Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Less effective?

2 times.

Twice I have gone for a run with my heart monitor strapped to myself, in accordance with my goals, but without the Garmin.

Makes it slightly less effective, no?

Despite being a DA about it I am intrigued by the HR monitor. I realize I run in a very high zone. Not sure what it means (the HR running book I checked out from the library was due back before I read more than 1 chapter) but I have been playing around with controlling it. Sadly keeping it steadily under my ready-to-die (and internet calculated) max HR means <<SHOCK>> running slower. I find that staying between 10:30 and 11:00 miles keeps me comfy. But it does bum me out a bit. I thought I was getting faster.

This brings me to my conundrum. The 10K I am running this weekend. Should I have a goal? My PR for a 10K is 1:06:23 but I haven't run a 10K race in almost 2 years and have since gotten a tad speedier (or so I thought). I did the Torchlight 8K in 0:48:51 (in the heat I must add, just now realizing I never wrote up that race…and it was a doozy). So I feel like I could aim for around an hour. I wish I'd finished the book to find out whether running an entire race at HR Max is a bad thing.

1 comment:

The Devil's Starchy Fingers said...

You should talk to Kevin on Saturday about HR training. He did his training for the half that way and it worked really well. He swears by it. He has a book lying about somewhere that I believe he would loan you all about HR training. I will see if I can track it down.
I, for the life of me, can never remember to where the dang thing.