Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 11:15pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

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.

I was completely bollocksed after one sprint there’s no way I could have done another one at the same intensity. I was thinking of doing a repeat test but the thought of it is so unpleasant!

I started from a place where I never did any form of training but would spend the spring and summer doing a lot of hiking. Long days with large elevation gain. But from my initial work with the HRM it seemed like a lot of that was spent in Z3.

Are you suggesting incorporating some interval/temp Z3 stuff can improve my pace in Z1? That’s really what I’m after, faster in Z1.

Sam the Sham · 29-04-2020 11:21pm

breadmonkey wrote: »

I was completely bollocksed after one sprint there’s no way I could have done another one at the same intensity. I was thinking of doing a repeat test but the thought of it is so unpleasant!

Yes, it is very unpleasant. And you should be cleared by a doctor before attempting it. Modern GPS watches can estimate it for you. Or you can do a protocol that's slightly less torture that will give you your HR at anaerobic threshold, which can be used to set zones without necessarily knowing the max rate.

Are you suggesting incorporating some interval/temp Z3 stuff can improve my pace in Z1? That’s really what I’m after, faster in Z1.

You want to avoid zone 3 and incorporate limited Z4 and Z5 training. That will get you faster at a given Z1 or 2 heart rate.

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 11:30pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Yes, it is very unpleasant. And you should be cleared by a doctor before attempting it. Modern GPS watches can estimate it for you. Or you can do a protocol that's slightly less torture that will give you your HR at anaerobic threshold, which can be used to set zones without necessarily knowing the max rate.

You want to avoid zone 3 and incorporate limited Z4 and Z5 training. That will get you faster at a given Z1 or 2 heart rate.

Thanks. What range of % of max HR is Z3, Z4 and Z5 for you? I understand it varies across the literature. For clarity, top of my Z1 is 75%, Z2 80% and top of Z2 considered aerobic threshold for someone with an underdeveloped aerobic system. Z3 is 80-90.

Why do you say to avoid Z3?

Sam the Sham · 30-04-2020 9:37am

breadmonkey wrote: »

Thanks. What range of % of max HR is Z3, Z4 and Z5 for you? I understand it varies across the literature. For clarity, top of my Z1 is 75%, Z2 80% and top of Z2 considered aerobic threshold for someone with an underdeveloped aerobic system. Z3 is 80-90.

Why do you say to avoid Z3?

The emerging consensus (not shared by all, however) is that you want to stress/work the different energy systems (aerobic, anaerobic, phosphagen) independently of one another to the extent possible. That's the reasoning behind running your aerobic runs at an easy pace: it doesn't take much intensity to exercise that system. Or to put it another way, upping the intensity isn't going to give further benefit to your aerobic system. Once you start to stray into Z3, you're increasingly bringing the anaerobic (lactate) system into play. But in doing so you're not really stressing it enough to get the performance benefits that would come from really stressing it while, at the same time, bringing it into play at all is going to make it harder to recover from your workout.

To work the anaerobic system, you want to do faster Z4 work: tempo runs for example at around your lactate threshold (the pace at which your body cannot fully evacuate the lactate that accumulates with anaerobic activity). This trains you in getting better at evacuating the lactate which allows you to run faster without encountering "the bear": the kind of leg pain you experience at the end of a race. You don't have to do much of this kind of training--maybe once a week--and any given session shouldn't be as long (in mileage) as your easy runs.

Strength/speed work will involve Z4/Z5 work where you really get the pulse up via intervals. Again, you don't need too much of this as it's hard to recover from.

Here's a good endurance zone calculator, which has the advantage of allowing you to calculate zones by HR or by pace.

Here's a page that explains the energy systems involved in running.

