123

Heart beats per kilometer (mile) (Read 3101 times)

It would be nice to have this parameter in Workouts, BpKm -  beats per kilometer - how many heart beats covers 1 km (or 1 mile) of the course (I mean Run activity, but this is correct for any cycling sport):

BpKm = pace * heart rate

For instance, someone runs with pace 5:00/km  and his heart rate is 140 beats per minute, then BpKm = 5*140 = 700. The BpK parameter can be compared for different paces and heart rates, and it depends on  relief and weather. By plotting BpKm as a function of date for similar  courses will clearly show the efficiency of workouts, by collecting different paces from different days.

Consistently Slow

It would be nice to have this parameter in Workouts, BpK -  beats per kilometer - how many heart beats covers 1 km (or 1 mile) of the course (I mean Run activity, but this is correct for any cycling sport):

BpK = pace * heart rate

For instance, someone runs with pace 5:00/km  and his heart rate is 140 beats per minute, then BpK = 5*140 = 700. The BpK parameter can be compared for different paces and heart rates, and it depends on  relief and weather. By plotting BpK as a function of date for similar  courses will clearly show the efficiency of workouts, by collecting different paces from different d

Run until the trail runs out.

SCHEDULE 2016--

The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

unsolicited chatter

http://bkclay.blogspot.com/

It would be nice to have this parameter in Workouts, BpK -  beats per kilometer - how many heart beats covers 1 km (or 1 mile) of the course (I mean Run activity, but this is correct for any cycling sport):

BpK = pace * heart rate

For instance, someone runs with pace 5:00/km  and his heart rate is 140 beats per minute, then BpK = 5*140 = 700. The BpK parameter can be compared for different paces and heart rates, and it depends on  relief and weather. By plotting BpK as a function of date for similar  courses will clearly show the efficiency of workouts, by collecting different paces from different days.

Why?

How would you analyze it?

Why?

How would you analyze it?

Indeed, this is a metric I used when training for a fall marathon in '09.  My intent was to see if efficiency improved as training progressed.  It was based on the assumption that as aerobic conditioning improved, both the pace over a distance would decrease and the number of heartbeats required to cover the distance would decrease.  The "distance" part of the equation cancels out, so you are left with a "beats/mile" (or per km as appropriate) inidicator.

It was a useful metric- I could see very clearly that  while just running all out might get a very quick pace, it was at a cost of a heart rate that was out of this world (= poor bpm value).  Or conversely I could run very slow for a low HR, but of course the pace suffers (also = poor bpm value).  Therefore, optimal efficiency means both are low.  Of course, you have good days and bad days, but still, charting this metric did indeed show a downward trend.  It is kind a different way of looking at things- rather than saying "I was running 8 minute-miles", it would be more like "I was running at an 1100 bpm efficiency point".  It worked well for me.

12 Monkeys

It worked well for me.

How do you know?  What did you compare it with? How do you know it did not make you worse?

How do you know?  What did you compare it with? How do you know it did not make you worse?

How do I know it worked?  Well, I had a good marathon, and went into it feeling rested and well-prepared.  Having run a number of recent marathons after doing all training runs at a high HR and then struggling through the race, I knew I needed to rethink this and train smarter.

Which for me meant keeping my heart rate in a target range.  And the bpm metric fed into it very nicely because I felt that it was a better mental target than simply training by running slower (although, maybe I was).

I know it didn’t make me worse because I actually enjoyed marathon day and felt I was well-prepared for a change.  I suppose it gets down to subjective experience rather than any empirical research.

Why?

How would you analyze it?

For instance, at the beginning of the season, my custom pace is 5:30/km at the HR 150, that is the "beats per kilometer", bpkm=(5+30/60)*150=825. Then, there are many workouts, and for  each workout I notice a product bpkm=(pace*HR),i.e.:

one day (5:30/km and HR 150bpm, bpkm=(5+30/60)*150 =825 - custom  run, about 10-20 km;

2nd day (5:55/km and HR 140bpm, bpkm=(5+55/60)*140 =828 - long run, more than 24 km;

3rd day (5:05/km and HR 160bpm, bpkm=(5+5/60)*160 =813 -  tempo run, less than 10 km;

etc;

so the typical heart rate cost (another name for bpkm) is more than 800. The faster is pace, the  bpkm is a bit lower, but you could not run such fast for a long time. But for custom distances, the lower is bpkm, the longer this distance can be done.

If I am  doing regularly my workouts on the same courses, without injures and overtraining, then my  bpkm  moves to the lower values, and after 3-4 months on the same courses I can see that this is equal to 5*150=750 (e.g., pace 5:00 HR150 bpm - these are my real values from past year) . For good runners, bpkm is about 600, for beginners - 900

Then, if I divide 1 km   by bpkm, I will see how much distance I move my body for 1 heartbeat. For example, (pace 5:00, HR 150 bpm, so 750 bpkm) 1000/750= 1.33 m. So it is better to move longer with one heart beat, the running style is more efficient.

All the information is already given in RA database. What I offer is a new field on the workout table for bpkm (or move for beat - m4b = 1000/bpkm). Currently, I do  calculate this parameter manually.

PS: I just found a reference to so called MAF test (thanks to runnerclay - the 2nd reply). My suggestion is very close to the the MAF paradigm, but not so strict (no treadmill, no obligatory warming up, no 5 miles test, etc) - just pick up the regular data from workouts

For instance, at the beginning of the season, my custom pace is 5:30/km at the HR 150, that is the "beats per kilometer", bpkm=(5+30/60)*150=825. Then, there are many workouts, and for  each workout I notice a product bpkm=(pace*HR),i.e.:

one day (5:30/km and HR 150bpm, bpkm=(5+30/60)*150 =825 - custom  run, about 10-20 km;

2nd day (5:55/km and HR 140bpm, bpkm=(5+55/60)*140 =828 - long run, more than 24 km;

3rd day (5:05/km and HR 160bpm, bpkm=(5+5/60)*160 =813 -  tempo run, less than 10 km;

etc;

so the typical heart rate cost (another name for bpkm) is more than 800. The faster is pace, the  bpkm is a bit lower, but you could not run such fast for a long time. But for custom distances, the lower is bpkm, the longer this distance can be done.

If I am  doing regularly my workouts on the same courses, without injures and overtraining, then my  bpkm  moves to the lower values, and after 3-4 months on the same courses I can see that this is equal to 5*150=750 (e.g., pace 5:00 HR150 bpm - these are my real values from past year) . For good runners, bpkm is about 600, for beginners - 900

Then, if I divide 1 km   by bpkm, I will see how much distance I move my body for 1 heartbeat. For example, (pace 5:00, HR 150 bpm, so 750 bpkm) 1000/750= 1.33 m. So it is better to move longer with one heart beat, the running style is more efficient.

All the information is already given in RA database. What I offer is a new field on the workout table for bpkm (or move for beat - m4b = 1000/bpkm). Currently, I do  calculate this parameter manually.

PS: I just found a reference to so called MAF test (thanks to runnerclay - the 2nd reply). My suggestion is very close to the the MAF paradigm, but not so strict (no treadmill, no obligatory warming up, no 5 miles test, etc) - just pick up the regular data from workouts

You are far ahead of me in thinking here so that's good!  I see what you're trying to do.

But, if I may play a devil's advocate here and throw a few questions...

I did 3 X 1km a while back and I was pushing really hard.  On the last one, I checked my HR and it was above 190.  I was doing it in something like 3:30 or so, so very roughly, my HB/km is about 650.  My long run would be at about 8.5 minute per mile pace.  I never check my HR but, when I do it for the heck of it on treadmill, it's about 140~150.  So I'm guessing my HB/km is about 750 (or a bit more).  So is it good or bad?  How would you analyze it?

I saw a thread where this beginning runner was saying that he would go out and blast out and run 5k as hard as he could and he feels exhuasted.  Most of us suggested him that it's NOT the way to workout.  From what you had shown, it seems that almost the aim of this is to get a steady number for either you go fast-short or slow-long, is it right?  So how would you rate the "rightness" of the workout, when you go short and hard and feel exhausted at the end of the run; or you go long and slow and you feel strong and rejeuvanated at the end of the run and you get very similar number for both of these runs...  So what are we looking for?

