`Yet another HR question...

--amadeus--

Hiya,

As some of you know I am running Dublin in a couple of weeks and I have targetted a time of 3:10 (a 5 min improvement on my April PB).

But I am thinking of running as much by HR as pace and I'm not sure what % to be running it at.

My resting HR is somewhere in the 50 - 55 range. My max I have never actually checked. Today I ran 5 mile LT with a hard sprint at the end and my HR peaked at 188, and the max recorded by my Garmin through training is 191, though I have seen high 190s in races.

Bit more info (if you handle it!) - today was 10 miles, 3 easy 5 fast, 2 easy. The five fast were 7:05 / 6:26 / 6:25 / 6:33 / 6:26 and HR was 175 - 177 all the way through.

I have also done some mid length PMP runs, the longest was 15 miles (14th Sept) and I averaged 175 over the whole thing with negligible drift.

Glover reccomends racing at 80 - 85% of your Max HR which would out me in the 160 - 170 range. I was thinking of aiming for 165 - 175 for teh first 20 miles and trying for 175+ from there to the end.

Any suggestions or comments? Thanks!

Redjeep!

I don't know if anybody can answer this question unless you know what you max heart rate is.

Can you not get it tested ? Presumably you know the 220 minus your age version which should give you a rough idea but is meant to be very inaccurate. Best thing would be to get it properly tested and then work it out from there.

robinph

Not sure how usefull it ever is but ill be aiming for keeping between 140 and 150. That just proves how useless the 220 calcullation is though,

robinph

Not sure how usefull it ever is but ill be aiming for keeping between 140 and 150. That just proves how useless the 220 calcullation is though,

911sc

You can choose your pace but not your HR.

As know that everybody is different... in my case, i have seen a difference of up to 10bpm (at almost same pace - avg 151 to 162) depending on time of the day/level of tireness/how carefull i have been with food/hydration/etc...

Went for 20miles yesterday afternoon, i found that i spent most of my time over analysing my garmin data (pace & HR every km) rather than focusing on the run itself. The run was a disaster, enjoyment wise & time wise.

I am seriously thinking of running on the 27th without watch/HRM...and simply listen to my body & my feeling.
My aim is <4h...and if i know after say 20km that i am not going to keep my target pace, negativity set in my mind and i am just thinking about going home.

MCOS

+1 your heart rate can vary much more than pace over the distance. E.g spikes for hills and eating etc.. Indeed even looking at your average HR could affect your mindset. For example if your target racing band was 160-170 then your average will more than likely hover at 160 and then creep 161, 162... towards 170.

To be honest its hard to advise what band to race in. Its usually in terms of % of HR instead of a certain band. 160-170 for me would be too high yet my brother wouldn't even be sweating at this rate. I've never seen my HR above 193 and I know that when I am in 170 territory I'm working quite hard.

On the day a number of factors can affect you HR which is why I tend to prefer pace. Its simpler and less stress! Get to mile 1 in x mile 2 in 2x mile 3 in 3x... I also don't want my HR to talk me out of pushing beyond my limit if I have to in the last 3 miles!

If you have been training with your HR you should be pretty familiar with its variables for different levels of intensity and of course recovery. For example I know my RHR is usually 48-50, Its about 130 avg for 4 miles at pmp, 150 for 10 miles pmp, 160+ for an hour on the rower, drops to 103 2 mins after a 30 mins run, drops to 118 2 mins after a 60-90 min run and if its 185+ my face is bright red and grimacing...

My point is knowing my HR well gets me wondering all sorts if it is 5-10bpm out of my normal sync which is why I tend to prefer pace/ time

Its less stressful (and so keep the HR lower )

Woddle

If it helps
Longford marathon, average HR 165(78%)
Berlin marathon, average HR 170(82%)

Abhainn

amadeus

I have found HR data a valuable tool when comparing distance over time taken for training this year.
For whats it worth below is average HR through each 5k during Berlin marathon. (3:01, splits 1:28, 1:33). Average HR was 168
I estimate my max HR is around 189 bpm though I have never measured it in a lab enviroment!
Goal was to try and stay out of the 170bpm (90% approx) zone for a long as possible

5k - 157
10k - 163
15k - 163
20k - 166
25k - 168
30k - 170
35k - 173
40k - 177
Finish - 178

Yesterday I did a steady 6.2 miles (10k) in 43:30 with last 3k under 06:50 pace. HR average was 155 and it was a horrible run
Today was 15 miles in 1:49 (07:18 / mile) , HR was 143 and it was a very pleasant morning thank you.

tri111

Abhainn wrote: »

amadeus

I have found HR data a valuable tool when comparing distance over time taken for training this year.
For whats it worth below is average HR through each 5k during Berlin marathon. (3:01, splits 1:28, 1:33). Average HR was 168
I estimate my max HR is around 189 bpm though I have never measured it in a lab enviroment!
Goal was to try and stay out of the 170bpm (90% approx) zone for a long as possible

5k - 157
10k - 163
15k - 163
20k - 166
25k - 168
30k - 170
35k - 173
40k - 177
Finish - 178

Yesterday I did a steady 6.2 miles (10k) in 43:30 with last 3k under 06:50 pace. HR average was 155 and it was a horrible run
Today was 15 miles in 1:49 (07:18 / mile) , HR was 143 and it was a very pleasant morning thank you.

Abhainn,

This post really interests me as the figures look very similar to me, especially your 15 mile run - on saturday, I did 15 miles in 1:50 with 10 miles at PMP of around 6:52. But my average HR for the whole run was 158, significantly higher than yours. And for the 10 miles at PMP, I was at about 160 - 165 average for each of those miles. I'm not sure I can sustain that for a full 26 miles though, that's what worries me.

I see for Berlin, your av HR was 168, with the last 12k over 170 which looks very hard to sustain. How difficult was it to keep that pace?
Do you think the taper gave you much extra speed or stamina for those last few miles at a very high HR?

This is my dilemma, wondering should I attempt a sub 3 hour pace. I notice you were 5 mins slower for the 2nd half so do you think you should have gone at an easier pace for the first half which would have given you a sub 3 finish?

tunney

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Hiya,

As some of you know I am running Dublin in a couple of weeks and I have targetted a time of 3:10 (a 5 min improvement on my April PB).

But I am thinking of running as much by HR as pace and I'm not sure what % to be running it at.

My resting HR is somewhere in the 50 - 55 range. My max I have never actually checked. Today I ran 5 mile LT with a hard sprint at the end and my HR peaked at 188, and the max recorded by my Garmin through training is 191, though I have seen high 190s in races.

Bit more info (if you handle it!) - today was 10 miles, 3 easy 5 fast, 2 easy. The five fast were 7:05 / 6:26 / 6:25 / 6:33 / 6:26 and HR was 175 - 177 all the way through.

I have also done some mid length PMP runs, the longest was 15 miles (14th Sept) and I averaged 175 over the whole thing with negligible drift.

Glover reccomends racing at 80 - 85% of your Max HR which would out me in the 160 - 170 range. I was thinking of aiming for 165 - 175 for teh first 20 miles and trying for 175+ from there to the end.

Any suggestions or comments? Thanks!

Firstly I think that all HR pacing stragegies should be determined by LHR not MHR. MHR doesn't really tell you anything interesting.

Secondly as a previous poster has said "your av HR was 168, with the last 12k over 170". You are targetting a significant increase in HR. Yes you've done alot more training but that will increase the pace that you can go at at that HR but not necessarily mean that you can maintain a higher HR.

More importantly if you are chasing a time, you are chasing a time. Sub three is 4:15 ks. Thats you're pacing stragegy. Performance based strategy rather than physiological based strategy.

Finally people - DO NOT COMPARE HRS. You can't someones 150 is another persons 180. Its worse than useless.

--amadeus--

Thanks for teh replies. I suppose the core of my question is what % HR is "right" for running the marathon. The 80% quoted by Glover seemed very low when converted to BPM for me but looking at the posts above it seems around average (particular thanks to Abhainn & Woodle).

So another question. I know that you can get a good idea of you max HR by sprinting up and down hills but this close to Dublin I'm not sure I want to risk pulling something with such an extreme session. So how close to your max HR do you think you get during good speed sessions? As I mentioned I have seen 191 during speed drills and (although I've lost the data) I have had mid-high 190s come up in races. Based on that I have used 200 as a nice round number for calculations. Am i deluding myself?

Assuming even 200 as my MHR though 80% is only 160BPM - thats LSR speed! My average in Rotterdam in April was 168 (virtually constantly, I managed drift by slowing and then went into mid 170s for 3 miles out miles and 180+ for last mile). I think that works out at around 85% of MHR - is that the highest that you think is sustainable?

(I'm starting to agree with the early posters, look at pace and ignore HR!)

Abhainn

tri111 wrote: »

Abhainn,

This post really interests me as the figures look very similar to me, especially your 15 mile run - on saturday, I did 15 miles in 1:50 with 10 miles at PMP of around 6:52. But my average HR for the whole run was 158, significantly higher than yours. And for the 10 miles at PMP, I was at about 160 - 165 average for each of those miles. I'm not sure I can sustain that for a full 26 miles though, that's what worries me.

I see for Berlin, your av HR was 168, with the last 12k over 170 which looks very hard to sustain. How difficult was it to keep that pace?
Do you think the taper gave you much extra speed or stamina for those last few miles at a very high HR?

This is my dilemma, wondering should I attempt a sub 3 hour pace. I notice you were 5 mins slower for the 2nd half so do you think you should have gone at an easier pace for the first half which would have given you a sub 3 finish?

Well tri111 you seem to be in good nick.
Firstly I’m no expect and only been doing this for over a year. Don't read too much into my HR levels though as they may not be anything comparable to you. And unfortunately I didn't achieve that magic 2:xx:xx!

So what is your max HR?
When was you recent race and how did it go?
I think you need to be hitting at least 1:25 in a HM in the 4-6 weeks lead up to the marathon before you can realistically challenge a sub 3.

My longest PMP run in lead up to last month was 10 miles. I did a few of those and for some reason the best one was on the day after a 21 miler (in 2:38) when HR average was 152 and overall pace was 06:47/ mile. The other two were at 155 average.
I always try and use recent races to guage how my form is, how quick my pace could be and how long I can sustain a red zone HR level at.
5 weeks before before Berlin I ran the Longford half with last 4 miles at HR 170minimum and finished strong. It was a good PB for me also. I hoped going into the marathon I could maintain that HR and stretch it to 6 miles while slowing the pace slightly.

Yes the 7k especially were really, really tough. My quads were so heavy. (I didn’t run again till the following Fri and even on the Sat they were still somewhat sore).
I did contemplate stopping to stretch once or twice but knew if I did it would be particularly hard to get going again. Though I am fairly happy that my pace didn’t drastically slow up in those k’s.
Berlin was flat, Dublin isn’t. I would say it is up to 3 miins slower if weather conditions are favourable on the day.

When I attack a sub 3 in the future I would change the following

1. Slow up more in first half and hit half way in no quicker than 1:29
2. Take on more fluids. I did take on water at every station (every 2.5k) but God was I thirsty at the finish so that is telling me something .
3. Consume my third gel.
4. Increase my PMP training sessions from 10 - 12 miles.
5. Incorporate a few hill sessions into training.
6. Increase weekly milage from 55 to 60 miles


Best of luck

cfitz

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So another question. I know that you can get a good idea of you max HR by sprinting up and down hills but this close to Dublin I'm not sure I want to risk pulling something with such an extreme session. So how close to your max HR do you think you get during good speed sessions? As I mentioned I have seen 191 during speed drills and (although I've lost the data) I have had mid-high 190s come up in races. Based on that I have used 200 as a nice round number for calculations. Am i deluding myself?

Any race where you've pushed to the finish line to maintain your position or to catch someone you should have reached pretty much your max heart-rate. So if you you've worn your monitor in a recent race you could just check what your max was?

Racing Flat

Amadeus,

Most importantly, it's too late to be experimenting with a new pacing strategy now. I would definitely go along with Tunney - performance based startegy is best.

Firstly, HR tends to rise even before a race due to anticipation, nerves etc. Secondly, if we were to say 'Go at 80%MHR' and this was 160bpm, well you'd have to go quite fast at the start to hit 160bpm and then you'd get slower and slower to maintain this. Whereas if you start at 6.50 pace, you might be at 150bpm for the first 5miles, and then go up a few beats a minute every few miles as you get more tired so that you might end up close to 170bpm. So if you are gradually getting more and more tired throughout the race, which you should do if you are racing and you will do as it is a marathon, your HR will gradually climb throughout the race. Hence IMO you'd be much better off to go with a set pace in mind rather than heart rate.

I think you might be overestimating how high your HR will have to be during the race. Due to taper, I'd say your HR will not be too much higher than that of your long slow runs, particularly for the first half anyhow. Because you'll be well rested and full of energy, your marathon pace will feel not much harder than your long slow run pace. If you get up close to 90% and happen to go faster than your lactate threshold pace, you could be in trouble due to flooding your system with Hydrogen ions (lactic acid effect) but also because you use much more fuel at that pace than when below lactate threshold pace (and so you'll 'hit the wall' earlier). So err on the side of caution to make sure you don't go over lactate threshold pace.

In terms of what percentage you should go at, top athletes are very close to their lactate threshold heart rate when running the marathon, which is around 90% for most people. But most average runners can only maintain lactate threshold heart rate pace for an hour or so. So I'd imagine 80-85% would be about right for us. However, that would probably be based on starting at 70%, being at around 80% at half way and gradually going a little higher as the race goes on.

In any case, using any heart rate information without having proper tests done is fairly useless. Without these tests, HR's should only be used for monitoring purposes after runs I would think, rather than planning runs. I'd only use prescribed heart rate zones to guide my pace during a run if I had a proper test of HR max and more importantly heart rate at lactate threshold. Easy and long runs will then be 70-80% of HR max (for aerobic conditioning), interval (to improve VO2 max) sessions at >95% and tempo runs (to improve lactate threshold) at just a few bpm's lower than my heart rate at lactate threshold point.

Drives me mad when I'm running with someone and they say - 'What's your heart rate now? Mine is...' Completely irrelevant to compare.

--amadeus--

Good points by all, as always. I was looking for %'s and I think i've got what I wanted but you're all right, running by feel and for pace makes more sense than bring HR into it at such a late stage.

Taper madness, I'll blame that

RICHIE-RICH

Check out the link below for a very interesting, albeit long, article on defining HRs for marathon running.
The basics are :
Perform a HRmax test on yourself.
On the basis of this, do an amount of base training so that you can do 10 mile at a predetermined low limit. You then increase this limit by 5bpm and do the same routine.
The article gives the theory on HR usage, and what your max should be and why for a marathon.
Take time to read and digest .... http://www.tricoachjill.coach-site.com/page/page/4110957.htm

(start reading at the "PART1" bit.)

Racing Flat

RICHIE-RICH wrote: »

Check out the link below for a very interesting, albeit long, article on defining HRs for marathon running.
The basics are :
Perform a HRmax test on yourself.
On the basis of this, do an amount of base training so that you can do 10 mile at a predetermined low limit. You then increase this limit by 5bpm and do the same routine.
The article gives the theory on HR usage, and what your max should be and why for a marathon.
Take time to read and digest .... http://www.tricoachjill.coach-site.com/page/page/4110957.htm

(start reading at the "PART1" bit.)

I thought that was a great read. But did anyone else think that, they got a runner (Joe) who had previously ran 2.27 marathons twice (one in terrible conditions), who was only doing 20miles a week and was 20pounds overweight. They got him fairly quickly doing over 100miles a week and 20 weeks later he ran 71mins for a half marathon and the signs were that he was on for a marathon PB. They said this was down to only running at lower than lactate threshold pace, and doing no speed sessions etc. I kind of think that with a previously quality runner, get them doing 100miles a week (from an out of shape 20 miles a week) and they are going to improve substantially, no matter what they do. Maybe if he did a few speed sessions he'd have done better again?

BTW did it say how he did in the marathon - I didn't seem to see that part, but as it was a long read, maybe I just missed it?

OuterBombie

Howdy,

Second tunny's advice, forget about HR and concentrate on pace. Review your averages (HR, pace) after the race for comparison and interest.

You'll never have a breakthrough performance by being a slave to HR.

Ray.

"You don't have to feel good to do good "

Krusty_Clown

OuterBombie wrote: »

Second tunny's advice, forget about HR and concentrate on pace. Review your averages (HR, pace) after the race for comparison and interest. You'll never have a breakthrough performance by being a slave to HR.

Is it really good advice to entirely forget about your HR in a 26.2 mile race? I don't plan to be a slave to my HR, but if I'm on mile 9 and my HR is up around 170, I'll be backing off, even if it means losing pace. It is however only my second marathon, so my priorities may be different (1st=finish, 2nd=sub 3:30, 3rd=beat pb (3:25)). From mile 23 onwards, 170+ will be fine.

Racing Flat

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Is it really good advice to entirely forget about your HR in a 26.2 mile race? I don't plan to be a slave to my HR, but if I'm on mile 9 and my HR is up around 170, I'll be backing off, even if it means losing pace. It is however only my second marathon, so my priorities may be different (1st=finish, 2nd=sub 3:30, 3rd=beat pb (3:25)). From mile 23 onwards, 170+ will be fine.

In a way yes! I wear a HR monitor for training, but never for races. Rather than looking at your watch to see what your HR is at 9 miles I'd say listen to your body, if you are too uncomfortable, slow down, if you are okay, carry on as you are. Kind of like what you are saying, but base it on how you feel rather than on the HR. Because due to the excitement and nerves of the race 170 on the day might be equivalent to your usual 165. My 2 cents.

Plus isn't it true that HR monitoring is not allowed in Championship races? i.e. external feedback is seen as providing an unfair advantage and makes it a machine like process rather than bringing tactics into it.

Obviously goals are a personal thing, but if it is your 2nd marathon, surely finishing shouldn't be the no. 1 priority? If training has gone as planned and the course and conditions are much the same, surely a PB, i.e. sub 3.25 should be the no.1 goal?

Krusty_Clown

Racing Flat wrote: »

Obviously goals are a personal thing, but if it is your 2nd marathon, surely finishing shouldn't be the no. 1 priority? If training has gone as planned and the course and conditions are much the same, surely a PB, i.e. sub 3.25 should be the no.1 goal?

A few niggling injuries have cast an air of caution. I don't feel as good as I did pre-Longford, but yes, the goals are pretty much the same. My point is that I'd rather finish in 3:35, than not finish at all. Longford was the main goal for the last six months, with Dublin being the 'for the experience' race, with an optimistic small improvement of my time.

I had a disastrous 1/2 Marathon in Phoenix park, where I decided to push a little too hard. HR went over 170, refused to budge, and I struggled to the finish line. I've been faster than that outing in every subsequent training run, and my HR rarely moves above 150. I'm not letting this one bad race determine my strategy, just chalking it down to a cautionary self-warning.

OuterBombie

Howdy,

As racing_flat commented, your HR is only an variable on which you can base your performance. However unlike pace and PE (percieved excertion) your HR is based on personal response, excitment and anxiety will naturally have it raised on race-day.

Look at your HR on the start line versus say when you start a training run. For me, training run ~55bpm, Major race > 100bpm. Sh*te, I should back off before I even start the race!

If your goal pace is 7:20 min/miles, and you get to mile 9 running 7:05's, then back-off. If at 9 miles your HR is 10 beats above normal, but you are running solid 7:20's, what should you do? Slow down? your call.

Ray.

I'm a big believe in HR monitoring for training, just experience has taught me to ignore it on race day (unless its an Ironman, and even then i only monitored it for 2 hours on the bike!).

cfitz

Racing Flat wrote: »

Plus isn't it true that HR monitoring is not allowed in Championship races? i.e. external feedback is seen as providing an unfair advantage and makes it a machine like process rather than bringing tactics into it.

I never heard that before, that's interesting. Might go have a look for some info. If anyone has a link to anything relevant could they post it up please?

Racing Flat

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

A few niggling injuries have cast an air of caution. I don't feel as good as I did pre-Longford, but yes, the goals are pretty much the same. My point is that I'd rather finish in 3:35, than not finish at all. Longford was the main goal for the last six months, with Dublin being the 'for the experience' race, with an optimistic small improvement of my time.

Ah, that makes sense, if doing 2 marathons close together, the goal of the first one is a PB, the second one is just to finish. If you do well on the sceond one, that's just a bonus. Good decision.

cfitz wrote: »

I never heard that before, that's interesting. Might go have a look for some info. If anyone has a link to anything relevant could they post it up please?

Can't remember where I read this, but I think when HR monitoring came out first it wouldn't have been as easily available to everyone. So those who had access to the labs that could provide HR monitoring might have had an advantage, via the quantitative, biological feedback. Perhaps it has changed now, but you certainly see loads of people with them on in races. I suppose there's nothing to stop you checking your own pulse anyway. Interestingly, the coach in the link above mentioned that he had his athletes wear HR monitors in marathons but added quickly 'but only for my purposes afterwards, not for their use during the race'.

I certainly feel that if I wore a HR monitor in a race and the fellow I was racing against didn't have one I'd be at a bit of an advantage as I'd be less likely to go out too fast, so I feel like that's cheating a bit so I don't wear one. But also, because trying to get the pace right etc. is all part of the race - it's about the head as well as the body. If you just wanted to run a marathon by staying at x bpm, why enter a marathon race? You could just go to the park and keep going at x bpm for 26.2miles...

Krusty_Clown

OuterBombie wrote: »

Howdy,

As racing_flat commented, your HR is only an variable on which you can base your performance. However unlike pace and PE (percieved excertion) your HR is based on personal response, excitment and anxiety will naturally have it raised on race-day.

Look at your HR on the start line versus say when you start a training run. For me, training run ~55bpm, Major race > 100bpm. Sh*te, I should back off before I even start the race!

If your goal pace is 7:20 min/miles, and you get to mile 9 running 7:05's, then back-off. If at 9 miles your HR is 10 beats above normal, but you are running solid 7:20's, what should you do? Slow down? your call.

Ray.

I'm a big believe in HR monitoring for training, just experience has taught me to ignore it on race day (unless its an Ironman, and even then i only monitored it for 2 hours on the bike!).

That all makes sense. As I said, HR is just one of the triggers I will use to determine my......(exertion/current form/work rate?!).. I think, that with more experience, it will be unnecessary, as I will become more in tune with my performance and feedback, but for the time being, I find the 'tools' useful to reign myself in, otherwise I'd be full sprint at that 9 mile marker.

Krusty_Clown

RacingFlat wrote:

I certainly feel that if I wore a HR monitor in a race and the fellow I was racing against didn't have one I'd be at a bit of an advantage as I'd be less likely to go out too fast, so I feel like that's cheating a bit so I don't wear one.

Devil's advocate - Isn't that also true of a stop-watch?

Racing Flat

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Devil's advocate - Isn't that also true of a stop-watch?

Yes! Well sort of. HR is a biological/physiological thing so different for everyone, but the time will be the same for everyone - so everyone can get the exact same feedback about time...probably not explaining that very well, but in some ways I agree that time is also an 'external feedback' but HR is moreso.