Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Murph_D · 12-01-2020 9:46pm

This is the way I understand it too. As your training and performance improves, your LT moves into higher ranges of both speed and HR. That's how better marathon runners can hit higher levels of speed and effort without accumulating lactate.

Sam's point about paying for LT testing is fair enough. You can get a pretty good estimate anyway from your race times (especially your 5k time), using various calculators (I wouldn't rely on the Garmin watch and its estimates), In my case, the first LT test I did pretty much confirmed that the pace I was using for threshold tempos was more or less correct. The second test (3 years later) confirmed that those paces were no longer applicable (my LT had deteriorated from concentrating on shorter distances). This was not ideal for my marathon prospects as endurance at faster paces (and higher HR) requires a higher threshold.

I still found it valuable to have this confirmation, but it's by no means necessary if you trust your own data.

Lazare · 12-01-2020 11:11pm

Ok, this is pretty mind blowing. To me

The 'Higher than previously measured' bit in particular.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, we want our LT to rise to our highest possible HR. A HR and an effort that previously would have gassed us but now we can sustain.

So much to learn.

Sam the Sham · 13-01-2020 12:48am

Lazare wrote: »

Ok, this is pretty mind blowing. To me

The 'Higher than previously measured' bit in particular.

That just means, with training, it should go up. Not higher than any rate previously measured (like: your max heart rate). Rather: higher than any previously measured LTHR.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, we want our LT to rise to our highest possible HR. A HR and an effort that previously would have gassed us but now we can sustain.

Yes. You want your LTHR to rise to the highest percentage of your MHR that you can get it to. Elite marathoners get it to like 95% of MHR, meaning they can just sustain that pace for as long as their glycogen supplies hold out. The mind boggles...

TFBubendorfer · 13-01-2020 10:51am

I have to agree with Sam here. I do question the real, long term value of it the LT test. I've did that kind of test twice, in a team setting, (i.e. I did not have to pay for it) and both times it was exactly where I expected it to be.

I always used to train with a HR monitor, and from that I already knew where I was at with regards to my fitness. The LT tests only confirmed that and did not provide any new insights.

KSU · 13-01-2020 4:35pm

In a ideal world you should be doing these tests a couple of times a year. This is how most who use them successfully do. Normally done at start of base phase, when people get into more specific training and usually one last time before competition phase (although at that point many are usually veering away from LT workouts and focusing on more specific phases)

It has it's merits just like any other measurement (pace, effort, time etc) but nothing is infallible. There are coaches who will go so far as to take blood lactates during a session but for us mere mortals we don't all have that luxury.

There is also a misconception that running above your LT will not develop it. Even reps at 5k and 10k efforts will impact your LT (albeit at varying degree's) so in terms of the usefulness of them even with more dated tests you can still be within proper ranges (just like basing sessions off recent race times)

Reg'stoy · 25-01-2020 1:39pm

Equalled my Parkrun PB of 23-33 this morning, scarily my watch recorded my highest Max HR of 192

So should I amend my HR zones (considering at 50 my Max HR should be 170), as my watch has now reset my Max HR to 192. My lactate threshold, again according to my watch is 164, which according to my zones is 80%

I had hoped to do a garmin training program for the Cork marathon based on HR zones and am now worried that the zones will be incorrect. I was spent at the end of the run but didn't need to lie down, I did feel I was going full tilt mind you.

Sam the Sham · 25-01-2020 2:29pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

So should I amend my HR zones (considering at 50 my Max HR should be 170), as my watch has now reset my Max HR to 192. My lactate threshold, again according to my watch is 164, which according to my zones is 80%

If you saw a 192, then your max heart rate is at least that. So, yes, recalculate zones on that basis.

Murph_D · 25-01-2020 2:32pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Equalled my Parkrun PB of 23-33 this morning, scarily my watch recorded my highest Max HR of 192

So should I amend my HR zones (considering at 50 my Max HR should be 170), as my watch has now reset my Max HR to 192. My lactate threshold, again according to my watch is 164, which according to my zones is 80%

I had hoped to do a garmin training program for the Cork marathon based on HR zones and am now worried that the zones will be incorrect. I was spent at the end of the run but didn't need to lie down, I did feel I was going full tilt mind you.

It looks like a reasonably good trace, so don't see why you shouldn't trust it, in the absence of any more reliable information. The 220-minus-age formula is useless, as has been often mentioned. I'm older than you and have a max of around 195. So yes, I'd use that max to calibrate your zones.

Lazare · 25-01-2020 3:32pm

Can anyone tell me why sometimes on the Garmin it's giving a RHR figure that's higher than the actual current rate?

FR235.

Get it a lot in the mornings.

shotgunmcos · 25-01-2020 4:24pm

Lazare wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why sometimes on the Garmin it's giving a RHR figure that's higher than the actual current rate?

FR235.

Get it a lot in the mornings.

