'aerobic-zone-easy running', you're not going to improve, ever. You typically would need like going from 25mpw of fastish running to 40mpw of aerobic-zone-easy + a smidgen of fast work to get faster. More volume for the slower paces.

Good point. I think you're right that more volume would help, but the problem remains that as I increase volume in lieu of "speed" I a) hate running and b) feel like I'm courting injury. Should I just gut it out, stick with EZ aerobic, and wait for a breakthrough?

(I'm serious about the breakthrough thing. I'd love if anyone has experience of just hanging in there and suddenly everything clicking for them.)

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:25

Post #8 of 80 (7007 views)

fyrberd wrote:

lightheir wrote:

What happened before when you just 'ran' at the faster paces? You seem to mention it didn't go well, but what exactly happened? Injury? Less performance? Makes a difference.

Mostly I just can't go very far. Now that I think about it, most of my injuries have either been from running *very slowly* or something unrelated to running (e.g., I pulled my bicep while swimming).

lightheir wrote:

Also, part of the issue might be that you're just not running enough, but I'm speculating here. If you go from 25mpw of running 'fastish' to 15mpw of 'aerobic-zone-easy running', you're not going to improve, ever. You typically would need like going from 25mpw of fastish running to 40mpw of aerobic-zone-easy + a smidgen of fast work to get faster. More volume for the slower paces.

Good point. I think you're right that more volume would help, but the problem remains that as I increase volume in lieu of "speed" I a) hate running and b) feel like I'm courting injury. Should I just gut it out, stick with EZ aerobic, and wait for a breakthrough?

(I'm serious about the breakthrough thing. I'd love if anyone has experience of just hanging in there and suddenly everything clicking for them.)

You sound like a perfect candidate for Hadd training. Google it. It works.

https://markmcdermott.substack.com

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [Tom_hampton] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:28

Post #9 of 80 (6999 views)

Tom_hampton wrote:

Its pretty typical for my running HR to be elevated when I first start back compared with what feels "easy". It usually takes a week or two of regular running for it to start to come into line with expectation. My approach is to sort of split the difference and run on the slow side of what feels easy/comfortable, and keep the durations well within the comfort band.

Not unusually for me, my HR has barely budged over the last five months...or, really, the last 11 years. In all this time it hasn't gotten better or worse. I even had an EKG (about six or seven years ago) and the doctor just shrugged and said "some people have faster heart rates than others -- carry on."

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:32

Post #10 of 80 (6984 views)

This has been entirely my experience with "slow" running also. And its not surprising. The biomechanics are completely different. Even if you make a conscious effort (e.g., video analysis confirmation) to maintain appropriate form in terms of hip, knee and ankle angles, it's extremely awkward and difficult to do. On top of that, the promise that tons of slow runs would improve my 5k and 10k times were utterly delusive. My solution after about 9 months of that approach has been to scrap the stupid slow runs, keep the HR monitor and do everything at the highest intensity that I can maintain for the intended duration. HR is no longer a guide but another piece of data for post-run analysis. This approach is obviously at odds with the entirety of the existing empirical literature as well as with what any running coach will tell you. But my knees feel great again and my times are approaching my previous PRs. Best of luck.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:36

Post #11 of 80 (6965 views)

fyrberd wrote:

(I'm serious about the breakthrough thing. I'd love if anyone has experience of just hanging in there and suddenly everything clicking for them.)

This has not been my experience. And I really did go all in too. I was completely sold on the 80/20 literature. And it added about a minute to my 5k. I'm still pissed.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [domingjm] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:36

Post #12 of 80 (6961 views)

domingjm wrote:

This has been entirely my experience with "slow" running also. And its not surprising. The biomechanics are completely different. Even if you make a conscious effort (e.g., video analysis confirmation) to maintain appropriate form in terms of hip, knee and ankle angles, it's extremely awkward and difficult to do.

Well put. Thanks.

domingjm wrote:

My solution after about 9 months of that approach has been to scrap the stupid slow runs, keep the HR monitor and do everything at the highest intensity that I can maintain for the intended duration. HR is no longer a guide but another piece of data for post-run analysis. This approach is obviously at odds with the entirety of the existing empirical literature as well as with what any running coach will tell you. But my knees feel great again and my times are approaching my previous PRs. Best of luck.

