Question for runners--distance vs. intensity and not going too hard

In my quest to lower my blood pressure without medication, I'm at the point where I need to lose weight. With that, I'm going to continue running, with the addition of a heart rate monitor. I'm not really concerned about my pace or distance, only my overall fitness. With the heart rate monitor, I plan on running and keeping my heart rate in the fat burning zone (I calculated it to be about 120 to 140 for me).

With that in mind, do I need to keep track of my distance, or my time, or both? Meaning if we're following the 10% rule , should I run 4 miles my first week, 4.4 the next week, 4.8 the next week, 5.3 the next week, etc.? Or should I run for 90 minutes the first week, 99 the next, 109 the next, 120 the next, etc.? Either way I'd be keeping my HR in the 120 to 140 zone.

Some ideas for my general fitness:

• I ran a 5k on April 17 in 31 minutes (had to stop to walk 2 times during it)--I had taken the prior week off due to shin splints, but was following a modified couch to 5k prior to that.
• I play hockey once a week
• 26 years old
• 5'10", about 210, down from 220 at the end of February
• My mid-term goal is to be down to 190 by July 4 this year (heavy calorie deficit, monitored closely by a Dietitian), as well as be able to do 100 pushups and 100 situps by then (the two goals might be at odds with each other)
• Long-term goal is to be down to 175 by July 4 2017. That is assuming that I don't put on a lot of muscle.

If you are using heart rate - just use time in the target zone and warm up/cool down.

However, don't always stay in one zone. Do something like - MWF fat burn zone. TT aerobic at half the time. Maybe on the weekend try to stay in zone two even if you have to walk to keep from crossing into 3. Run up to redline once in a while. Switching it up will increase your fitness level faster than just doing the same thing all the time.

My current workout plan has me running about 3 days a week (all in the fat burn zone), playing hockey most Thursdays, and then walking with a heavy backpack the other days. In about 2 weeks I'm planning on having 1 day a week of a mile run that is jog/sprint/jog/sprint (jogging might be walking).

Very good points by Huckleberry.

120-140 BPM seems really low. I'm usually in the 150-170 range with my chest strap garmin. Just for the record, I'm almost 41 and 6'1 225 LB ex smoker for 15 years

More than anything just listen to your body. It'll tell you where to be. My best advice I got was to do just that and I've been getting stronger as a runner every year.

BTW, Great job on the 5K time. 10 minute mile is really good for a couch to 5K time.

If you're running to lose weight, measure time. Don't do steady state, do intervals. Two minutes jogging, one minute sprint. Mix it up, keep your body guessing. It's not the calories you burn DURING running, it's the calories you burn after. Intervals will keep you burning.

So will building muscle.

Just a fyi-losing weight is much easier than keeping it off. If you use the same aggressive learning mindset you are using now to figure out how to keep it off and you will be fine. There are some seriously fitness conscious people on this board so you have a good advice base if you chose to use it.

bmw88rider wrote: Very good points by Huckleberry. 120-140 BPM seems really low. I'm usually in the 150-170 range with my chest strap garmin. Just for the record, I'm almost 41 and 6'1 225 LB ex smoker for 15 years More than anything just listen to your body. It'll tell you where to be. My best advice I got was to do just that and I've been getting stronger as a runner every year. BTW, Great job on the 5K time. 10 minute mile is really good for a couch to 5K time.

220-age, then 60% to 75% of that.

220-26=194
194 x .6=116
194 x .75=145.5

I've done similar to what you are planning on, but at an older age, so my target has been 140 for a while now....

Which wasn't the fat burning zone, but the aerobic zone. And the top end of that for the last few years. Can't say much about the fat burning zone, but I found I lost weight quite effectively staying in the aerobic zone.

Then there's the type of workout....

Your 4 +10%- is that per run, or per week?

While I know it's not actually your plan to distance run, you may want to check out some of those free training plans. Runners World have them all the time in magazines- from beginner to intermediate.

But in ALL of those- there's a one long distance day on the weekend, one harder workout day, and a few mixed in- including one "rest" run- where you try to keep your effort very low.

Theoretically- if you are really working hard during the hockey night, you can count that harder day that night. BUT, over time, you should speed up in your long runs- even if you don't lose weight. So if after a month of what your are doing, you don't see your speed going up at the same HR- then I'd change one of your running days to a workout day- interval like Klayfish suggests, perhaps hill repeats, a tempo run- something like that. I try to mix them all in, but found that intervals work best for me.

As for what you count- at this point, it really doesn't matter. Time, distance- as long as you have a baseline and increase it, you will be fine. If I do my math right, you are doing 12 miles a week (ish). I'd break that up. To start with 5 on a weekend, 3 (1/2 warm up, 2 of intervals, 1/2 cool), and "rest" 4. Add as needed. Mix it up something like that. Either way- long run- heart of aerobic, work out- Up and down to anaerobic down to Fat burn- and one lower day.