It takes an average RHR over a rolling 7 days
https://support.garmin.com/en-IE/?faq=F8YKCB4CJd5PG0DR9ICV3A

Lazare · 25-01-2020 5:06pm

shotgunmcos wrote: »

It takes an average RHR over a rolling 7 days
https://support.garmin.com/en-IE/?faq=F8YKCB4CJd5PG0DR9ICV3A

Cool, figured something like that after I posted. Don't always remember to wear the watch to bed though so can't really depend on the data. Only wear the watch running and in bed.

Murph_D · 26-01-2020 9:01pm

That's a reminder that all Garmin stats are only as good as what they're based on. VO2max figures require accurate HR measurement etc; Training Status requires accurate VO2max, RHR requires longer term sampling etc etc. Grain of salt!

shotgunmcos · 27-01-2020 1:01pm

Murph_D wrote: »

That's a reminder that all Garmin stats are only as good as what they're based on. VO2max figures require accurate HR measurement etc; Training Status requires accurate VO2max, RHR requires longer term sampling etc etc. Grain of salt!

Yep I track the VO2, more amusement than reality. When I forget the HRM and rely on wonky writs based HR for more than a day, Garmin drops my VO2 and tells me I'm unproductive. I put the HRM back on for 2 days and wopp back up a point and "productive"

Grain of salt indeed.

Sam the Sham · 28-01-2020 10:48am

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Yep I track the VO2, more amusement than reality. When I forget the HRM and rely on wonky writs based HR for more than a day, Garmin drops my VO2 and tells me I'm unproductive. I put the HRM back on for 2 days and wopp back up a point and "productive" Grain of salt indeed.

I concur. Loads of things can have an effect.

I once took a beta-blocker (a medication that has the effect of reducing one's heart rate) and then went for a run. Felt awful as pulse was about 20 bpm slower than what it normally is.

When I got home, my Garmin reported that my VO2Max was now 3 points higher than it had been the day before! All it saw was that I was running at my usual pace with a significantly lower heart rate.

Lazare · 15-02-2020 9:22pm

Looking for some guidance on how to decipher this.

I went to The Beacon this week for testing. Did a full body composition analysis and a gas analysed AT and VO2 test.

The consultation was amazing, the guy running it Chris Simpson is a black belt in HR training and coaches running and tri athletes, specialising in Ironman.

He did explain my results to me really well, but I've since, after researching stuff gotten confused about a couple of things.

I expected to discover my max HR at the appointment. I didn't. My HR maxed out and plateaued at 168 on the treadmill. I queried this with him telling him I had maxed higher than that before, 177 last weekend. He explained that some days depending on many factors your heart, at max, needs to work harder to achieve the same effort.

My HR at AT during the test was 145. Is that a constant? Do I hit AT at 145 regardless of how faster my heart will beat after that?

He's designed HR zones built around that 145 AT number.

Another thing that has me confused are my VO2 numbers, and how they relate to that AT heart rate.

My VO2 at AT is 87% of my max (51.7). He kept stressing to me how good that was and after doing some research it seems it is really good.

I don't quite understand it all though. Assuming my max HR is 177, is hitting threshold at 145 not pretty average, poor even? How have I got good VO2 numbers but average HR numbers?

Where do I go from here with it? Plenty of LT work?

He has offered to coach me, and has given me 4 weeks free on Training Peaks, is that the way to go?

Ceepo · 15-02-2020 10:24pm

Lazare wrote: »

Looking for some guidance on how to decipher this.

I went to The Beacon this week for testing. Did a full body composition analysis and a gas analysed AT and VO2 test.

The consultation was amazing, the guy running it Chris Simpson is a black belt in HR training and coaches running and tri athletes, specialising in Ironman.

He did explain my results to me really well, but I've since, after researching stuff gotten confused about a couple of things.

I expected to discover my max HR at the appointment. I didn't. My HR maxed out and plateaued at 168 on the treadmill. I queried this with him telling him I had maxed higher than that before, 177 last weekend. He explained that some days depending on many factors your heart, at max, needs to work harder to achieve the same effort.

My HR at AT during the test was 145. Is that a constant? Do I hit AT at 145 regardless of how faster my heart will beat after that?

He's designed HR zones built around that 145 AT number.

Another thing that has me confused are my VO2 numbers, and how they relate to that AT heart rate.

My VO2 at AT is 87% of my max (51.7). He kept stressing to me how good that was and after doing some research it seems it is really good.

I don't quite understand it all though. Assuming my max HR is 177, is hitting threshold at 145 not pretty average, poor even? How have I got good VO2 numbers but average HR numbers?

Where do I go from here with it? Plenty of LT work?

He has offered to coach me, and has given me 4 weeks free on Training Peaks, is that the way to go?

Looks like he done a vo2 max test and not a max HR test. ( sub max test)

I'm not sure what he means by "someday you heart at max need to work harder to achieve the same effort" No doubt that there are thing that can make your heart fluctuate. Max great rate should be reasonable be the same + - 1/2 but the the velocity at max HR could be different.

What was you velocity at lactate threshold or Anaerobic threshold?

Was 51.7 your vo2 or was 51.7 87% of you vo2.

It is also important to remember that vo2 is your oxygen uptake per kilo of body weight in a minute can be easily change simply by dropping a few kg's. You should also be aware that vo2 doesnt take into account efficiency or how economic you are as an runner. 2 people with the same vo2 weight be minutes apart even over 10 miles

Lazare · 15-02-2020 11:13pm

Ceepo wrote: »

Looks like he done a vo2 max test and not a max HR test. ( sub max test)

I'm not sure what he means by "someday you heart at max need to work harder to achieve the same effort" No doubt that there are thing that can make your heart fluctuate. Max great rate should be reasonable be the same + - 1/2 but the the velocity at max HR could be different.

What was you velocity at lactate threshold or Anaerobic threshold?

Was 51.7 your vo2 or was 51.7 87% of you vo2.

It is also important to remember that vo2 is your oxygen uptake per kilo of body weight in a minute can be easily change simply by dropping a few kg's. You should also be aware that vo2 doesnt take into account efficiency or how economic you are as an runner. 2 people with the same vo2 weight be minutes apart even over 10 miles

Yeah, it was a VO2max (and LT) test, I had just assumed I would hit my max HR.

Velocity at LT was 13kmh.

51.7 was max, was 45 at LT.

Yeah I'm aware that VO2/kg is not everything and there's a whole lot more involved but am wondering if my high LT VO2 (relative to max) number is something to get a little bit excited about

Ceepo · 15-02-2020 11:35pm

Lazare wrote: »

Yeah, it was a VO2max (and LT) test, I had just assumed I would hit my max HR.

Velocity at LT was 13kmh.

51.7 was max, was 45 at LT.

Yeah I'm aware that VO2/kg is not everything and there's a whole lot more involved but am wondering if my high LT VO2 (relative to max) number is something to get a little bit excited about

A vo2 of 51.7 is not that high really. But the good news is, it is trainable (to a point anyway)
So while 87% is good it's off a low base. Of course if you can maintain that % and increase your vo2 then you might be on to a good thing

The next thing you would need to find out is how quickly you lactate elevates when you go over LT, this can give you an indication of your base events.

Do you know your anaerobic threshold ?
What distance do you plan to target ?

Lazare · 16-02-2020 12:29am

Yeah, I know a max of 51.7 isn't anything to get overly excited about and can be trained upwards. Was wondering though if AT at 87% of it would remain constant, if it's genetic.

Not sure if I can tell from my graphs how quickly lactate elevated, how does one go about finding that out?

My AT is currently 145bpm, which right now is in and around 4:35/km

Base phase right now for another couple of weeks then planning on targeting a half.

Ceepo · 16-02-2020 12:50am

Lazare wrote: »

Yeah, I know a max of 51.7 isn't anything to get overly excited about and can be trained upwards. Was wondering though if AT at 87% of it would remain constant, if it's genetic.

Not sure if I can tell from my graphs how quickly lactate elevated, how does one go about finding that out?

My AT is currently 145bpm, which right now is in and around 4:35/km

Base phase right now for another couple of weeks then planning on targeting a half.

I have no idea if it remins a constant or not. It's not something that the average Joe would use as a training guide.

You would have to have done a lactate blood test in conjunction with your sub max vo2 test.

Ballpark for estimated ( based of well trained athlete) times of vo2 volocity are
97% 5k
94% 10k
89% half
83% full
You could use these as you training pace

.

Based of your hr 145 and 4.35 Per k pace I would expect you to have a 10k race pace of 3.30 Per k..

On a side note. Dont get caught up over thinking it. Yes there is a science to it. And while we all try to get the best out of the effort we put in, we can loose the enjoyment part of it..

Lazare · 16-02-2020 1:19am

Ceepo wrote: »

On a side note. Dont get caught up over thinking it. Yes there is a science to it. And while we all try to get the best out of the effort we put in, we can loose the enjoyment part of it..

I love the science of it, have a physiologist's Ted talk about polarised training paused so I can reply :pac:

Ceepo wrote:

Ballpark for estimated ( based of well trained athlete) times of vo2 volocity are
97% 5k
94% 10k
89% half
83% full
You could use these as you training pace .

Are these HR percentages? Percentage of max?

Ceepo wrote:

Based of your hr 145 and 4.35 Per k pace I would expect you to have a 10k race pace of 3.30 Per k..

A 35 min 10k? Nah, nowhere close to that. How are you coming up with that? I would struggle to hold that pace over a mile right now, in fact I probably couldn't. Is that where I should be? If so, what's wrong?

Lazare · 16-02-2020 1:27am

Here's that Ted talk btw,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MALsI0mJ09I

Ceepo · 16-02-2020 12:15pm

Lazare wrote: »

I love the science of it, have a physiologist's Ted talk about polarised training paused so I can reply :pac:

Are these HR percentages? Percentage of max?

A 35 min 10k? Nah, nowhere close to that. How are you coming up with that? I would struggle to hold that pace over a mile right now, in fact I probably couldn't. Is that where I should be? If so, what's wrong?

The estimated above % are base on your volocity/pace at vo2.
Examples, your vo2 pace is 12 min for 3k or 4 min per k pace. So 240 seconds. You want to do a session of 12 x 400 At 5k pace. 97%of 240 = 232 ÷ 4 give you a target of 83 sec per 400.

Ceepo · 16-02-2020 2:05pm

Lazare wrote: »

I love the science of it, have a physiologist's Ted talk about polarised training paused so I can reply :pac:

A 35 min 10k? Nah, nowhere close to that. How are you coming up with that? I would struggle to hold that pace over a mile right now, in fact I probably couldn't. Is that where I should be? If so, what's wrong?

I had a listen to the podcast. Wasn't one I heard before, but I would have heard and read a fair bit on polarized training over the past 10 years or so.
I an would be a big fan of it. Hard stuff hard, easy stuff easy. The problem is most people don't do the easy part easy enough.

I assume by AT you mean aerobic threshold and not anaerobic threshold. ( AnT)
(I appreciate that some text book refer to anaerobic threshold as AT as well.)

Aerobic threshold should be easy pace run.

Basing AT at 145 bmp and a pace of 4.35 per k, your 5k race pace should be substantially faster, hence the reason I said 3.30 per k.

If you meant anaerobic threshold was 145 bpm the of course my estimate would be wrong.

Edit. What were the training zones that he prescribe for you ?

Lazare · 16-02-2020 3:13pm

Aha, I had wires crossed. I actually thought they were one and the same. I'm talking about anaerobic threshold.

Thought of it today that the 4:35 was on a treadmill on fresh legs. Ran a 12 mile progression today in stormy conditions with the last 3 miles at 145. Pace was 15 - 30 secs slower. So I guess conditions and fatigue play a large role on what your AnT pace is.

These are the zones he's prescribed..

Z1 - <129
Z2 - 130 - 139
Z3 - 140 - 150
Z4 - 151 - 160
Z5 - >160

80% in Z2 or less.

Sam the Sham · 26-02-2020 4:56pm

Ceepo wrote: »

A vo2 of 51.7 is not that high really.

That depends on one's age. For someone over 50, that would be very high.

Ceepo · 26-02-2020 5:27pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

That depends on one's age. For someone over 50, that would be very high.

Ok.......

But as you say.. it depends..
Someone who had a vo2 of 65 at the age of 40, allowing for a decline 10% per decade, 51 not high.

Someone age 40, vo2 of 51 is not high...

As I pointed out previous vo2 is just an number and can by easily be manipulate up or down simply by adding or losing a few pounds.. it's not an absolute, its is only an physiological reference point.

And only ONE of the vary many variables that will have an impact on performance.

Sam the Sham · 26-02-2020 5:33pm

Ceepo wrote: »

Ok.......

But as you say.. it depends..
Someone who had a vo2 of 65 at the age of 40, allowing for a decline 10% per decade, 51 not high.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. Isn't a v02 max of 65 at age 40 very high? And that same person having a vo2 of 51 at 59 (still in their 50s) is, by my lights, still very high.

Someone age 40, vo2 of 51 is not high...

As I pointed out previous vo2 is just an number and can by easily be manipulate up or down simply by adding or losing a few pounds.. it's not an absolute, its is only an physiological reference point.

And only ONE of the vary many variables that will have an impact on performance.

I agree with all of that. Only thing I disagree with is any categorizing of vo2 max results that isn't age-relative.

Ceepo · 26-02-2020 8:09pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. Isn't a v02 max of 65 at age 40 very high? And that same person having a vo2 of 51 at 59 (still in their 50s) is, by my lights, still very high.

I agree with all of that. Only thing I disagree with is any categorizing of vo2 max results that isn't age-relative.

I have seen plenty of athletes in their 40's with a vo2 in that range.. is that very high, I don't know it was what it was, and is only relevant to them.
I have seen younger athletes ( late 20 early 30 ) with e a vo2 of over 70, yes this is a high, but again only relevant to them.
Imo 51 is not that high even for a 50 yr old..

Sam the Sham · 26-02-2020 11:37pm

Ceepo wrote: »

I have seen plenty of athletes in their 40's with a vo2 in that range.. is that very high, I don't know it was what it was, and is only relevant to them.
I have seen younger athletes ( late 20 early 30 ) with e a vo2 of over 70, yes this is a high, but again only relevant to them.
Imo 51 is not that high even for a 50 yr old..

According to Jack Daniels' Running Formula (3rd Edition), "Elite" for a 50-year-old male is a VDOT (which seems to be the equivalent of VO2Max) of 64.4 and a 9 on a scale of 1 (novice) to 10 (top elites). 10 on that same scale for a 50-year-old is VDOT of 69.4. That's a 50 year old who can run 1,600 meters (a mile, basically) in 4:20. The world mile record for 50-54 male runners is 4:19.59.

A 50-year-old with a 51 VDOT is, according to Daniels, somewhere between a 6 and a 7 on that same scale. The paces at which that person could run a 1,600 meters are, according to Daniels, somewhere between 5:22 and 5:51. I'd say that qualifies as "very high" for a 50-year-old. There are not that many 50-year-olds running miles in 5:22. In fact, that's an age-graded score of 78.71%, according to this calculator which is very close to "national class level" (for a generic nation).