Yes! I value the HR data as data, but I totally agree on the assertion that at a certain point it's hurting more than helping. Hurting me, that is. Probably lots of people make great strides (#dadjokes) in their running by sticking to a lower HR zone, but I think I'll feel better all around by picking up the pace again.

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:38

Post #13 of 80 (6956 views)

Do the faster runs just on dirt. It is what does it for me, almost never get injured running exclusively on dirt, but 3 days on the pavement and I have pains in all kinds of places. Right now I'm even going to start my program on the treadmill, taking it one step further in less pounding..

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:38

Post #14 of 80 (6954 views)

Your story sounds like almost every other person who gets into a Maffetone like program. It takes a long while before their speed increases at that HR.

Was your HR target set by that max HR?
How did you get that MHR of 194? That is pretty dang speedy for 40/f just getting back into training! Are you sure there was not some weird HRM artifact, usually due to shirt static?

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:39

Post #15 of 80 (6951 views)

My wife is the same way. She typically does 90% of her running in zone 3 as its more comferatable for her. Her form suffers when she tries to go slower and tends to get injuries. Gotta just do what works.

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [domingjm] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:39

Post #16 of 80 (6951 views)

domingjm wrote:

fyrberd wrote:

(I'm serious about the breakthrough thing. I'd love if anyone has experience of just hanging in there and suddenly everything clicking for them.)

This has not been my experience. And I really did go all in too. I was completely sold on the 80/20 literature. And it added about a minute to my 5k. I'm still pissed.

I hope you're not offended, but this made me laugh out loud because I absolutely know how you feel. HR training has been like this for me from the moment I put on my Polar FT7 a million years ago. Sigh.

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:44

Post #17 of 80 (6934 views)

I started training 3 weeks ago at the age of 51. I have not done any "running " in 30 years but enough swim/bike to be okay there. My first time at the track i walked 1 lap to warmup and then 1 lap into a slow jog hit 175.. I rebooted and switched over to the gym treadmill and I do a run/walk thing where I run 2-3 minutes and walk a minute. Now my range is 120-130 at the end of the walk and about 140-150ish at the end of the run. The treadmill is good to be precise with the pace and fine tune my adjustments so I run between 4.8 and 5.5 and walk at 3-3.5ish right now. The beginner triathlete articles I read says starting out lots of walking is fine and expected for the couch potatoes.

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:46

Post #18 of 80 (6926 views)

fyrberd wrote:

I hope you're not offended, but this made me laugh out loud because I absolutely know how you feel. HR training has been like this for me from the moment I put on my Polar FT7 a million years ago. Sigh.

Not at all. I got slow AND injured. What could be more disappointing and infuriating?

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [dfroelich] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:48

Post #19 of 80 (6918 views)

dfroelich wrote:

Your story sounds like almost every other person who gets into a Maffetone like program. It takes a long while before their speed increases at that HR.

The "five months" thing is actually something of an underestimation. As I've been thinking about it in reading and replying on this thread, I realize I've been trying to follow HR training program/s for almost a decade, but it never gets any better.

dfroelich wrote:

Was your HR target set by that max HR?
How did you get that MHR of 194? That is pretty dang speedy for 40/f just getting back into training! Are you sure there was not some weird HRM artifact, usually due to shirt static?

I was pretty surprised, actually, how similar my numbers were running this summer to what they were during my last marathon (which was about 8 years ago). The 194ish was a self-administered test on a treadmill, and it jived with a 5K I did last summer. My balls-to-the-wall/Zone 5/last .5 mi HR used to be in the upper 190s/lower 200s when I was racing, so the 194 sounded correct.

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [monty] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:50

Post #20 of 80 (6909 views)

monty wrote:

Do the faster runs just on dirt. It is what does it for me, almost never get injured running exclusively on dirt, but 3 days on the pavement and I have pains in all kinds of places. Right now I'm even going to start my program on the treadmill, taking it one step further in less pounding..

Hmm...I live in a proverbial concrete jungle, but I'll see if I can find any local dirt trails. The treadmill is a good idea, too -- thanks!

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [marklemcd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:51

Post #21 of 80 (6906 views)

marklemcd wrote:

You sound like a perfect candidate for Hadd training. Google it. It works.

