|
Nov 2016
3:55pm, 7 Nov 2016
46 posts
|
Brunski
Know what you mean Ulric, I've had bits where mine has been 220bpm, I take it off my wrist and it's still rising. However I've seen 190 plus plenty times, 195 plus at least 30 times and 200 plus at least 10 times (all these at stages where I'm really giving it some and blowing out my behind).
But I don't feel able to hold 180-190 bpm for a 5k, which I should be able to. I've built up to 175-180 and held it there for most of it before. My question is do I have something in me that just 'drops off' when it hurts or do I have 10% more HR to work with that I'm not using.
This training should either expose the watch as cr@p or allow me to start tapping this HR reserve I'm not using?!
|
|
Nov 2016
8:36pm, 7 Nov 2016
1,550 posts
|
Westley
I'd echo others' comments about the HRM and I've read terrible reviews on the Tom Tom. I wonder could you borrow a Garmin HRM to compare reliability with the the Tom Tom's?
PtB has done an excellent job as usual on dismantling the data! 
|
|
Nov 2016
9:43pm, 7 Nov 2016
3,909 posts
|
postieboy
As someone who's owned a Tom Tom runner optical HRM, I can confirm it is a pile of crap. If the readings were correct, I'd have transformed into the Incredible Hulk by now. Garmin for me all the way.
|
|
Nov 2016
9:50pm, 7 Nov 2016
409 posts
|
Daz Love
But you have turned into the Incredilble Hulk Postie
|
|
Nov 2016
9:52pm, 7 Nov 2016
1,551 posts
|
Westley
Did my first explicitly steady state Hadd run yesterday with 10 miles at 81% MHR, which for me is 150bpm off a MHR of 185 for a pace of 07:14. Pleasantly, to maintain the 81% MHR, the pace actually increased in the latter five miles. However, my MHR is a little dated and I plan to do a test in the next month to get a more current barometer.
Marathon next week and I should be able to maintain that pace comfortably enough for the 26.2. However, assuming I am interpreting Hadd correctly, if I ran next week's marathon at 86-88% the wheels would come off in the latter half because my aerobic base is well developed for 81-82% MHR but not 86-88%. I hope that months more at incrementally higher efforts should allow me to run faster for longer at each increment in HR.
|
|
Nov 2016
8:27am, 8 Nov 2016
1,388 posts
|
Tizer
No running for me for a few days. Floored by the flu after 3 days of no running in Barcelona. I did manage to squeeze my 4th Sub LT run in before I went but will probably go backwards if I cant run until the weekend. On the plus side, I feel so crap that my appetite is not its usual self so hoping the next sub LT sees me head out a few pounds lighter
Good run Wes. Sounds like it would probably be wise to head out fairly conservatively next week and see how you feel at halfway. Hope it goes well
|
|
Nov 2016
12:15pm, 8 Nov 2016
4,985 posts
|
daviec
Hope flu passes quickly Tizer. A full bastard flu takes a good while to recover from though
I hit my goal of 60+ miles last week, despite missing my long run on Sunday. The 15 I did on the Wednesday is pretty much a long run fro me just now though, so not too bothered. And it leaves room for improvement this week.
During this training cycle I'm hoping to take advantage of my partner being a runner as well, and get a few doubles in my doing a run with her in the evenings. Can't convince her of the benefits of Hadd, but her "4 to 5 miles steady every time" method suits my recovery pace which is handy Tried it first time yesterday making an 8/5 double for the day, and it left me with heavy legs for this morning's sub LT. Pace was only 1s/mile down on Friday at 7:03/mile, but HR was up 3bpm for the effort. trying to see past tomorrow's MLR to the easy Thursday run, lol
Feeling confident though that it's a good stage to be at this early in the cycle. Hoping to see solid sub 7 averages on sub LTs sometime in December.
|
|
Nov 2016
12:17pm, 8 Nov 2016
32,855 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
I'd say your HRM might need replacing B how long you had it ?
|
|
Nov 2016
12:36pm, 8 Nov 2016
22,999 posts
|
SPR
You aren't supposed to need to replace optical HRM. Although from all the reading I've done here and elsewhere it sounds like they are useless.
Shall be reading the two kinds of runner thread again at some point.
|
|
Nov 2016
6:46pm, 8 Nov 2016
47 posts
|
Brunski
Yeah had the watch about a year or so and sometimes it seems spot on. Maybe I just need to charge it more often to make sure the optical nonsense thingy works to spec. Worked fine today as far as I could tell as matched effort, rising on hills and dropping on descents despite increased speed.
A lot of my data is very varied hrs due to the hills in Sheffield so one mile could be 6:05 ar 145 bpm, whereas the next could be 7:40 at the same hr.
Not ideal for Hadd but prob helps my overall running and pace doing these hills every day.
|
