1

adding Beats per Mile feature to training log / graphs (Read 81 times)

CalBears


    I like your site and all the features that exist here. Community is awesome! But I, obviously, here, to make this site even better adding a new feature (though, if it already exists I will be thrilled too).

     

    One of the greatest features I found useful to estimate my current fitness state is so called "Beats per Mile" number. What I mean is - let's say I ran 12 miles and my average HR was 135 bpm and my average pace was 8 minutes per mile. "Beats per mile" for this case would be equal to 135 x 8 = 1080. Just in case - another scenario - average HR for a run - 140 and average pace for the whole run is 7:30 mpm. The "Beats per mile" (B/Mi) would be equal to 140 x 7.5 (30 second is 0.5 of a minute) = 1050.

     

    For understanding where my current fitness is, I find these numbers / feature extremely useful. Actually, one of the main reasons I use web site www.fetcheveryone.com (not promoting anything - just mentioning that site because I found it pretty interesting) is that they offer this feature/indicator. I can clearly see how my fitness and race performance related. And I can compare my current numbers with historical numbers of the past to understand what I can expect race wise now - of course, with some level of confidence, but that served me very well so far.

     

    Please let me know what you think and thank you for your efforts!

    paces PRs - 5K - 5:55  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile

    CalBears


      bump...

      paces PRs - 5K - 5:55  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile

        Joe Friel is an endurance athlete coach with a master's degree in exercise science.  He uses something he calls "efficiency factor" to determine progress toward aerobic fitness.  His efficiency factor calculates to yards per heartbeat, and is the result of an unnecessarily complicated calculation.

         

        Heartbeats per mile is easier to calculate and gives the same information.  The difference is this:

         

        Efficiency factor: Larger is better.

        Heartbeats per mile: Smaller is better.

        CalBears


          Joe Friel is an endurance athlete coach with a master's degree in exercise science.  He uses something he calls "efficiency factor" to determine progress toward aerobic fitness.  His efficiency factor calculates to yards per heartbeat, and is the result of an unnecessarily complicated calculation.

           

          Heartbeats per mile is easier to calculate and gives the same information.  The difference is this:

           

          Efficiency factor: Larger is better.

          Heartbeats per mile: Smaller is better.

           

          Totally agree. Friel has a book if I am not mistaken?

          paces PRs - 5K - 5:55  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile

          zebano


            Hey CalBear,

             

            Very interesting topic that I've never heard anything about. How does your beats/mile change as your effort level changes? Is efficiency the same at all paces? Are faster paces wildly inefficient (this is what I would suspect)? Do you have some paces that are more efficient than others and does that provide any information that simply comparing your race times to each other via equivalency charts wouldn't?

             

             

            Thanks

            1600 - 5:23 (2018), 5k - 19:33 (2018), 10k - 45:24 (2017), half - 1:38:57 (2018), Mary - 3:37:17 (2018)

               

              Totally agree. Friel has a book if I am not mistaken?

               

              He has several books.  Most are aimed at triathletes, but Fast After 50 is mostly aimed at running.  Part of the book is about the science behind old people exercising (with references), the rest is his training program.  He told me that the training program in Fast After 50 is the same for all adult runners. 

              zebano


                 

                He has several books.  Most are aimed at triathletes, but Fast After 50 is mostly aimed at running.  Part of the book is about the science behind old people exercising (with references), the rest is his training program.  He told me that the training program in Fast After 50 is the same for all adult runners

                 

                Meaning anyone over 21? Anyone out of college? Anyone who can't live the professional athlete lifestyle?

                1600 - 5:23 (2018), 5k - 19:33 (2018), 10k - 45:24 (2017), half - 1:38:57 (2018), Mary - 3:37:17 (2018)

                CalBears


                   He has several books.  Most are aimed at triathletes, but Fast After 50 is mostly aimed at running.  Part of the book is about the science behind old people exercising (with references), the rest is his training program.  He told me that the training program in Fast After 50 is the same for all adult runners. 

                   

                  Turned out I have one of his books - Total Heart Rate Training - I found it incredibly useless, maybe because it's of year 2006 or maybe because with all these zones and different kind of activities he complicates things very unnecessarily. I like Maffetone book much more due to simplicity probably and Hadd's document is just outstanding - short and clear and easy to follow. Friel's approach is way too complicated for a simple activity which is running. Just my opinion - I do not know the guy and hence - do not have any attachment Smile

                  paces PRs - 5K - 5:55  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile

                  CalBears


                    Hey CalBear,

                     

                    Very interesting topic that I've never heard anything about. How does your beats/mile change as your effort level changes? Is efficiency the same at all paces? Are faster paces wildly inefficient (this is what I would suspect)? Do you have some paces that are more efficient than others and does that provide any information that simply comparing your race times to each other via equivalency charts wouldn't?

                     

                    Thanks

                     

                    Honestly, I am not too technical about all this running thing. Not like JMac, who analyzes every beat and every step he does  - which is good - it says something about his analytical skills. I, like probably most of runners just compare my paces for similar workouts and make a conclusion if I am in a better or worse shape. I do not remember how but some time ago I just read a book from Maffetone and, I think even before that the Hadd's document was pretty popular - it got me curious, not that I was convinced by what they were saying, but it was tempting to try - especially because I was moving towards "higher mileage" approach instead of "more intense workouts" approach. It's a little bit hard (at least for me) to juggle between both approaches - I prefer simpler ways.

                     

                    Anyway, couple of times, when I was injured so I could not do intense workouts and I had a marathon coming, I tried just that - keeping my HR at a recovery level (130 bpm for me) and tried not to care about pace. It was tough at the beginning - sometimes I had to run at 11-12 minutes per mile pace at a flat surface. But I followed with that for 2-3 months before one of the CIM marathons and only did few runs at MP effort - as a result I finished race just 21 seconds off my PR at that time.

                     

                    That made me interested more in using HR in my training. I found that site, fetcheveryone.com - they provided that number - beats per mile and I found that number more or less reflects your current fitness level - better than just a pace you ran your workout/run at or just a heart rate. Turned out you could run at a pretty slow pace but at a very low HR and the beats per mile would reflect that and it would actually be very close to your actual feel during the run.

                     

                    Anyway, yes, slower paces for me are more efficient than faster paces. But that's totally logical - at faster paces you start get tired faster and your HR eventually gets to a higher zone where it becomes less efficient. Plus, most of my runs I do at slower paces. Nevertheless, I have quite a few data points at this point - I have data from the time when I was at  best shape of my running times - just as an example, in 2015, before my PR race I was running plenty of training runs in a range of 1020 - 1050 beats per mile and my PR marathon I ran at 1080. Just for a comparison, right now, even after a lot of miles and stuff all I did during last 10 months my best runs are still in a range of 1120-1160. Those simple numbers tell me I am nowhere near the shape I was in 2015 - but that's kind of logical - 5 years older,much  less running during last 3 years. Still, I find that beats per mile number is very informative and useful for me. I hope that clarifies your questions.

                    paces PRs - 5K - 5:55  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile