Lactate Threshold (Read 429 times)

J-L-C


     

    The idea that i could bring my HR to 90%, 91%,, 92%, and then just hold that effort for 20-40 minutes in a training run or 1 hour in a race, just seems nuts to me.

     

    Someone else said something similar to this and I was going to respond but ran out of time.

     

    Consider this: lactate threshold is roughly the AVERAGE hr that you can sustain for one hour. For example, if I were tapered and fresh and ran a 10 mile race or something, I would shoot for a steady speed that I would greatly struggle to maintain in the last mile. Same for most, right?

     

    And my hr? It would start out quite low. Maybe just getting out of my moderate hr zones after the first mile or two, then going a little higher, then higher, then higher, finishing at almost a similar hr that I'd finish at the end of a 5k or 10k.

     

    But the average would be quite a bit lower because of the first half of the race.

     

    So in training, you really CAN'T just shoot your hr up to 92% or whatever and then simply maintain that pace. The effort will be way too high initially and you will be forced to temper that effort the longer you go in order to keep that hr from increasing. It is essentially BACKWARDS from how you should do a tempo.

     

    This make sense? That's why training by pace (or even perceived exertion) is so much more feasible and conducive to the actual effort. You shouldn't be killing yourself at the beginning of a tempo (or ever, really) just to get your hr up into the correct "zone". It's detrimental to the workout as a whole.


    Fat butt on couch

       You shouldn't be killing yourself at the beginning of a tempo (or ever, really) just to get your hr up into the correct "zone". It's detrimental to the workout as a whole.

       

      The one and only thing I ever used a HRM for was choosing a goal marathon time.  For quite a few years when I was consistently in good shape, I would go to the track the Tuesday before a marathon...well into the taper...and do 4Xmile with 3min recovery.  Rather than run a specific pace, I would target holding the HR at 155 for the first and work my way up to 160.  I knew from experience that 155 was a very reasonable goal and 160 was going to be the aggressive, if-everything-goes-right pace.  It worked very well for me.

       

      The kicker was that I did not do 4Xmile for just the reason J-L-C explained.  I would really do 4X1.25 miles, using the first lap simply to stabilize my HR at the target.

       

      HR is rarely a static figure.  You will get drift as you tire and/or dehydrate, even within a workout.  I trust experienced HRM wearers know this and account for it.  It's one more thing to frustrate a newbie though.

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

      J-L-C


         

         By the time you know enough to use a HRM correctly, ironically, you probably know enough about yourself not to need it for most runs anymore. 

         

        This is spot on.

        jackdyl11


          It's possible to average >90% - my last 10 miler was in 57:18, about an hour, and my average hr was 184 (91%).  I was only under 180 for the first mile. Just sayin.

          zonykel


             

            Eh, ya gotta start somewhere.  If you are fairly new to running, you probably haven't done any hour long races.   I think it is a pretty good tool for comparing your fitness over a training cycle, and demonstrating a trend.  The idea that i could bring my HR to 90%, 91%,, 92%, and then just hold that effort for 20-40 minutes in a training run or 1 hour in a race, just seems nuts to me.

             

            I think Daniels may have provided that HR range for LT based on elite runners, and that's why it seems so high. It's quite likely that your LT HR is at a lower percentage of HRmax than what you list above.

             

            if it were me, I'd try to find the avg pace for the 1-hr race effort and then apply that pace to the 20-min training run you're referring to.

            J-L-C


               

              if it were me, I'd try to find the avg pace for the 1-hr race effort and then apply that pace to the 20-min training run you're referring to.

               

              That's a good way to do it. In the middle of a training week 20 mins at 1 hour pace can still be a fairly tough workout. Physically it should be quite manageable but sometimes it starts hurting and those last ten minutes require a bit more concentration. It's a repeatable workout that isn't going to tear you down, though, and should provide a decent stimulus.

               

              Contrast that to going out and dropping a 5k paced first mile to get your hr up, struggling, dropping to marathon pace, then struggling to pick it back up from there, etc. Not the same type of effort and runs the risk of getting less overall time at the desired pace. Plus it can be really discouraging to not finish off workouts strongly (because of too hard an effort early on).