According to the same charts, someone 18-34 with a VDOT of 70 is an 8 out of 10 on the scale.

The charts from which this data comes are on pages 100-101.

I don't know who you're hanging around with, but they must be pretty fast!

Ceepo · 27-02-2020 1:06am

Sam the Sham wrote: »

According to Jack Daniels' Running Formula (3rd Edition), "Elite" for a 50-year-old male is a VDOT (which seems to be the equivalent of VO2Max) of 64.4 and a 9 on a scale of 1 (novice) to 10 (top elites). 10 on that same scale for a 50-year-old is VDOT of 69.4. That's a 50 year old who can run 1,600 meters (a mile, basically) in 4:20. The world mile record for 50-54 male runners is 4:19.59.

A 50-year-old with a 51 VDOT is, according to Daniels, somewhere between a 6 and a 7 on that same scale. The paces at which that person could run a 1,600 meters are, according to Daniels, somewhere between 5:22 and 5:51. I'd say that qualifies as "very high" for a 50-year-old. There are not that many 50-year-olds running miles in 5:22. In fact, that's an age-graded score of 78.71%, according to this calculator which is very close to "national class level" (for a generic nation).

According to the same charts, someone 18-34 with a VDOT of 70 is an 8 out of 10 on the scale.

The charts from which this data comes are on pages 100-101.

I don't know who you're hanging around with, but they must be pretty fast!

VO2max is a physiological measurement, essentially based on your maximal oxygen uptake and your body weight. My understanding is that VDOT is a measure of how fast you are, it doesn't care how much you weigh or how much oxygen you take in.

So you can not equate VDOT to VO2max. It is NOT VO2max. Also keep in mind VO2max is actually a fairly poor indicator of race times among fit people. Many many factors go into racing, from lactate, to cardiac output, to psychological abilities to push one's self, to stride mechanics, to carbohydrate storage and fat utilization, muscle specific endurance etc, etc,

The athletes that I referred to are good but certainly not elites.
Just for more context I am knocking on the door of 50 and I have ran according to garmin 1450k since Feb '16 460 of that was last year, I did get in a consistent 8 weeks of 3 maybe 4 day a week before xmas and ran 5k in 20min, so not far off your 5.51 example on a few weeks training. This would give me a vdot of 49.8 and I would say that I certainly wasn't fit. I have no intentions of getting a vo2 test done to see what the results would be.

Murph_D · 27-02-2020 9:39am

Ceepo wrote: »

My understanding is that VDOT is a measure of how fast you are, it doesn't care how much you weigh or how much oxygen you take in.

So you can not equate VDOT to VO2max. It is NOT VO2max.

It’s not VO2Max but certainly related and in some ways more useful. Here’s how Jack Daniels explains the difference:

https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20825580/threshold-training-finding-your-vdot/

Ceepo · 27-02-2020 10:16am

Murph_D wrote: »

It’s not VO2Max but certainly related and in some ways more useful. Here’s how Jack Daniels explains the difference:

https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20825580/threshold-training-finding-your-vdot/

So as I said, vdot is based in your running speed and while not related it not the same.
Again as I said vo2 is a physiological marker and nothing more. Is it helpful to know, maybe, can you use it for training zones, sure
I never said that vdot wasn't useful, in fact if used correctly it's a great training guide

Sam the Sham · 27-02-2020 10:58am

Ceepo wrote: »

VO2max is a physiological measurement, essentially based on your maximal oxygen uptake and your body weight. My understanding is that VDOT is a measure of how fast you are, it doesn't care how much you weigh or how much oxygen you take in.

I'm not sure that's right. My understanding was that VDOT was just a way of normalizing VO2Max measured over different lengths of time. I confess to not really understanding this, though. Here's Daniels' explanation from Running Formula:

The term VDOT was originally used as a short form for the VO2max value, to which it is related. When a person refers to V∙O2 (whether in reference to a submaximal or maximal value of oxygen being consumed), it is correctly pronounced “V dot O2” because there is a dot over the V indicating that the volume, which the V represents, is a 1-minute volume.

Without a dot over the V, the volume represented may be measured over
more or less than 1 minute, so to make different volumes comparable, the volume is converted to a 1-minute value. For example, if I collect a 30-second bag of expired air from subject A, who is being tested on a treadmill or track, the collected volume may be 65 liters and the volume of oxygen that this subject consumed during that 30-second collection may be 2,000 ml (2 liters). You could say the VE (volume of expired air collected during that 30-second period of time) is 65 liters and VO2 consumption is 2,000 ml.

However, if another subject (subject had an expired air collection for a period of 40 seconds, with a VE of 75 liters and a VO2 of 2,500 ml, it would not be legitimate to say that B was breathing more air or consuming more oxygen, because the periods of collection were for different amounts of time.

By converting the volumes for both A and B to 1-minute values, then the two subjects can be better compared. In this example, A’s VDOTE would be 130 liters and B’s would be 112.5 liters. As for the comparable VDOT O2 values, A would have a 4,000 ml volume and B a 3,750 ml volume.