FWIW, my own zones are:

Top of Z1: about 72% of MHR
Top of Z2: about 79% of MHR
Top of Z3: about 85%
Top of Z4: about 89%

KSU · 30-04-2020 1:26pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

The emerging consensus (not shared by all, however) is that you want to stress/work the different energy systems (aerobic, anaerobic, phosphagen) independently of one another to the extent possible. That's the reasoning behind running your aerobic runs at an easy pace: it doesn't take much intensity to exercise that system. Or to put it another way, upping the intensity isn't going to give further benefit to your aerobic system. Once you start to stray into Z3, you're increasingly bringing the anaerobic (lactate) system into play. But in doing so you're not really stressing it enough to get the performance benefits that would come from really stressing it while, at the same time, bringing it into play at all is going to make it harder to recover from your workout.

Gonna lob a grenade into this not to turn people off HR Zonal training but simply to give a broader sense of the discussion;

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2012/06/physiological-model-of-training-why-i.html?v=47e5dceea252

Casey78 · 30-04-2020 1:48pm

KSU wrote: »

Gonna lob a grenade into this not to turn people off HR Zonal training but simply to give a broader sense of the discussion;

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2012/06/physiological-model-of-training-why-i.html?v=47e5dceea252

HR training is certainly not for everyone, it's not the best or only way to train it's just another way.

I'm friends with a sub 2:20 Marathoner. He has no time for HR training at all and says RPE is a better way to go.
Though maybe HR will work better for us plodders than it will for sub elites? I dunno I have no evidence to back that up just a theory.

I like keeping an eye on HR for easy days as it is good way of keeping it easy,but I would never use it for faster stuff.

KSU · 30-04-2020 2:04pm

Casey78 wrote: »

HR training is certainly not for everyone, it's not the best or only way to train it's just another way.

I'm friends with a sub 2:20 Marathoner. He has no time for HR training at all and says RPE is a better way to go.
Though maybe HR will work better for us plodders than it will for sub elites? I dunno I have no evidence to back that up just a theory.

I like keeping an eye on HR for easy days as it is good way of keeping it easy,but I would never use it for faster stuff.

Personally my opinions that yes it works very well in short term as a teaching tool to get people to slow down but ultimately I feel recreational runners don't have the consistency in their lives to control the variables that make it any more reliable than any other form of metric (pace, etc). I know Professionals who use it quite effectively but again these are people who have more set routine (wake, train, nap, chill, train, sleep) that makes day to day chances quite obvious vs Joe Bloggs who missed lunch because of a meeting in work and stressing about having to work late, squeeze in a run and drop the kids to training.

Ideally though I feel everyone should be striving for RPE and having a good sense of that as you body will give you much more reliable and instant feedback (so long as you have the experience to interpret it)

Sam the Sham · 30-04-2020 2:25pm

That article looks interesting though it's not clear what is being advocated as a replacement. But there are two separate issues, it seems to me. On my cursory first look at the article, it seemed the very idea of zone training as a means of eliciting physiological responses was being questioned. Maybe I have that wrong. But if that is what's being advocated, it surely doesn't matter how those zones are determined (pace, HR, RPE) if the pertinence of zones themselves are being called into question.

KSU · 30-04-2020 2:40pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

That article looks interesting though it's not clear what is being advocated as a replacement. But there are two separate issues, it seems to me. On my cursory first look at the article, it seemed the very idea of zone training as a means of eliciting physiological responses was being questioned. Maybe I have that wrong. But if that is what's being advocated, it surely doesn't matter how those zones are determined (pace, HR, RPE) if the pertinence of zones themselves are being called into question.

The point is that there is no replacement model.

Physiological outcomes are only one small part of the sport and a too narrow view stands in the way of true progression.

How many times has an athlete been "in shape to run X" only for it not to go right on the day. Athletes need to be developed physiologically, emotionally and mentally and the training has to be reflective of that and the persons needs outside of box ticking exercises.

Sam the Sham · 30-04-2020 3:55pm

OK, but then what is a runner to do in order to be 'developed physiologically, emotionally, and mentally'? Say I want to be faster at running a given distance. I'm going out for a run: what should I do? how fast should I go? what should I try to work on? Handwaving in the direction of some holistic approach doesn't help me answer these practical questions that arise for all serious runners.

