Image of my fairly intense analysis of my Garmin data here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mspxeg2ttr9ku82/Run%20Data.png?dl=0
This shows weekly data over time using an efficiency factor metrics I found here: https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/11/the-efficiency-factor-in-running.html . I've annotated with a story of what I think is going on - basically I haven't been able to get sustained improvement in MAF pace. Yes, yes I know I should be doing MAF tests but a lot of my runs are similar so I'm trying to evaluate based solely on my aggregate data :-).
Other info:
My over time story of what I think is going on:
My question! (finally): any thoughts on increasing volume from 2-3 to 5 hours so quickly? I've had a few days where I've felt pretty run down. When I run 3 days in a row, I often see a regression in MAF pace from Day 1 to 2 to 3. Currently deciding whether to push through with current volume trend, or back off to let adaptation occur.
THANK YOU!
Wow that a ton of data. Good work collecting all of that.
A few general observations:
To summarize, you'd get better results by simply running easy, comfortably and smoothly up to 5-6 hours a week. Spot check to make sure you're in that 70% MaxHR range. If you're a bit lower or higher, no biggie, just don't go into the 80+% range for the love of God! This is ultimately why MAF works so well in my opinion but you don't need to get NEARLY as anal as MAF prescribes. In fact, I think it can really stunt your ability to improve if you go toooo easy and start walking. I just refuse to believe that walking makes people better runners when they could be running easy. I bet, if you follow this general approach and still collect your data, that you will see significant gains in Efficiency Factor starting about 6-8 weeks out.
There's an absurd amount of data in Garmin activity files :-)
Max heart rate at the end of an all-out 5K race was 202 - so 141 for 70% and 161 for 80%, which works out to pretty close to the 145 MAF calculation I've been targeting. So I suppose it makes sense to think of the 150-155 range as okay to do sometimes, just so long as I can sustain the volume.
Thanks for the reassurance and motivation to stick with 5 hours consistently for now, with the goal of working up to 6 hours.
I lost my rama
I agree with SD said. Also, I think you're fine at 150 - 155 at times with your measured MaxHR being 202 (some would say even add 5 to that from an all out 5K race).
I'll just add that since you only bumped up to 5 hours per week over the last 3 weeks, that probably isn't enough weeks to see material differences. From what I've read, it can take 4 to 6 weeks or longer for your body's aerobic system to respond and improve to the increased exercise volume. In other words, keep at it and be patient. You should see improvements in the upcoming weeks. If you get comfortable at 5 hours per week after a few months, I'd even bump it up higher if you feel you can handle it. Good luck!
3/17 - NYC Half
4/28 - Big Sur Marathon DNS
6/29 - Forbidden Forest 30 Hour
8/29 - A Race for the Ages - will be given 47 hours
I agree with SD said. Also, I think you're fine at 150 - 155 at times with your measured MaxHR being 202 (some would say even add 5 to that from an all out 5K race). I'll just add that since you only bumped up to 5 hours per week over the last 3 weeks, that probably isn't enough weeks to see material differences. From what I've read, it can take 4 to 6 weeks or longer for your body's aerobic system to respond and improve to the increased exercise volume. In other words, keep at it and be patient. You should see improvements in the upcoming weeks. If you get comfortable at 5 hours per week after a few months, I'd even bump it up higher if you feel you can handle it. Good luck!
Exactly! This 100 times over.
Holy crap your MaxHR is freaking high! Wow. As a guy that loves data and numbers as much as you do, you will have way more fun targeting zones in terms of %MaxHR than some arbitrary number that doesn't necessarily apply to you anyway. I believe that Maffetone once answered that question by saying that MAF is the "Goldilocks Zone" for most people. Well, most people don't have a MaxHR of 205. On this topic, I saw data logs of a few guys who were running absolutely RIDICULOUS MAF runs at paces of 6:30 to 6:40 pace then running a marathon at 6:15 pace and credited the MAF method for their success. No, they just happened to have very LOW MaxHR so their MAF runs were essential light tempos which are well known to move your lactate threshold dramatically. Had this same athlete had a MaxHR of 205, his MAF runs would have been much slower since MAF would then be a much lower %MaxHR. The higher your MaxHR, the farther your MAF will be from Marathon Pace and the lower you MaxHR, the closer you are to it. I have a friend who's MaxHR is so low that MAF basically is Marathon Pace.
The reason it takes so long is it supposedly takes about 6 weeks for your body to fully develop the energy delivery system of mitochondria and capillaries. So yes, it takes a lot of patience.
Veryy interesting about max HR - so targeting 70%-80% is still aerobic, so for me that'd be roughly 140 to 160 - perhaps 145 to 165. A whole new world of fast possibilities opening up! To be safe I'll probably still target 145 on most runs, and treat 155 as a hard cap. This will allow for longer 1.5 to 2 hour runs - it's always really hard for me to stay under 145 on longer hauls.
Should I expect max HR to change over time? Is it worth measuring regularly to adjust the target zone?
Thanks again!
Should I expect max HR to change over time? Is it worth measuring regularly to adjust the target zone? Thanks again!
Your MaxHR shouldn't change significantly, but it will go down as you get older, which is why the standard (and quite useless) age-based formula has 1 bpm per year drop to your Max. You might want to test it periodically just to reaffirm past results, but no need to do it too often. I like the all-out 5K race to test it every now and then.
I think keeping most of your runs in the 145 range is a good idea while you're getting used to the added volume. A 155 cap for now sounds reasonable to me, but once you're used to 5 hours running per week, bumping it up to 160, 165, or higher wouldn't be a bad idea to push and test your lactate threshold. Most training plans have a harder run scheduled once or twice per week, depending on running volume.
Also, I wouldn't worry about long runs getting up to 150. I typically will add 5 bpm or so to my long runs as I like to run them slightly faster than easy runs, but not too much faster. I'd say experiment for now and see how it goes. Weather also can play a significant role in your long run depending on where you live.
SD - While watching Galen Rupp in a marathon on TV, a commentator said his marathon HR barely goes above 155. That ticker in him can push a lot of blood volume per stroke!
Alright! New plan is to have more varied efforts - most in what I'm calling core below, with recovery following long runs when needed (spike in morning resting HR), working up to 6+ hours per week.
Conservative target zones using 202 as max: Recovery: 130 to 140 - 64 to 69 percentCore: 141 to 150 - 70 to 74 percentLong: 151 to 160 75 to 79 percent
Thanks again! Will update on progress.
Most of the sub-elite to elite marathoners that I've actually seen HR data on can hold anywhere from 88% to 90% of MaxHR. They also are on their feet a whole helluva lot less due to their crazy fast times. I'm sure Rupp is no exception to the rule. If his Marathon HR is 155 bpm, then his MaxHR is probably around 176-177 bpm which isn't unheard of.
Alright! New plan is to have more varied efforts - most in what I'm calling core below, with recovery following long runs when needed (spike in morning resting HR), working up to 6+ hours per week. Conservative target zones using 202 as max: Recovery: 130 to 140 - 64 to 69 percentCore: 141 to 150 - 70 to 74 percentLong: 151 to 160 75 to 79 percent Thanks again! Will update on progress.
This is an excellent plan.
Just a few words of advice, don't panic if you look down at your watch and see that you've drifted slightly over the range. Just dial it down a notch and wait for your HR to drift down. Just remember that your HR doesn't respond instantly. I used to slow my pace WAY down as soon as I'd notice I was too high, then I'd be too low and speed up and then overshoot again and so on.
Just to give you an idea of how slow the HR responds (this is an extreme example), I did a tempo run last week structured as follows:
Note that at the same pace, how my HR took basically forever to drift back down. This is obviously an extreme example but hopefully illustrates my point. I should mention that I do most of my daily runs for 90 minutes to 105 minutes at near 8:30 pace and my HR will always be in the 125-129 range. Like you, I do the long run much faster.