MAF training, as I understand it, is to keep the average effort low at the initial stage.  So whether you run a km fast or slow, it wouldn't matter as long as your HR is at low level.  If you introduce another factor like you run the km faster so it won't take as long, then the reading is going to be totally off and would give you a very much misguided reading.  How do you think such information would help MAF training program?

It is an interesting idea.  But make sure you don't get yet another number-based information to tie you down, to be a slave of technical information, and leave you with no ability to read your own body's reactions.

The problem might be that the HR is not linear, running at easy paces for me at say say 10 or 11 min miles the HR does not vary 9-10 % maybe more like 3-5 %, now if I run at 9 min miles the HR jumps about 10 %, and a more significant rise going to a 8 min miles maybe about 15 %, especially right around your aerobic threshold, there will be a sharp rise in HR, also running on hot days the rise is more acute.

So which pace is the most beneficial, the one that gives me the lowest BPKM number, for me that will be the slower end (further slowing may not give me the lowest bpkm number so I can kind of see the value of this)  or the faster workouts that might actually increase my aerobic threshold among other things.

JimR

I can understand the idea, that fewer beats over a given distance might be a marker for conditioning, the fheory being that if you improve in conditioning you -should- use fewer beats to cover the distance.

However it would need some additional analysis such as consideration of pace, effort, etc. to be a reliable marker.  And in the end it can only tell you if you're improving.

In my mind, the same result can be obtained by comparing HR to pace.  If your conditioning is improving you should see the HR/pace relationship going down for a given narrow pace range (in theory of course).  In this case you don't need the additional calculations to transpose it to beats/distance and you don't need to figure out how to factor in the effect pace would have.

Sorry to butt into this topic - but, I came across it by Googling. No idea what this website is, but here are my experiences - which might be relevant.....

I have been using 'distance-corrected heart beats per kilometer' as a training metric for the past year. I have roughly 1,000km of flat training runs analyzed in this way and it is an excellent indication of race performance (I use 5K Parkruns as my performance measure). The distance correction is an essential part of the analysis since my (and presumably other too!) heart rate rises at a constant pace as runs progress. The rate of rise of heart rate is roughly 0.65% per kilometer run. So, the heart beats per kilometer calculation needs to contain a subtraction of those additional heart beats associated with the gradual decline in heart beat efficiency on longer runs. My reading suggests that this 'cardiac drift' comes from thermoregulatory demands, but I am not so sure. My feeling is that running efficiency declines with distance (fatigue, a loss of form or maybe a reduction in stroke volume). Short distance running appears more efficient, without the distance correction, possibly because debts are incurred that aren't paid back within the run. Longer distance runs get closer to steady state. If you plot your heart beats per kilometer against distance and fit with a regression line then you can calculate your own distance correction parameter. It is likely to change with fitness levels - I haven't yet managed to find a good way of tracking that.

Anyway, my experience is that 'distance corrected heart beats per kilometer' (from training runs on flat ground) provides a very useful, objective measure of aerobic capacity. Presumably it is reporting a value proportional to stroke volume. So, no matter how good or bad a run feels, when I get back to my computer I can see that things are indeed just progressing nicely. At the moment I am back in training, at around 700 d-c b.km-1, which is a considerable improvement on my ~780 d-c b.km-1 after 8 weeks of detraining. At that point my VO2max had dropped to something in the range of 50-60 mls O2.min-1.kg-1. Just before my marathon in May (3:29) I got down to 600 d-c b.km-1 and shortly after my VO2 max was up at about 70mls O2.min-1.kg-1 (measured using an extrapolated spirometry test). Of course my performance should have been way quicker in the marathon, but anyone who has seen my dreadful running technique will appreciate the horrible inefficiencies I have to deal with!

One other analysis that is also worth a look at is 'excess heart beats'. That is, the number of extra heart beats that have been incurred by virtue of the training session. My feeling is that the additional heart beats (above those that would have occured if no training had taken place) represent the aerobic training signal to the heart. My gut feeling is that all heart beats are essentially equal in pushing up VO2max - whether they are created by interval training or long runs. Of course long runs don't alter lactate thresholds nor do they build much in the way of muscle mass - but, they are excellent for gathering lots of injury-free extra beats that drive aerobic fitness....

