Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
3:30 or bust!
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
DukeOfDromada wrote: »Out of interest (are we sad or what!), what are your HR training zones?
Aptly enough 150bpm is my Marathon Pace...but I only really zoned in on this after the races! :rolleyes:
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Krusty_Clown wrote: »Hi Larry (and sorry Belcarra) I'm surprised that this article does not mention heart rate drift in any form at all, e.g. a HR graph trending upwards. Before I go digging into the thread you linked, is there a reason this isn't mentioned?
Krusty,
Hadd spoke a lot about cardiac drift, in relation to heat dispersal IIRC. But how he used this (I think!) was that say your predicted marathon HR was 175 (max HR (195) - 20* beats) then the pace you run in training @ 170 bpm would be a very accurate predictor of your marathon pace. So we tend to think 'if marathon HR is 175 and I can run 6:50 pace at 175bpm in training I'll run 6:50 pace in the marathon'. Then we head off at 6:50 pace and run out of steam. According to Hadd it is the pace we hit in training at 170bpm (in this example) that is the pace we should be going out at, to take into account the extra 5bpm the heart will have to work at purely to disperse of heat that will be a problem in a long race like a marathon, but not shorter races.
Still, I don't understand how running at a pace that equals 170bpm in training (which presumably would be a HR of 170 or maybe even less due to taper?), to end up with an average marathon HR of 175 (due to cardiac drift) would not result in a graph rising slowly from 170 to 178 or so. Perhaps it's simply that a graph rising from 170-178 over 26m is such a slow rise that it is more or less flat. Whereas if you started at a pace that equals training pace of 175 it would be too fast due to the heat dispersal factor and so HR would rise a lot more, like go from 175-190 resulting in a noticeably rising graph (before dropping massively when glycogen is used up) . As a matter of interest I wonder do Meno and belcarra know how much there average HR rose by from mile 3 to mile 25 say?
* 15-20 bpm less than HR max should be trainable, varies depending on individual, but if in doubt might be safer to aim for the 20 initially!
So while he talked about (and acknowledged and respected) cardiac drift he still did not expect HR to rise during an ideal marathon race (except for maybe sprint finish). So sorry, I don't understand it fully, but it seems like a flat graph is ideal in Hadd's opinion.Krusty_Clown wrote: »Is this sub-optimal, because it indicates you are starting too easy, and working your way towards greater efficiency?
I think it is suboptimal, not because you are starting too easy, but because you are staring too 'hard' (not in terms of pace but in terms of glycogen use at that pace, albeit a relatively easy pace)! Or in better words, not running economically enough at the start. Using too much glycogen as a ratio to fat in the fuel mix. The more glycogen that's used the more oxygen is needed to deal with it in the mitochondria, so HR rises to supply the extra oxygen. So if you are using too much glycogen at the start (even at a very comfortable pace, it's not that you're going too 'fast' just that for the pace you are going you are using too much glycogen as a result of your muscle fibre type and/or the way you have been training) HR will gradually rise more and more as you go on. So a HR rising is not a great sign (for marathon).
Now like you said, if you do start too slow, then it will rise if you increase the effort. That's probably why Hadd would give them a 5bpm zone - don't let it go below a certain rate or above a certain rate (after the first 5k). Not to go below to make sure you're not going easy on yourself like you alluded to and not to go above to make sure you don't go anaerobic and use up your glycogen 32 to 460 times faster than you would if using glycogen aerobically or fat as the fuel source respectively. This would obviously be catastrophic considering the glycogen is in limited supply. You have this down-pat in any case, that is your strength, running very economically, using glycogen sparingly and a great glycogen:fat fuel mix. An aerobic monster; my weakness
The thing I find hard to believe about hadd ( I agree a little with belcarra here) is the high Av HR he expects me to run a marathon at. My max is around 185 and my 'good' marathons had av HRs of 153 and 154. Hadd would see me going at an av HR of around 165 but any time I have ran with a HR over 160 in a marathon I have blown up spectacularly (DCM 2009 and Berlin 2011).
I'd be interested on your views on this.
Hadd explained (in the quote I pasted) that a well trained person could race a marathon at 15-20bpm lower than max HR, or at 89-90%. BUT that not as well trained runners would be at a lower %. Not because they are not elite, but because they are not well trained. (Now the elite are probably elite because they are well trained, but you hopefully see the point I'm trying to make). By well trained it means being an aerobic monster. Not dropping race pace by more than 16s a mile for every double in race distance (if your 10k is 6:00 pace, your HM is 6:16, your Marathon pace is 6:32 - as an aerobically weak runner I think I'm 5:42, 6:07, 6:38; I'd wager aerobically well conditioned runners like Krusty and abhainn would have a much tighter relationship). My 'strength' (it's all relative, not blowing a horn!) is probably my lactate tolerance, while my weakness is my aerobic threshold. So I'm currently working on this weakness. Mcmillan talks about a sweet spot, runners who have a sweet spot at aerobic threshold (and so will be best at marathon) and others who have a sweet spot at lactate threshold or somewhere else and so will be better at other races. Probably has a lot to do with whether you're fast twitch or slow twitch type (I'm fast twitch). Hadd even said that you'd wonder why a fast twitcher would even try to improve as a marathoner....Certainly well worth reading the whole Hadd/Cabraal thread as it explicitly states how training should differ (particularly speed training) depending on whether you are slow or fast twitch. A key difference which I think is largely overlooked as we all jump in and try and do the same sessions.
So as to my views on it - I think most people are nowhere near 89-90% max HR for a marathon and it actually does seem close to impossible when you look at the figures, but with the right training practically everyone should get there or very close. I look forward to finding out how close I can get in a few months.Interesting debate indeed and it'll be very good to hear more feedback.
I'd be agreeing with Meno there about blowing up at a HR below what Hadd recommends but he did say that it was more geared towards elite aerobically well trained athletes rather than muckers like me!!
Addressed in response to Meno above hopefully.
Why, i.e. based on what? Max HR, or previous marathon HR? Not disputing or disagreeing, just curious.I intend to approach Cork from a target HR of approx 148-150bpm in a bid for sub 3:30.
I think the key is to get more economical at current or target HR which will in turn allow you to race at a higher HR (and therefore faster pace). By more economical I mean using more fat, using less glycogen, and using the glycogen that you do use more aerobically and less anaerobically for the same pace. And so you will be able to maintain that pace for a lot longer. Then gradually you'll be able to increase the pace at which you are running economically. Best of luck with it.I will hope to increase my target HR for the next marathon and approach (but hopefully not exceed) the optimal HR level.
This could take a while...!!
/end hijack
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Some very in-depth feedback there LB, KC & Meno – Thanks & keep it coming, don’t worry about any thread hijacking!
In my case max HR (178) - 20beats = 158bpm. This is about 10bpm higher than what I believe to be my current Marathon pace (~148bpm according to NYC data, but optimal could be slightly (~2bpm) higher).Larry Brent wrote: »Krusty,
Hadd spoke a lot about cardiac drift, in relation to heat dispersal IIRC. But how he used this (I think!) was that say your predicted marathon HR was 175 (max HR (195) - 20* beats) then the pace you run in training @ 170 bpm would be a very accurate predictor of your marathon pace.
Is heat dispersal really a valid argument in the case of cooler races? I would assume most Irish marathons would fall into the cooler end of the scale and therefore the 5bpm allocation would be unnecessary?Larry Brent wrote: »So we tend to think 'if marathon HR is 175 and I can run 6:50 pace at 175bpm in training I'll run 6:50 pace in the marathon'. Then we head off at 6:50 pace and run out of steam. According to Hadd it is the pace we hit in training at 170bpm (in this example) that is the pace we should be going out at, to take into account the extra 5bpm the heart will have to work at purely to disperse of heat that will be a problem in a long race like a marathon, but not shorter races.
See graph @ top. Approx 10bpm rise in NYC (Part of which would have to do with the field stringing out and therefore less congestion allowed me to go a little faster, hence raising the HR). Philly was a different story though!!Larry Brent wrote: »Still, I don't understand how running at a pace that equals 170bpm in training (which presumably would be a HR of 170 or maybe even less due to taper?), to end up with an average marathon HR of 175 (due to cardiac drift) would not result in a graph rising slowly from 170 to 178 or so. Perhaps it's simply that a graph rising from 170-178 over 26m is such a slow rise that it is more or less flat. Whereas if you started at a pace that equals training pace of 175 it would be too fast due to the heat dispersal factor and so HR would rise a lot more, like go from 175-190 resulting in a noticeably rising graph (before dropping massively when glycogen is used up) . As a matter of interest I wonder do Meno and belcarra know how much there average HR rose by from mile 3 to mile 25 say?Larry Brent wrote: »* 15-20 bpm less than HR max should be trainable, varies depending on individual, but if in doubt might be safer to aim for the 20 initially!
So while he talked about (and acknowledged and respected) cardiac drift he still did not expect HR to rise during an ideal marathon race (except for maybe sprint finish). So sorry, I don't understand it fully, but it seems like a flat graph is ideal in Hadd's opinion.
I think it is suboptimal, not because you are starting too easy, but because you are staring too 'hard' (not in terms of pace but in terms of glycogen use at that pace, albeit a relatively easy pace)! Or in better words, not running economically enough at the start. Using too much glycogen as a ratio to fat in the fuel mix. The more glycogen that's used the more oxygen is needed to deal with it in the mitochondria, so HR rises to supply the extra oxygen. So if you are using too much glycogen at the start (even at a very comfortable pace, it's not that you're going too 'fast' just that for the pace you are going you are using too much glycogen as a result of your muscle fibre type and/or the way you have been training) HR will gradually rise more and more as you go on. So a HR rising is not a great sign (for marathon).
Now like you said, if you do start too slow, then it will rise if you increase the effort. That's probably why Hadd would give them a 5bpm zone - don't let it go below a certain rate or above a certain rate (after the first 5k). Not to go below to make sure you're not going easy on yourself like you alluded to and not to go above to make sure you don't go anaerobic and use up your glycogen 32 to 460 times faster than you would if using glycogen aerobically or fat as the fuel source respectively. This would obviously be catastrophic considering the glycogen is in limited supply. You have this down-pat in any case, that is your strength, running very economically, using glycogen sparingly and a great glycogen:fat fuel mix. An aerobic monster; my weakness
Hadd explained (in the quote I pasted) that a well trained person could race a marathon at 15-20bpm lower than max HR, or at 89-90%. BUT that not as well trained runners would be at a lower %. Not because they are not elite, but because they are not well trained. (Now the elite are probably elite because they are well trained, but you hopefully see the point I'm trying to make). By well trained it means being an aerobic monster. Not dropping race pace by more than 16s a mile for every double in race distance (if your 10k is 6:00 pace, your HM is 6:16, your Marathon pace is 6:32 - as an aerobically weak runner I think I'm 5:42, 6:07, 6:38; I'd wager aerobically well conditioned runners like Krusty and abhainn would have a much tighter relationship). My 'strength' (it's all relative, not blowing a horn!) is probably my lactate tolerance, while my weakness is my aerobic threshold. So I'm currently working on this weakness. Mcmillan talks about a sweet spot, runners who have a sweet spot at aerobic threshold (and so will be best at marathon) and others who have a sweet spot at lactate threshold or somewhere else and so will be better at other races. Probably has a lot to do with whether you're fast twitch or slow twitch type (I'm fast twitch). Hadd even said that you'd wonder why a fast twitcher would even try to improve as a marathoner....Certainly well worth reading the whole Hadd/Cabraal thread as it explicitly states how training should differ (particularly speed training) depending on whether you are slow or fast twitch. A key difference which I think is largely overlooked as we all jump in and try and do the same sessions.
So as to my views on it - I think most people are nowhere near 89-90% max HR for a marathon and it actually does seem close to impossible when you look at the figures, but with the right training practically everyone should get there or very close. I look forward to finding out how close I can get in a few months.
Addressed in response to Meno above hopefully.
Why, i.e. based on what? Max HR, or previous marathon HR? Not disputing or disagreeing, just curious.
Based on my graph for NYC. The earlier parts of the race were so packed with congestion that I wasn’t allowed go at a higher HR. Once the field was strung out there was more freedom to go a little faster, hence towards 150bpm. This was an upwards graph, without a tail-off at the closing stages. Therefore, I intend to aim for a flat graph of approx 148-150bpm for Cork where congestion shouldn’t be nearly as much of a problem (Maybe a few bpm lower for the opening 5km). I feel that this would allow me a pace of 8:00/mile, or so, without the tail-off or blow-up I have seen happen in my earlier marathons. Also, my base level mileage is significantly higher this time around so again I would hope to sustain the pace somewhat better.
Larry Brent wrote: »I think the key is to get more economical at current or target HR which will in turn allow you to race at a higher HR (and therefore faster pace). By more economical I mean using more fat, using less glycogen, and using the glycogen that you do use more aerobically and less anaerobically for the same pace. And so you will be able to maintain that pace for a lot longer. Then gradually you'll be able to increase the pace at which you are running economically.
I think I am doing that currently (50km race this weekend and Connemara Ultra to come on April 1st so nearly all aerobic mileage with longer distances, etc. I will change to much more speedwork once April comes.) If there is something I have overlooked please let me know.
Larry Brent wrote: »Best of luck with it.
/end hijack0
Advertisement