One interesting note that may help plan... Every plan I have read- the weekend long runs are always below your target race pace, the short week runs are harder. And all of them work that together right up to race weekend- so that when you race, you can keep a good race pace, deal with hills, etc. Again, I know that's not your plan- but I lost the most weight by being on a plan AND doing aerobics- so I was working 6 times a week. Pretty exhausting- but I went from ~200 to 173. I'm now steady in the mid 180s. (back when I did the challenge between 02-04, I was +230 and I'm also 5-10).

That's what worked for me. It's going to take some time for you to figure out what works best for you. And hopefully it also means you are a better hockey player.

Seems like it's been covered pretty well above, but add another voice to the choir regarding variation in intensity. It's tempting to be able to plan out your runs as one constant endeavor, but as your fitness improves you will find that pace to be less and less beneficial.

First thing my one coach told me about cycling training, and it applies to running as well, is that if you only do one pace, one level of effort in training, that's all you'll ever be good at. The fastest way to plateau, and then burn out mentally, in any form of fitness is to just do one type of workout.

Multiple studies have proven that higher intensity levels are more beneficial both for weight loss and fitness than the so-called "fat-burning" zone. In car terms, your body will respond better to an Italian tune-up than steady state loping down the right hand lane of the interstate. Near anaerobic tempo sessions may burn a larger proportion of calories from sugars than fats, but that's calories burned that your body will have to replace later from future meals rather than converting overages to more fat.

Fat burn and aerobic are indeed two different things. As I recall (been a while), you can only burn fat so fast. Work out at a harder rate, and you start burning muscle or such instead of the fat. Personally, it drives me nuts as the fat burn rate feels like I'm doing almost nothing. Heck, the aerobic rate pretty much feels that way too.

Something I learned from an ultra-marathon & iron man competitor is that I'd been running wrong for a long time.

I'd run and zip my heart rate up to 150-170, and I could stay there, for a few miles. But, my speed was never increasing and after a few miles, I'd be wiped out. As in that staggering reeling incoherent stuff. If I screwed up, I wouldn't finish. I thought this was actually a good thing and meant I was really working out.

Turns out I was wrong (shocking!).

The ultra-marathon runner suggested I indeed slow down and run at the aerobic heart rate. Keep it up for several months, and watch what happens. I did. I didn't like it, but I did it.

At first, it felt like I was walking. Heck, it was barely jogging! My speed and time were abysmal. My heart kept wanting to speed up with just the slightest bit of exertion.

But, after a few weeks, my speed did start picking up, and my times started dropping. I was also feeling very good at the end of the runs. Not at all wiped out.

After about 2-3 months, I was running faster than I'd ever run, and was starting to be able to keep it up for mile upon mile. Ultimately, I was able to run so fast the wind was whistling in my ears (cool!), and talk comfortably. It was great fun to totally wipe out my very fit kid going for runs with him (he sprints). 6-9 mile trail runs daily became a regular thing. I was lean, I was fit, I was strong (doing strength training also).

Of course then I had some surgeries, crashed the bike, got hurt several times, etc. And now I'm back to square one, and totally sulking.

Klayfish wrote: If you're running to lose weight, measure time. Don't do steady state, do intervals. Two minutes jogging, one minute sprint. Mix it up, keep your body guessing. It's not the calories you burn DURING running, it's the calories you burn after. Intervals will keep you burning. So will building muscle.

Came here to say this. Will repost just to reiterate.

Don't get me wrong, I envy the folks who can run long distances. But When you look at marathon type runners vs Olympic sprinter type physiques, the sprinters usually look healthier ie more muscle less gaunt and frail. I'm guessing the sprinters mainly train using HIIT intervals?

alfadriver wrote: Your 4 +10%- is that per run, or per week?

4 miles per week. Last night I did a 1.5 mile run which was my first since the 5k on the 17th; tomorrow is a 3 mile run and then nothing until Monday. When training for the 5k, I'd get shin splints if I did more than that. Slowly working up to more than that, but I figure that I shouldn't push it--next week I'll be starting with the heart monitor and running for heart rate for a certain amount of time. And before someone asks, my shoes have less than 50 miles and were bought at a running store.

alfadriver wrote: While I know it's not actually your plan to distance run, you may want to check out some of those free training plans. Runners World have them all the time in magazines- from beginner to intermediate.

Will do. Oh, and hockey will not count as a run. I play defense and we usually only have 3 defensemen, which means that I'm gliding a lot.

My plan, for anyone who wants to critique it, is basically the following:
30 minutes in Zone 2 on Monday, 5/1/5/1/5/1/5/1/5 jog/sprints Wednesday, 30 minutes in Zone 2 Friday. Thursdays have hockey, and most days have pushups/situps--eventually I'll be working in different ab work as well.

I'll basically be doing the above, along with walks with a weighted backpack on off days (getting ready for a canoeing trip that requires multiple portages) while slowly increasing the time spent running, for the entire month of May. I'll change out some of the Friday Zone 2 runs to add some sprints in there (figure something like 10 minutes at zone 2, 2 minute sprint, 5 minute zone 2, 2 minute sprint, 5 minute zone 3, 10 minute zone 2) and generally try to vary it--but honestly, I'll be happy as long as I actually run on the days I say I'm going to.

