A lot easier to stay in shape than to get back in shape!

[RavingMac]

I have a Garmin 301 GPS watch where I have data fields set for average pace, per mile pace, etc.

I got the Garmin 305 primarily because I have the chest band and can monitor my heart rate. It was at my wife's insistence. I'll turn 58 this summer and she wasn't keen on me hitting the pavement without a monitor to keep track of how I am doing.
I try to run by how it feels, but check the pulse from time to time and if it edges up to 160 I back off.

 

[pigoo3]

I got the Garmin 305 primarily because I have the chest band and can monitor my heart rate. It was at my wife's insistence. I'll turn 58 this summer and she wasn't keen on me hitting the pavement without a monitor to keep track of how I am doing.
I try to run by how it feels, but check the pulse from time to time and if it edges up to 160 I back off.

Sorry I made a mistake. I have the Garmin 305 as well (got my model numbers mixed up)...and I also use the heart rate monitor strap.

Regarding HR...yeah I'm sure by now you probably have a pretty good idea/association of what your HR is at a given running intensity. The great thing is (since you're just getting back into running)...you will improve by "leaps & bounds" as you get more fit, and as the pounds come off.

Let's face it...you will only get faster & your HR lower at the same paces as you get fitter & the weight comes off. Tracking your HR (resting HR & workout HR) is a very good idea...for both a measure of fitness & in some cases safety.

The Garmin 305 (as you may know) has TONS of features...and if you wanted to...you can set a "max HR" limit you don't want to exceed...and if you do...an alarm will go off prompting you to slow down.

I've actually done this (from a performance perspective) where I set a "minimum HR" where the alarm goes off (to make sure I don't run too slow)...but when you run hills it will go off (as you naturally run slower up a hill)...so I got tired of listening to the thing beeping...so I don't use this feature too much.

But I would think that it would be VERY useful for someone to use if they didn't want to exceed a specific HR (such as 160 bpm as you mentioned) from safety perspective.

There's a VERY inaccurate formula out there (actually there's a couple) that tries to predict a person's maximum HR based on age. The formula is 220-age = max. HR.

I know many folks where this formula doesn't work. Of course (statistically) it does work for some folks...but I think this is more coincidence than fact. What I'm trying to say is...typically it's a good idea to get a stress test before starting a workout program to get a better idea where your maximum HR is (which does decrease with age)...so that when you run, you're not running at too high of a % of max. HR.

If you used this formula...220-58=162 max HR. So when you hit 160bpm when running...you're at 98.8% of your max. HR...according to the formula (which I'm going to say is not likely)...since you could probably run a lot faster at that point...if you wanted or needed to (thus exceeding your predicted max. HR).

A good "% HR of max." to stay below for a person just starting a workout program is probably around 60-70%. Then as you get more fit you can play around with running at a higher intensity.

Based on my experience (knowing a lot of other folks personal "max HR" and their age)...an HR of 160bpm for a 58 year-old male may be exceeding 60-70% of max. HR. Just something to think about based on how you feel when you hit 160bpm while running.

- Nick

 

[RavingMac]

The Garmin 305 (as you may know) has TONS of features...and if you wanted to...you can set a "max HR" limit you don't want to exceed...and if you do...an alarm will go off prompting you to slow down. . . .

I actually didn't know that. Will have to dig out the manual and set it up.

There's a VERY inaccurate formula out there (actually there's a couple) that tries to predict a person's maximum HR based on age. The formula is 220-age = max. HR. . . . . A good "% HR of max." to stay below for a person just starting a workout program is probably around 60-70%. Then as you get more fit you can play around with running at a higher intensity. . . Just something to think about based on how you feel when you hit 160bpm while running.

- Nick

My actual Max appears to be 180 or so (or at least it was last year before sinus surgery knocked me out for the duration). When I did speed work I would peak between 170 and 175, with a couple of times reaching 177. I could still walk and talk (sort of) afterwards, so I hadn't hit cardiac arrest levels. Normal resting is 60 to 64. I generally feel comfortable up to about 140, at which point I begin to feel the stress.

 

[toMACsh]

There are lots of other ways to get adequate exercise besides running.

 

[RavingMac]

There are lots of other ways to get adequate exercise besides running.

True. . . . . ..

For anyone who is interested here is a summary of what I have done so far. I didnt do an average time but most of the runs are in the 9:00 to 10:30 per mile range

Week 1: Starting Wt - 225lbs, 6.3 miles
Week 2: 8.7 miles
Week 3: 11.2 miles
Week 4: Starting Wt - 219lbs, 4.2 miles thru today (current week)

 

[pigoo3]

There are lots of other ways to get adequate exercise besides running.

This is true...but running is one of the most efficient methods of exercising when you factor in:

- calories burned/hour
- ease of getting the workout started
- minimal time it takes to start a workout

Other workout types:

* swimming burns more calories/hour
* cycling burns fewer calories/hour

...but each of these workout types can be more of a hassle in terms of equipment...and or time it takes to get ready for a workout.

For example...let's say you're sitting at home on a Saturday...and you do your workout at 3pm in the afternoon:

1. If you want to do a swimming workout...you have to drive to a health club (where you have a membership), a YMCA, etc. where there is a pool to swim in. Thus you waste time driving to & from the pool.

2. If you do a cycling workout...you have to change into all of the cycling clothing, get your bike ready (check tire pressure, fill water bottle, etc.)...then do the workout (assuming it's not too cold for some folks, or it's not snowy or icy outside). And remember that cycling doesn't burn as many calories/hour as running...so you have to workout longer (more minutes) to burn the same calories as running.

3. If you do a running workout...it takes very little time to change into your running clothing, you can leave right from your homes front door, and you can certainly run in conditions (cold, snow, ice) that 95% of people wouldn't ride their bikes in.

Of course there are other ways to do workouts & burn calories...but I'm focusing on running, cycling, and swimming...because they are three workouts that you get a good cardiovascular workout. You could also do...aerobics, P-90X type workouts...etc.

- cycling is expensive...lots of equipment & in many climates you can't cycle 365 days/year
- swimming or aerobics you probably need some sort of health club membership (which can really add up)...plus you have to waste time driving to & from the health club.

Running is a nice balance between calories burned, ease of getting the workout done, and amount of time used before, during, and after the workout.

But the bottom line is...you have to do something that you enjoy doing (that you can stick with)...or that works for you from a scheduling standpoint or financial standpoint. If you don't like what you're doing...you won't keep doing it.

BUT...the problem is...if a workout is done correctly (good intensity level)...all workouts can be hard. That's why most people cannot stick with a workout program...it's just so much more fun & easy to sit on the couch, watch TV, and eat a bag of Cheeto's.

- Nick

p.s. Walking can also be a good way to get in a workout...but you burn so few calories/hour...that you really have to workout for a long time each day to burn significant calories. And you really don't get a good cardio workout walking (as compared to swimming cycling, running).

p.p.s. I'm also looking at this from the "weight losing perspective". If someone is already at a good healthy weight...and is just trying to maintain their weight...then other workout types may work fine.

 

[toMACsh]

p.p.s. I'm also looking at this from the "weight losing perspective". If someone is already at a good healthy weight...and is just trying to maintain their weight...then other workout types may work fine.

Yep. That's me. I walk, lift weights, do push-ups, sit-ups, leg lifts, "crunches", "squats", deep knee bends, and always take the stairs!

 

[pigoo3]

Yep. That's me. I walk, lift weights, do push-ups, sit-ups, leg lifts, "crunches", "squats", deep knee bends, and always take the stairs!

At the "end of the day" (in my humble opinion)...any workout program is a good workout program!

- Nick

 

[TattooedMac]

You are all "mad" i say "Mad" lol

I suppose i would be in a different frame of mind if i wasnt so broken. Work and bush walking with my son is all i can handle, bu keeps me looking good enough. Honestly wish i could be fitter though. Gym will be calling soon.
Keep it up and look forward to following your progress Razor . . . .

I must admit when i saw the

Week 1: Starting Wt - 225lbs, 6.3 miles
Week 2: 8.7 miles
Week 3: 11.2 miles
Week 4: Starting Wt - 219lbs, 4.2 miles thru today (current week)

i said to my self, harden up that isnt much, Then being 58yrs changes that, and it clicked a miles is half more again than a Kilometre lol Big difference

Cheers

 

[RavingMac]

I must admit when i saw the i said to my self, harden up that isnt much, Then being 58yrs changes that, and it clicked a miles is half more again than a Kilometre lol Big difference

Cheers

That is actually the hardest part to get past because I still remember running 60 miles a week at considerably faster than 9 to 10 minutes a mile. Of course I was a lot younger and lighter.
Still this is where I am and where I have to start . . . wish I could go faster and farther, but that will have to wait.

I will keep posting as long as anybody is interested because I am finding that it does encourage me if no one else.

 

[TattooedMac]

I will keep posting as long as anybody is interested because I am finding that it does encourage me if no one else.

Thats good and i thought as much . . . . . Good luck and safe running

 

[RavingMac]

Week 4

Week 4: Starting Wt - 219lbs, ending Wt - 218

12.4 miles total

 

[pigoo3]

Keep it up. All progress is good progress.

