Term Limits?

nkrichards wrote:Have a safe trip!

Thanks, I'll try to keep it between the ditches.

Made it back. Went over to pick up some small items of my aunt's who died almost 3 years ago and a ton of photos. Bonus was stuff of my grandmother's in a old filing box. With the hidden gem was her absolutely scrumptious chocolate sauce recipe (I had misplaced my copy) and a mayonnaise recipe that's supposed to be really good. The chocolate sauce has creme de menthe in it.

She worked as the food editor and church editor at the Chattanooga News-Free Press for 36 years, retiring on April 4, 1969. Dying on April 9, 1969 at 68 years old. Doing the math, she was born in 1900 and started working there in 1933. Her husband died in 1932 leaving her with 3 kids and a houseful of brothers and sisters to feed.
I remember my dad saying when he was 8 years old in 1932, all he got for Christmas was an orange.

Ah, the Depression.

I worked out this morning. I didn't have the endurance to finish many of the sets. I had been told that fasting would affect my ability on one activity some, but certainly both.

It's either that or driving for 12 hours, yesterday. Maybe a little of both. Either way, it'll be over at noon Monday. This morning, I've lost 12 pounds. I hope to regain 3 or 4 lbs by just filling up the gut again, but I hope lose that by the end of this week and continue losing a pound or 2 a week for a while.

Thanks for stumbling in.

So, I ended up losing 12 pounds.  228, currently.  That's fine.  On Saturday, I had a 8 oz container of peanut butter over the entire day.  As I drove the 750 miles, I found that aside from McDonalds, the most fast food joints I saw (and was tempted) was Waffle House.  Temptation, peanut butter, temptation, peanut butter, etc.  I had some left at the conclusion, but the remaining peanut butter did not survive the night.

But food is back on the table, as higher protein, moderate fats, and low carbs.  I will re-start running, tomorrow, and will bump the cadence up a tad to 163.  Weights on Wednesday and Friday, this week.  Run tomorrow and Thursday.

229, this morning.  I only show it because, in the past after a 5 or 10 day fast, I've gained 3 or 4 after the re-starting.  That's why.

Also this morning, I ran 4 miles at a target cadence of 164.  Used to be 162. 

Target HR was in the 130s.  This was my first run since the Half on January 19.

4.03 miles, 59:07, 14:39 pace, 131 avg HR, 158 avg cadence
1.  15:35, 125 bpm, 162 spm
2.  14:12, 133 bpm, 160 spm
3.  14:20, 132 bpm, 156 spm
4.  14:06, 133 bpm, 154 spm

As expected, I could not run at 164 for the whole 4, but I was able to go almost 2.  Then I reduced it to 163.  The data shows I wasn't able to regain or stabilize the cadence.  It could be that running the half at 156 (battery died on race day) means that I need to increase from 156 to 164, instead of 162 to 164.  Either way, I can get to 164 in a few weeks.

It's evident that the heart likes the 150's.  Well, too bad.  164 is the target.

Weights, this morning. The threatened cool front came through last night and dropped temps 10 degrees. 47 degrees.

Went well and not much else to tell.

Running tomorrow and looking for a little improvement on cadence from Monday.

Didn't realize you have ink in your DNA. Very cool about your grandmother. But too bad about the orange. Still, in that era, oranges were a luxury item.

You got your heart doc's okay to do this fasting thing, right?

And since your body is changing (sounds like one of those puberty talks, doesn't it?) with the heart incident, you may need to reassess just what your new *actual* appropriate HR levels are. You may have lost that hummingbird-HR top setting somewhere along the way.

failed attempt at loading a photo

2nd failed attempt

Mark B wrote:Didn't realize you have ink in your DNA. Very cool about your grandmother. But too bad about the orange. Still, in that era, oranges were a luxury item.

You got your heart doc's okay to do this fasting thing, right?

And since your body is changing (sounds like one of those puberty talks, doesn't it?) with the heart incident, you may need to reassess just what your new *actual* appropriate HR levels are. You may have lost that hummingbird-HR top setting somewhere along the way.

yup.

Doc's okay?  I guess I could call him now, after the fact.  It really didn't cross my mind.

Dad,
In the Half on the 19th, I hit a Max HR of 178 bpm without issue.  So, that's the post-MI HR max or rounding it up to 180 or so.  Pre-MI it was 200 from 2009 when I hit 202.  126-136 bpm is 70%-75%.  Back at my last appt, he was fine with me doing 138.  I would bet that if he saw my HR splits for the Half that he'd be fine with 190 as a max.

However, HR max will probably have to be flexible for the heat 'n humidity of the Summer.


Signed,
Vroom *cough, cough* Vroooooom

It was 47 degrees, this morning, but it was not as cold as I was dressed.  That didn't seem to bother too, too much.  Four or six miles was on the make believe schedule, but I decided on 4 at 163, so I could see how today compares to Tuesday's 4 at 164 and the waning that followed.

4 miles, 57:43, 14:24 pace, 130 avg bpm, 139 max bpm, 158 avg cadence
1.  14:38, 123 bpm, 156 spm
2.  14:26, 131 bpm, 158 bpm
3.  14:20, 132 bpm, 152 bpm
4.  14:16, 133 bpm, 156 bpm

Here is Tuesday's 4:
4.03 miles, 59:07, 14:39 pace, 131 avg HR, 158 avg cadence
1.  15:35, 125 bpm, 162 spm
2.  14:12, 133 bpm, 160 spm
3.  14:20, 132 bpm, 156 spm
4.  14:06, 133 bpm, 154 spm


The 3 hundreths (4.03 miles) amounted to 51 seconds.  That'd be a 58:16 time for exactly 4 miles or 14:31 pace.
So, I was 33 seconds faster today than Tuesday.

It felt better today than Tuesday.  I think the cadence counter on this Polar is counting short because I had zero problem keeping up with the gnome's 163 chirps.  Next week, I may wear the Garmin on the other wrist in order to compare.  On the other hand, mile 1 on Tuesday was 162 spm.  Hmmm.

I didn't start faltering until late in mile 2 and a good bit of mile 3.  So I can't say that 163 is mastered.  Might be 2 weeks.  Otherwise, no muss, no fuss.

That's it for today!

Friday morning, I lifted weights. I'm starting to wonder if I should alternate a couple of lifts to either change it up or work a different muscle group.

I'm there for an hour and fifteen minutes each time. I could add another machine (bench press or the Gravitron come to mind). The Gravitron is the pullup machine where you deduct body weight on the plates. 170 lbs was deducted, so I could do one or two.

I could also do some routine(s) at home like planks, push ups, or burpees all week, but I've been opposed to that because it'll seem like work.

I'll ponder that during tomorrow's run...either 4 or 5 miles. Thank you. Come again.

I forgot to turn on my alarm, overslept for running, but not for lifting.  So, I went to my local (until Feb 7) gym and worked out.  It was evident the word was out that it was closing, as not as many people at 6 o'clock as a few weeks ago.  But at this gym's peak of 6 a.m., it's about half of the number of cars at the one I'm checking out. 

It was nice knowing where everything was at the old gym, as that made working out more efficient.  Sometimes, I'd like to increase the weight on a routine because I think I need to strain a little more, but the technique would suffer.  For instance, a bicep curl.  The weight I presently use is not quite easy, yet, but my technique is excellent...I'm only bending the arm at the elbow and ending at the chin, without sway of the body, shoulder, or bending backwards the back.  The movement is isolated on the arm.  3 sets of 10.

I guess that I could increase the weight and do only as many as I could with good technique.  Maybe I'll try that because I'll get stronger and increase up to 3 sets of 10.

Running tomorrow, with the alarm on, this time.  Cold front due Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.

Sorry about your gym...

I don't lift, but from *years* of PT, I seem to remember that form trumps power when lifting. Better to have perfect form, working exactly the right muscles, than to cheat a higher weight by recruiting other muscles to do the job. But maybe that's just a PT thing? I don't know.

Speaking of PT, if you'd like, I could make some dandy suggestions on core work that'd get your body trembling with effort.

Where's Nancy?

ounce wrote:

Cool press! One of those rare "hang from the ceiling" types.

(Yes, the pun was intentional.)

If you're curious why the photo isn't posting right, I think the EXIF data is goofed up. Just rotating the image in your image editor isn't enough to solve the problem; it defaults back to the same orientation, even if you save the file again. You need to rotate the image and then export that image as a new file. That should do it. (A Save As should work, too.)

Mark B wrote:Sorry about your gym...