The point is that to properly compare different values, whether for different subjects or the same subject under different conditions, the data must first be converted to 1-minute values, and in the case of oxygen consumption, the proper terminology is VDOT O2.

I don't think it has anything to do with speed, but that he is also measuring speeds associated with various VDOT values.

The athletes that I referred to are good but certainly not elites.
Just for more context I am knocking on the door of 50 and I have ran according to garmin 1450k since Feb '16 460 of that was last year, I did get in a consistent 8 weeks of 3 maybe 4 day a week before xmas and ran 5k in 20min, so not far off your 5.51 example on a few weeks training. This would give me a vdot of 49.8 and I would say that I certainly wasn't fit. I have no intentions of getting a vo2 test done to see what the results would be.

If you're 49 and ran a 20 min 5K (bravo!), your age-grade is something like 73% (meaning: the best performance at your age is 73% of your time). That makes you a "regional class" competitor. To do it on so little training is impressive.

Murph_D · 27-02-2020 2:51pm

Ceepo wrote: »

So as I said, vdot is based in your running speed and while not related it not the same.
Again as I said vo2 is a physiological marker and nothing more. Is it helpful to know, maybe, can you use it for training zones, sure
I never said that vdot wasn't useful, in fact if used correctly it's a great training guide

Of course! Just linking to a more complete explanation of VDOT vs. VO2Max from the guy who coined both terms. I have based all my own training paces on VDOT tables (and variations such as McMillan) in the past, although am leaning more towards HR zones at the moment.

Ceepo · 27-02-2020 4:14pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I'm not sure that's right. My understanding was that VDOT was just a way of normalizing VO2Max measured over different lengths of time. I confess to not really understanding this, though. Here's Daniels' explanation from Running Formula:

I don't think it has anything to do with speed, but that he is also measuring speeds associated with various VDOT values.

If you're 49 and ran a 20 min 5K (bravo!), your age-grade is something like 73% (meaning: the best performance at your age is 73% of your time). That makes you a "regional class" competitor. To do it on so little training is impressive.

Serious man that stuff fries my brain. If my basic understanding of vdot is wrong, then so be it.
Ultimately vdot is a calculated on the Daniel site by uploading a recent race time over a given distance. And spits out a given number. It doesn't ask for how much air I inhaled or the amount of oxygen that I consumed or expelled. Or doesn't ask for my age or weight.
So forgive me for thinking that it's based on speed.
Quick one for you. If 10 people of different weights and running economy input 20 min for 5k will their vdot be the same?
If the answer in no, what makes them different. If the answer is yes, what do you think the base the answer on. ?
As I said vdot can be a great training guide as it will give you pace to work from.
Not much different from the 3k TT that I would get athlete that I coach to do. It's a guide 1, to know where their fitness is at present 2, a guide to plan training places from 3, a guide to extrapolate potential race performance (assuming correct training of course).

In essence running is a simple sport that is made complicated by people that over think it.
I've seen so many people overlooking the basics while trying to look for the magic bullet.
Most people dont run enough and when they do the run to hard. Yes there is a science to it but theres also an art,

As for me being regional class, I certainly wouldn't be even close at a county level never mind a regional level.

Murph_D · 27-02-2020 7:58pm

Getting a bit off HR topic here! Or maybe not - is there a way to correlate VDOT with HR training zones? The way I see it, VDOT (or ‘pseudo VO2Max’, as Daniels calls it), is useful for setting race targets and training paces for short reps (too short to run by HR). And realistic as long as your race times are a realistic measure of your performance ability.

Ceepo · 27-02-2020 9:01pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Getting a bit off HR topic here! Or maybe not - is there a way to correlate VDOT with HR training zones? The way I see it, VDOT (or ‘pseudo VO2Max’, as Daniels calls it), is useful for setting race targets and training paces for short reps (too short to run by HR). And realistic as long as your race times are a realistic measure of your performance ability.

Im not sure if you can open these.
These are a good template to work from..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yl9BVsyYQ_nZd-3k6hfYxnhyKikIIuTm/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ljug4LO-vIykNtNlEU3a5aPQmxz2bPyJ/view?usp=drivesdk

Murph_D · 27-02-2020 9:34pm

Ceepo wrote: »

Im not sure if you can open these.
These are a good template to work from..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yl9BVsyYQ_nZd-3k6hfYxnhyKikIIuTm/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ljug4LO-vIykNtNlEU3a5aPQmxz2bPyJ/view?usp=drivesdk

Edit: can open these now, thanks. Don’t understand what I’m looking at though.

Ceepo · 28-02-2020 12:49am

Murph_D wrote: »

Edit: can open these now, thanks. Don’t understand what I’m looking at though.

The vo2 is basic you 3k TT all out effort.
You can adjust to your own pace. Session can then be based of % of this time from 80%to 115% and are based on 400m reps.
Hr zones are based of the same 3k TT.

Performance indicators : donig the precrided session will give you a guide to see what is achievable for 5k and 10k.

