Heart rate
298 watchers
Oct 2021
11:49am, 15 Oct 2021
15,748 posts
|
larkim
@Big_G - a friend of a friend has one and swears by it for managing pace on undulating routes. I don't know whether that is more or less effective than doing the same by HR though. Like you, I like the idea of the data to be gleaned. Though I've not yet found the budget for one!
|
Oct 2021
12:06pm, 15 Oct 2021
1,170 posts
|
Big_G
larkim, yes, I do not know if it will be a replacement for HR for me. I don't think it will be, as HR is fine for me and I have had reasonable results from low HR training these last few months. I do think it is possible that the the power figures may be more immediate as although I use a chest strap, there is still a lag with that, but generally speaking I do not think that is an issue either. I am interested if the power aligns with the HR with a head/tail wind, or up/down a hill. I have a suspicion (not proven!) that my Z1/2 HR up a hill means that I walk more than I strictly should (I do not mind walking at all, but I often think I am being lazy!), and I am wondering if the Power stats may show that I could keep running even if the HR rises a bit more than what I am used to running at. Also, the big majority of my training is very slow in comparison to my race times. Again, I do not mind this, but the bulk of my running is probably in the region of 9:30min/miles, where for reference I recently ran a sub-90 Half and sub-40 10K. I do not mind this, but there is a big discrepancy there (compared to others I know who train by HR) and I am wondering if the power figures will align with my HR, or not. There are a lot of words there, but basically I have purchased it because I am a geek 
|
|
Oct 2021
12:34pm, 15 Oct 2021
15,750 posts
|
larkim
LOL, sounds like my kind of thought pattern. I get the lagged indicator ref power vs walking, but my amateurish thought is that your "body" doesn't really care what output power it is producing, it is HR which is the internal measure of the various triggers of hormones / chemicals which are being distributed and which ought to (in my simplistic model of a body) create the environment for training adaptations to occur. I suppose the really interesting thing is being able to categorically say that run 1 at 8m30 per mile and average bpm of 140 was actually the same effort as run 2 at 9m00 per mile and average bpm of 140 because although run 2 was slower the weather meant that the power output was the same because of a headwind, and it wasn't because you'd had a temporary change in fitness etc. It would also allow you to test out alternative cadence / stride approaches to see if there are fine tunings you can make to efficiency, possibly? |
Oct 2021
1:09am, 28 Oct 2021
572 posts
|
tipsku
@Big_G Your training pace to race pace ratio doesn't seem off to me. I'm quite similar, just a bit slower. I run the bulk of my miles between 10:00-11:00 m/m with a 10k PB of 44:24 in July this year (7:09 pace) so I'm easily 3-4 minutes per mile slower than my 10k race pace. I think that's also the case for you with over 3 minutes difference. This is why I'm often struggling with Garmin coaching programmes because they assume a much faster pace for the easy runs than what I'm capable of in zone 2. So I tend to ignore the pace prompts or I choose a goal that's a bit slower than my actual goal - I went from training for a 45 min 10k to 46 minutes and still smashed my goal with 44:24. I run by HR; currently running to my MAF HR during base building but even when I'm not strictly following MAF during race specific training, I'm mostly running in zone 2 which means my usual averages are a couple of beats above MAF. MAF is in the bottom half of my zone 2. So I could push the pace a little, say to 9:30 and still stay in zone 2 but I'd be in the top half and I don't think that it makes any difference in terms of training effect if I run 9:30 or 10:30 but the former is a bit harder on me. If I am in a hurry, I may go a bit faster to get the distance in but mostly, I stick to the lower end of zone 2. |
|
Oct 2021
8:24am, 28 Oct 2021
1,215 posts
|
Big_G
tipsku, thanks. I also ignore pace for all my runs (except for the odd session I do), and in fact only have HR and distance displayed on my watch.
|
Oct 2021
3:12pm, 29 Oct 2021
75,054 posts
|
Gobi
Ran with Mrs at 10.xx today avg hr 93 Sub 8s yesterday were avg 117 17.xx 5km at the weekend was avg 168 I can't track pace to a marathon these days but 8mm was about my 100km pace so spent a lot of hours becoming very efficient Hence even now most of my running averages below 120 and paces range from 7.30 to 10.xx. Training to Hr the best thing you can do is hide pace. |
Oct 2021
3:22pm, 29 Oct 2021
3,894 posts
|
J2R
Gobi, you clearly have a big efficient engine. At my very fittest I think I run 8 mins/mile at around 120-122bpm, on a firm flat route in favourable weather conditions.
|
|
Oct 2021
9:36pm, 31 Oct 2021
75,077 posts
|
Gobi
J2R - I definitely have some residual fitness from all those miles I used to do
|
Oct 2021
9:49pm, 31 Oct 2021
36,040 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
As I heard someone say many years ago that Bjorn Borg fit (in the 70s)
|
Nov 2021
9:02am, 3 Nov 2021
4,915 posts
|
steve45
In my thirties I ran regular half marathons at 6.20 pace and I'm guessing my HR would have been around 180. In the early eighties you had to check your HR by finger! Max HR now is a mere 159 so age has draped its dark cloak over performance. I find that straightforward HR reading via chest strap seems to coincide with pace. If my HR is like Gobi's at 120 bpm I'd be shamefully doing 14 mm . Age is a pain in the ass!
|
Related Threads
-
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023
-
Jack daniels marathon plan help
May 2014
-
Polarized training
Jan 2024
-
Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate
Jan 2021
-
No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease
Jan 2021
-
Resetting Max Heart Rate
Dec 2020
-
Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal
Oct 2020
-
Heart rate zones
Jul 2020
-
Running Heart rate
Jun 2020
-
Heart Rate monitors
Jun 2020
