Phil, My thoughts are that 65-70% is ideal for the lower intensity workouts. In your case this will probably be in the region of 8 - 8.30 m/miling, and as such will feel pretty pedestrian. But 4-6weeks of this type of intensity will freshen you up mentally and physically, and leave you champing at the bit for the higher zones. Once you begin to run in this zone, there is little or no impact on the legs and therefore this leaves the door open to run durations of 70mins upwards. So the mileage does build-up to a reasonable level even though you are running slowly.
LS21, X-post. And you've hit the nail on the head.
I do something similar with my garmin - a watered-down version if you like. The screen I use has current HR, lap avg HR, Time and distance. So if I can be bothered, I use the time and distance to calc my pace.
We so, so get hung up on pace and miles (I'm as guilty as anyone). It's benchmarking all the time. How does this month compare to last month / this month last year etc?
Cheers guys. Actually, thinking back to when I first started running regularly (way back in, ooh, 2006!) I was very much into HR training, and at the time I was using a lower estimate of max HR (about high 180s based on a hill test, as opposed to 200+ which I've since seen at the end of races.) So it's not like I haven't run at 135-140 bpm before, as opposed to 145-150 which I later got used to.
LS21 - Think I'll be doing exactly the same thing with my Garmin. During previous injury come-backs my tactic has been to leave the Garmin at home completely and run according to PE, but if I'm brutally honest that probably meant running a little slower than when fully fit, but at a slightly higher heart rate than recommended...
Discipline. Focus. Patience.
LS21, It's liberating to rediscover the reason we love to run. Suck it up.
I had my usual 60 mins walk into work. Average pace 15:00m/m. Didn't measure HR but it probably dropped off a few beats when I stopped to get a pesky stone out of my shoe.
(35 - 40 miles of walking to and from work each week is probably helping with the weight loss as much as the home made soups!)
LS21 ... so my maxHR is 178 bpm, which is pretty close to yours. It would be interesting for me to try the Hadd test for comparison - I haven't ever done one despite sticking to the training plan itself. I just never got around to it ... I had planned to run mine at 130, 140, 145, 155 and 165 bpm, based on rounding the %maxHR derived from Joe. Do you have any recent race times to compare with your current stats?
During marathon training I managed my early morning 20+ mile runs at 123/124 bpm at 9/m and got my subLT 10M sessions at 145 bpm to average 7:15/m. I never got to the stage where I increased the sub-LT HR to 147/148 bpm ... I was just about there but races got in the way..
PhilPub wrote (see)
I had my usual 60 mins walk into work. Average pace 15:00m/m. Didn't measure HR but it probably dropped off a few beats when I stopped to get a pesky stone out of my shoe. (35 - 40 miles of walking to and from work each week is probably helping with the weight loss as much as the home made soups!)
The regular first thing in the morning mince for me too
I think I'm going to have to ditch the music for these Zone 1 runs...every time I look at my watch I'm going too fast (or my heart is). Maybe I just need a slow tracks selection.
One interesting discovery I have made is that a heart rate of 135 BPM for some reason seems to make me want to poop. 2nd emergency pitstop required in a fortnight. If there are any military physicist / biologist / boffin types out there this could be the missing link in Brown note research.
Dan - re race times. A couple yes. One was a Half at Warrington - 1'23'2x, which was about 20-30 secs/mile slower than I was in the Spring. I then did the 6 Stage Relay the week after (only 6k) and was again about 20-30 secs/mile slower.
I then did Amsterdam Mara but didn't 'race' it - but I thought I'd have ran 3'05ish based on the 20-30 secs/mile loss mentioned above if I had raced it (so about 6'55-7'00 pace).
I then did the Hadd test yesterday. My pace for the 4th rep (which coincides with my Mara HR allowing for a bit of drift) was 6'56/mile. I ran London at 6'27 pace I think, so it seems to be bang on where I am right now - about 20-30 secs down.
Aim is obviously to try and get that rep4 pace down to where I was in the Spring, and if it gets to 6'17 pace - well that would be lovely (as that equals a 2'44'xx Mara time!!)
Interesting LS21 ... even in your current state, you're much faster than me at my best (90 min HM, 40 min 10K). And you are capable of maintaining a much higher maraHR than me (10 bpm higher). In theory my Hadd Test stats should come out much slower than yours. When I start back again, I really must do the test thsi time!
Interesting on the Mara HR Dan.
At VLM I set off having a pop at 2'45. My HR was creeping up after only 4 miles. From 157 to 161 between miles 4 and 8. So at 8 I ditched it before I had a car crash! I then ran the rest purely on feel, which came in at 157ish- I ran well as a result.
But I was impressed by just how accurate the Hadd test was for me, in terms of the pace/HR relationship he discusses. As I say, it was pretty much bang on to the second on Rep 4 in terms of what I think my current Mara pace is, so that's a key benchmark/measure for me moving forwards.
Interesting stuff. I am intrigued by the data so, dug my last test out (29th Sep). So just under 3 weeks before Abingdon, on a treadmill at 1% gradient, with 90s rest between each rep:
12:35 120 8:2611:31 130 7:4310:47 140 7:1410:04 150 6:459:23 161 6:17
My max was 190 3 years ago, so I calculate on 187 now. I've seen 184 this year, so won't be far off. My marathon HRs are HRav=165, and I set off at 155. I did Abingdon in 2:56 which works out at 6:42 pace. I ran at 6:35 pace up to about 21 miles when I started to cramp, so eased off.
I think it would make sense for me to do 125-135-145-155-165 in the test, and then the 4th rep should equate almost directly to my marathon pace. Or should I be doing 130-170?
Not sure Brian! I had a similar thought/dilemma prior to doing mine. I wasn't sure whether to go 125-165, or 120-160. In the end I did the former.
Going on my 'vast' experience (err, one test!) I think the 125-165 was right for me, because the 155 reading seems to equate to what my current Marathon fitness is. So following that logic, because your max is 7bpm higher than mine I'd do 130-170, with the 160bpm rep being the one that most closely resembles your current Mara pace. But as I say, I've only done one so not really in a position to advise!
For info my test was done on the track too, all off 90 secs rest.
Phil, That's the great thing about running marathons to HR. It really does help the pacing, especially when conditions are not favourable. If I had a quid for everybody that told me a tail of woe about VLM2011, and how it was too hot!
My best position (600th'ish I think) in London was gained in 2007 when it was hot.
Brian. ... based on the %maxHRs of "Joe" (he tested at 73%, 78%, 82%, 88% and 93%), you should be doing: 137, 146, 153, 165 and174 bpm., so rounding off to 135, 145, 155, 165, 175 .... I reckon you took it a bit too easy!
LS21 ... interesting that your maraHR is 157 bpm as my HM PB of 90:06 was run at 157 bpm. Looks like I need to push my lactate threshold back quite a way!
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2014 |