modified: 5/19/2010 at 1:55 PM

Confidence interval is typically (assuming alpha error of .05) the range at which you are 95% certain that the true value (in this case, max heart rate) is within the upper and lower limits. It is just a probability and is completely dependent on your sample size. The normality of the sample size also has to be verified, but even if a few of the 132 test subjects had heart rates higher or lower than the confidence interval it wouldn't fail the test and the results are still accurate as per the individuals sampled.

In short, if the individuals tested were representative of all of the runners in the world, then the chance that the resulting equations are wrong is 5%. I'm sure that out of 6 billion or so people in the world there are going to be some outliers here and there...

5%? I'm sorry but the standard deviation is clearly much more than that. so it looks like confidence interval does not have anything to do with SD.

I ** assume** this means that there is a 5% chance that a randomly chosen group of people will not fit the equation statistically. still the SD can be high, i.e. way more than 5% of people will fall out of range. and this is the usual experience with all these formulas.

jimmyb

I've got some 5k's and a couple of sprint tri's coming up in the next two months. As my true goals in the next two months are the sprint tri's, my plan was to use the 5k's as some anaerobic training rather than goal races. Number 1, does this make sense? Number 2, how would the group approach approach the upcoming two months? Thanks!

5k's can be considered anaerobic training. Obviously, running a 5k race all-out has a greater

training load than running some 5k race pace intervals with rest in between. Make sure to give

yourself more rest on the days following than you would for intervals. 1-2 days off after a 5k race, with a day or two of recovery aerobic workouts following that is good practice. If you're doing some form of racing every week or several times a month, any more anaerobic work on top of that is probably just overkill. Best to fill in the gaps with aerobic

work. Keep in touch with your MAF tests to make sure you're not decimating your aerobic system.

If you're coming off a base period, you will probably see progression in your tests for while (hopefully).

Good luck, JD!

--Jimmy

cmon2: confidence interval takes into account standard deviation, but what it is saying is that the true mean of the sample subjects is somewhere in between the confidence interval with 95% chance of certainty. This still means that one of the subjects mhr could be outside of the equations, but there is only a 5% chance of you being wrong.

I say 'true' mean of the subjects because it is statistics and in statistics you don't measure everything, so you come up with things like confidence intervals to tell you the percent chance that what you are observing is within the parameters of your process. i don't have my equations here, but just rest assured that you fall outside of this study, so I wouldn't worry about it much. Direct observation trumps statistics in this case.

modified: 5/19/2010 at 11:02 PM

cmon2: confidence interval takes into account standard deviation, but what it is saying is that the true mean of the sample subjects is somewhere in between the confidence interval with 95% chance of certainty. This still means that one of the subjects mhr could be outside of the equations, but there is only a 5% chance of you being wrong.

I say 'true' mean of the subjects because it is statistics and in statistics you don't measure everything, so you come up with things like confidence intervals to tell you the percent chance that what you are observing is within the parameters of your process. i don't have my equations here, but just rest assured that you fall outside of this study, so I wouldn't worry about it much. Direct observation trumps statistics in this case.

statement 1:

*what it is saying is that the true mean of the sample subjects is somewhere in between the confidence interval with 95% chance of certainty*

statement 2:

*This still means that one of the subjects mhr could be outside of the equations, but there is only a 5% chance of you being wrong*

as far as I can see, statement 2 does not necessarily follow from statement 1.

why? because if you only have a CI for the mean of the sample that will *not* say anything about the SD i.e. the variation in the MHR's - easy to imagine many different ways of distributing the MHR's in the entire population that would still have the same mean.

and everyone can tell you that, indeed, way more than 5% people fall outside the equation plus/minus those couple of beats.

one last note on your note ** Direct observation trumps statistics in this case.** of course statistics is the more reliable way of having a guess if you have NO other information about a case... but it is tricky to interpret statistics correctly because it's talking about something very different from most people's intuition.

so yeah, if you have the possibility to get more information as compared to the situation with NO information, forget statistics and check it out yourself.

anyway sorry for the slightly offtopic stuff... but I think it's related anyway because I was still talking about heart rates and why these formulas are useless

jimmyb

tm 1% 81ºF

warm-up

14:54 104

10:05 134

LT run

8:06 174

8:24 180

4:29 180 .49 mi

21:00 2.49 miles 8:26 average pace

extra

13:33 149

13:38 139

02:50 141

6.63 miles total 1:16:00 ave pace 11:28

Making progress.