I don't lift, but from *years* of PT, I seem to remember that form trumps power when lifting. Better to have perfect form, working exactly the right muscles, than to cheat a higher weight by recruiting other muscles to do the job. But maybe that's just a PT thing? I don't know.

Speaking of PT, if you'd like, I could make some dandy suggestions on core work that'd get your body trembling with effort.

Where's Nancy?

I've been in Puerto Vallarta...working out.  Details in my blog.

I agree that form is much more important than increased weight.  If/when you do move up to a heavier weight don't hesitate to drop back down to the lighter weight for the last set or last few reps.  It's good to challenge yourself with a heavier weight as you progress...as long as you can maintain form.

Variety is also important.  I think that changing up your routine is a good idea.  Even changing the order you do things in so that you're sometimes doing a lift when you're fresh and sometimes when you're tired is a good idea.  Use all the available options at the gym to develop all the muscles in your body.  It's amazing how much running relies on the entire body.

And that core thing...I know it's not fun...but I've learned that it really does help.  Search for a workout on line.  It is very boring but doing it "with" someone else on the video does help...plus they tell you what to do...and how to do it correctly.

Happy lifting...and running...

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:Sorry about your gym...

I don't lift, but from *years* of PT, I seem to remember that form trumps power when lifting. Better to have perfect form, working exactly the right muscles, than to cheat a higher weight by recruiting other muscles to do the job. But maybe that's just a PT thing? I don't know.

Speaking of PT, if you'd like, I could make some dandy suggestions on core work that'd get your body trembling with effort.

Where's Nancy?

I've been in Puerto Vallarta...working out.  Details in my blog.

I agree that form is much more important than increased weight.  If/when you do move up to a heavier weight don't hesitate to drop back down to the lighter weight for the last set or last few reps.  It's good to challenge yourself with a heavier weight as you progress...as long as you can maintain form.

Variety is also important.  I think that changing up your routine is a good idea.  Even changing the order you do things in so that you're sometimes doing a lift when you're fresh and sometimes when you're tired is a good idea.  Use all the available options at the gym to develop all the muscles in your body.  It's amazing how much running relies on the entire body.

And that core thing...I know it's not fun...but I've learned that it really does help.  Search for a workout on line.  It is very boring but doing it "with" someone else on the video does help...plus they tell you what to do...and how to do it correctly.

Happy lifting...and running...

I appreciate the offer, Mark, but right now I'd like to be the one to blame on core exercises.  At present, I still do the leg lifts (on my back, legs straight out, lift legs 90 degrees, lower legs), but I'm up to 4 sets of 25.  I can make that tougher, but I have to find room at the gym to lay my arms on the mat above my head and do 4 sets of 25.  That's tougher. I do need to do some squats, so I can loosen up my knee in order to get in child's pose again.

I'll switch routines around.  It will make some easier and some tougher, which is great.  I have searched online for two workouts and a website for chin ups and pull ups.

Today's trivia is:  did you know that a chin up is different from a pull up, but both pull your body up?  A chin up is when your palm is facing towards you when you grab the bar.  A pull up is when your palm faces away from you, when you grab the bar.

Thanks, y'all.  Welcome back, Nancy!

-30-

This morning, it was 69 degrees with a 10 mph south wind that was noticeable.  4 or 5 miles?  Since it was warmer, I decided 4.  The last run I did, I was having a time maintaining 163 cadence during the whole 4 miles.  Today's goal was to think cadence 1st and HR 2nd.  In order to rule out the Polar's cadence counting, I also wore the Garmin on my right wrist as a check.  The Polar measures cadence as 1 step per stride or 82, whereas the Garmin would do 164.

4 miles, 53:37, 13:24 pace, 138 avg HR, 152 Max HR mile 4, 82 spm cadence (162 on the Garmin)
1.  13:44, 127 bpm, 81 spm (162 spm)
2.  13:26, 137 bpm, 82 spm (163 spm)
3.  13:23, 141 bpm, 82 spm (162 spm)
4.  13:05, 148 bpm, 82 spm (162 spm)

So, it appears from all three runs that cadence is easier to maintain by letting the HR become an indian and not a chief.  The two runs below were purely to keep HR in the 130's.

