Nov 2016
8:11pm, 5 Nov 2016
41 posts
|
Brunski
I'd be up for joining your group on this resurrected thread but won't be dropping the parkruns just yet...maybe if I think it's hampering my other runs I may do.
I will however do at least one of the 10 mile 80% run and apart from parkrun I will refrain from doing my interval stuff with my Monday Night mates.
Main things I'm adopting from that is the 1hr 70% runs, which I will do by extending my 30-35 minute commute (I only run one way anyway due to childcare).
I'll try to keep up with a decent long run in a Sunday too...
So that leaves me with:
Monday home from work 30 mins & evening 45-60 (both at max 145bpm) Tuesday 1 Hr @145 Wednesday rest or XC, poss football. Thursday 1 hr @ 155-160 bpm (will up to 160-165 in time) Friday 1 hr @ 145 Saturday parkrun with warm up/cool down Sunday 1.5-2 hr @145-150
My max is 205bpm..Any thoughts?
|
Nov 2016
11:07pm, 5 Nov 2016
4,984 posts
|
daviec
Initial thoughts. Run Wednesday as well.
|
Nov 2016
2:54pm, 6 Nov 2016
42 posts
|
Brunski
Yeah, thatd be following it better.
I've just fallen into taking Wednesday's off as have been dropping & pick up kids from school on that day.
|
Nov 2016
11:33am, 7 Nov 2016
8,102 posts
|
Boab
Brunski, I'd go to 160-165 now. I'm not sure 155-160 will tax you enough. 164 is 80% for you and is still sub lactate according to Hadd. Over the coming months you will be pushing that up towards 175.
|
Nov 2016
12:10pm, 7 Nov 2016
5,819 posts
|
paul the builder
*if* your max is genuinely 205. Are you sure on that?
|
Nov 2016
1:12pm, 7 Nov 2016
43 posts
|
Brunski
I'm as sure as can be of the 205 max ptb, having seen that (and higher) at the end of 5ks in the past, and if honest I think that as a slightly conservative estimate. However I do struggle to run for any length of time at the higher HRs though, for instance my parkrun at the weekend I tried to maintain a higher HR and got an average of 168 (peaking at 191bpm), for that reason I think 155-160 will challenge me over 10 miles for the time being as I was around that when racing at the Yorkshire Marathon, so know it's achievable but definitely not comfortable.
I've mentioned before (in the heart rate thread) that I think I may just be a bit soft, and not accustomed to putting myself through the pain. This is the primary reason this appeals to me, as you can 'get used' to inching up the Heart Rate whilst progressing.
I'm hoping I still have half a tube of toothpaste to empty still, as I reckon I must be reasonably economical at the lower HR, I just need to get that consistent so I can hold the higher heart rates for longer.
|
Nov 2016
1:45pm, 7 Nov 2016
4,482 posts
|
Huntsman
I did 20 miles yesterday at average 68.1% MHR which was too much really but I was feeling reckless.
Pushing on for 50 miles this week all at sub 75%. I'll revisit the sub LT's post 50 mile weeks.
Focus is on Southampton marathon April 23rd and making sure I've got miles in my legs to achieve the 3x200 mile months Jan-Mar in the build up.
Really interesting thread this and very useful.
|
Nov 2016
2:15pm, 7 Nov 2016
5,820 posts
|
paul the builder
Brunski - based on 4 recent runs (parkruns?) logged on each of last 4 Saturdays:
1) 1m - 6:15(6:15/m) 166/200bpm 2) 1m - 5:55(5:55/m) 95/110bpm 3) 1m - 5:43(5:43/m) 102/119bpm 4) 0.04m - 12(5:18/m) 109/113bpm
1) 1m - 5:50(5:50/m) 175/201bpm 2) 1m - 6:05(6:05/m) 170/182bpm 3) 1m - 6:02(6:02/m) 173/183bpm 4) 0.03m - 9(4:37/m) 185/188bpm
1) 1m - 5:57(5:57/m) 157/187bpm 2) 1m - 6:06(6:06/m) 172/194bpm 3) 1m - 6:05(6:05/m) 162/187bpm 4) 0.05m - 14(4:53/m) 168/172bpm
1) 1m - 6:00(6:00/m) 149/177bpm 2) 1m - 5:57(5:57/m) 178/191bpm 3) 1m - 5:58(5:58/m) 177/189bpm 4) 0.03m - 7(4:05/m) 189/189bpm
Only you know how hard you pushed for them, but I'd say your HR data isn't terribly reliable there. Is it a chest strap? Clearly the first one is garbage The second one looks like there was false readings early on, but after mile 1 it could be right? The third one I *could* believe, except for what happens in the final 0.05m - you're pushing hard for a sprint finish but the highest HR in that was 172 - if that's correct, then I don't believe that you hit 187 and 194 in previous miles. The fourth one is the only one that I don't see a problem with.
But because there's clearly at least *some* wrong data, then it's hard to say which bits are definitely correct. You should be able to learn a lot more by looking at the graphs - HR doesn't spike up and down rapidly; it steadily climbs and steadily falls(*).
(*) unless you have a heart condition of some sort - but then you need medical advice, not the Hadd thread
|
Nov 2016
3:31pm, 7 Nov 2016
45 posts
|
Brunski
The first and third ones have some garbage in there for sure, I'm using a TomTom Runner cardio watch with a built in HRM and feel it's accurate 80-90% of the time but has it's weird moments. As I know it's a bit dodgy, when I notice the HR starting climbing/dropping rapidly, and I have no increase in effort I just remove connection from my wrist for a few seconds until the connection drops off and then reattach the strap and hope for a more sensible reading. I've used it at the same time as my cheast strap on the Garmin 305 and when it works it keeps the exact same heart rate reading on both, which is reassuring (so it does work just not all the time).
I'd like to do a proper test on the max HR of 205, but am relatively confident as some of my highest readings were one Evening when I did intervals on my 3rd run of the day when I'd run to work and back (30-35 mins each way), and then went out and blasted out a pyramid session. In that I saw 203, 205, 207 and 208 at the end of long sprints. I've seen 200-205 in at least 4 or 5 parkruns.
I admit I'd rather a monitor that worked all the time but the watch, along with my knowledge of what feels correct just about lets me use the Hadd principles.
I hope I don't need a doctor (but I might)....
|
Nov 2016
3:39pm, 7 Nov 2016
407 posts
|
Ulric
I have the same TomTom model and not impressed with the HR pickup function. Mine seems to have periods floating in the 170-80s (above my true max) then randomly drops down to what appear to be the right figures. If I didn't have another (traditional) Polar watch I have doubts whether I would have worked out my MHR off it but maybe with some analysis I could.
|