HRM Training Programmes

PGL

Hi folks

Picked myself up a garmin 405cx and HRM, and now want to put them to good use. Up to now my running has purely been focused on time, distance and pace. I now want to have a go at switching attention to my heart rate. I have calculated my max HR, and from trawling through the net am aware of the various heart rate zones based on a % of my max HR:

Zone 1: below 70% of max HR - This is where the "bulk of all training" should be.
Zone 2 - between 70 and 80% - to be avoided
Zone 3 - between 80 and 87.5% - sub marathon pace
Zone 4 - between 87.5 and 90% - marathon to half marathon pace
Zone 5 - between 90 and 95% - 5 to 10k pace

What I'm in search of (and have failed to find from numerous google searches) is recommended heart rate training programmes for target distances and finish times, or in other words a recommended combination of the HRM Zones. Eg for a 10k race where I want to break 45 mins, what combination of HRM Zones would get me through without hitting the preverbial wall? I assume that you should use a combination of zones, as opposed to just launching straight for Zone 5 in the case of a 5-10k run?

cheers folks

lgk

The Garmin training plans might be a good start, you can download PDF plans or TCX files you can upload to your device to guide you through each session.

CashMoney

PGL wrote: »

Hi folks

Picked myself up a garmin 405cx and HRM, and now want to put them to good use. Up to now my running has purely been focused on time, distance and pace. I now want to have a go at switching attention to my heart rate. I have calculated my max HR, and from trawling through the net am aware of the various heart rate zones based on a % of my max HR:

Zone 1: below 70% of max HR - This is where the "bulk of all training" should be.
Zone 2 - between 70 and 80% - to be avoided
Zone 3 - between 80 and 87.5% - sub marathon pace
Zone 4 - between 87.5 and 90% - marathon to half marathon pace
Zone 5 - between 90 and 95% - 5 to 10k pace

Where did you get this info? 70-80% is your 'aerobic zone' and would probably account for most of your training. Why do you list it to be avoided?

It is unlikely you would be doing much at less than 70% other than very very easy recovery runs.

PGL

CashMoney wrote: »

Where did you get this info? 70-80% is your 'aerobic zone' and would probably account for most of your training. Why do you list it to be avoided?

It is unlikely you would be doing much at less than 70% other than very very easy recovery runs.

See previous thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72288900) where I found this link: (http://www.marathon-training-schedule.com/heart-rate-training.html)

PaulieYifter

A lot of my running is done in the 70%-80% range.

I follow the "Bible" - Advanced Marathoning by P&D - and my runs fall into the following categories. I still train by pace but keep an eye on the HR and it pretty much operates in the zones below.

% Max % Reserve
VO2 Max (5k) Pace 93-95 91-94
Lactate Threshold (10k-Half Marathon Pace) 82-91 77-88
Marathon Pace 79-88 73-84
Long Run (Easy Pace) 74-84 65-78
Recovery <76 <70


Does your question relate to training or zones during a race? Presumably for a race you'll be targeting a time based on your training rather than what your HR says during the race? For a 10k race I'd expect my HR to gradually climb from 80% of max in the 1st km to almost 100% at the finish but my pace would be reasonably consistent throughout.

TheRunningDude

PGL wrote: »

See previous thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72288900) where I found this link: (http://www.marathon-training-schedule.com/heart-rate-training.html)

I don't think that source is the most authorititave piece ever written on the subject, to say the least.

He basically disregards the 70%-80% zone because it falls between really slow and fast and so is simply regarded as 'junk miles'...:rolleyes:

menoscemo

TheRunningDude wrote: »

I don't think that source is the most authorititave piece ever written on the subject, to say the least.

He basically disregards the 70%-80% zone because it falls between really slow and fast and so is simply regarded as 'junk miles'...:rolleyes:

+1 70-80% is where most of the people will do the majority of their training.
As for training at mostly<70%- unless you are superfast you would be walking most of your miles.

OP to answer your question- you use the zones the same way for 10k training as you would for marathon training (i.e. the majority of your runs should be 70-80% despite what your link says ) there'd little more emphasis on the VO2 max workouts.

