|
Nov 2017
7:29am, 13 Nov 2017
1,619 posts
|
Dillthedog57
The highest I have seen is 168 at the end of a parkrun or in hills, but I reckon it's slightly higher so use 170. My marathon HR is 154 which ties in with LT. 80% for me is 136. I did an easy 12 yesterday at 75% max, which is 127
|
|
Nov 2017
7:31am, 13 Nov 2017
1,620 posts
|
Dillthedog57
On the flat, 127 worked out at about 9:15 to 9:30 min/mile - my current 5k is about 6:45min/mile pace
|
|
Nov 2017
9:04am, 13 Nov 2017
9 posts
|
teapothouse
I can definitely get into the 170s if I push in a PR or a 10K (but then I have to slow down or its in the 'so called' sprint finish). During 10K races in the local summer league, I 'managed' to get to max bpms of 177, 178 and 183 (although the 183 not sure about). My 130 bpm is approx 5:50-5:55/k (which is 09:20 to 9:30 in miles I think), which is what I would like to see improving first in this Hadd base phase.
|
|
Nov 2017
9:28am, 13 Nov 2017
10 posts
|
teapothouse
Looking at your heart rate numbers, they seem a similar spread of rates and paces to mine, and consistent with my MHR being higher than yours (which should give us confidence in them). I don't know my Marathon HR but my HM aves this year were 154 and 157 (I only did two HM races and guess which one was in the hot sun). 130 is about 71% for me based on 183 MHR, and it was very slow 4 weeks ago at 6:05/k, but more comfortable now.
When I did the Hadd training last year, I found the Hadd test top of the range bpm (170bpm) too much to achieve, so I may perform the test across 125, 135, 145, 155, 165 this time - but its still a tough test! This is another reason why I think my MHR is reducing.
|
|
Nov 2017
2:21pm, 13 Nov 2017
5,009 posts
|
daviec
A buzzing thread of Hadders, nice 
I won't comment too much on the thread convo I've caught up on, although I have thought recently about how accurate my max HR is given it is many years since I tested (Test 3 that Boab mentions). I mostly wonder about this when I'm struggling towards the end of a sub LT, lol.
Last week I was switching out my second sub LT for the National Short XC race as it was on my doorstep. Literally a 10 min jog from the house. 4k, even in the mud, just isn't enough distance for me in base training so I wasn't planning on "racing". Just enjoying the occasion and a good hard blast. HR steadied out on last mile at around 90.1% of max and my legs couldn't have given me more. Distances 10k and below do not interest me in the slightest, with the caveat that when I get myself fit enough to consider racing in earnest I'd quite like a sub 17 5k to my name.
Still, having missed a good sub LT I made up the miles on Sunday with my first official long run, I start to count them as such when they reach 17 miles (from my P&D education). I'm sticking these somewhere between 70 and 75% for now and it came in at 73%. It's getting to that time of year that I start knocking out 20s but the long runs are felling quite tough on the legs just now. Hopefully it's just me getting used to the training again.
I took the recovery run this morning as gently as I could and even at 67.5% MHR I've increased the distance I'm getting in the hour I run. Last Monday was 8:34/mile at 71%, this week 8:20/mile at 67.5%
No XC races this week so I'll get 2 x Sub LTs in starting tomorrow. This should be a fairly high mileage week as well. High 70s/low 80s if all goes to plan.
|
|
Nov 2017
3:20pm, 13 Nov 2017
11 posts
|
teapothouse
Hi daviec - I have previously enjoyed your monologue! You are a longer distance kind of chap than me I can see (I have never done more than 16 miles). 90% would not normally be very aerobic unless you have pushed your thresholds up very high and are very fit! Anyway, that's the sort of practical decision one has to make if you want to do the race I guess. Wisdom is knowing how much messing around with the plan is acceptable..... [note to self I have a club track session on Tuesdays's which I am trying to keep aerobic]
Very impressed at your 67.5%-70% paces so maybe you are incredibly fit...... Whilst my 70% pace is coming down after a few weeks slow vol its still in the 9 min/mile + region, so if I can get near 8:30/m by the end of the winter I would be v happy.
I am trying for an 80K plus week again this week with a couple of sub-LTs too (although one might be a Hadd test which quite hard work since it involves a good few ks at increasing paces the last of which probably is AT pace). Will present a summary of results and volume at the end of the week.
|
|
Nov 2017
4:22pm, 13 Nov 2017
5,010 posts
|
daviec
90% definitely wasn't aerobic. The XC sessions are a departure from pure Hadd for me. I don't think they are too detrimental to my overall base training, but they provide intermittent relief from the monotony of training through winter and I "enjoy" XC. I find it quite a pure form of running and I love the atmosphere surrounding the events. But it's not Hadd phase 1 stuff. Luckily it's only a few races through the season. 3 league matches, a district championship and the national.
|
|
Nov 2017
6:59pm, 13 Nov 2017
1,622 posts
|
Dillthedog57
Davie- Do you carry on doing your long runs at that 70-75, or up it to 80%?
|
|
Nov 2017
7:14pm, 13 Nov 2017
5,011 posts
|
daviec
Always sub 75% for my long runs.
|
|
Nov 2017
7:19am, 14 Nov 2017
12 posts
|
teapothouse
So DTG what is your schedule this week? Are you trying to get a certain mileage and are you doing it at snail's pace of 70-75% MHR?
I was actually quite looking forward to the slow volume stuff again - it's nice and relaxing, but the volume targets means there is an awful lot of it. Last week I was on my feet for over 8 hours and I got a lot of grief and eye rolling from my family when I said I was off for a run (again).
|