                If you're going to use pace, wouldn't you have to have the same terrain? Most of my races are hilly trails.

                 

                Example: About 4 yr ago, iirc, I did a fairly honest (no excessive hills, no technical trails) 7.9km xc race in 57:23, so say 12min/mi. 158bpm /88% HRmax.  12min/mi is what I usually use as "race pace". (yes, I'm slow, but at least I'm moving for 65F).

                 

                This past summer, I had a 1:06:36 race, 27:52 min/mi pace, 156bpm /87% avg. (2000ft up in 2.2 mi)

                Both of these were good races for me and not wallowing through sugar snow or something weird.

                155-157bpm feels the same this year as it did 10 yr ago when I started.

                 

                Over the weekend, I did an "almost" subLT or out/back run on good asphalt with the work part being

                10:50 min outbound @ 149bpm / 83% HRmax - slightly downhill, 0.99mi if I believe gps.

                10:58 min inbound   @ 155bpm / 87% HRmax - slightly uphill (this is the effort I like to hit when doing a subLT workout)

                Note: I stopped for 30sec to peel my shell at the turnaround, so the inbound is starting from a stop, whereas outbound just kept going from a 25-min warmup (amt of time it takes to get to the flat area).

                It's March 30 in my log. The increase in HR was almost instantaneous when I started inbound, rather than a gradual warming / drifting, since I wanted to nail that effort inbound.

                 

                My goal of the workout: see how close I could get to my subLT effort (87% HR) on both downhill and uphill in my new Hokas on dry asphalt. Usually I can't get anywhere near the desired effort, so have usually contented myself with something close outbound, then just consider the subLT part to be inbound. I usually do 15min out/ 15min back (or a little longer), but have just started doing these things this year as the snow on our trails rots out. (I'll have to admit it was fun to go hard AND fast instead of hard and slow working my way up 20-30% slopes.)

                 

                 

                I'm travelling over twice as fast as my 1-hr race pace, but same effort by breathing / HR / other body signals. Am I really going above LT or am I close to LT - assuming LT is approximated by 1-hr race pace or effort?

                "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
                J-L-C


                  If you're going to use pace, wouldn't you have to have the same terrain? Most of my races are hilly trails.

                   

                  Example: About 4 yr ago, iirc, I did a fairly honest (no excessive hills, no technical trails) 7.9km xc race in 57:23, so say 12min/mi. 158bpm /88% HRmax.  12min/mi is what I usually use as "race pace". (yes, I'm slow, but at least I'm moving for 65F).

                   

                  This past summer, I had a 1:06:36 race, 27:52 min/mi pace, 156bpm /87% avg. (2000ft up in 2.2 mi)

                  Both of these were good races for me and not wallowing through sugar snow or something weird.

                  155-157bpm feels the same this year as it did 10 yr ago when I started.

                   

                  Over the weekend, I did an "almost" subLT or out/back run on good asphalt with the work part being

                  10:50 min outbound @ 149bpm / 83% HRmax - slightly downhill, 0.99mi if I believe gps.

                  10:58 min inbound   @ 155bpm / 87% HRmax - slightly uphill (this is the effort I like to hit when doing a subLT workout)

                  Note: I stopped for 30sec to peel my shell at the turnaround, so the inbound is starting from a stop, whereas outbound just kept going from a 25-min warmup (amt of time it takes to get to the flat area).

                  It's March 30 in my log. The increase in HR was almost instantaneous when I started inbound, rather than a gradual warming / drifting, since I wanted to nail that effort inbound.

                   

                  My goal of the workout: see how close I could get to my subLT effort (87% HR) on both downhill and uphill in my new Hokas on dry asphalt. Usually I can't get anywhere near the desired effort, so have usually contented myself with something close outbound, then just consider the subLT part to be inbound. I usually do 15min out/ 15min back (or a little longer), but have just started doing these things this year as the snow on our trails rots out. (I'll have to admit it was fun to go hard AND fast instead of hard and slow working my way up 20-30% slopes.)