KSU · 30-04-2020 4:19pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

OK, but then what is a runner to do in order to be 'developed physiologically, emotionally, and mentally'? Say I want to be faster at running a given distance. I'm going out for a run: what should I do? how fast should I go? what should I try to work on? Handwaving in the direction of some holistic approach doesn't help me answer these practical questions that arise for all serious runners.

The principles of training still apply I am not trying to state otherwise. My point is that polarising aspects of training as right and wrong lets crucial nuances fall between the cracks. Avoiding certain area's (Z3 as an example) from a strictly physiological sense overlooks possible gains in other area's.

Once basic principles are adhered to then creativity in training and individualization occur and these is where true gains are eeked out

I'll take your point on aiming to get better at a specific distance though.

What is currently limiting you? is it strictly physiologically or can you mentally switch off, personality traits influencing how you race? What about biomechanical. These are all area's which would influence how you approach training and all would influence whether a particular run/session would fit into a plan for the individual.

Racing too frequently is a common error with many runners yet it might be the solution to a confidence issues in other athletes.

The thing is we are always looking for the "right" answer these days to a point where we don't fully understand the questions we are asking or even how to ask them because of the way alot of information is processed these days.

What you see as holistic I see as multi-factoral examination.

IvoryTower · 01-05-2020 11:35am

I have a few questions or just thoughts. My Garmin bases the zones off mhr of 190. I hit that at the end of last weeks 5k TT, even though tbh i dont think I felt THAT bad. I wasn't wearing the chest strap at the time.

Zone 1 - 95 -114
Zone 2 - 114 - 133
Zone 3 - 133 - 152
zone 4 152 - 171
Zone 5 171 - 190

Full disclosure I came from sprinting about 2-3 years ago so I had very little aerobic capacity and this has improved a lot since.

I run easy every second day about 9 min miles, sessions inbetween, but my hr is never below 133, its a struggle to keep it anywhere near that, a purposely slow jog might keep in the mid 130's eventually rising to 140's after a couple of miles. Form also goes out the window to some extent the slower i get. So I'm very rarely in the "easy" zone on my watch, almost always in the "aerobic" zone although I believe i'm supposed to be running easy on my off days. It does feel easy btw.

Do you think maybe my max hr could be higher than that? I have a hill session tomorrow should i murder myself to see if it goes higher? It seems weird to think I coul dbe running 50mpw and none of them are "easy" according to the numbers. Seems off.

IvoryTower · 01-05-2020 2:39pm

Okay I done 5m holding my harmin "easy" pace, 10.30 min miles on grass, seemed to be 10min miles when i was on road.

dang that is slow

Murph_D · 01-05-2020 10:42pm

IvoryTower wrote: »

I have a few questions or just thoughts. My Garmin bases the zones off mhr of 190. I hit that at the end of last weeks 5k TT, even though tbh i dont think I felt THAT bad. I wasn't wearing the chest strap at the time.

Zone 1 - 95 -114
Zone 2 - 114 - 133
Zone 3 - 133 - 152
zone 4 152 - 171
Zone 5 171 - 190

Full disclosure I came from sprinting about 2-3 years ago so I had very little aerobic capacity and this has improved a lot since.

I run easy every second day about 9 min miles, sessions inbetween, but my hr is never below 133, its a struggle to keep it anywhere near that, a purposely slow jog might keep in the mid 130's eventually rising to 140's after a couple of miles. Form also goes out the window to some extent the slower i get. So I'm very rarely in the "easy" zone on my watch, almost always in the "aerobic" zone although I believe i'm supposed to be running easy on my off days. It does feel easy btw.

Do you think maybe my max hr could be higher than that? I have a hill session tomorrow should i murder myself to see if it goes higher? It seems weird to think I coul dbe running 50mpw and none of them are "easy" according to the numbers. Seems off.

I doubt if you hit your max in your downhill TT, to be honest, although you wouldn't be far off if you really hammered it out for the final km. But I would do a specific test with a chest strap to be sure.

IvoryTower · 02-05-2020 8:07am

Murph_D wrote: »

I doubt if you hit your max in your downhill TT, to be honest, although you wouldn't be far off if you really hammered it out for the final km. But I would do a specific test with a chest strap to be sure.

