Racing by heart rate

pgmcpq

For those that train and race by heart rate.

What type of heart rate drift would you expect to allow for over a marathon ?

Let's say my MP HR calculates out to 145. Assuming a relatively even course how would you go about setting a goal for the race. Even HR presumably means a big positive split which is not good. So how would you structure the pace e.g HR - 10% for first 5 miles HR - 5% over miles 5-10, etc, etc ?

Background to this is that not having raced in 17 months I have little idea what a realistic pace is - so I'm looking at a HR based strategy (adjusted for hills).

menoscemo

pgmcpq wrote: »

For those that train and race by heart rate.

What type of heart rate drift would you expect to allow for over a marathon ?

Let's say my MP HR calculates out to 145. Assuming a relatively even course how would you go about setting a goal for the race. Even HR presumably means a big positive split which is not good. So how would you structure the pace e.g HR - 10% for first 5 miles HR - 5% over miles 5-10, etc, etc ?

Background to this is that not having raced in 17 months I have little idea what a realistic pace is - so I'm looking at a HR based strategy (adjusted for hills).

I'd say everyone is different.
I have never raced a marathon by HR but looking at the HR stats afterwards my HR has never drifted upwards during a marathon even when even or negative spiltting at various different levels of fitness/performance. See here here and here:
Other people I know have had a significant drift throughout marathons...

pgmcpq

menoscemo wrote: »

I'd say everyone is different.
I have never raced a marathon by HR but looking at the HR stats afterwards my HR has never drifted upwards during a marathon even when even or negative spiltting at various different levels of fitness/performance. See here here and here:
Other people I know have had a significant drift throughout marathons...

Wow, those stats are amazing. I remember TBF talking about using the lack of drift to monitor his fitness ... but I always assumed that there was a some stage it would start to rise. Mine does, so I assumed everyone would - I'm a newbie to this so I don't know if it was different when I was in better shape.

menoscemo

pgmcpq wrote: »

Mine does, so I assumed everyone would - I'm a newbie to this so I don't know if it was different when I was in better shape.

As I said, mine didn't drift even when I was in much worse shape than I am now and running 30 minutes slower/marathon. The only thing different when i got fitter is that I could hold a higher HR for the entire marathon than before.

There are other guys much fitter and faster than me whose HR tends to drift gradually upwards over the Marathon distance by varying degrees. As I say I reckon everyone is different....

mo_bhicycle

Would you not find that your HR for a given pace is higher for a race than during training? I know I do anyway.

I wouldn't be a fan of racing by HR. I know some guys who do it and I've always felt that they've underachieved in their marathon v's what they were doing in training.

sconhome

I train by heart rate but dont race to it. I do record race HR but I'll race by pace and change the display fields so HR is not shown.

Generally I find that my HR is elevated at the start of the race, nerves adrenaline, excitement etc and in my case can be skewed quite dramatically.

Krusty_Clown

menoscemo wrote: »

I'd say everyone is different.
I have never raced a marathon by HR but looking at the HR stats afterwards my HR has never drifted upwards during a marathon even when even or negative spiltting at various different levels of fitness/performance. See here here and here:
Other people I know have had a significant drift throughout marathons...

Hi Meno, here's the last 15 miles of your Barcelona marathon:


Last few miles of Dublin:


Last few miles of Blackpool:


They all look like examples of drifting heart rate to me. Having said that, the amount of HR drift seems to be minimal (certainly compared to what I would go through). Here's my HR for the last 15 miles of Barcelona (though I did speed up towards the end of the race):

Barcelona 2010 (2:55):


Kildare marathon 2012 (2:46):


I would disagree that level of HR drift is a measure of fitness. I'm a lot fitter now than I was a few years ago, and the level of HR drift is similar. It could however illustrate suitability for running long distance races. However, if you train for a marathon, and you finish with your HR just under max, that sounds like a perfect race strategy to me!

TFBubendorfer

amphkingwest wrote: »

I train by heart rate but dont race to it.

Same here. Heart rate can be influenced by a lot of factors, and I would not advice using it as a pace controller (though I have done so myself on one or two occasions in the past).

I have blown up on marathons where I ran at 85% of my maxHR, and I have successfully managed to stay on pace on one occasion when I averaged 90%, so it really is not a good race indicator.