Incremental field test : is a ramp test. So 1200m at a pace (15k) (17) (18) with 60 rest..

You just need to fill in your pace and calculate your own specific training pace.. ..

The marathon one is similar. Do a 3k TT and work out you training % from there.

Murph_D · 28-02-2020 7:42pm

Ceepo wrote: »

The vo2 is basic you 3k TT all out effort.
You can adjust to your own pace. Session can then be based of % of this time from 80%to 115% and are based on 400m reps.
Hr zones are based of the same 3k TT.

Performance indicators : donig the precrided session will give you a guide to see what is achievable for 5k and 10k.

Incremental field test : is a ramp test. So 1200m at a pace (15k) (17) (18) with 60 rest..

You just need to fill in your pace and calculate your own specific training pace.. ..

The marathon one is similar. Do a 3k TT and work out you training % from there.

Right but in relation to HR? Is there anything here that hasn’t been discussed above in relation to the zones etc.?

Lazare · 16-04-2020 11:05am

Wanted to give an update on my experience so far with HR training having run exclusively by HR since the beginning of January.

Hopefully will help others who are thinking of making the switch.

I found it daunting at first, before switching, felt there was so much information out there making it seem quite complicated.

I've found it to be the total opposite. Incredibly simple. While some people use Max HR values to construct zones, I've been using my HR at anaerobic threshold.

Obv, getting this value requires a test, I did mine at the sports clinic in The Beacon.

I haven't really bothered with 'zones' as such. My HR @ AnT is 145, so I'll run my easy runs just below 130, steady runs around 135-138, recovery around 125 and tempo at 145. Very rarely go above 145, other than sessions or strides.

A slight downside to this is that AnT value will change, necessitating another test, possibly twice a year. Open to advice on that.

I'm in total control of the effort at all times, getting full value out of every run. An aerobic run is 100% aerobic, a threshold run is 100% on the nose. I don't think that's possible using pace as a guide unless you are incredibly in tune with your effort levels.

Using pace as a guide, in hindsight, my effort levels were all over the shop. I was running hills too hard on easy days, a tempo run, based off race times was little more than a guess.

I've an injury that over the last three years has cropped up every 6 - 8 months. It's well overdue right now and there's no sign of it, and I'm running about 40% more volume compared to those years. I'm 100% putting that down to being in control of effort levels.

I've also discovered I was running my general aerobic runs a little too easy, again by previously using race times and charts. The HRM has allowed me be a lot more confident in that regard, running at paces I was afraid to run at before.

I'm feeling fitter and stronger than I've ever felt before, a recent 5x 1k session was a 20 sec per km improvement over the time I last did it in October.

That's all down to HR training. It has allowed me safely increase mileage but most importantly it has made all those miles quality miles.

I could not recommend it highly enough, especially to beginner runners.

I'm a happy convert, and will never go back to using pace as a guide.

Murph_D · 16-04-2020 12:21pm

Lazare wrote: »

Wanted to give an update on my experience so far with HR training having run exclusively by HR since the beginning of January.

Hopefully will help others who are thinking of making the switch.

I found it daunting at first, before switching, felt there was so much information out there making it seem quite complicated.

I've found it to be the total opposite. Incredibly simple. While some people use Max HR values to construct zones, I've been using my HR at anaerobic threshold.

Obv, getting this value requires a test, I did mine at the sports clinic in The Beacon.

I haven't really bothered with 'zones' as such. My HR @ AnT is 145, so I'll run my easy runs just below 130, steady runs around 135-138, recovery around 125 and tempo at 145. Very rarely go above 145, other than sessions or strides.

A slight downside to this is that AnT value will change, necessitating another test, possibly twice a year. Open to advice on that.

I'm in total control of the effort at all times, getting full value out of every run. An aerobic run is 100% aerobic, a threshold run is 100% on the nose. I don't think that's possible using pace as a guide unless you are incredibly in tune with your effort levels.

Using pace as a guide, in hindsight, my effort levels were all over the shop. I was running hills too hard on easy days, a tempo run, based off race times was little more than a guess.

I've an injury that over the last three years has cropped up every 6 - 8 months. It's well overdue right now and there's no sign of it, and I'm running about 40% more volume compared to those years. I'm 100% putting that down to being in control of effort levels.

I've also discovered I was running my general aerobic runs a little too easy, again by previously using race times and charts. The HRM has allowed me be a lot more confident in that regard, running at paces I was afraid to run at before.

I'm feeling fitter and stronger than I've ever felt before, a recent 5x 1k session was a 20 sec per km improvement over the time I last did it in October.

That's all down to HR training. It has allowed me safely increase mileage but most importantly it has made all those miles quality miles.

I could not recommend it highly enough, especially to beginner runners.

I'm a happy convert, and will never go back to using pace as a guide.

Good stuff!! What about speedwork though? Can’t really do that by HR. I’m talking about shortish reps, say up to 600-800m (presuming you sometimes do these).

Lazare · 16-04-2020 12:45pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Good stuff!! What about speedwork though? Can’t really do that by HR. I’m talking about shortish reps, say up to 600-800m (presuming you sometimes do these).