Greetings,

Christof

Hi Christof,

I have been using 'distance-corrected heart beats per kilometer' as a training metric for the past year. I have roughly 1,000km of flat training runs analyzed in this way and it is an excellent indication of race performance (I use 5K Parkruns as my performance measure). The distance correction is an essential part of the analysis since my (and presumably other too!) heart rate rises at a constant pace as runs progress. The rate of rise of heart rate is roughly 0.65% per kilometer run.

It's a valuable observation, thank you. I was not much thinking about the regress of the heart rate cost with the kilometer, and yet have not estimated it. But now I have done, see a link below to my 32 km long distance run. The first 8-10 km I had a more less constant HR and pace, and then the HR increases, and the pace = constant.  An increment of the heart rate cost  is of  magnitude 22 % in 20 km, so it is 1.1% per kilometer run. It is close to your observation but a bit higher probably due to I ran on hilly course, and I am at the beginning of my preparation for next marathon

Dear Karaul,

I have looked at your dataset and the rate of increase in heart rate per kilometer is similar to mine. I calculate from your data roughly a 1.25% rise in the number of heart beats over each successive kilometer. I calculated this by assuming your heart rate started at 125 bpm and ends at roughly 165 (these are eye ball values not measured or fitted by a regression line). The distance correction I use in my calculations is for the average heart rate over the whole run. So, if your heart rate rises by 1.25% per kilometer the mean heart rate rise, over the whole run, will be half that (startlingly close to my value of 0.65%).

Does this make sense?

If you have some short runs and some longer ones, try the correction - it should reduce the scatter in the heart rate per kilometer values and give a much better indication of fitness changes.

Greetings,

Christof

The problem might be that the HR is not linear, running at easy paces for me at say say 10 or 11 min miles the HR does not vary 9-10 % maybe more like 3-5 %, now if I run at 9 min miles the HR jumps about 10 %, and a more significant rise going to a 8 min miles maybe about 15 %, especially right around your aerobic threshold, there will be a sharp rise in HR, also running on hot days the rise is more acute.

So which pace is the most beneficial, the one that gives me the lowest BPKM number, for me that will be the slower end (further slowing may not give me the lowest bpkm number so I can kind of see the value of this)  or the faster workouts that might actually increase my aerobic threshold among other things.

Dear Happyfeet,

You are absolutely correct that heart rate is not linearly related to pace - but, your conclusion that BPKM doesn't work because of this is incorrect. For a constant number of heart beats per kilometer the relationship must between pace and heart rate must be exponential. Let me give an example. Let's say your efficiency is 650 heart beats per kilometer (roughly where I am today). To obtain that you could either run at a pace of 6 mins per km with a heart rate of 108 bpm (6*108=650) or you could run at 5:30 mins per km with a heart rate of 118 bpm (5.5*118=650) or at 5 mins per km with a heart rate of 130. Now, if you start pushing the pace, heart rates rises quite dramatically.  4 mins per km would give you a heart rate of 163 and 3:30 would give you a heart rate of 186.

This form of calculation will - I think - work pretty well for you. I doubt very much that the slower end of the pace spectrum will give you the lowest BPKM. In fact, I suspect that it will give you the highest BPKM. My lowest BPKM come from my fastest runs. I suspect because I build up a 'heart rate' debt that is paid back when my run is over. Over the past week I have been doing daily 11 km runs and my BPKM has come down nicely from ~750 to ~650. Now, all I need to do is get to ~550 BPKM and a sub-18 min 5K should be possible. I have never managed to get below ~600 BPKM, but we will see!

Greetings,

Christof

“Now, all I need to do is get to ~550 BPKM and a sub-18 min 5K should be possible.”

Actually, all you need to do is run a sub 18 min 5k and 550 bpkm should be possible. Then you can get an oval sticker that reads “<550!” and slap it on your HP12C.

`Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and roguesWe're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes`
123