Yes I think so. I'll actually get a proper test done when restrictions are lifted. 10.30 min miles likely overkill, I'll go with about 9.30 for now

rom · 05-05-2020 8:17pm

Prior to this I was doing most runs at 8:30. It was painful to do this. I went from 4:27 to 3:18 in DCM 2011 to 2012 when I did this properly. All my easy runs were at max - 50 beats.

If someone was to do this test monthly every month and compare with last month to see if they are progressing or staying the same. If they are not improving and coming from a low base then they are doing something wrong.

I am doing nothing crazy training at the moment but I am really starting to get fit and it's down to all the walking that I am doing daily with the kids that is building my endurance.

MrSkinny · 11-05-2020 9:25pm

IvoryTower wrote: »

I have a few questions or just thoughts. My Garmin bases the zones off mhr of 190. I hit that at the end of last weeks 5k TT, even though tbh i dont think I felt THAT bad. I wasn't wearing the chest strap at the time.

Zone 1 - 95 -114
Zone 2 - 114 - 133
Zone 3 - 133 - 152
zone 4 152 - 171
Zone 5 171 - 190

Full disclosure I came from sprinting about 2-3 years ago so I had very little aerobic capacity and this has improved a lot since.

I run easy every second day about 9 min miles, sessions inbetween, but my hr is never below 133, its a struggle to keep it anywhere near that, a purposely slow jog might keep in the mid 130's eventually rising to 140's after a couple of miles. Form also goes out the window to some extent the slower i get. So I'm very rarely in the "easy" zone on my watch, almost always in the "aerobic" zone although I believe i'm supposed to be running easy on my off days. It does feel easy btw.

Do you think maybe my max hr could be higher than that? I have a hill session tomorrow should i murder myself to see if it goes higher? It seems weird to think I could be running 50mpw and none of them are "easy" according to the numbers. Seems off.

Disclaimer: not an expert by any means but I recently picked up a strap and have started looking at HR a bit more closely as another parameter, and was curious about your findings.

If your Garmin is set up to base zones as a % of Max HR then, by default, it will be using the following bands:

Z1: 50-60%
Z2: 60-70%
Z3: 70-80%
Z4: 80-90%
Z5: 90-100%

Source: Forerunner 230/235 Manual - HR Zone Calculations

Compare this, for example, to the HR intensity zones given in the well-regarded "Faster Road Racing" book by Pftizinger and Latter:

Recovery: <76% of Max HR
General aerobic: 70-81%
Endurance: 74-84%
Lactate threshold: 80-91%
VO2max: 94-98%

Your easy runs should probably be in the General Aerobic range, which would be 133-154 (for a Max HR of 190) and roughly equates to the Garmin's default Zone 3. Even for slower recovery runs the HR range should be <141 according to the book, so well above the Garmin's default Zones 1 & 2.

The bottom line is I'm not sure how useful the Garmin's default zones are. Personally I'd be more inclined to follow the guidance in the FRR book, which incidentally also provides intensity zones based on Heart Rate Reserve (in case you know your resting HR).

Garmin Connect allows you to customise the percentages used to determine the zones (and also to choose between basing them on %Max HR, %HRR or %LTHR) but it doesn't let you define overlapping zones so it's not possible to replicate the FRR ranges exactly, as far as I can tell.

Hope I'm not talking nonsense!

IvoryTower · 11-05-2020 10:26pm

I did change the zones based on max hr of 195, I've hit 193 so it's probably even higher tbh. This would put zone 2 <136 which is tough but doable..9.30min miles...

There seems to be lots of websites that say run your easy days in zone 2, not 3. Is that what you guys do or just keep it between 2 & 3?

11-05-2020 10:52pm

increasingly what is gaining credence is polarised training.

you should only really care about zone 2 training until you have built up a very good aerobic base. this takes a long time. it's "slow down to get fast"

most people don't stick to it because you initially to start out at a very slow pace, basically avoid hills and walk for parts to bring your heart rate back down when you go above the maf heart rate

then you can look at speed work in zone 4 and 5

zone 3 is the "grey zone" and is to be avoided.

Dr. Phil Maffetone has converted a lot of people

his formula is based around the MAF (maximum aerobic function - not from his name)

you can read about it here and how to calculate your maf heart rate for zone 2 training - there are adjustments based on certain factors

https://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

https://philmaffetone.com/want-speed-slow-down/

MrSkinny · 11-05-2020 11:19pm

Personally I ignore the Garmin zones and haven't even bothered trying to customise them. I go by the intensity zones in the FRR book, which tell me that my easy runs should be at HR < 139/140 so I just tend to try and stay below that level regardless of whether Garmin has decided to call that Zone 1, 2 or 3.

At the same time I try not to get too caught up on the actual figures. For a start, I'm calculating them based on an estimated Max HR and, as has been said earlier in the thread, our HR can fluctuate from one day to the next due to many factors so I'm consciously trying to avoid being too prescriptive.

My point was that those default Garmin zones seem to be very skewed towards the low end of the intensity spectrum.

11-05-2020 11:29pm

this is an article on the same concept (although focus on the aerobic base first before speed work)

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/training-in-the-grey-zone-how-to-avoid-the-zone-3-plateau/

basically, again, build up your aerobic endurance

over time you will be able to go faster (pace) at your maximum aerobic function heart rate

this also teaches your body how to burn fat for fuel

most people you see out doing general running are running anaerobically , and not actually achieving much in terms of getting more efficient

Casey78 · 12-05-2020 8:41am

glasso wrote: »

this is an article on the same concept (although focus on the aerobic base first before speed work)

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/training-in-the-grey-zone-how-to-avoid-the-zone-3-plateau/

basically, again, build up your aerobic endurance

over time you will be able to go faster (pace) at your maximum aerobic function heart rate

this also teaches your body how to burn fat for fuel

most people you see out doing general running are running anaerobically , and not actually achieving much in terms of getting more efficient

Zone 3 isn't a zone to completely avoid though.

If you are training for a Marathon then doing some runs in Zone 3 is recommended as Zone 3 should be around your Marathon pace and a lot of plans now have lots of Marathon paced runs included.

There are plenty of benefits to training in Zone 3 when required and when its managed correctly. Obviously going out and doing every run in Zone 3 isn't recommended of course.

12-05-2020 10:02am

Casey78 wrote: »

Zone 3 isn't a zone to completely avoid though.

If you are training for a Marathon then doing some runs in Zone 3 is recommended as Zone 3 should be around your Marathon pace and a lot of plans now have lots of Marathon paced runs included.

There are plenty of benefits to training in Zone 3 when required and when its managed correctly. Obviously going out and doing every run in Zone 3 isn't recommended of course.

I think that you can see that the point is that a human gets more value from polarised training

of course zone 3 heart rate will be used by the body in races but training in zone 2 (max aerobic endurance level) on one hand for endurance (and to turn body into a fat burner) and to a lesser extent in zone 4/5 for anaerobic speed work is much more effective.

that's why they say you don't need to and indeed shouldn't train in zone 3.

Casey78 · 12-05-2020 10:40am

glasso wrote: »

I think that you can see that the point is that a human gets more value from polarised training

of course zone 3 heart rate will be used by the body in races but training in zone 2 (max aerobic endurance level) on one hand for endurance (and to turn body into a fat burner) and to a lesser extent in zone 4/5 for anaerobic speed work is much more effective.

that's why they say you don't need to and indeed shouldn't train in zone 3.

I think it depends on what are training for.
If you are training for a Marathon and you aren't a novice doing your first that just wants to finish,then you need to do some training runs at Marathon pace, in my opinion.

Zone 3 is in or around Marathon pace so therefore you need to do runs in Zone 3 and you will get a benefit from these runs.

There are plenty of articles online by far more knowledgeable people than me that say you should be doing MP miles in training. MP miles and Zone 3 go hand in hand.