Heart rate drift does happen, and the longer the race the more likely the HR drift. Don't plan your race around it, though.

Even if you haven't raced in a long time, surely you have a reasonable idea how fast you can run from your training. Use that for starters, and then listen to your body in the race to see if you have to amend you pace.

menoscemo

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I would disagree that level of HR drift is a measure of fitness. I'm a lot fitter now than I was a few years ago, and the level of HR drift is similar. It could however illustrate suitability for running long distance races. However, if you train for a marathon, and you finish with your HR just under max, that sounds like a perfect race strategy to me!

Agreed, it is not a measure of fitness as I said. The fact that itter guys like you have more drift than me proves that.

Thanks for the Graphs, yeah i did have a slow steady drift in Barcelona but I was out on my feet over the last few miles. In Blackpool My av HR was 5 bpm higher than Barcelona but I was able to push on over the last few miles (I am pretty sure the only reason it drifted there was because I decided to run the last 4 miles faster).

rom

Is a drift a sign of incorrect pacing http://connect.garmin.com/activity/174400668 ?

TFBubendorfer

rom wrote: »

Is a drift a sign of incorrect pacing http://connect.garmin.com/activity/174400668 ?

What drift? That's one of the most evenly ran HR graphs I have ever seen!

Forget the spikes in the first mile, that's the chest strap not picking up the correct signal, which happens very frequently. Once the signal is picked up, he is remarkably constant.

rom

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

What drift? That's one of the most evenly ran HR graphs I have ever seen!

Forget the spikes in the first mile, that's the chest strap not picking up the correct signal, which happens very frequently. Once the signal is picked up, he is remarkably constant.

Sorry I know its flat. Link was more to add weight to the question that if that what an ideal paced race and close to perfection should the goal be to replicate or should you experience some drift ? It is just interesting as he has ran very similar times in the VLM for the last 3 years and he believes that he is at the very edge of his ability.

walshb

Question for you guys: Of all the races out there which one do you think would push the heart rate to its highest levels?

I am guessing either the 200 or 400.

menoscemo

rom wrote: »

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

What drift? That's one of the most evenly ran HR graphs I have ever seen!

Forget the spikes in the first mile, that's the chest strap not picking up the correct signal, which happens very frequently. Once the signal is picked up, he is remarkably constant.

Sorry I know its flat. Link was more to add weight to the question that if that what an ideal paced race and close to perfection should the goal be to replicate or should you experience some drift ? It is just interesting as he has ran very similar times in the VLM for the last 3 years and he believes that he is at the very edge of his ability.

But his pace drops quite a bit near the end of the race.

TFBubendorfer

rom wrote: »

Sorry I know its flat. Link was more to add weight to the question that if that what an ideal paced race and close to perfection should the goal be to replicate or should you experience some drift ? It is just interesting as he has ran very similar times in the VLM for the last 3 years and he believes that he is at the very edge of his ability.

My HR graphs from marathons I have run as a pacer tend to look pretty good - however, I would not claim that I ran the perfect race for any of them!

If he thinks he ran at the very edge of his ability, I would certainly believe him.

I suspect Patrick Makau's HR graph from his world record would not look anywhere near as good as that - he surged at 30k27k to break Haile, and then he slowed down towards the end. You could say it was not ideal - yet that was the world record.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Question for you guys: Of all the races out there which one do you think would push the heart rate to its highest levels?

I am guessing either the 200 or 400.

This is off-topic, so best starting your own thread on the subject. However, my guess would be the 1,000m, 1500m, or 3,000m. I would have thought that the 200 and 400m events would be too short to get the heart rate up to its max value. Having said that, it's probably different for an actual athlete trained for a specific discipline.

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

This is off-topic, so best starting your own thread on the subject. However, my guess would be the 1,000m, 1500m, or 3,000m. I would have thought that the 200 and 400m events would be too short to get the heart rate up to its max value. Having said that, it's probably different for an actual athlete trained for a specific discipline.

I realised that it was going off topic, thought I'd sneak it in. It's not massively off topic!

Larry Brent

From http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989 words of John 'Hadd' Walsh.