--Jimmy

Track workout today. Ladder 1-3/4-1/2-400 and back up again. All at 5k. It was 90 when I started and who knows how hot at the track. I managed my times but at one point I think Elvis was pacing me for the last couple of laps. No HR monitor but I know I was parked in anaerobicville and not leaving. Whew.

"He conquers who endures" - Persius

"Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

http://ncstake.blogspot.com/

modified: 6/23/2010 at 8:02 PM

Hadd-test and directly after that, tempo distinctly over LT - because I felt like it!

I wanted to do this test before continuing the base building so I know where I am.

note: the tests were supposed to be 1.5 miles each but the track where I was doing it was a bit longer than 400m. then I had to leave the track after 5 laps in the 170's test - too bad because I loved running in the 170's! sweet spot for me?!?

note2: between each test 90 seconds of full rest according to Hadd. so you can add about 1bpm to 143, 152, 173 and 2bpm to 182. (164 stays the same.)

1) warmup on steep downhill - time: 00:11:30 - pace: 12:00 AHR 134

2) test in 140's - time: 00:21:08 - pace: 13:34 AHR 143

3) test in 150's - time: 00:18:47- pace: 12:03 AHR 152

4) test in 160's - time: 00:16:25 - pace: 10:32 AHR 164

5) test in 170's - time :00:12:19 - pace: 9:28 AHR 173

6) test in 180's - time: 00:12:52 - pace: 8:25 AHR 182

7) extra: fully anaerobic tempo - time: 00:03:18 - pace: 6:30 AHR 193 but steady HR 199-201

8) 90secs of rest again, then little cool down until bus stop - time: 00:04:10 - pace: 12:48 AHR 157

as for the test at 152-153, you can consider it as a little MAF test because it coincides with that very well. (doesn't really matter whether 1 mile or 5 mile, I don't have much slowdown over 5 miles.)

180's still went very easy, I'm regretting that I didn't think of trying to test 190's too. all I know is the pace would have been under the 8's for that one. (for the 6:30 tempo, 193 AHR was really closer to 199 by the second half of the run, I wasn't keeping a steady HR there at all, was just keeping the pace.)

I will do the Hadd test one day soon. Maybe. Looks interesting.

Can I be Frank

Walk This Way...this way

Hmmm,

You guys are leaving me in the dust.

Nicely done, all!

..Now where's my aerobic blankee?

ts

You guys are leaving me in the dust.

Nicely done, all!

..Now where's my aerobic blankee?

ts

modified: 7/10/2010 at 1:36 PM

1st set of 3x1 mile intervals, 1.5 mile wu, 1.5 mile cd, 800m rest periods, 85% to 95% mhr (edit: using karvonen heart rate reserve) target (168 to 182), estimated pace of 8:44/mile

Interval | 1.5 Mi | 19:27.68 | 19:27.68 | 12:59 | 139 | 150 | |

Interval | 1 Mi | 8:46.12 | 28:13.80 | 8:47 | 171 | 176 | |

Interval | 0.5 Mi | 6:45.54 | 34:59.34 | 13:32 | 151 | 174 | |

Interval | 1 Mi | 8:46.46 | 43:45.80 | 8:47 | 173 | 179 | |

Interval | 0.5 Mi | 7:25.92 | 51:11.72 | 14:52 | 151 | 178 | |

Interval | 1 Mi | 8:40.18 | 59:51.90 | 8:41 | 176 | 182 | |

Interval | 1.5 Mi | 20:58.17 | 1:20:50.07 | 13:59 | 148 | 181 |

pleasantly surprised that i hit close to my pace target within my heart rate target range! maybe i can actually hit this sub 2 hour half marathon at the end of september...

modified: 7/10/2010 at 10:25 AM

1st set of 3x1 mile intervals, 1.5 mile wu, 1.5 mile cd, 800m rest periods, 85% to 95% mhr target (170 to 183), estimated pace of 8:44/mile

Interval 1.5 Mi 19:27.68 19:27.68 12:59 139 150 Interval 1 Mi 8:46.12 28:13.80 8:47 171 176 Interval 0.5 Mi 6:45.54 34:59.34 13:32 151 174 Interval 1 Mi 8:46.46 43:45.80 8:47 173 179 Interval 0.5 Mi 7:25.92 51:11.72 14:52 151 178 Interval 1 Mi 8:40.18 59:51.90 8:41 176 182 Interval 1.5 Mi 20:58.17 1:20:50.07 13:59 148 181

pleasantly surprised that i hit close to my pace target within my heart rate target range! maybe i can actually hit this sub 2 hour half marathon at the end of september...

if your MHR is 192, then your AHR for half marathon probably won't be higher than 168-170 (HR increase from adrenaline aside, that doesn't count now).

edit: I got confused - you said 85%-95% MHR is 170-183, but 183 is 95% of 192 and 170 is 85% of 200. so which is your MHR? if it is 200, then AHR could be 175.

of course don't try to start from 175, because the pace will decrease if you keep HR even.

modified: 7/10/2010 at 1:37 PM

sorry, i had some typos. should have been between 168 and 182, not 170 to 183. i was tired last night...

i'm not using straight mhr, using karvonen heart rate reserve for ranges (it's what my garmin uses anyway...).

max hr: 189 (highest i've measured)

resting hr: 48

heart rate reserve: max hr - resting hr = 141

85% heart rate reserve: resting hr + (0.85*heart rate reserve) = 168

95% heart rate reserve: resting hr + (0.95*heart rate reserve) = 182

using McMillan, i decided to pick 8:44 m/mile (based on 26:55 5k time) to see where it put me in these heart rate ranges, which just so happened to be slightly over the 85% mark. i then decided to maintain pace as long as i could during the interval until i went above 95%, which i never achieved, thus marking this workout a success in my book! i guess the calculator knows what it is talking about!

sorry, i had some typos. should have been between 168 and 182, not 170 to 183. i was tired last night...

i'm not using straight mhr, using karvonen heart rate reserve for ranges (it's what my garmin uses anyway...).

max hr: 189 (highest i've measured)

resting hr: 48

heart rate reserve: max hr - resting hr = 141

85% heart rate reserve: resting hr + (0.85*heart rate reserve) = 168

95% heart rate reserve: resting hr + (0.95*heart rate reserve) = 182

using McMillan, i decided to pick 8:44 m/mile (based on 26:55 5k time) to see where it put me in these heart rate ranges, which just so happened to be slightly over the 85% mark. i then decided to maintain pace as long as i could during the interval until i went above 95%, which i never achieved, thus marking this workout a success in my book! i guess the calculator knows what it is talking about!

ah, OK I see. I used to use karvonen too but then abandoned it

if 189 was a total all-out effort, then I would guess 165-170 for half marathon AHR at most (again, not including HR increase from adrenaline from being in a race situation). for starting HR, probably below 160. but you have to figure it out yourself how much of an HR increase you have from a specific starting HR during a tempo run. then you can guess a half marathon race pace. (I don't really use mcmillan for long distance race pace stuff because that only works if you have a good aerobic base.)

8:44 sounds like a nice interval pace, quite hard interval but not undoably hard

Wow. No one has done any anaerobic work since July? Hah

Well last night I needed to get out of my current funk and stomach bug. I decided the best way to approach this was to do a buster interval workout. No HRM but it was definitely not aerobic.

12 x 400 in 1:30 or less with equal recovery. That last set hurt. 2 mile warm up and 2 mile cool down. A nice 8+ mile workout. First interval run of the year and I determined I am in no kind of racing shape.

"He conquers who endures" - Persius

"Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

http://ncstake.blogspot.com/

Good workout, Norm.

"It's not who wins the workout..."