I’d keep an eye on your hr day to day, walking, up the stairs etc
Several people tell me the wrist based ones are pants for running but ok for static bikes … I intend to get one soon.
Recommendations are welcome, don’t need zwift, training peelaks, etc etc
Just a wrist based hr watch.
Simpler the better
My experience is that the average is reliable enough on wrist HRM but the max is not. I posted some comparisons on another thread and iirc Jibber or Stenard set me straight on the rising peak you can get that has aligned to cadence rather than HR.
I intend to use both for the first few sessions.
I’ll report back
That’s an idea. I’ll monitor my HR when going out for a walk shortly and I’ll get a new chest strap and see how it compares next time I go for a slow longer jog. Did feel light headed and I’ve had HR spikes (over 220 bpm) in the past but they are few and far between. Used chest HR strap with Forerunner 920 last Sunday, and wrist based Forerunner 735 today. Sunday’s run the HR trace was pretty high for most of the run. Only low at the start. I’ll keep an eye on it, and get some advice if it continues to remain high.
Nobody responded so I didn’t continue the thread but there’s some info there
I’ve ordered a new chest strap HR monitor. That could be it as it is a bit old. Mind you I can get to just over 170 bpm in a Zwift race. I’d just like to learn to run/jog jog/walk to a lower HR and then maybe over a considerable amount of time extend the duration of jogging at that lower HR. I fear I’d be walking the entire duration of a ‘run’ to keep it in Zone 2.
My first 10k was 50 minutes, this was after 6 months or so of running (well jogging)… Same weight as I am now pretty much. Same diet, eating and drinking a lot. 14 years ago now, lot of miles between then and now though.
Voila, thanks to @YKK
Not really what I’m looking for I’m afraid, that was a 10km after 6 months of “well jogging”, so they weren’t a 50 minute 10km runner, I obviously need to tighten the requirements up - someone who had spent more than a year actually training for an event, rather than an almost untrained @YKK running a 50 min 10km.
What will you do with the anecdote when you have it?
Compare it to all the anecdotes of those 2:50 runners. My contention remember was that the things that efficient runners (those with good running economy by default) will likely require different training to those without it. Some things in running economy aren’t trainable, your achilles length is fixed, your lower limb proportions etc.
I suspect that the training a high running economy default athlete will be able to train to fast times differently to others - because they will simply be able to raise the more generally trainable oxygen delivery pathways to use that economy over a marathon. Whereas an inefficient runner will struggle more to improve and may need to train in a different way, and would likely need it considerably more optimised - particularly the higher calorie demands required for 3 hours when inefficient.
Ah I see thanks. I was trying to see your original post that kicked this off but couldn’t find it.
I’d definitely be in the latter group 
Went out with club yesterday and tried to take it easy. Our club splits by length and I went with the longest (7 miles) I guess I really should have dropped down. I didn’t know the route so had to stick with the slowest runners otherwise I’d have gotten lost.
Forgot my HR strap and have doubts about the optical HR readings, but ignoring that, would the following have done me much good as a low HR/easy run?
Up to 6km I was looking good, but after that a hill sent the HR soaring and it didn’t drop back. Can I consider that 6km of low HR running, or does the following 5km at much higher HR impact that?
unknown due to optical HR.
Clearly it is 6km of low HR running. But if the intention is to do 80-90% of all running at low HR then the subsequent 5km will impact that - assuming the HR is real. What was perceived exertion once you were over the climb, do you feel the elevated HR is real?
I believe the first 6km were under reading, I never see my HR that low. My HR jumps to 100+ as soon as I put my trainers on. But it was more of a hypothetical query assuming the HR readings were accurate.
I’d say the terrain - you’re downhill for the first half, then uphill. The 11th km looks out of kilter.
To ratify your Hr data look at the app that goes with whatever watch you have, look for drop outs and spikes, or a rise and peak that doesn’t correspond to pace/gradient.
Low HR seems to be more susceptible/variable than at a steady pace or high pace. I added a peak +12pm in my last run by merely thinking about being mugged.
I don’t think that is the point of low HR training. Lots of that type training increase mitochondria density and increases capillarisation. There are central adaptations over time but the peripheral changes are more important.
Is the low HR part of a periodisation plan ie run slow and easy and then use hard intervals as the speed work?