I'll look into it -- thanks!

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:53

Post #22 of 80 (6899 views)

Might be a good candidate for a running power meter... I have yet to make the jump, but I know a few folks who have made massive improvements, switching from running by HR to running by Power with a Stryd PM... They suggest that it makes it easier to compare efforts across terrains, wind levels, etc. and can help with pacing at a level you know you can sustain. I'll probably bite the bullet and grad one in the new year at some point...

Most people's stride is more natural at a slightly brisker clip. I don't look at my HR when I run, I'll look at the file after, but I run on feel when I am training... It is a skill to learn to run slow... and to learn how to run slow without your form going to shit... You get it eventually, and in the long term it pays off, because of the volume you can handle doing Z1 work in Z1, instead of doing everything in the Z3 junk mileage vortex because it feels less bad... Be patient and stick with it...

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [s.gentz] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:54

Post #23 of 80 (6898 views)

s.gentz wrote:

My wife is the same way. She typically does 90% of her running in zone 3 as its more comferatable for her. Her form suffers when she tries to go slower and tends to get injuries. Gotta just do what works.

I think your wife has the right idea! Gotta go with what works and what gets my butt out the door on a snowy morning. Suffering through crappy form does not get said butt out the door. Bouncing along at zone 3, with a smidge of 4, absolutely does.

[what Yoda said about trying]

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [fyrberd] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 11:59

Post #24 of 80 (6879 views)

In direct and short, assuming, but only assuming that your zones are set correctly (though I sincerely doubt it), I can offer you few thoughts:
1. What your cardio-vascular system can do currently or central system if you want, far outperforms your peripheral system, ie muscles and soft tissue.
2. You are running far too fast, no matter how slow subjectively you think it is at HR 160 that you are exceeding the capacity of what your connective tissue can handle. You exceed that often enough and the injury will result.
3. You lack self discipline to slow down to what your HR135 is demanding. I have heard that argument over and over, oh I cannot run that slow, well yes you have to, learn to get comfortable with that, takes a bigger person. If HR 135 is what it is going to be needed to run every day consistently without pain or injury, than that it is for now. Connective tissue needs time to adapt and may be adapting slower than you want.
4. Learn to apply good running technique at HR 135, you will run every day. And if that is now 10min pace, so be it. In 3 weeks it will be 9:40, in another 3-6 sub 9min......
5. Finally, this leads us to unilateral, run specific and functional strength work that prevents injuries in the first place. Without mobility/strength work, you will not go very long at OUR age. (I am 46)
More wisdom and discipline in your approach is needed.
Oh, btw, I was there too. Ended up tearing hip labrum, rectus abdominis and addcutor longus, all in one shot. Speaking with little experience. Take me up on it.

Re: Frustrated with (and injured by) HR run training [Trauma] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 12:04

Post #25 of 80 (6868 views)

Trauma wrote:

Might be a good candidate for a running power meter... I have yet to make the jump, but I know a few folks who have made massive improvements, switching from running by HR to running by Power with a Stryd PM... They suggest that it makes it easier to compare efforts across terrains, wind levels, etc. and can help with pacing at a level you know you can sustain. I'll probably bite the bullet and grad one in the new year at some point...

Much to my husband's irritation, I will add that to my holiday gift list.

Trauma wrote:

Most people's stride is more natural at a slightly brisker clip. I don't look at my HR when I run, I'll look at the file after, but I run on feel when I am training... It is a skill to learn to run slow... and to learn how to run slow without your form going to shit... You get it eventually, and in the long term it pays off, because of the volume you can handle doing Z1 work in Z1, instead of doing everything in the Z3 junk mileage vortex because it feels less bad... Be patient and stick with it...

Ironically, I'm a very slow runner at every distance. Many moons ago I could go <25 min in a 5K (for reals -- that's how slow I am), and I've never broken 4 hours in a marathon. So it's literally insult on injury that my "slow running" is so damn slow. There are glaciers receding at a faster pace than I can run a 10K (something we should all be worried about [the glaciers, not my 10K time]). Part of my frustration is that as soon as I go from a walk to a run I'm in zone 2; I'm not even sure if I can run and be in zone 1.

[what Yoda said about trying]

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.