Ran another Fartlek workout today. This is rapidly becoming my favorite workout. Why? Since there is no structure, set speed, set interval times or distances, or set effort targets; this all results in ZERO pressure to perform. Any result is just fine! And my legs feel GREAT afterwards. These runs don't beat me up. I can run high mileage the next day with no problem if I want to. I think doing about 1 of these every week or 2 with all other runs being EZ effort (low HR) is a good approach.
The only "rules" I follow for my Fartlek workouts are as follows:
I'm including a graph of my pace over this morning's Fartlek workout to demonstrate. Again, this will vary from workout to workout but you'll get a better picture from the graph. Ignore the numbers, it's the shape of the graph that counts.
Former Bad Ass
I had migraines for four days this week, ending with Thursday, the worse one, on my birthday. But I managed all my workouts so far, with my longest LR before Chicago tomorrow. No migraine yesterday or today.
Ran 6 tonight. TM because it's still hot as fuck here.
Damaris
I want to share my thoughts about the heart rate efficiency, HRE=HR*Pace, illustrated by recent personal data.
Interesting. I read your link, and I have one somewhat serious objection. But it is easily "repairable" as shown below.
Your HRE metric is based on the premise that heart rate is proportional to velocity. In other words:
HR = a * v
Where:
HR = heart rate, BPM
a = a constant, BPM/(km/h)
v = velocity, km/h
Only in this case will it be true that HR * Pace = constant.
This premise may be true for some people inside some velocity range. But it is not true for all people at all velocities.
The extreme example is a velocity of 0. If your velocity is 0, your heart rate is also 0. This is usually true for dead people.
If I take a less extreme example, myself at the velocities I am usually running at, I have looked into my heart rate / pace combinations. It turns out that I do have a linear relationship between heart rate and velocity, but it is not proportional as the curve does not go through 0,0. So I have to express this linear relationship this way instead:
HR = a * v + b = 8.0 * v + 69.8
b = "base" heart rate, BPM
It should be obvious that this will cause my HRE to be pace dependent. If I want an HRE-equivalent metric which is not pace dependent, I will have to include my "base" heart rate in the expression:
HRE(modified) = Pace * (HR - b) = Pace * (HR - 69.8)
With this slight modification, your HRE metric can be very useful to me.In my next post I will dive a bit more into your energy conservation theory. I can't figure out how to quote several posts in one.
If you are well fitted and you are below your anerobic threshold (AT), your HRE does not change, though HR and pace change. This is just manifestation of a law of the energy conservation. Each heart beat brings a portion of oxygen with blood into your muscles, and the oxygen is consumed to produce energy.
Here you use two premises:
1. The heart rate is proportional to effect output.
2. The energy per km is the same at all velocities.
Premise #1, The heart rate is proportional to effect output:
As far as I have been able to see in activities where I can measure my effect output, I have a linear, but not proportional, relationship between effect and heart rate. This seems to be true all the way from zero effect output and up to my LTHR. I have not really bothered looking into the relationship above LTHR. I can express this relationship in the same way as my speed relationship for running as shown in my previous post:
HR = a * P + b
a = a constant, BPM/Watt
P = effect, Watt
I will assume that this is true for all people.
So premise #1 does not hold up.
Premise #2, The energy per km is the same at all velocities:
This can be expressed in another way: The effect is proportional to velocity at all velocities.
I don't know how well this premise holds up for running in general. It certainly does hold up for me, so I will just accept it, with a footnote:
I am a very slow runner, so air resistance probably doesn't matter much for me. When air resistance starts playing a role, as in cycling and rowing, there will be a considerable part of the effect which depends on velocity^3. I don't know if this will cause a significantly non-proportional relationship between effect and velocity for faster runners.
Deleted. Was posted by mistake.
Today, I did my longest run ever. 16.9 km (10.5 miles) at a pace of 7:46 minutes/km and a heart rate of 137 BPM.
My previous longest was 15.3 km at a pace of 9:09 minutes/km and a heart rate of 132 BPM 3 months ago.
This was quite an improvement on running economy. If I use karaul's HRE, I have improved from over 1200 to 1064. And if I use my own modified HRE, I have improved from 567 to 520.
20 Treadmill miles done today.
Here you use two premises: 1. The heart rate is proportional to effect output. 2. The energy per km is the same at all velocities.
I use the premise that the "motion pattern" is the same in the range of HR where HR*pace=HRE is supposed to be constant. If e.g., I switch from running to walking, HRE will be not kept constant. Or, if I have a special sprint running technique, which is different from my normal running technique, then the HRE aso changes. Moreover, my auxiliary premise is that runners'blood is not poisoned by lactate during the run. It allows me to introduce HRE, the metric independent of any fitting parameters and allowing us to compare runs with different distance, various HR and various pace but with the same motion pattern. If HRE is getting worse during the run, it means that runners' blood is not completely aerobic and poisoned by lactate or has increasing deficit of electrolytes or something else.