"Let's say I do as I have done many times and I have the runner complete a session of 40 laps of the track at "Mpace". What I will find (assuming the runner was fresh and rested for the session) is a basically "flat" graph for the whole run, fluctuating up and down by only a few beats. Like a kinda jagged, but basically horizontal line graph. (... I must post some up).
What I should NOT find (since I know the running pace is Mpace), is that the HR rises over the course of the session (after the first 10-15 mins or so that it takes for the HR to stabilize).
So, Mpace = flat graph; approx 87-90% HRmax.
Knowing that it is going to be a flat graph, I can tell the runner to stick in a HR zone of (say) 172-177 HR, and set them off.
I also know that when I have trained them well enough that HM pace will also elicit a flat graph; approx 92-93% HRmax, but still flat and not climbing over the course of the run.
So, I can tell the runner to stick to a pace (HM pace) or I can tell them to stick to a training zone of 180-183 HR. Not higher.
So, this means that up to Mpace, and even HMpace, I can tell the runner just to run in a HR training zone. An advantage of this is that the runner does not need to know the running pace, so the session does not have to be done on a known route, the runner can set off in any direction and know that he/she is doing the session as required. This is mentally very relaxing; the runner is not always running the same route, they can go as the mood takes them. Too, they are not even worrying about mile splits; if they are in the right HR zone, they are doing the correct workout.
However, what I know from experience is that if I give the runner a session at (say) 10k pace or even faster, then the HR is going to climb from beginning to end of the rep/session. The HR graph will no longer be flat once the running pace goes above LT."


Interesting based on above the garmin connect for a marathon simulation run of Ryan Hall (I think!) http://connect.garmin.com/splits/26905909 Despite the hills, he locks in at an effort level / steady HR, i.e. does not just stick to PMP but rather planned marathon effort it would seem. Very important difference. Takes a couple of miles to get up to target HR but once he does he locks in.


More from the Hadd/Cabraal letsrun.com thread...

"Let’s begin with a discussion of the attached graph:
http://www.letsrun.com/2008/images/Hadd_M_Graph.jpg
This is the HR profile of a marathon. As a performance standard it would generate ~1,000 points on the IAAF Scoring Tables (available for download from the IAAF website). Such a point score represents a sub-2:40 performance for a woman and a sub-2:20 performance for a man. I can also produce graphs of higher-quality performances, but these will suffice for demonstration.
I have mentioned earlier that an HR graph for a good marathon performance is a “flat” graph. This can readily be seen from the attached graphic. "Flat" is to be taken as meaning "not rising over the course of the event", although as can be seen, HR does fluctuate within a narrow HR-band. This is to be expected.
From the 5k point onwards in the race, it can be seen that the HR remains secure within a HR-zone between 175-180 bpm.
Only for a total of less than 2 minutes in ~2hrs 40 does the HR rise above 180. It hits 182 at 3 points in the race, but drops instantly back under 180. The combined total time over 180 bpm is less than 2 mins in the whole race.
Once the race passes the 5k point, the HR does not drop under 175 for the entire remainder of the race; not for one single second.
This particular athlete has an HRmax of 196.
Therefore the lower limit of the Marathon HRzone of 175 bpm = 89.28% of HRmax and the upper limit of 180 bpm = 91.83% of HRmax
Therefore the athlete runs the entire way (after initial 5k) with the HR fluctuating within the narrow band between 89.2—91.8% HRmax.
The average HR (mean) is 176.84 bpm. This = 90.22% of HRmax. (for interests sake, the average HR (mode) is 177 bpm).
Therefore the HR fluctuates only ~1% either side of the mean throughout the race: never higher, never lower.
Let me make the point here that this athlete did not run "according to HR". This athlete most definitely did not run constantly looking at the HRM and adjusting pace accordingly. From memory, the runner cannot recall looking at the HRM more than twice in the whole race... if that often.
The runner ran this marathon purely and simply as a race. The HRM was worn simply for my benefit and in no way to guide or influence performance. It was worn so that I could learn what actually happens during a high-quality marathon performance. Antonio has already remarked that too many studies are drawn from sedentary individuals and extrapolated (with questionable conclusions) to elite runners. This was an opportunity for me to "observe" a genuine high quality performance under actual conditions.
The Green Line on the graph is set at 177 bpm and represents this runner's Lactate Threshold (LT) which corresponds to 2 mmol/l blood lactate ([La]b). It can thus be noted that 2mM is the effort level this athlete can maintain for a full marathon. This is in line with the published literature on world class performances.
Readers should not confuse what I term LT as being that intensity which correspondes to "maximal effort for one hour". The sports science terminology can often be confusing (with LT, OBLA, MLSS, LTP, OPLA, AT, IAT, etc).
Those whom I have advised online for some years will know that the training model I use mandates two "thresholds". Up until very recently I referred to these as Aerobic Threshold (AeT) and Anaerobic Threshold (AnT). Given that this terminology is now recognised to be both inaccurate and misleading, in line with the literature I now use the (respective) terms Lactate Threshold (LT) and Lactate Turnpoint (LTP). The former (LT) corresponds extremely well (and is useful) with training for marathon performance, while the Lactate Turnpoint correlates better with MaxLaSS (Maximum Lactate Steady State) and thus HM and 10k performances.
So, just to repeat; the Green Line on the Marathon Graph corresponds to this runner's LT. It should be noted that it also corresponds almost exactly to this runner's meanHRavMarathon (177 HR vs 176.84 bpm)"

Krusty_Clown

Larry Brent wrote:

Antonio has already remarked that too many studies are drawn from sedentary individuals and extrapolated (with questionable conclusions) to elite runners. This was an opportunity for me to "observe" a genuine high quality performance under actual conditions.

Hi Larry, is there a hypothesis then that the HR trend for an elite runner might be different to that of a sedentary runner? It makes sense to me. I would expect that a runner who has been a competitive runner all of their lives has developed a different trend, based on having regular stresses applied to their heart over the course of a significant number of years. Presumably efficiency also plays a part, whereby elite (or more experienced runners) will have far greater efficiency over the course of a long distance race than those runners relatively new to the sport (and this efficiency (or lack thereof) could influence a drift in a runner's heart rate). It could of course also be something relevant to some runners (like myself) and not to others.

pgmcpq

menoscemo wrote: »

Thanks for the Graphs, yeah i did have a slow steady drift in Barcelona but I was out on my feet over the last few miles. In Blackpool My av HR was 5 bpm higher than Barcelona but I was able to push on over the last few miles (I am pretty sure the only reason it drifted there was because I decided to run the last 4 miles faster).

Still .. that seems a very small variation over the distance compared to what I would expect. Krusty's HR stats seems more along the lines of what I would expect.
Here's one from earlier this week across a pancake flat course :
http://connect.garmin.com/splits/230162914
The rate of drift gets a little alarming at the end.

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Same here. Heart rate can be influenced by a lot of factors, and I would not advice using it as a pace controller (though I have done so myself on one or two occasions in the past).
Heart rate drift does happen, and the longer the race the more likely the HR drift. Don't plan your race around it, though.

Right ... but those factors are constants in a sense - sleep, tapering, diet etc, etc.
What I have noticed is that if I can keep my HR below a certain level then I finish runs in ok shape - my HR recovers if I slow. But there is a point beyond which HR does not recover - it never returns even if I slow and the rest of the run turns ugly. So ... in theory if I could keep my HR in the "safe range" all would be well ... but to do so I would need to allow for drift.

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

My HR graphs from marathons I have run as a pacer tend to look pretty good - however, I would not claim that I ran the perfect race for any of them!

That's pretty interesting, presumably you are running well within yourself - how does that compare to when you race a marathon ?
Interesting stuff all round - I'm going to have to go back over my Garmin stats and see if I can derive a pattern.

The consensus seems to be that it's not really practical.

TFBubendorfer

pgmcpq wrote: »

That's pretty interesting, presumably you are running well within yourself - how does that compare to when you race a marathon ?

Have a look at this graph, from the 2008 Cork marathon, where I raced. The HR is red. Believe it or not, I ran an almost perfect even split for that, not that you would be able to tell that from the HR.



Compare that to Cork 2012, as a 3:15 pacer. It's only 5 minutes slower, but it felt like a pleasant jog in the park in comparison.



In the end, the perfect race is the one where you achieve the fastest time or the best placement possible. How your HR graph looks is totally irrelevant.