Been base building up until recently, then started a half plan, so had not much call for speedwork in the period. That Vo2max session I ran last week (5x1k) was done off pace though, mostly as I'd no real idea of the HR range for it. I have that data now, may experiment with it for the next session.

Found it very useful for strides, for recovery. As soon as my HR drops below 100 I go again. Beforehand I was probably going again either too early or too late, although that's probably marginal with strides in fairness.

Murph_D · 16-04-2020 1:09pm

Yeah, wouldn't worry too much about the strides. Fitzgerald recommends using the McMillan calculator to get paces for speed reps up to 1k, as HR 'lag' means you can't do these sessions reliably by HR alone (or at all). You can base these off hour LT data, as you presumably have an approximate or average LT pace by now based off your HR experience. But that's all for another day perhaps.

Lazare · 16-04-2020 1:19pm

Very good point about lag actually, hadn't considered that.

Have no issue with using pace for speed workouts, does seem optimal.

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 7:33pm

Interesting read. I started running back in December with low frequency and light volume for fear of injury. Been ramping up both since using a HR monitor, keeping everything at <80% max HR except for accidental drifts into higher zones which I generally notice and correct quickly. I generally run on random routes through gently rolling trails. Most runs are about 1/3 slightly uphill, 1/3 slightly downhill, 1/3 more or less flat.

I've found it quite disheartening. The pace is incredibly slow and shows no signs of improving. In fact, I didn't realise I had the auto-pause feature on in Strava so having turned that off I'm even worse than I thought. Last few runs have clocked in around 9.5-10 min/km. I inserted myself into the Hal Higdon Novice 1 programme when COVID-19 hit and got to week 6 before having to take a precautionary break due to an emerging injury.

I'm actually not concerned with pace in absolute terms, my goal is to get as fast as possible moving below my aerobic threshold. I can tell from a steep hike I did back in early March that my tendency in the past (before training, before HRM) has been to settle into the middle of my Z3. I can sustain that pace hiking uphill for a few hours. Right now it seems like fantasy that I will ever be able to achieve that pace in Z1/Z2. I'm not sure if I have put in enough volume yet to be expecting results of any sort. I think I just need something to help me keep the faith. Any thoughts or ideas?

P.S. I established max HR myself by field test. Co-incidentally it came out almost dead on the 220-age rule of thumb. I had planned to do a HR drift test literally the week the gyms closed.

Murph_D · 29-04-2020 9:18pm

breadmonkey wrote: »

Interesting read. I started running back in December with low frequency and light volume for fear of injury. Been ramping up both since using a HR monitor, keeping everything at <80% max HR except for accidental drifts into higher zones which I generally notice and correct quickly. I generally run on random routes through gently rolling trails. Most runs are about 1/3 slightly uphill, 1/3 slightly downhill, 1/3 more or less flat.

I've found it quite disheartening. The pace is incredibly slow and shows no signs of improving. In fact, I didn't realise I had the auto-pause feature on in Strava so having turned that off I'm even worse than I thought. Last few runs have clocked in around 9.5-10 min/km. I inserted myself into the Hal Higdon Novice 1 programme when COVID-19 hit and got to week 6 before having to take a precautionary break due to an emerging injury.

I'm actually not concerned with pace in absolute terms, my goal is to get as fast as possible moving below my aerobic threshold. I can tell from a steep hike I did back in early March that my tendency in the past (before training, before HRM) has been to settle into the middle of my Z3. I can sustain that pace hiking uphill for a few hours. Right now it seems like fantasy that I will ever be able to achieve that pace in Z1/Z2. I'm not sure if I have put in enough volume yet to be expecting results of any sort. I think I just need something to help me keep the faith. Any thoughts or ideas?

P.S. I established max HR myself by field test. Co-incidentally it came out almost dead on the 220-age rule of thumb. I had planned to do a HR drift test literally the week the gyms closed.

How sure of your max? What kind of field test did you do? And do you have a reliable HR monitor?

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 10:58pm

Murph_D wrote: »

How sure of your max? What kind of field test did you do? And do you have a reliable HR monitor?

I can’t remember the specifics but if I recall correctly it was: warm up for around 15 mins then sprint as fast as possible up an incline for 30 seconds. I think this was it. I was conscious going into the test that I might make a bollocks of it by not going hard enough so I really made an effort to go all out. I was in bits after it.

I added 5bpm to that I took the aerobic threshold as 80% and this does seem to correspond fairly well to the point at which I can’t easily hold a conversation any more. Though I haven’t done a lot of talking to myself. It also corresponds to the point at which I can no longer sustain the effort breathing just through my nose which I understand is another measure.

I’m using a Polar H10 chest strap. I don’t have any reason to doubt its readings.

Sam the Sham · 29-04-2020 11:03pm

You need to go up that steep incline multiple times and then record the highest rate you see.

I'd say your base aerobic fitness is probably pretty good. If you add in some occasional interval training/tempo runs (like one per week), you should see more improvement.

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Comments