Clearlier

PaulieYifter wrote: »

Does your question relate to training or zones during a race? Presumably for a race you'll be targeting a time based on your training rather than what your HR says during the race? For a 10k race I'd expect my HR to gradually climb from 80% of max in the 1st km to almost 100% at the finish but my pace would be reasonably consistent throughout.

I ran my first marathon based on heart rate. I did have progressive targets though - so 155 to halfway, 160 to 20 miles and whatever I had to the end. Wouldn't do it for a 10k although I might have a peak to make sure that I'm not coasting.

menoscemo wrote: »

+1 70-80% is where most of the people will do the majority of their training.
As for training at mostly<70%- unless you are superfast you would be walking most of your miles.

Just to note that my recovery runs would fall into the <70% and I would consider myself far from superfast (best HM time is 87mins).

PGL - There's a fundamental problem with using a heart rate training program to target a specific time. They simply don't match up.

Theoretically, training by heart rate will enable you to train optimally and give you your best time whereas training by pace will enable you to run a specific time provided that it's not in excess of your abilities. That's pretty simplistic though. I think that they're both valid training methods although pace is a more common method. I'll outline some of the challenges I encountered with training by heart rate below.

I used the P&D table PaulieYifter quotes above when training for my first marathon. I did look at pace but only out of interest - it was heart rate that I followed. The biggest difficulty I found was that I would get a fitness boost after about 6 weeks and suddenly be able to run the same pace for a lot less heart rate effort but struggle to run at the heart rate effort I was looking for. I put this down to a lack of speedwork and so started throwing in an interval session or two at this stage which helped a bit. It would be wrong though to say that I could run at a faster speed, I could run at the same speed with less effort. I still had to work hard in order to be able to run faster. I'm still trying to work out the best mix for me.

menoscemo

Clearlier wrote: »

Just to note that my recovery runs would fall into the <70% and I would consider myself far from superfast (best HM time is 87mins).

I agree that recovery runs can fall into <70% (most of mine do too). The OP specifically mentioned training for a 45min 10k.
As far as i am aware 70-75% is also fine for recovery pace.

What I am disputing is a statement that the 'bulk' of training should be done at <70%. I think we agree that is not the case?

Clearlier

menoscemo wrote: »

I agree that recovery runs can fall into <70% (most of mine do too). The OP specifically mentioned training for a 45min 10k.
As far as i am aware 70-75% is also fine for recovery pace.

What I am disputing is a statement that the 'bulk' of training should be done at <70%. I think we agree that is not the case?

Completely, perhaps I was being a little paedantic as I think I was just trying to say that <70% doesn't have to be walking. Suspect it may have come across the wrong way too so apologies if it felt like I was picking on you.

Actually though I think that there is a lot of value in getting your 'easy' runs in at as high a level as possible. I'm thinking of what Lydiard said about the base phase - if you were to translate his efforts into % of MHR I'd imagine that even the 1/4th effort would be not too far off 80% - be interesting to know what Raighne thinks.

PGL

Thanks for all the feedback guys. As I have learned, there is too much conflicting information circulating the net about HR training! And as you guys have pointed out there is no clear correlation between heart rate and time.

On average I have been running 5k 3 times a week (pace 4:25min/km). I have only done 6 official races, with the longest being 11.5km (pace 4:40min/km). My aim is to do a couple of half marathons later this year.

Hence I would like to find a programme that will guide me to increase the mileage as efficiently as possible - correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that a programme focussed on heart rate is the best way to improve your running performance?

cheers

TheRunningDude

PGL wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback guys. As I have learned, there is too much conflicting information circulating the net about HR training! And as you guys have pointed out there is no clear correlation between heart rate and time.

On average I have been running 5k 3 times a week (pace 4:25min/km). I have only done 6 official races, with the longest being 11.5km (pace 4:40min/km). My aim is to do a couple of half marathons later this year.