January 30 4 miles
4 miles, 57:43, 14:24 pace, 130 avg bpm, 139 max bpm, 158 avg cadence
1.  14:38, 123 bpm, 156 spm
2.  14:26, 131 bpm, 158 bpm
3.  14:20, 132 bpm, 152 bpm
4.  14:16, 133 bpm, 156 bpm

January 28 4 miles

4.03 miles, 59:07, 14:39 pace, 131 avg HR, 158 avg cadence
1.  15:35, 125 bpm, 162 spm
2.  14:12, 133 bpm, 160 spm
3.  14:20, 132 bpm, 156 spm
4.  14:06, 133 bpm, 154 spm


I sure like today's splits.  Not only that, but I maintained the 162 cadence throughout the whole run, which tells me the legs and lungs have adapted or have almost adapted, which is a Woohoo! moment.

Weights tomorrow.  And Thursday will be running.  We have a cold front coming in tomorrow morning that will produce a Thursday morning low of 36 degrees.  Guess I get to wear the layers for one of the last times this 'winter.'  January went by without Houston hitting 32 degrees or lower.  Might just run 5 or 6 miles to make it all worth while.  I'll see what the legs say.

Come again!

The cold front came through!  We're not getting any snow, but the temperature change from yesterday, this time, to now is -30 degrees.  Saturday's high will be +30 degrees what it is now (45 degrees).

I did lift weights, this morning, and I did jumble the routine up.  I added a new thing that's supposed to be good to for building biceps (biceps and triceps are the most important muscles to do a pull up or chin up, followed by traps, then lats).

It's a weight bearing routine and looks like the below (but not tied to a tree):


I was able to do 3 sets of ten, but looking at the picture, I don't think my palms were up but looking at each other.  I'll fix that on Friday.  The further forward my feet are, the more difficult.  I do need to scoot forward some, so 3 sets of 10 isn't a slam dunk.

Chilly running, tomorrow!  thanks.

ounce wrote:The cold front came through!  We're not getting any snow, but the temperature change from yesterday, this time, to now is -30 degrees.  Saturday's high will be +30 degrees what it is now (45 degrees).

I did lift weights, this morning, and I did jumble the routine up.  I added a new thing that's supposed to be good to for building biceps (biceps and triceps are the most important muscles to do a pull up or chin up, followed by traps, then lats).

It's a weight bearing routine and looks like the below (but not tied to a tree):


I was able to do 3 sets of ten, but looking at the picture, I don't think my palms were up but looking at each other.  I'll fix that on Friday.  The further forward my feet are, the more difficult.  I do need to scoot forward some, so 3 sets of 10 isn't a slam dunk.

Chilly running, tomorrow!  thanks.

I like that exercise.  You can vary the difficulty depending on where you place your feet.  And work different muscles depending on how you place your hands.  

Interesting relationships between Pace, HR, and Cadence...and then I/you wonder what other factors had an effect.  Recovery?  Temperature?  Elevation?  So many things that affect each run.

Sounds like your weather is just as volatile as ours.

Happy lifting and running...

I am determined to figure out a way to not let the HR be the prime determinant in going faster.  It's long been my complaint about Maffetone that I can't get faster at the lower HR rate.  It's a good method, but I can't wait as long as Maffetone takes.  So with Nancy's help and data (I'm asking) and my data, I'm going to come up with a method to accelerate Maffetone's method.

It could be as easy (on paper) of mastering a certain HR (HR 1) at a certain pace (pace 1).  Then increase pace a bit and hold the pace (pace 2) until the HR returns to HR 1 or close to HR 1.  Then, allow a bit of time to establish the new pace point.  Because HR is first to adapt, the pace doesn't necessarily have to be second fiddle to faster times.  The HR just has to catch up.  While that's happening, the legs can get used to the motion, turnover and the lungs adaptation.

I don't know if this is some other form of running exercise (like McMillan or the other bunch up north), but it's a thought that I've come up with as I type, tonight.  It can change and get better.  And it could help Nancy with her times.  If nothing else, having a man and woman of similar age, but dissimilar abilities and activities, working on a new method might could be useful and interesting.

Let's see how it goes.  Think about it, Nancy?

-30-

Last Thursday, it was 36 degrees with a 10 mph wind.  Wind chill of 30.  I wore my full cold weather clothing of 3 shirts, long tights, smartwool socks even, gloves, head covering, and my Buff for the neck and jaw.  I wanted to run 5 or 6 miles because I was ready to move on from 4 miles.  Variation.