                   

                   

                  I'm travelling over twice as fast as my 1-hr race pace, but same effort by breathing / HR / other body signals. Am I really going above LT or am I close to LT - assuming LT is approximated by 1-hr race pace or effort?

                   

                  I don't think what you do has any real connection with what the vast majority of other posters do. I've seen you throw  in a "what about me" reply a few times before but your situation seems rather unique.  I mean, a 27 min pace? That's not running. That's not even walking. That's like climbing up a mountain or something. Obviously the physiological parameters that have been spoken of in this thread aren't going to play out in the same way for you.

                   

                  So you just have to find what works for you and ignore things that aren't pertinent to your situation.  I don't think LT has much to do with what you need to focus on. Extended bursts of power and the ability to recover from efforts repeatedly sounds more in line with what you would need. There are obviously much larger mechanical differences that will come into play, too.

                    I'm travelling over twice as fast as my 1-hr race pace, but same effort by breathing / HR / other body signals. Am I really going above LT or am I close to LT - assuming LT is approximated by 1-hr race pace or effort?

                     

                    It might be approximately LT but what difference does it make? Seriously you're doing a workout by effort on the type of terrain and conditions that you plan to race on--sounds like a tempo effort to me.

                     

                    I never consider "about 1 hour race pace" to mean that I need to run the pace I could run on flat ground in good weather even if I'm training on hills and/or in shitty weather. That's why effort is so much better than pace or HR--it's totally portable.

                     

                    When I do long hill repeats I never even bother to calculate my pace because I'm sure it would be too slow to mean anything to me, most likely slower than a 7 minute mile--but I consider this an "LT" workout nonetheless.

                     

                    A small amount of common sense goes a long way in this sport.

                    Runners run.

                      Contrast that to going out and dropping a 5k paced first mile to get your hr up, struggling, dropping to marathon pace, then struggling to pick it back up from there, etc. Not the same type of effort and runs the risk of getting less overall time at the desired pace. Plus it can be really discouraging to not finish off workouts strongly (because of too hard an effort early on).

                       

                      LOL.  Is there anyone that would actually do this workout?  Do you think people that use HRMs are mindless slaves to the number and that they aren't capable of rational thought?

                       

                      I think most people using HRMs realize that there is a lag for the first mile or two (depending on effort and fitness level) before your HR lines up with your current effort.  After that, a HRM can be a very useful tool in helping you quantify your effort level.  It is especially useful on hills and running against a strong wind like I used in my example posted a couple pages ago where I started out at a 7:50 pace, but then when I turned into the 30+ mph headwind, my HR climbed as my pace fell down to just under 9:00.  A HRM is a tool to help you identify and quantify your effort level.  As a newbie runner who started without a HRM and then started using one I think they are a very valuable tool, mainly for helping to quantify an easy pace rather than targeting Lactate Threshold though.  The connection for me on LT and HR came after several races where I was able to match up effort levels during the races to my HR and discovered that there was a point in the race that if my HR crossed that line, I wasn't going to be able to sustain that pace (effort) more than a mile or two, but if I kept my pace (effort) under that HR, I could keep going for quite a while.  Silly me, I assumed that this would be my LT.

                      Age: 45 Weight: 208 Height: 6'2" (Goal weight 195)

                      Current PR's:  Mara 3:48:09; HM 1:43:26; 10K 44:51; 5K 21:27

                        Everytime I look at this thread I have no idea what you guys are talking about or that running could be so complicated.

                          Everytime I look at this thread I have no idea what you guys are talking about or that running could be so complicated.

                           

                          Grumpy old Jedi.

                          Runners run.


                          I've got a fever...

                             

                            That's a good way to do it. In the middle of a training week 20 mins at 1 hour pace can still be a fairly tough workout. Physically it should be quite manageable but sometimes it starts hurting and those last ten minutes require a bit more concentration. It's a repeatable workout that isn't going to tear you down, though, and should provide a decent stimulus.

                             

                            That's why I've liked the descriptor "comfortably hard" for tempo/LT pace.  It's 20 minutes at a pace that you could hold for longer, but you're glad you that you don't have to.

                            On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

                              What this thread needs is another graph or chart.


                              Fat butt on couch

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand