Low HR Training

"Anaerobic" Phase HRT (over MAF) Reports & Discussion (Read 5995 times)

    Long Run

    tm 1%

    85 degrees

    65% humidity

     

    13:00  108

    11:34  124

    11:06  130

    11:06  133

    11:06  143

    11:06  146

    11:06  150

    11:06  153

    11:06  158

    11:06  163

    06:35  166

     

    2 hours

    10.6 miles

    11:19 pace

     

    One of the hottest temps I've ever run in. Holding the same speed after warming up to my MAF of 130, my HR drifted considerably. I drank 40 oz of water per hour (with a pinch of salt in each bottle).

     

    --Jimmy

    log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #141

     

      jimmyb:

       

      sorry, I got a bit confused. Smile you mean 90% of MHR or 90% of HRR? 90% of MHR for me is around 187, 90% of HRR is around 193.

       

      I got maxHR in all-out sprint after 1 hour long race last year. the last ~1000m before the sprint was at a gradual increase of speed too, and even before that last 1000, I was racing it at a HR of 193-196. end of sprint I was at 208. and I averaged 193 for 72minutes of that race.

       

      let me note that I'm not sure that it could not have gone higher had the finish line been further. I did not feel like "totally dying" at that point. previously, in training, I pushed to 206 or so, but had to stop due to sudden cramp in stomach(diaphragm?). I did get a 207 in another race later, and I did feel like dying then. I was mostly dying because I averaged 199 for 36minutes before the final sprint. Smile

       

      with Hadd's stuff, it's a 800m all-out, yes? I have seen 201 or so, within 2 minutes of running hard like that. but in 2-3 minutes there is not enough time to push the HR higher. I agree with you there.

       

      btw, I was once told that after 60secs of all-out sprinting HR is supposed to be at 90% maxHR. I did a couple of 300m sprints in the past that were a bit less than a minute and HR was up at 194-195. according to that maxHR would be 215 or so... I don't see a chance  to push myself up there though. Surprised

       

      otoh, it got harder to get my HR up there since then, with increasing fitness. I'm lucky to see 203 running hard uphill Smile (yes, yes, fully warmed up.) I got only up to 198-199 in my last few races, including all-out sprints at the end. (I always sprint at the end of races)

       

      if doing HRR calculations, I still stick to that 208 as maxHR, though. if I didn't, then 193 would be even higher %. Smile

       

      as for the 70-78% HRR, it doesn't feel anaerobic to me at all. easy breathing, not much load subjectively. especially at the lower end of this range.

       

      actually, 78% is just where I can feel I switch to significantly more carbs for fuel. but below it I'm just fine. Smile

       

      it's interesting to see that HR behaviour can differ so much between people.

       

      I don't know if it entirely depends on one's age, my guess is not. (btw, wow, I thought you were 47.)

       

       

      oguz: your idea about less margin for error is interesting!

       

      seems like I have plenty of margin for it, my HRR range is nearly 160. perhaps it would actually be 160 if I'd bother to measure my RHR upon waking up. I never bother to do so. I only measure it before I go out for the workout. I usually measure it standing still or perhaps sitting still. (this way, 54 is lowest I've ever seen and I've seen it only once so far.)

       

      btw, my 78% is 14% above my 180-age MAF. (153 vs 175.) I'm 28 years old.

       

      (I did not update the MAF as I started at age 27 Smile hey I look 20 anyway! Smile )

       

      btw, I find it pretty strange that at age 20 MAF would have been 78% for you...definitely not the case for me even if I assume no maxHR decrease since age 20.

        I was pretty detailed above ... just to show how complicated this maxHR topic can be ... anyway this is also a reason why I don't fully trust HRR% or MHR% stuff.

          I was pretty detailed above ... just to show how complicated this maxHR topic can be ... anyway this is also a reason why I don't fully trust HRR% or MHR% stuff.

           

          It's complicated when you talk about it, C. You have a heart rate landscape like a Salvador Dali painting Cool

          LOL. Just funning with you. Seems when it comes to HR and anything that usually happened for most, you are the anomaly, C. Cool

           

          Your MHR could be a few beats higher, but what's a few beats. So no need to kill yourself trying to eek out a few beats.

           

          Pfitzinger gives 80-90%MHR for LT runs or, if you choose, the 76-88 HRR.

          To quote his book, Advanced Marathoning by Pfitzinger and Douglas, Edition 1, page 22 ;

          "lactate theshold typically occurs at 80 to 90% of MHR or 76 to 88% of HRR in well-trained runners."

          "lactate threshold pace is very similar to 15k to half marathon pace in experienced runners."

           

          There's not too much difference between my 90% MHR and 88%HRR, just 1-2 beats depending on how low my RHR gets. Some elites get their RHR's down into the 30's and I'm sure that makes a bigger difference. You might be atypical when it comes to LT. The best way to find out is to get yourself tested, though I don't think it is necessary. I think the important thing is that you get some tempo running in at some point in training, and reap whatever benefits come along with the specificity of the workout. With Pfitzinger's spread for LT tempos, you can see the benefit pretty quickly and you don't have to spend a long time doing them.

           

          LT isn't fixed as far as I know and can have a different relation ship to MHR or Vo2 max, or beat a different HR or in a different postion on the RQ scale--whatever way you want to see it.. Mine might have changed (gotten lower in relationship to the higher realms) since I was tested at 176, but probably not, as my MAF tests are much better than then, as well as my pace in the LT zone. Just as long as I am in the area of the LT during the tempo run, and I don't overdo it, the job will get done. The average paces in the LT should get better, and the MAF tests should as well. Using heart time helps to guard against overdoing it.

           

          --Jimmy

           

          p.S. Rarian, good post, and thanks for making my Sunday  a hopeless day of staring into the abyss. Cool

          log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #141

           

            oguz: your idea about less margin for error is interesting!

             

            seems like I have plenty of margin for it, my HRR range is nearly 160. perhaps it would actually be 160 if I'd bother to measure my RHR upon waking up. I never bother to do so. I only measure it before I go out for the workout. I usually measure it standing still or perhaps sitting still. (this way, 54 is lowest I've ever seen and I've seen it only once so far.)

             

            btw, my 78% is 14% above my 180-age MAF. (153 vs 175.) I'm 28 years old.

             

            (I did not update the MAF as I started at age 27 Smile hey I look 20 anyway! Smile )

             

            btw, I find it pretty strange that at age 20 MAF would have been 78% for you...definitely not the case for me even if I assume no maxHR decrease since age 20.

                

                  The least thing I want, is making generalizations about running, since everbody is different. I just wanted to show the trend as a result of aging.

                  In my case, my HRR range decreased to 143 from 160 in 34 running years (difficult for you to find a sample like meSmile). Since MAF formula decreases at a faster rate, there is not an escape from it, it catches eventually.

                  I started running at 14. When I was 20, I was training seriously and reached 15:30 5k, 4:06 1500m etc.,  80-85% age-graded which I could manage also 50+ yo. Therefore I was recording sub 35 readings of RHR back then. When I started running, in the first years, I was recording

            55-60, before the training adaptation has occured.

                  We all run to look younger Smile

            rarian


               Yes, those are the quotes that for years I thought were too broad and unrelated to my slower running ability.  I've always understood his book is titled Advanced and that my 15K pace was way too slow.  Pfitzinger's book opened my eyes to what 'training' was about. Just running is a form of training, but Pfitzinger is about different elements of training to best bring about certain adaptations.  It was only when I noticed the line at the top of page 22 about 60 minute race pace that tempo runs, for me, made sense.  

               

              In the last 18 months I've had two VO2 max tests, courtesy of a well qualified friend (exercise physiologist); they were not RQ tests but the simple type that just give VO2max and suggest zones.  I quite liked the VO2max test figures and have confirmed them with specific tm, rower and HRM tests.  Both tests gave me 'test' figures for my AT which were ridiculous, down around MAF.  When I discovered the '60 minute race pace' guideline I set about doing tm runs of more that 60 minutes incrementing the speed each week, reasoning that these faster paces disproved the 'test' figure given for AT.   Then I moved on to tempo runs; 15-20 mins warmwp, 30 mins tempo, 20 minutes cool down.

               

              What my well qualified friend says is that VO2max can be improved a little with training but is largely genetically determined, however he says that LT is eminently trainable.  That is why I am so keen to discover an efficient method of LT training and tempo runs seem to be that way.  

               

              Pfitzinger gives 80-90%MHR for LT runs or, if you choose, the 76-88 HRR.

              To quote his book, Advanced Marathoning by Pfitzinger and Douglas, Edition 1, page 22 ;

              "lactate theshold typically occurs at 80 to 90% of MHR or 76 to 88% of HRR in well-trained runners."

              "lactate threshold pace is very similar to 15k to half marathon pace in experienced runners."

               

               

               LT isn't fixed as far as I know

                 Yes, those are the quotes that for years I thought were too broad and unrelated to my slower running ability.  I've always understood his book is titled Advanced and that my 15K pace was way too slow.  Pfitzinger's book opened my eyes to what 'training' was about. Just running is a form of training, but Pfitzinger is about different elements of training to best bring about certain adaptations.  It was only when I noticed the line at the top of page 22 about 60 minute race pace that tempo runs, for me, made sense.  

                 

                In the last 18 months I've had two VO2 max tests, courtesy of a well qualified friend (exercise physiologist); they were not RQ tests but the simple type that just give VO2max and suggest zones.  I quite liked the VO2max test figures and have confirmed them with specific tm, rower and HRM tests.  Both tests gave me 'test' figures for my AT which were ridiculous, down around MAF.  When I discovered the '60 minute race pace' guideline I set about doing tm runs of more that 60 minutes incrementing the speed each week, reasoning that these faster paces disproved the 'test' figure given for AT.   Then I moved on to tempo runs; 15-20 mins warmwp, 30 mins tempo, 20 minutes cool down.

                 

                The zone and guidelines are broad, but they get the job done if you work in the area he prescribes. Getting up near 90% MHR will get the lactate flowing. "Advanced" being the key word to approaching his book in terms of how closely you should follow what he says. He recommends in his plans for 55 miles per week 5-7 mile LT tempos sandwiched in a medium long run of 10-12 miles. Depending on how fast your paces are, just the 5 mile tempo alone can range anywhere from 30 minutes to 50 minutes. That can be much harsher for the slower runner, and maybe do more harm than good in some cases. After reading Jack Daniel's stuff, and thinking things out, and experimenting, I'm convinced the LT tempos should be time based, not mileage based (I actually think all training runs should be time based at this point, and train accordingly). Daniels has you doing no more than 20-30 minutes at the 60 minute pace. It's all you need to get the training stimulus you are supposed to get from the runs. Being time based,  the slow runner might only get 2 miles in, and the faster might get in 4-5. Same stimulus for each, and the slower one doesn't overdo it.

                 

                Really cool how you worked out your 60 minute race pace. DId you keep speeding up each week until you couldn't make it through 60 minutes, then use the week before as your pace?

                 

                I prefer a heart rate zone, then I don't have to worry about figuring out a pace. I just try to do the same HR plan each time. The pace will be what it will be.

                 

                --Jimmy

                log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #141

                 

                rarian


                  As Pfitzinger says, he understands most of his readers are not professional runners and have to fit running into their busy lives.  Whenever I follow any of his guidelines I substitute kms for miles. 

                   

                  As for working out my 60 minute pace:  Pfitzinger bottom of page 22 says you can find your LT pace by getting tested or estimating from race times.  So a 10K time from four years ago was the guide.  I started the tempo runs a little slower than that and struggled for a couple of weeks to get to 30 mins but then had several weeks of increments.  (The last few weeks have seen no tempo runs.)

                   

                  Prior to the series of tempo runs I was confused by the test results and I did a few weeks of more than 60 minute runs (incrementing pace) just to prove the test AT result was ridiculous.  These ended at a pace similar to my half marathon PB at which I was still very comfortable going past 60 minutes,  when I decided to get more serious and develop a tempo run protocol for myself.  That I have programmed into one of the treadmills to which I have access. 

                   

                  Because almost all of my training during the week is on these treadmills my running is entirely by time and pace;  but behind the choice of both is reference to HR (and the bus timetable).  Just set the treadmill and run.  Sunday mornings I usually do a 20-30km club road run with a fellow in his late 70's; for me that's a MAF run.

                    jimmyb: yeah, I'm just one big anomaly. Cool

                     

                    I agree that a lab test is not totally necessary...it's only one specific moment that's measured in the lab, not nearly as good as monitoring my whole training over days, weeks, months and years.

                    (I still have lab testing in my plans though. curiousity is a good thing. Smile also it could help "standardize" making me able to compare HR's better to other people's)

                     

                    as for LT HR not being fixed - interesting question. joe friel says that it's pretty much fixed forever after you've got moderately fit. so far mine didn't seem to move anywhere.

                     

                    but the vo2max % in relation to LT is definitely not fixed. with increasing fitness you should be able to hold a higher vo2max % at your LT (which may still be the same HR).

                     

                    about the tempo runs: from previous experience it seems to me that certain workouts, where for a substantial time my HR is past 190bpm (but below 196bpm), seem to be a pretty powerful stimulus for me in terms of improvement.

                     

                    oguz: whoa, pretty sweet PR's there! Smile hey, you're an interesting sample! Smile

                     

                     

                    on the LT run length topic --- I would say that 50mins of running of 60-min race pace is pretty crazy exhausting. I don't like to race that much in training. seriously, if I run 50mins at 60-min race pace then that's nearly a full race, why should I go that far in training? 20-30mins should be enough in my opinion....and that amount of time is great, because, at least in my case, by the end of that I would be only nearing my LT HR (average HR of 60min race) but not go past it. so it means not much suffering. Smile

                     

                    so I think it should be either that (20-30min LT run), or add a few seconds to the pace (so it's a bit slower than 60-min race pace, maybe half marathon pace) and do that for 50mins. so I will totally agree with daniels here.

                     

                    again, my experience in the past showed that if I spent some time between 190 and 194 (up to 195-196 but better leave those alone), that was good stimulus for me. I find that a continuous run at that HR range happens to be LT pace for me for the first 20-30mins. after that time, I would either have to allow HR to increase past LT HR, or let the pace decrease. this is also the point where if I allow HR to increase further, I will start to experience some suffering, like in a hard race. I think best to just stop there. kind of like the heart time concept Smile

                    if I add a few seconds to the pace, and go longer, then as the HR drifts up, the second half or so of the run will still be near enough to LT HR.

                      Out and back course, on the road; 7 miles. 27:40 out section and 25:20 back, total time is 53:00 minutes. Average pace is 7:34 min/mile (HR:150),

                      progressing to 7:17 pace on the back course (HR:155).

                      Last week's race pace of 7:10 has made this pace to be felt easy. Hopefully, if all goes well, 7 pace seems possible on the 14th of May HM race. 

                        Short Hill Repeats

                         

                        I did about 10 repeats on a 10% grade hill for about 100 yards.  They take about 30 seconds to complete each.  Two and a half minutes wallking recovery time between each.

                         

                        The article below talks about them.

                         

                        http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=18708

                         

                        Last year, I discovered hill repeats for the first time and really think they are very helpful and good to do.  I think the short hill repeats can be thought of as strides but with an added strength and flexibility component.  They are so short that they do not compromise your aerobic fitniss at all, I don't think.  It is important to be fully recovered between each one.

                         

                        And you feel great afterwards. 

                         

                        I decided to do a 5k in a couple of weeks.  So, I am squeezing in some anareobic running now.  I did a Tempo run the other day.  So, one tempo run and one short hill repeats workout should be enough.  Smile    I am joking a little bit, because usually it would be nice to have had a few more weeks of these kinds of workouts before entering 5k races, but you do what you can.  At least the 5k race will not be a shock to my system.

                         

                        At the end of last season, I started doing some hill workouts and I really felt like they made a big difference.  I know that they are just icing on that aerobic cake, but you really do get a good return from them.  I actually like them better than strides. 

                         

                        Added:  Here is another link I found that was interesting too.  

                         

                        http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=15737&PageNum=1

                          Thanks for the links, Run. I live on the perfect hill for these.

                          I should be running my first race in the next few weeks as well.

                           

                          TODAY' RUN

                           

                          Medium Long run

                          5.96 miles

                          1:01:00

                          with progressive intervals.

                           

                          78°F, 80% humidity

                           

                          5 x 3:00 intervals, getting progressively faster.
                          3:00 rest after each interval @ 11:31 pace

                          Pace 7:47 7:41 7:35 7:30 7:24
                          Ave HR 171 174 178 183 188

                           

                           

                           

                           

                           

                           

                          The room was pretty hot and humid. I wore long sleeve tech shirt to make my body heat up even more.

                          The last interval felt tough, HR reaching 195 by the end of it. Again, I walk out into the hallway, and was freezing in 70°!

                           

                          Good workout.

                          --Jimmy

                          log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #141

                           


                            jimmyb, neat paces! and again, that HR stuff is interesting. Smile just for what it's worth, my HR is rather different in intervals (not just in tempo runs, apparently). HR goes up fast but then doesn't go anywhere from there. maxHR(highest HR at the end of the interval) usually goes from 190 in first interval to 193 or so in the last interval. (for intervals similar in time to yours and similarly progressive too)


                            run48: hill repeats are totally fun though I never did much of them, just 1 or 2 here or there in a hilly run a while ago. but those were lots of fun!
                            good luck in the 5k Smile

                            (I missed the one I wanted to do this month, oh well, there is another in september, same race/organizer too.)


                              jimmyb, neat paces! and again, that HR stuff is interesting. Smile just for what it's worth, my HR is rather different in intervals (not just in tempo runs, apparently). HR goes up fast but then doesn't go anywhere from there. maxHR(highest HR at the end of the interval) usually goes from 190 in first interval to 193 or so in the last interval. (for intervals similar in time to yours and similarly progressive too)

                               

                              Thanks, C.

                               

                               

                              In my workout, I kept getting faster for each one, so there should be a rise in HR. Plus, I was getting pretty hot (not more attractive, just more sweaty). Interesting that when my HR starting rising quickly in the last interval to 195, my breathing didn't get more labored, though the HR was going up ( I breath in a rhythm, but there is always a point up in the mid 190's where the body begins to gasp for air). More than likely the HR was drifting because the blood was going for cooling and not for more oxygen for the working muscles (they had enough), which would explain why the breathing pretty much felt the same as the interval or two before. Still the last interval took focus to keep it relaxed, it felt very stressful. Shows how heat can slow you down in the end.

                               

                              I would say most of the rise in HR throughout the run was due to the heat and not the increase in speed.

                               

                              --Jimmy

                              log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #141

                               

                                what I mainly meant is that for some people (incl. me) there isn't much "space" for the HR to go higher after the first interval because it's already pretty high right in the first interval. no more "space" even when the pace is getting faster in intervals. and for other people there is a lot of "space" to go higher.

                                 

                                this seems unrelated to heat. though of course in heat the HR will be a couple beats higher overall. but it would still not start from such a low HR in first interval in warm wather, quite the opposite - and still not much "space" for it to go higher.

                                 

                                anyway I just think it is interesting that there are different HR "profiles" at and beyond LT/AT. I don't think it has any relation to performance or potential or anything. just like maxHR also doesn't have any relation to it