I set the cadence at 163, but about 2 miles into the run, the battery ran out of juice.  I found a package of batteries in a drawer and replaced it, this morning.

5 miles, 1:11:53, 14:23 pace, 130 avg HR, Max HR of 171, 156 avg cadence
1.  14:05, 127 bpm, 162 spm
2.  13:58, 129 bpm, 160 spm
3.  14:40, 132 bpm, 150 spm
4.  14:40, 129 bpm, 148 spm
5.  14:30, 131 bpm, 142 spm

Boy, I could sure tell my cadence was off.  I wasn't having a good run, but the weather was keeping me from stopping altogether.  So, I kept trudging on.  I had to stop twice to pee, which was very odd, but could be blamed on it being so cold.

Well, slow times mean low HR and this was sure the case.  I think this run motivated me to come up with something different than Maffetone.

Today's run (Monday) is below.


-30-


This morning, it was 70 degrees with full humidity and scattered showers that didn't affect my run.  I set the gnome at 163 spm with a new battery.

Being a Monday means that it's long run day.  I have to get back on that selection of how far on which day.  I just might even add a day of running, however it'll have to be on a weights day, too.  Six miles was today's idea.

6 miles, 1:25:15, 14:10 avg pace, 131 avg HR, 142 Max HR, 164 avg cadence, 1st half pace 14:27, 2nd half pace 13:53.
1.  14:56, 118 bpm, 162 spm
2.  14:14, 128 bpm, 164 spm
3.  14:12, 131 bpm, 164 spm
4.  14:03, 133 bpm, 162 spm
5.  13:51, 136 bpm, 162 spm
6.  13:45, 136 bpm, 158 spm

I would've expected the above splits to have been done in cold weather, not 70 degree weather.  I ran today on 3 days rest.  Seems like a pretty decent factor over Thursday's run.  Today's cadence was more consistent and the splits decreased the whole run with marginal HR increase, but just 1 avg bpm more.  And it was longer to boot.

I didn't expect this.

Now, what to do for the next run?  Do I begin the next experiment of Pace 2 mentioned above?  Seems like as good a time as any for me.

Tomorrow, weights.  Oh, on Friday, I swapped out a lateral pull down for a weighted seat row.  This evening, I watched two videos on how to do a weighted seat row correctly.

Thanks for stopping by.

Unlike Monday, this morning it was 50 degrees and misty.  A 20 degree decline.  I went to the gym to lift the weights, as threatened last night.  I switched the routine around, based on availability of the machine.  Seems like the trapezius muscle received enough activity to still be felt 7 hours later.  The location of the traps is below:

It's the 3rd muscle group needed to do pullups, after biceps and triceps.

I finally found an image of the lower back machine exercise that a chiropractor said to used way back in 2005.  I've strengthened that muscle enough that I hold a 20 lb dumbbell against my forehead, while doing the sets.


While I haven't lost any actual pounds, since the 5 day fast, I noticed my blue jeans are looser around my waist.  So, that's a good thing.

Tomorrow, I'll run 4 or 5 miles at a somewhat higher HR, e.g. 135-140 avg.  Thanks for practicing your reading and comprehension skills, here.

ounce wrote:I am determined to figure out a way to not let the HR be the prime determinant in going faster.  It's long been my complaint about Maffetone that I can't get faster at the lower HR rate.  It's a good method, but I can't wait as long as Maffetone takes.  So with Nancy's help and data (I'm asking) and my data, I'm going to come up with a method to accelerate Maffetone's method.

It could be as easy (on paper) of mastering a certain HR (HR 1) at a certain pace (pace 1).  Then increase pace a bit and hold the pace (pace 2) until the HR returns to HR 1 or close to HR 1.  Then, allow a bit of time to establish the new pace point.  Because HR is first to adapt, the pace doesn't necessarily have to be second fiddle to faster times.  The HR just has to catch up.  While that's happening, the legs can get used to the motion, turnover and the lungs adaptation.

I don't know if this is some other form of running exercise (like McMillan or the other bunch up north), but it's a thought that I've come up with as I type, tonight.  It can change and get better.  And it could help Nancy with her times.  If nothing else, having a man and woman of similar age, but dissimilar abilities and activities, working on a new method might could be useful and interesting.

Let's see how it goes.  Think about it, Nancy?