The linear fitting like
HR = a * P + b or HR = a * v
suffer from lack of knowledge of the fitting constants. That is, you need statistics in order to find these constants. By training, you collect the needed statistics, but then these constants should change because of aerobic fitness changes due to the training. Whereas HRE=HR*pace allows you without any fitting to access your aerobic fitness as BPM per 1 km even during a single run. Then, you can immediately compare HRE for various runs at the beginning and at the end id the training season to reveal progress. Also, by analyzing HRE during the single run you can predict where is your safe HR threshold. Then, from the knowledge of your HR at shorter distance, you can predict pace for this shorter distance: pace=HRE/HR. For instance, someone trains mainly at HR=130 with pace 6.30 and has constant ΗΡΕ=6.5*130 = 845 bpm/km. He can get up his HR to HR=160 for 20-30 min. Then the pace at HR=160 is pace=845/160=5.28 or 5:20/km and time for 5k race with the HR=160 will be 6.5*130/160*5 =26.4 min
I haven't looked at HRE for myself yet but I think you're on to something. Even if it's not a perfectly flat graph under threshold, it's at least a close approximation. Pretty much everything in this sport is somewhat variable in my experiences.
I think the biggest benefits of the HRE estimate is to:
1. See a general trend to determine whether or not your long term training is working or not
2. Estimate threshold HR to assist with racing
On a personal note, I've averaged 95.3 miles per week over the last 3 weeks. 11 days out from Half marathon race. Tapering down distance and running all easy pace.
Damn, SD. That's awesome mileage.
I did a very nice interval workout last night. 6 with 4 X 800m @ 7:42mm. I've never run a 5K that fast before and never thought I could even try those paces for intervals. Hmmm.
And nope, not racing a 5K anytime soon.
In addition to heart rate efficiency,
HRE=HR*pace, [bpm/kg]
the HRE normalized by weight, HREW might be introduced. It is
HREW = HR*pace/weight
HREW is measured in [beat per minute]/(km*kg) and its physical meaning is the number of heart beats to carry 1kg of runner's body for 1 km.
It is interesting that HREW can be used for slow runners and even for walking. We can compare well-fitted and overweighted unfitted walkers.
I checked among the familiar people and found typical values for 5km walk
(1) light weight adult jogger of senior age. weight 70 kg, HR=95 bpm, pace 9.5 min/km. HREW= 95*10/70 =12.9(2) over-weighted beginner. weight 100 kg, HR=120 bpm, pace is 11 min/km. HREW = 120*11/100 = 13.1
(1) are (2) differ strongly by their fitness level, but their HREW are close to each other.
Good HREW in the case of overweight is a sign of great potential if the runner get his weight down.
Poor HREW in the case of low weight is a sign that muscles/agility/technique should be trained.
Damn, SD. That's awesome mileage. I did a very nice interval workout last night. 6 with 4 X 800m @ 7:42mm. I've never run a 5K that fast before and never thought I could even try those paces for intervals. Hmmm. And nope, not racing a 5K anytime soon.
That may be true, but if your top speed has improved while maintaining aerobic fitness, then you're longer race times should improve too. Nice pace!
Tapering before a race feels weird. Maybe I don't race enough. Maybe once I eventually get independently wealthy I will do so.
After my 3 week barrage of averaging 95 miles a week, I did 61 last week and this is my race week. I ran 6 miles yesterday, 5 miles today, plan on 4 tomorrow, 3 on Thursday and rest Friday and Saturday. I'm on about a 125 bpm average HR this week.
This morning I REALLY felt like I wanted to run super hard. I did not do that but damn do my legs feel springy. This should be a very good sign (or a sign of overtapering?) My average resting heart rate for the last 7 days according to my Garmin is 38 bpm which is also a very good sign. Not drinking beer for a few weeks does wonders for that. My weight is in about the right range but a few pounds higher than when I ran my 1:19 half in June. I'm probably slightly more powerful now than I was then though so the weight gain is likely a wash.
BUT... The forecast for Sunday's race is rain the night before, temps dipping to about 30 deg with rain turning to snow. Snow starting to pick up in the morning (8 AM start). Snow maintaining through the race at 30-32 degrees with winds 8-10 mph (I'm not sure what that makes the wind chill). Seeing reports ranging from 3-5 inches to 8-12 inches of snow depending on the source. At least the race is on the front end of the snow storm. Thank God, I didn't sign up for the full Marathon and am only doing the Half Marathon.
No idea how to dress for this shit. I'm thinking headband to cover my ears, long sleeved compression shirt under my normal racing T-shirt, gloves and shorts. This could very well, super duper suck. Don't know what the footing is going to be like. I was really hoping to break my PR but even coming close to that now seems impossible. I'll be watching the weather closely. If it this turns into a major storm I'm sure as hell not going to run it at all. Ughhhh.
Hopefully, it will just be a light snow and the trail will be "race-able".
That is quite a taper.
I am doing a 10 day taper with 15 miles done last Thursday. I like it. I don't really do well with taper mentally and I've never seen a good race after a huge taper either, so screw it.
Ran 7 yesterday and 7 with 2 @ MP tonight.
That is quite a taper. I am doing a 10 day taper with 15 miles done last Thursday. I like it. I don't really do well with taper mentally and I've never seen a good race after a huge taper either, so screw it. Ran 7 yesterday and 7 with 2 @ MP tonight.
That's interesting. I'm not a very experienced racer but all of my races have had very, very low mileage in the last 7 days. The "Less is More" line of thinking. I've had very good luck with it and mentally it actually helps me as I know I'm fresh and therefore should be able to run faster than normal. It's funny that our mental game is the exact opposite when it comes to that. Kinda cool if you think about it as we are all different!
I see you also run very hard in your taper (2 @ MP would scare the shit out of me right now). I think what you do is probably way more common than what I do.