Larry Brent

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Hi Larry, is there a hypothesis then that the HR trend for an elite runner might be different to that of a sedentary runner?

I don't know. I think Hadd was of the view that a well trained runner should be able to run the marathon at 88-90% HRmax, while some elites (Radcliffe and Hall) can hold 92% HRmax for the marathon. Less well trained runners should still be able to maintain a constant effort/HR but at a lower percentage of HRmax, e.g. 85%.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I would expect that a runner who has been a competitive runner all of their lives has developed a different trend, based on having regular stresses applied to their heart over the course of a significant number of years.

Again I don't know in relation to the heart, but in relation to the legs, a well trained runner as you well know, with a good base over many years, regardless of whether elite or not, would probably have all of their available muscle fibres trained to a maximum in terms of numbers of mitochondira and ability to store and use glycogen. Less well trained runners, those who don't have the base, or those who always run at one pace (typically too fast) will have a proportion of fibres undertrained, i.e. with insufficient mitochondria and glycogen storage capacity. Hence the undertrained will run out of glycogen sooner in a marathon and so HR will drop as less muscle can be recruited and so less oxygen is needed. Maybe to offset this reduced glycogen capacity, less trained runners will run their best marathon by starting off at an easier effort / HR and gradually increasing this effort / HR as the race goes on (even though pace will remain the same, or probably slow) and so have a rising HR graph.

I think Hadd saw it as the most efficient way to run - run the whole way (after 1st 5k) at e.g. 167bpm (bang on lactate threshold [not turnpoint]), rather than how less elite might plan it e.g. 10m at 160bpm (comfortable), 10m at 165bpm (steady), 10k at 170bpm (hard). In other words, the well trained can run the whole way at 2.5mmol lactate, rather than a rising graph of 1.5mmol for 10m, then 2mmol for 10m then 3mmol. More even fuel distribution with the former.

I think if there is a rising graph the runner could well have more potential - they could perhaps push that little bit harder early on. Would I be right in looking at the graphs above that you were at a higher HR earlier on in Kildare and had less of a rising graph compared to Barcelona on both counts, when Kildare was a better performance, based on time anyhow? But I certainly don't relish the thought of going out from the start at goal marathon effort / HR. Don't think I'm ready for it, imagine I'd be more inclined towards the comfortable/steady/hard effort and rising graph, but with view to further improving so that in a future marathon I would manage a flat graph, at target effort / HR.

A final point about elite v non-elite. I was in a race a while back running alongside the lead female (58min 10m so marathon mission level for a female). I remember at mile 1 noting her breathing was really laboured and thinking to myself 'she won't last'. Well she did. It was a lesson as to how much pain she could suffer the whole way. Perhaps this is what is needed to be able to attain a flat graph - ability to push it from early on (whilst staying at lactate threshold but short of lactate turnpoint) AND maintain it all the way.

Larry Brent

pgmcpq wrote: »

Still .. that seems a very small variation over the distance compared to what I would expect. Krusty's HR stats seems more along the lines of what I would expect.
Here's one from earlier this week across a pancake flat course :
http://connect.garmin.com/splits/230162914
The rate of drift gets a little alarming at the end.

Well trained runners can stay within a reasonably small range, e.g. if target is 170bpm, they may have a range of 167-172 for the marathon. Try to keep it in that range. So you can certainly expect a small rise, e.g. if you start off at the bottom of the range and gradually creep towards the top of the range.

There will also be a rise due to cardiac drift - running for a sustained period means blood will pool in the legs and so the heart has to pump harder to keep it circulating. I think that can account for about 5bpm over the course of the marathon. So even if you kept effort totally constant, HR could rise by 5bpm over the course of the race.

So I think it's okay for HR to rise somewhat over the case of a run. Once you are 2-3miles in, it may rise from that point by 5-10bpm at the end of the run for the same effort. But you wouldn't want to see it rising by much more than that. If HR has to increase by more than this to maintain pace, or if pace slows for the same HR/effort, then this is a sign you are producing more lactate (and so HR has to rise to deal with it). You'll get away with this in typical runs, but in a marathon if you are producing too much lactate (a consequence of using greater amounts of glycogen) you'll run out of glycogen sooner and so pace will fall off.