KSU · 12-05-2020 10:56am

glasso wrote: »

that's why they say you don't need to and indeed shouldn't train in zone 3.

I think the point is more to avoid monopaced running in zone 3 rather than avoiding it entirely.

There are plenty of benefits beyond energy pathways to be had from each zone and of applied correctly to training a persons approach should touch on all paces to a varying degree at different points in build up.

Zone 3 training is something that is widely used in sub elite to elite 10k- marathon training again (though there was a lull post Maffetone/Daniels being widely available sources of information in 90s/00s

12-05-2020 11:25am

nevertheless, for most runners out there the benefits of low heart rate training (MAF) for the majority of training would be absolutely huge.

most runners that you see out there running are running purely on the basis of running pace and not getting anywhere near the improvement that they could be getting.

Casey78 · 12-05-2020 12:04pm

glasso wrote: »

nevertheless, for most runners out there the benefits of low heart rate training (MAF) for the majority of training would be absolutely huge.

most runners that you see out there running are running purely on the basis of running pace and not getting anywhere near the improvement that they could be getting.

Dont think anyone would dispute most runners need to slow down. I was more disputing the notion that you shouldn't ever train in Zone 3.

I don't like the MAF method though myself.
It doesn't take into account a runners Max HR. Picking an arbitrary number like 180 and subtracting your age is all well and good but depending on your Max Hr this figure could actually have you running too hard or even too slow at the resulting figure for that formula.

I prefer to use the Karvonen Formula with the zones that John L Parker set out in his book Heart Rate training for the Compleat Idiot.

No doubt MAF will and has worked for a lot of runners,but I dont like the concept personally.

As with everything the key is to find what works for you as we are all different animals.

12-05-2020 12:18pm

yes I agree that the discussion about specific formulas etc (although there are adjustment factors on MAF - it's not just 180 less age) could go on and on but they all follow the broad principle of running aerobically to build up endurance so you can, as you make progress, run faster at the same aerobic heart rate.

for race days you run for your best time but the longer the race distance the more this applies (aerobic base).

it's not for 5k runners obviously but most recreational / enthusiast runners are not targeting 5k exclusively

ILoveYourVibes · 18-05-2020 2:07am

Casey78 wrote: »

Dont think anyone would dispute most runners need to slow down.

I was always the opposite. I could run forever ...but couldn't sprint.:o

partyguinness · 18-05-2020 3:30pm

Casey78 wrote: »

Dont think anyone would dispute most runners need to slow down. I was more disputing the notion that you shouldn't ever train in Zone 3.

I don't like the MAF method though myself.
It doesn't take into account a runners Max HR. Picking an arbitrary number like 180 and subtracting your age is all well and good but depending on your Max Hr this figure could actually have you running too hard or even too slow at the resulting figure for that formula.

I prefer to use the Karvonen Formula with the zones that John L Parker set out in his book Heart Rate training for the Compleat Idiot.

No doubt MAF will and has worked for a lot of runners,but I dont like the concept personally.

As with everything the key is to find what works for you as we are all different animals.

Go and get your VO2 tested in a lab to see what your max is. That is what I did.

Funnily enough MAF geeks dismiss VO2 readings on the basis that you never train like that which is a very fair point.

Interestingly Garmin had my VO2 at 56 but my lab test came back at 49. Could I have pushed it more during the test? Perhaps- I mean if it was 100 metres to go to break my 5k PB then sure.

I went to see a sports trainer (although he is personally more into cycling) who goes over to Africa several times a year, worked with Olympians and does pre-season training/tests with Premier league clubs.

My max came in at 169 and he gave me a MAF rate of 136 to train with for 12 weeks. Using the 180 formula I should be at 139 as I am 41 but he put me down to 136 as my running has been sporadic over the previous 6 months.

Murph_D · 18-05-2020 6:29pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Go and get your VO2 tested in a lab to see what your max is. That is what I did.

Funnily enough MAF geeks dismiss VO2 readings on the basis that you never train like that which is a very fair point.