It's currently 5pm, rainy, and chilly at my location...and I'm having a big debate whether to workout today!

- Nick

 

[TattooedMac]

Week 4: Starting Wt - 219lbs, ending Wt - 218

12.4 miles total

What do you think to yourself getting -1 lbs over a 12.4 mile week ?? Is this within your expectations or where you hoping for more? To me seems like nothing putting it into my natural tongue that equates to around 450grms.
Not dissing you or anything here mate im am honestly curious . . . . .

I, the sort of person that sits in a crowd and just looks at people. I like to try analyse them, and i believe in just watching them act in a natural setting you can get a idea of what sort of person they are lol Not in a creepy sort of way but i just like to know how/why some people think . . . . . . Honesty i suppose is really such a personal thing as well, and people think if they answer honestly that they are getting invaded. Hence IMO why people lie. Not so much as to hide the truth but to hide themselves from others

Cheers

EDIT : And i have to admit finding how others deals with things is information for me. Over the years i have compiled a list of peoples *thing that work for them* to a certain ailment/injury I like the exotic and weird things people do to relieve themselves of certain things

 

[pigoo3]

What do you think to yourself getting -1 lbs over a 12.4 mile week ?? Is this within your expectations or where you hoping for more? To me seems like nothing putting it into my natural tongue that equates to around 450grms.

453.6 grams to be exact!

It's actually pretty hard to lose 1 pound (453.6g) of body fat. 1 pound of body fat contains about 3500 calories. So to lose 1 pound of body fat you have to do it via diet, exercise, or both. There are calculators out there to more accurately determine this...but roughly speaking...the average sized person burns about 100 calories per mile run (more for larger folks, less for smaller).

Technically it would take about 35 miles of running to lose 1 pound of body fat. But it gets more complex. Technically speaking if a person isn't running/exercising...and were simply sitting watching TV...your body naturally burns 70-90 calories per hour.

So if a person takes 10 minutes to run a mile (thus burning roughly 100 calories)...they would have burned approximately 13 calories just sitting for the same 10 minute period. So 100 - 13 = 87 net calories burned "to the positive" for weight loss purposes.

I would say losing 1 pound in a week via 12.7 miles run + some diet cutbacks is pretty good.

- Nick

p.s. Of course this weight loss can be a combination of exercise & diet...so you could run/exercise less + some calorie reduction from a persons diet = weight loss.

 

[TattooedMac]

453.6 grams to be exact!

Forgive me ;P

I would say losing 1 pound in a week via 12.7 miles run + some diet cutbacks is pretty good.

Thanks for the breakdown of the complexities of it all.

Mind you i wasnt saying it was god or bad, more was questioning why which you have now provided me with the guts of it ......

On the above 453.6 grams with the way you broke it down, i can see for people in your sport the exactness of it all is a big thing and not sure what but it looks like it could come down to 100ths/1000ths of a gram.

Now that takes commitment



Cheers

 

[pigoo3]

On the above 453.6 grams with the way you broke it down, i can see for people in your sport the exactness of it all is a big thing and not sure what but it looks like it could come down to 100ths/1000ths of a gram.

I was only being "super duper" technical...just in case there were some folks out there reading this thread that like more detail.

I also (on a day to day basis) deal with a lot of non-metric to metric conversions (weights, volumes, distances, etc.)...so I have a lot of the conversion factors memorized...such as 453.6g = 1.0 U.S. lb.

- Nick

 

[RavingMac]

I look at it this way, if I can plug away and lose even a 1/2 pound a week, over a years time that's 26 pounds.
So, it adds up. The real trick is keeping at it and not giving up (which is real tempting sometimes).

EDIT: And, yes, at this stage I expect to lose 1 to 2 pounds a week.

EDIT2: And thanks to the both of you for the encouragement. It helps.

It was cold and windy here today, Nick, so I can understand the debate about working out.

 

[RavingMac]

Things are definitely getting better

Yesterday was planned to be a rest day for me (as far as running goes) but the weather turned off beautiful, the first really nice day in about a week. I ended up going out for a 2.8 mile run and while I can't say I enjoyed it I did pretty well.
Hopefully, if things continue like this I will be able to up my long runs to ~8 miles soon, which will make the shorter runs feel that much easier.

 

[RavingMac]

Update Week 4

Week 4: Starting Wt - 219lbs, ending Wt - 218

15.2 miles total

I have started using an online Running Log (runningahead.com) and their grouping for a week is different from what I was doing. I've been posting from my manual data keeping, but it is easier just to convert and use their's.
Hence the update. Any future will be taken from their record.