Hence I would like to find a programme that will guide me to increase the mileage as efficiently as possible - correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that a programme focussed on heart rate is the best way to improve your running performance?

cheers

Would it be fair to say that you are going fairly flat out for your 5k runs? Certainly at threshold speed by the looks of it. This kind of speed work should only be incorporated into an overall training plan that includes mostly easy runs to allow you to increase mileage safely. A mistake a lot of runners make starting out, myself included, is to think you are not gaining anything if you are not running as fast as possible.

I recommend you buy a good book such as Jack Daniels running formula or The lore of running. A lot of good reading in them.

These books would probably recommend a base training period for the next couple of months which basically means a gradual increase of mileage with no speed work. Then a couple of months before your race period, you'll start incorporating speed work. You're basically in roughly the same state as me fitness and goals wise, and I ain't no expert, but I have read the books!

PGL

TheRunningDude wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that you are going fairly flat out for your 5k runs? Certainly at threshold speed by the looks of it.!

You're spot on Running Dude - yes, up to now everytime I go out running, I'm looking to either maintain a high pace, or try to get faster - I totally appreciate that this is not sustainable, which is why I'm looking for a new direction and some guidance.

TheRunningDude wrote: »

This kind of speed work should only be incorporated into an overall training plan that includes mostly easy runs to allow you to increase mileage safely. !

This is exactly what I need. Stopping short of reading the books you have recommended, or contacting some sort of running coach to get a tailor made training plan (at a considerable cost I would imagine), are there any other good online resources which could point me in the right direction?

RunningDude - does your running focus on heart rate, or time/pace?

menoscemo

How many times a week do you run PGL?
A standard programme* will involve some intervals (e.g. 12 x400m or 6 x 800m @ mile- 5k pace) a Steady/tempo Run and a Long Run (at an easy pace). The rest of the runs in between should be very easy i.e. 1-2 minutes per mile slower than your Half Marathon pace.

The Steady/tempo run could involve 4-6 miles straight @ Half Marathon pace or maybe 2x2 miles at 10-15k pace (with a few minutes rest or jog between reps).

To get an idea of paces you should do each type of run at and what time you could expect over the different distances; plug a recent time into the Mcmillan Running calculator

* I say a standard programme but that would be for a more advanced athelte. You would probably benefit most from upping your mileage to around 30-40 mpw initially by doing easy runs and only including either a tempo or an interval run each week to start with. As you build up the miles you can start to add in a second 'session' each week.

TheRunningDude

PGL wrote: »

RunningDude - does your running focus on heart rate, or time/pace?

Currently, heart rate. Like you, I'm trying to increase my mileage and find the best way to control the intensity and avoid my natural tendency to try to run faster is to control my heart rate rigidly.

To kind of answer your original question, I find that when I am controlling my heart rate in zones, I generally find that the pace is reasonably close to the paces called out in the VDOT tables i.e. easy/long pace for my VDOT is 5:40/km and this is roughly where I will hit on a normal day with zone 3 which is the 'Aerobic' zone and is used for easy/long runs.

I don't actually look at paces while I'm running but that's where they usually fall when I look back at my 'laps'. This pace varies for other reasons such as overtraining, eating before running, weather etc which is why I don't focus on pace, rather on intensity (heart rate).

PGL

TheRunningDude wrote: »

I generally find that the pace is reasonably close to the paces called out in the VDOT tables

are you referring to the table in PaulieYifter's post or something else?

PGL

menoscemo wrote: »

How many times a week do you run PGL?
A standard programme* will involve some intervals (e.g. 12 x400m or 6 x 800m @ mile- 5k pace) a Steady/tempo Run and a Long Run (at an easy pace). The rest of the runs in between should be very easy i.e. 1-2 minutes per mile slower than your Half Marathon pace.

The Steady/tempo run could involve 4-6 miles straight @ Half Marathon pace or maybe 2x2 miles at 10-15k pace (with a few minutes rest or jog between reps).

To get an idea of paces you should do each type of run at and what time you could expect over the different distances; plug a recent time into the Mcmillan Running calculator

* I say a standard programme but that would be for a more advanced athelte. You would probably benefit most from upping your mileage to around 30-40 mpw initially by doing easy runs and only including either a tempo or an interval run each week to start with. As you build up the miles you can start to add in a second 'session' each week.

I run 3-4 times a week. I am aware of the McMillan calculator, however as it only focusses on time and pace, I am trying to look elsewhere for guidance on heart rate training.

Unless anyone else can recommend a website detailing heart rate training programmes for say a half marathon, I'll have to buy the books recommended by RunningDude

TheRunningDude

PGL wrote: »

are you referring to the table in PaulieYifter's post or something else?

No, VDOT is a system developed by Jack Daniels that gives you a rating based on your best time in a recent race.

Check out http://www.coacheseducation.com/endur/jack-daniels-nov-00.htm

Table 1 will give you your VDOT which is somewhere in 40's and table 2 will indicate what your pacing will be like at a particular training intensity.

TheRunningDude

PGL wrote: »

Unless anyone else can recommend a website detailing heart rate training programmes for say a half marathon, I'll have to buy the books recommended by RunningDude

I'd recommend both books but I don't believe either specifically details a heart rate training program for any distance. Rather they may say (these actual figures are completely made up and are used for illustration only!)

Day1: 5 miles easy pace
Day2: 4 miles recovery pace
Day3: 2 miles threshold pace
Day4: 5x400m intervals

Now I know what heart zones each of these belongs to Day1 - HZ3, Day2 - HZ2, Day3 - HZ4, Day4 - HZ5. This allows me to ensure that my intensity is where I want it to be. Without a heart rate monitor, I would likely be running threshold when I should be running easy.

This is similar to the types of zone table you will find in the books (and everywhere else). Establish your maximum heart rate first then reference the table. I'm pretty sure you can input your maximum heart rate into your Garmin and the zones are set up for you automatically. Accurately establishing your maximum heart rate is another conversation altogether!

Clearlier

PGL - Read this. It's about what's called Hadd training. It's heavily focused on heart rate and on building an aerobic base.

ecoli

Clearlier wrote: »

PGL - Read this. It's about what's called Hadd training. It's heavily focused on heart rate and on building an aerobic base.

+1 on this. Have never been one for HR training usually but alot of what was said in this made sense and I think its an interesting approach especially for someone who is only developing their aerobic base. The pdf is only one half to his training and doesnt go into his idea's on speedwork however I say for where you are its perfect to see major improvements

hot to trot

"Heart monitor training for the compleat idiot" by Parker
is also an informative quick read and will help you with yoru training. There are a number of case histories featured with training plans.

People tend to concentrate on the 70% issue but do not forget the 85%( working HR).which is the other area to train in . If you dont do the easy ones easy enough you dont push hard enough for the 85% workouts and if you trust this for a while and really give it a go , it will also bring your speed and pace up.

Raighne

Clearlier wrote: »

Completely, perhaps I was being a little paedantic as I think I was just trying to say that <70% doesn't have to be walking. Suspect it may have come across the wrong way too so apologies if it felt like I was picking on you.

Actually though I think that there is a lot of value in getting your 'easy' runs in at as high a level as possible. I'm thinking of what Lydiard said about the base phase - if you were to translate his efforts into % of MHR I'd imagine that even the 1/4th effort would be not too far off 80% - be interesting to know what Raighne thinks.

We use primarily a range of paces and durations coupled to "Rate of Perceived Effort" guidelines (which is really a guide to "running by feel") and then also provide heart rate ranges for each workout for those runners who wish to calibrate against it.

Personally, I have trained both with and without it and found heart rates particularly useful when I began running or to "hold back" those runners who just don't understand the concept of "controlled". Our track coach taught me the value of knowing every pace and every intensity instinctively but it takes time to build this experience and create a frame of reference for instructions such as "5k pace" or "90-sec 400s". Until athletes have that experience, the heart rate is a very useful support tool. Of course, many elite athletes have tied themselves strictly to heart rates (such as Mark Allen using the Maffetone method) simply to keep themselves from "straining" and rather "training" to borrow the old adage.

As an example, this would be a modern style Lydiard program guideline without the heart rates. This is an aerobic phase for a female runner of just about sub 3-hour marathon fitness preparing for a mixed road running season (3k-10k) and able to train 7 days per week who can run comfortably for 2 hours:

Week 1 - AEROBIC
Sun: Long aerobic run (14.5 mi/2 hrs/8:08 min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Mon: Jog (4.5 mi/40 min/8:45 min/mi) RPE: 1-3 (110-129)
Tue: Aerobic run (11 mi/90 min/8:01 min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Wed: Strides (6x100m @ 20 sec, 15 min warmup and cooldown) RPE: 2-6 (120-156)
Thu: Aerobic run (12.6 mi/100 min/8:01 min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Fri: Aerobic run (6.5 mi/51 min/7:51min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Sat: Out and back (6.9 mi/53 min/7:37 min/mi) RPE: 4-7 (HR: 137-160)

The above looks very dogmatic but what it doesn't show is that a range is assigned for all variables (pace, distance and time) so the runner has to be educated in making the right decisions every day. Run the long aerobic a bit too hard, for instance, and the Tuesday run may have to be both shorter and slower. Here using both the RPE and HR can help. Resting heart rate is a useful indicator as if it is elevated you are almost certainly not fully recovered and want to stay lower on either the RPE or HR scale whereas you can make the opposite decision if feeling strong and fresh.

Anecdotally, I have had some of my best results training strictly by heart rates but this was as a beginner where most structured training results in an improvement and where I had no other frame of reference for guiding the right intensity. Shifting between the forms is often necessary as running by feel and heart rate early on can help you from progressing too quickly. At a later stage in the training when you introduce time trials, tune-up races and interval sessions specific to your racing (such as high-end glycolytic middle-distance session like 3x300m @ 800m race pace), training needs to be more focused around specific paces and durations so you don't, for instance, go out trying to run sub-2min for 800m without having a reasonable amount of experience of how 59-61 second laps feel.

Clearlier

Raighne wrote: »

We use primarily a range of paces and durations coupled to "Rate of Perceived Effort" guidelines (which is really a guide to "running by feel") and then also provide heart rate ranges for each workout for those runners who wish to calibrate against it.

As an example, this would be a modern style Lydiard program guideline without the heart rates. This is an aerobic phase for a female runner of just about sub 3-hour marathon fitness preparing for a mixed road running season (3k-10k) and able to train 7 days per week who can run comfortably for 2 hours:

Week 1 - AEROBIC
Sun: Long aerobic run (14.5 mi/2 hrs/8:08 min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Mon: Jog (4.5 mi/40 min/8:45 min/mi) RPE: 1-3 (110-129)
Tue: Aerobic run (11 mi/90 min/8:01 min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Wed: Strides (6x100m @ 20 sec, 15 min warmup and cooldown) RPE: 2-6 (120-156)
Thu: Aerobic run (12.6 mi/100 min/8:01 min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Fri: Aerobic run (6.5 mi/51 min/7:51min/mi) RPE: 3-5 (129-148)
Sat: Out and back (6.9 mi/53 min/7:37 min/mi) RPE: 4-7 (HR: 137-160)

The above looks very dogmatic but what it doesn't show is that a range is assigned for all variables (pace, distance and time) so the runner has to be educated in making the right decisions every day. Run the long aerobic a bit too hard, for instance, and the Tuesday run may have to be both shorter and slower. Here using both the RPE and HR can help. Resting heart rate is a useful indicator as if it is elevated you are almost certainly not fully recovered and want to stay lower on either the RPE or HR scale whereas you can make the opposite decision if feeling strong and fresh.

Hi Raighne,

Thanks for replying. That schedule does look somewhat similar to the Lydiard presentation that I think Nobby put together and is widely available. You don't happen to know what max heart rate those ranges referred to do you (obviously without that knowledge the numbers are relatively meaningless)?

Would it be accurate to say that although there is a fairly wide band of effort levels/heart rate the athlete should plan to maintain the same intensity throughout the run, i.e. not having heart rate fluctuating between the two limits but remaining relatively steady or in effort terms not switching between say levels 3 and 5?

I remember reading that Lydiard said something along the lines of jogging is for the morning but that you run during his base schedule and also that you could get aerobically fit just jogging all the time but it would take an awful lot longer. I'm trying to get a feeling for what his paces would look like on a heart rate monitor. I know that it's a difficult question to answer but I think I'd find it help interpret Lydiard for me as for the moment heart rate is a good reference point for me.

Raighne

Clearlier wrote: »

Hi Raighne,

Thanks for replying. That schedule does look somewhat similar to the Lydiard presentation that I think Nobby put together and is widely available. You don't happen to know what max heart rate those ranges referred to do you (obviously without that knowledge the numbers are relatively meaningless)?

Would it be accurate to say that although there is a fairly wide band of effort levels/heart rate the athlete should plan to maintain the same intensity throughout the run, i.e. not having heart rate fluctuating between the two limits but remaining relatively steady or in effort terms not switching between say levels 3 and 5?

I remember reading that Lydiard said something along the lines of jogging is for the morning but that you run during his base schedule and also that you could get aerobically fit just jogging all the time but it would take an awful lot longer. I'm trying to get a feeling for what his paces would look like on a heart rate monitor. I know that it's a difficult question to answer but I think I'd find it help interpret Lydiard for me as for the moment heart rate is a good reference point for me.

Yes, I'd expect the programme to be very similar to any presentations Nobby has shared previously. Essentially, we work off the platform provided by the Foundation and then take the customisation the next level from there and the platform training programmes are based on a round-table discussion between Nobby, Lorraine Moller, Peter Snell and Dr Dick Brown as well as input from Dave E Martin, Greg McMillan, Keith Livingstone and others who worked with Arthur Lydiard first-hand. there's a blog post on the Lydiard Foundation home page about this process. So if you compare with his original training programmes in Run to the Top and intermediate drafts and compare to the current programmes, there's a clear red line and the programs are essentially the same just with more detail than he included in his books.

Interestingly, the heart rate for these programmes are calculated based on resting heart rate and not maximum heart rate. This is for a person with a resting heart rate of 48. To compare, someone with a resting heart rate of 60 would have a range of 132-152 for aerobic runs. This was a late addition to the programmes, so I haven't actually had the chance to ask Nobby why this was chosen but my hunch is that it is easier for people to obtain their resting heart rate than their maximum heart rate and also the resting heart rate improves more markedly through training. We would modify the heart rate ranges for coached athletes if they got the precise test done with UCD, DCU or other providers to get the precise one especially for the runners who want the extra bit of precision.

Lydiard definitely prescribed "even effort" where possible and liked his runner to prefer terrain with good traction to make this possible but he also wanted people to "let the pace come naturally". How we interpret this is that you are best off starting your aerobic runs at the low end of the intensity and then let yourself "warm into" a slightly higher intensity. So if you start out at "3" once you get warm you'd settle into an intensity of "4" or "5". Conversely there are days when you "get stuck in 3" and that's that, the legs just don't have it.

The Out and Back workout really practices this principle because essentially you have to come back slightly faster than you went out without straying into deep anaerobic paces (so you're starting at sub-threshold pace and aiming to finish just about on the threshold or what Lydiard preferred to call "maximum steady state"). So when I do an Out and Back, I start out at the pace I would describe as a "5" (sometimes, if I don't have time for warm-up, I'll run a few minutes at lower intensity) and then as I move towards the half-way point move it up a notch and hold that to the finish. This usually works out as a negative split run on an even course, if it doesn't it means the pace/intensity was too fast for the workout.

As an exception, Lydiard knew the weakness of only being able to "run even" and used fartleks and cross-country running on the one hand (thus the wide "2-6" intensity for fartlek) to get runners "out of the rut" and later in the programme "windsprints" often consisting of a mile run on track with every 100m fast and every 100m slow. So even-paced running made up the bulk of training but he made sure runners were prepared to handle surging. Likewise, the long Sunday run was always as he said "undulating, undulating, not hilly" by which was meant there was some significant ups and downs which would have changed the pace but not hills so bad it stopped them dead in their tracks.

You are right about his views on jogging, all his athletes were encouraged to do a morning jog of up to an hour every morning (later incarnations of athletes reduced this to a more human-sounding 6-8km jog) and here pace didn't matter. And yes, his point was exactly that jogging would "take too long" so they used it mainly as a recovery tool. He always expressed that all paces, no matter how slow, would contribute something positive to a runner's fitness.

If you wanted to find out precisely, I would suggest trying to get a lactate test done because once you have your lactate threshold heart rate you roughly understand the point that Lydiard called "maximum steady state". No aerobic workout should ever stray above this heart rate for very long (fartleks, strides and hilly runs being the exception, because the heart rate comes back down again quickly and there are some benefits to this type of running which supplements the mass of steady aerobic running).

To give you an example, if my lactate test (this is from UCD) gave this result:

Intensities Heart rate (Bpm) Pace (Min per km)
Easy 130-134 5’26’’ - Jogs would fall here
Steady 150-155 4’36’’ - Aerobic runs here
Max Steady state "Out and Back" runs between here and heavy. Finding this point is part of the trick in training and why we practice this run.
Heavy 174-179 3’45’’ - interval intensities begin here
Maximal 192+ 3’09’’ - only for racing and high-end middle-distance glycolytic anaerobic workouts

I would ask the physiologist to give me the full background data, however, so I can see the heart rate at each precise speed and then assign it against each workout.

Clearlier

It would seem sensible to get the lactate test done. If Peter Snell was involved then given his background in physiology there must be (I hope) some solid reason for using resting heart rate. My understanding was that there is such variation among people and that because it varies depending on your fitness (which max heart rate doesn't really) it was a bad idea to use resting heart rate for calculations. I know that even at my slobbiest my resting heart rate was about 50 which for many very fit people would be quite low but when fit I've seen my resting heart rate in the low 30's which is quite a % variation from 50.

In my head I categorise 3/4 effort at somewhere between marathon and half marathon effort, 1/2 effort as just a little below marathon pace and I'm really not sure where 1/4 effort fits in - working a bit but not too much is what I say but I don't really have a feel for where it is.

Raighne

Clearlier wrote: »

It would seem sensible to get the lactate test done. If Peter Snell was involved then given his background in physiology there must be (I hope) some solid reason for using resting heart rate. My understanding was that there is such variation among people and that because it varies depending on your fitness (which max heart rate doesn't really) it was a bad idea to use resting heart rate for calculations. I know that even at my slobbiest my resting heart rate was about 50 which for many very fit people would be quite low but when fit I've seen my resting heart rate in the low 30's which is quite a % variation from 50.

In my head I categorise 3/4 effort at somewhere between marathon and half marathon effort, 1/2 effort as just a little below marathon pace and I'm really not sure where 1/4 effort fits in - working a bit but not too much is what I say but I don't really have a feel for where it is.

Both resting heart rate and maximum heart rate vary by genetics and both can be modified by aging and training/detraining, so there is essentially a possibility of correlating from both (I cannot tell you which is most precise in general) but nothing will beat a test of course as certain ways of training (focusing only on slow stuff or fast stuff for instance) can generate some really freaky lactate profiles that no formula could ever predict.

In Healthy Intelligent Training, Keith Livingstone equates 3/4 effort to "just below the anaerobic threshold or marathon pace", 1/4 effort as "a steady long run or general aerobic run" whereas a hard time trial during final race preparations would be 7/8 effort. He goes on to say "Many North American and European runners who purport to train on the Lydiard system mistakenly run their effort runs a little too hard". So it's an important question to get it right because Keith goes into some detail on why running sub-threshold is generally safer and more effective than than actual threshold running (which tends to leave the athlete glycogen depleted and stale, whereas sub-threshold intensity gives almost all of the benefits without that cost accrued).

I have seen the Lydiard Interpreted site quote that 1/4 is "aerobic, not jogging", 1/2 as "strong aerobic but sub-tempo pace" and 3/4 as "tempo, anaerobic threshold pace". Personally, I'd do away with these older descriptions as I do not think they are particularly descriptive and instead use Keith Livingstone's guidelines. They are very detailed on how to work out all of your zones but to give an example he says 3/4 effort is 75-85% of Heart Rate Reserve (max HR-min HR, then calculate percentage and add back resting heart rate. It's a very good chapter and impossible to do justice in summation, so if you are interested in customising and perfecting your heart rates I'd give "Healthy Intelligent Training" a try, its on pages 52-56.

PGL

Hi folks

Just to update you all, I did my first heart training session this evening. I ran 10k focussing purely on keeping my heart rate in Zone 4 (80-90% of my max heart rate, which I calculated as 185bpm earlier this week doing a threadmill test - see earlier post), which I understand is the zone which relates best to a 10k to half marathon pace - is this widely accepted?

This was a big change for me to say the least! I set up a heart rate training plan on my garmin, which only displayed my heart rate zone, and the distance counting down, which means I had no clue of my time or pace.

My average heart rate was 163bpm (88% of my max HR). I found it to be an extremely comfortable run, and finished the 10k with plenty left in the tank.

My average pace was 5:21min/km, which is much slower than the McMillan calculator, which says my half marathon pace is 5:03min/km based on an 8k run I did last week at a pace of 4:44min/km.

Given that I found this such a comfortable session, it leaves me scratching my head on three fronts:
1. It makes me wonder if my max HR is higher than 185bpm
2. I was disappointed with my pace given that I couldn't have run much faster within Zone 4 (80-90% of max HR) - i.e. 88% of my supposed max HR
3. The McMillan estimate seems to be way off - bear in mind that it is based on an 8km 4:44min/km run - this has been my usual 5-8k flat out pace up to now. Perhaps there is a significant margin for error with the McMillan calculator?

I know I have to learn to trust heart rate training, and start increasing my mileage (which I think will not be a problem based on how I felt this evening), instead of increasing my pace. However I would like to be hitting my McMillan pace at the very least.....

Maybe doing the max HR test a few more times, and calculating the average might give me a more realistic max HR? Maybe a different max HR is better?

Or maybe I just need to be patient and let it happen?

Anyone have some thoughts?

PS: Sorry to be asking this again (as I'm getting no joy online), and I know one size does not fit all, but it would be great if someone could recommend a simple heart rate training plan to take me from my usual 5k runs up to a half marathon by training a max of 4 times (max of 1 hour per session) a week, with a target race date of say 2 months time.

To be brutally honest I am bamboozled by terms such as lactate thresholds, aerobic, anerobic, intervals, tempo etc which are floating around without much of an explanation of how and why they fit together. Maybe "Heart monitor training for the compleat idiot" by Parker fits the bill for me!

Help from someone would be very much appreciated!

Thanks a million

menoscemo

PGL, sorry to break it to you, but that's still too fast.
Most of your runs should be 70-80%
88% would represent a tough tempo run.
Perhaps you felt it easy becuase you are so used to going flat out and racing every training run. Training is supposed to be easy (for the most part) especially if you are trying to up the mileage.

It is of course possible that your max HR test gave you a low reading but I doubt it was by much.

PGL

menoscemo wrote: »

PGL, sorry to break it to you, but that's still too fast.
Most of your runs should be 70-80%
88% would represent a tough tempo run.
Perhaps you felt it easy becuase you are so used to going flat out and racing every training run. Training is supposed to be easy (for the most part) especially if you are trying to up the mileage.

I'm aiming to do some half marathons later this year - is Zone 4 (80-90%) not half marathon pace?

Are you suggesting that I should first increase my mileage in Zone 3, before moving up to Zone 4?

menoscemo

PGL wrote: »

I'm aiming to do some half marathons later this year - is Zone 4 (80-90%) not half marathon pace?

Are you suggesting that I should first increase my mileage in Zone 3, before moving up to Zone 4?

Yes you should do the majority of your running in the Aerobic Zone, this will allow you to increase your mileage and build an aerobic base which is the most important thing, especially being a beginner.
Even experienced runners training for Half marathons would only do a small percentage of their weekly mileage at Half Marathon pace, the majority of the mileage would be much slower..