In June I go to Canada for said canoe trip and I'll re-evaluate based on where I am after that.

drainoil wrote: Don't get me wrong, I envy the folks who can run long distances. But When you look at marathon type runners vs Olympic sprinter type physiques, the sprinters usually look healthier ie more muscle less gaunt and frail. I'm guessing the sprinters mainly train using HIIT intervals?

I'd be happy to look like any of them. In a few months I plan on joining a gym and hitting the weights, but that isn't in the financial cards right now--aside from that, my weight is an issue. (And yes, I know that weight lifting is great for fat loss--muscles and metabolism and all that whatnot)

Shin splints suck. If I don't give my shins a good stretch before I run...and be mindful of my stride, I'll get them.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. It really depends on specific goals.

drainoil wrote: Don't get me wrong, I envy the folks who can run long distances. But When you look at marathon type runners vs Olympic sprinter type physiques, the sprinters usually look healthier ie more muscle less gaunt and frail. I'm guessing the sprinters mainly train using HIIT intervals?

Given the likelyhood of looking like either- I think being a distance runner is more likely. Much like a linebacker vs safety.

And seeing real distance runners up close, yea, I'd love to look more a distance runner than what I am.

This doesn't look frail and gaunt, to me.

Nor does this

In reply to mtn:

Good luck!

As for the shin splints- I'm sure Google will find you way more reasons why and how to fix than you care to look at.

Mechanically, though, just remember what that muscle is doing. Knowing that will help figure out what's causing it. For me, I noted that when I walk really fast, I would hold my toes up, strike hard on my heel, which then stretches a contracted muscle. Pain.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to mtn: Good luck! As for the shin splints- I'm sure Google will find you way more reasons why and how to fix than you care to look at. Mechanically, though, just remember what that muscle is doing. Knowing that will help figure out what's causing it. For me, I noted that when I walk really fast, I would hold my toes up, strike hard on my heel, which then stretches a contracted muscle. Pain.

Right now the big thing that I'm trying to work on is not being a heel striker. Easier said than done.

try to kick your butt while you run.

That's what got me to change.

Back in 2009, just after I finished my first 10k and started on a half training, I had to make the same change. And I found a nice, simple technique via utube. Now I can't find that video. But I do remember that they mentioned making sure you try to kick your own butt, which makes you lean forward, shortens the stride, and mid-sole strikes all in one. It turned out to be an easy change.

Now I can't find that video.

If your chest is over your toes while running, It's really hard to heal strike.

Most of the people I know that were heal strikers also lean back when they run.

Here is a good video that talks through some of the different factors in getting a good running form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCVSv7UxB2E

mtn wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to mtn: Good luck! As for the shin splints- I'm sure Google will find you way more reasons why and how to fix than you care to look at. Mechanically, though, just remember what that muscle is doing. Knowing that will help figure out what's causing it. For me, I noted that when I walk really fast, I would hold my toes up, strike hard on my heel, which then stretches a contracted muscle. Pain.

Right now the big thing that I'm trying to work on is not being a heel striker. Easier said than done.

Run uphill

Huckleberry wrote:

mtn wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to mtn: Good luck! As for the shin splints- I'm sure Google will find you way more reasons why and how to fix than you care to look at. Mechanically, though, just remember what that muscle is doing. Knowing that will help figure out what's causing it. For me, I noted that when I walk really fast, I would hold my toes up, strike hard on my heel, which then stretches a contracted muscle. Pain.

Right now the big thing that I'm trying to work on is not being a heel striker. Easier said than done.

Run uphill

Interestingly, running uphill is easy for me. Not sure why exactly, other than I've always had really strong legs (i.e. in high school I was squatting close to what the offensive linemen were).

In reply to mtn:

Running uphill is actually easier. You can't help but keep good form and it works the glutes and core along with the big leg muscles. Downhill running forces all the work into your quads and calves and they are not designed for that kind of nonsense.

I did the Steamtown Marathon in October - it's 75% downhill and the 1st 7 mi is pretty steeply so. Even after training on the actual course all summer it was so hard to keep from leaning back to maintain the target pace when things got tiring. Staying in good posture means leaning your chest out over your feet - but you can fall flat on your face doing that when you get a big cramp in an overworked calf running down a hill. It turned into a brutal lesson in pain management for me.

Huckleberry wrote:

mtn wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to mtn: Good luck! As for the shin splints- I'm sure Google will find you way more reasons why and how to fix than you care to look at. Mechanically, though, just remember what that muscle is doing. Knowing that will help figure out what's causing it. For me, I noted that when I walk really fast, I would hold my toes up, strike hard on my heel, which then stretches a contracted muscle. Pain.

Right now the big thing that I'm trying to work on is not being a heel striker. Easier said than done.

Run uphill

If I could magically create a real world course of all uphills and no downhills, I'd run that every singe time. My downhill form still sucks, and the penalty for failure is worse.

As Klayfish mentioned, if you're trying to lose weight I'd make sure you're doing some strength training exercises in addition to the running. Although cardio helps keep a calorie-deficit, all else being equal, more lean muscle mass leads to more calories being burned. With dealing with things like shin splints, cross training can help prevent injuries.

Try to find the right balance between the two (strength training and cardio), and you should be well on your way to your goal.