-30-

Last Thursday, it was 36 degrees with a 10 mph wind.  Wind chill of 30.  I wore my full cold weather clothing of 3 shirts, long tights, smartwool socks even, gloves, head covering, and my Buff for the neck and jaw.  I wanted to run 5 or 6 miles because I was ready to move on from 4 miles.  Variation.

5 miles, 1:11:53, 14:23 pace, 130 avg HR, Max HR of 171, 156 avg cadence
1.  14:05, 127 bpm, 162 spm
2.  13:58, 129 bpm, 160 spm
3.  14:40, 132 bpm, 150 spm
4.  14:40, 129 bpm, 148 spm
5.  14:30, 131 bpm, 142 spm

Boy, I could sure tell my cadence was off.  I wasn't having a good run, but the weather was keeping me from stopping altogether.  So, I kept trudging on.  I had to stop twice to pee, which was very odd, but could be blamed on it being so cold.

-30-


This morning, it was 70 degrees with full humidity and scattered showers that didn't affect my run.  I set the gnome at 163 spm with a new battery.

6 miles, 1:25:15, 14:10 avg pace, 131 avg HR, 142 Max HR, 164 avg cadence, 1st half pace 14:27, 2nd half pace 13:53.
1.  14:56, 118 bpm, 162 spm
2.  14:14, 128 bpm, 164 spm
3.  14:12, 131 bpm, 164 spm
4.  14:03, 133 bpm, 162 spm
5.  13:51, 136 bpm, 162 spm
6.  13:45, 136 bpm, 158 spm

Whew.  Okay.  The goal for today was to increase the heart rate over the entire run. 
Measurements: 
HR1 = 131.  HR1 is the baseline heart rate. 
HR2 is the higher heart rate for running faster.  The goal is for HR2 to become HR1, while retaining the faster pace or most of the faster pace (this is unknown).
Pace 1 = 14:10 and is the result of running at HR1.
Pace 2 is the overall new pace at HR2.  At the beginning, HR2 is a result of Pace 2.

Since it is my experience (and from what I've read over the years) that the heart will reduce its HR for the same effort over time, I believe maintaining a faster pace will result in the lowering of the HR because the heart is supposed to function efficiently.  I guess I could put it into hypothesis form, but I ain't no scientist.  I'd like to see how this goes before it gets warmer and affects the HR and pace.

-30-

This morning, it was 56 degrees.  I wanted to run 5 miles with an overall HR of between 135 and 140.  It could be higher, but more importantly, I wanted a noticeably faster, sustainable pace.  So, I guess running at ~80% effort.
Cadence is 163.

5 miles, 1:04:48, 12:56 avg pace, 140 avg HR, 151 HR max, 164 avg cadence, 1st half pace 13:01, 2nd half pace 12:51
1.  13:23, 127 bpm, 162 spm
2.  12:45, 137 bpm, 162 spm
3.  12:39, 142 bpm, 162 spm
4.  12:56, 146 bpm, 162 spm
5.  13:02, 146 bpm, 162 spm

The 140 is misleading, to me, because I was seeing so many 140-148 bpm on the watch.

You'll note my splits were almost shaped like a 'U' with the fastest time at mile 3.  I could tell my legs were tiring some, but could still maintain cadence, which is a nice consolation prize.

Now, Pace 2 is 12:56 and 140 is HR2.  HR1 is 131.  Subsequent runs (except long runs) will be done at Pace 2.  After a few runs, I'll see if HR2 is approaching HR1, while maintaining Pace 2.  Maybe long runs should be included, but I'm not there yet.  Maybe as a result of the Pace 2 runs, long run pace will quicken.

comments welcome.

I think you're on the right track Doug.  The problem is going to be making sure you're comparing apples to apples.  In other words what factors are affecting your HR in addition to pace.  Elevation gain/loss?  Total distance?  Temperature and humidity?  Are you tired?  Hungry? Stressed from life in general?  Mark can weigh in here but I think with Maffetone he has you do a test under relatively similar conditions every so often.  The hope is that with the same HR you can cover more distance in the same time.  Pretty much the same concept just looking at it from a different direction...keep the HR the same and watch the pace increase rather than increase the pace and hope the HR catches up.  Pretty much the same results. 

I'm not dedicated enough to the philosophy to track everything that close.  And I find trying to intentionally stay in a HR range stresses me out and raises my HR just from the worrying.

Nice run BTW.  Keep at it!