This is why I think effort is more important than pace. Doing planned marathon pace runs rather than planned marathon effort runs could lead to difficulties. More important than being able to hit marathon pace during a session or as part of a long run is how much does it take out of you? If a PMP run leaves you feeling wrecked, it's possible that you were running above lactate threshold and closer to or above lactate turnpoint. So the training is not specific to the marathon. In the marathon you'll want to be at 2.0-2.5mmol lactate, if a run is hard or makes you wrecked you are bound to be closer to 4mmol lactate. Think about it, the first 10m of a marathon is generally pretty comfortable, so a 10m marathon effort run should be similar, probably a little tougher as you are not tapered down, but not a whole lot tougher IMHO.


Looking at your splits there, looks like you were rock solid for 12m in the low 130s. There was a slight, but definite rise then to high 130s. This suggests to me that by 12m your trained muscle fibres were fatigued and so less trained fibres had to be recruited. These were less efficient and so used more glycogen and produced more lactate and so HR rose. However, this was not all that significant and you did speed up a bit which would account for some of the HR rise.

Krusty_Clown

Larry Brent wrote: »

A final point about elite v non-elite. I was in a race a while back running alongside the lead female (58min 10m so marathon mission level for a female). I remember at mile 1 noting her breathing was really laboured and thinking to myself 'she won't last'. Well she did. It was a lesson as to how much pain she could suffer the whole way. Perhaps this is what is needed to be able to attain a flat graph - ability to push it from early on (whilst staying at lactate threshold but short of lactate turnpoint) AND maintain it all the way.

Actually, I remarked on the very same thing in the recent national half marathon. Early in the race I was running alongside the second place female finisher and she was labouring hard, even at that early stage of the race. I arrived at the same conclusion that I might not see her again. Well, I reckon she sustained the work effort for the duration of the race (I say suspect, as she finished three seconds ahead of me). So yes, perhaps we're not willing to put in the same level of effort (which is why she was 2nd female and I was 49th male!).

Clearlier

rom wrote: »

Sorry I know its flat. Link was more to add weight to the question that if that what an ideal paced race and close to perfection should the goal be to replicate or should you experience some drift ? It is just interesting as he has ran very similar times in the VLM for the last 3 years and he believes that he is at the very edge of his ability.

Juming back a few days here but it's worth noting that this was an atypical HR profile for Steve running a marathon. He said afterwards that he felt fine throughout the race but his legs didn't have it hence the drop off in pace and HR towards the end. He thought it might have something to do with training a little bit heavy and leaving it quite late to get down to race weight but he wasn't sure.

rom

Clearlier wrote: »

Juming back a few days here but it's worth noting that this was an atypical HR profile for Steve running a marathon. He said afterwards that he felt fine throughout the race but his legs didn't have it hence the drop off in pace and HR towards the end. He thought it might have something to do with training a little bit heavy and leaving it quite late to get down to race weight but he wasn't sure.

Only paraphrasing from what I have listened to in his interviews where commonwealth standard is what he believes is the top of his ability but you hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Hope he can get that sub 2:19 after being close now on three occasions. I wonder why does he keep trying for the time in London rather than going to a faster course when the margin is so tight ?

Clearlier

rom wrote: »

Only paraphrasing from what I have listened to in his interviews where commonwealth standard is what he believes is the top of his ability but you hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Hope he can get that sub 2:19 after being close now on three occasions. I wonder why does he keep trying for the time in London rather than going to a faster course when the margin is so tight ?

To be honest I haven't been down to the club or seen Steve in almost exactly a year as I've been injured. Everything I've picked up about him recently has been via social media/blog/RW sub-3 forum. He mentioned in his blog during his injury hit lead up to VLM '11 why he chose to do London rather than Edinburgh and it seems that he likes London. I agree that he might get a minute elsewhere but I imagine there's a beneft in going back to the place that you have done well in. Also the club team championships only require three runners aggregate time and we have a decent shout at a medal in that when he's running. We picked up a silver in 2011 and were a little bit of reasonable luck away from another medal last year. So a few reasons for him to do it. When I first joined the club he did mention something about doing Dublin but I don't think that he ever seriously considered it.