Interestingly Garmin had my VO2 at 56 but my lab test came back at 49. Could I have pushed it more during the test? Perhaps- I mean if it was 100 metres to go to break my 5k PB then sure.

I went to see a sports trainer (although he is personally more into cycling) who goes over to Africa several times a year, worked with Olympians and does pre-season training/tests with Premier league clubs.

My max came in at 169 and he gave me a MAF rate of 136 to train with for 12 weeks. Using the 180 formula I should be at 139 as I am 41 but he put me down to 136 as my running has been sporadic over the previous 6 months.

Garmin VO2 stats are useless. You'll get a better number from feeding your race results into the Jack Daniels calculator.

partyguinness · 20-05-2020 1:22pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Garmin VO2 stats are useless. You'll get a better number from feeding your race results into the Jack Daniels calculator.

Yeah. Although it was not too far off but no I wouldnt take any notice.

There is a guy that follows me on Strava and he posted a screenshot of his VO2 which is showing up at a very very impressive 61. Now the guy is in his 60s and like me just a recreational runner.

I was awfully tempted to tell him it is rubbish but I bit my tongue I didnt want to burst his bubble as he is very happy about it.

ariana` · 20-05-2020 2:23pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah. Although it was not too far off but no I wouldnt take any notice.

There is a guy that follows me on Strava and he posted a screenshot of his VO2 which is showing up at a very very impressive 61. Now the guy is in his 60s and like me just a recreational runner.

I was awfully tempted to tell him it is rubbish but I bit my tongue I didnt want to burst his bubble as he is very happy about it.

And in fairness wouldn't you say the trend is still a positive even if you ignore the numbers? So if his VO2 was 60 at the start of the year then he's going in the right direction even if the 60 should really have been 55 and the 61 should really have been 56...

Sam the Sham · 20-05-2020 2:24pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah. Although it was not too far off but no I wouldnt take any notice.

There is a guy that follows me on Strava and he posted a screenshot of his VO2 which is showing up at a very very impressive 61. Now the guy is in his 60s and like me just a recreational runner.

I was awfully tempted to tell him it is rubbish but I bit my tongue I didnt want to burst his bubble as he is very happy about it.

The Garmin stat is rubbish if you think it's going to give you your VO2Max and let you use that to predict race times and the like.

Nevertheless, I believe you can compare VO2Max readings from Garmin devices with one another, so your friend's 61 is better than someone else's 55. They are also useful when looking at the evolution of one's own number.

partyguinness · 20-05-2020 2:35pm

ariana` wrote: »

And in fairness wouldn't you say the trend is still a positive even if you ignore the numbers? So if his VO2 was 60 at the start of the year then he's going in the right direction even if the 60 should really have been 55 and the 61 should really have been 56...

Well yes that is true as it is working from the same base but I just didnt want to plough in by saying it's probable 'only' say, 55 which of course is still very good.

IvoryTower · 20-05-2020 6:14pm

I like to use my garmin one to see progress alright. I notice it improves by a notch or two if I wear it all the time so it has resting hr etc

Murph_D · 20-05-2020 8:23pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

The Garmin stat is rubbish if you think it's going to give you your VO2Max and let you use that to predict race times and the like.

Nevertheless, I believe you can compare VO2Max readings from Garmin devices with one another, so your friend's 61 is better than someone else's 55. They are also useful when looking at the evolution of one's own number.

Doubt this to be honest. If it’s wrong, It’s wrong, and best ignored.

Sam the Sham · 20-05-2020 8:33pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Doubt this to be honest. If it’s wrong, It’s wrong, and best ignored.

So a thermometer for which the scale has been lost (or erased) has no comparative value?

Swashbuckler · 20-05-2020 9:20pm

I had a vo2max of 61 two weeks ago. One long run where the HR monitor went funky and it dropped to 58. Useless.

shotgunmcos · 20-05-2020 11:23pm

IvoryTower wrote: »

I like to use my garmin one to see progress alright. I notice it improves by a notch or two if I wear it all the time so it has resting hr etc

I agree. I wear all the time so its constantly tracking hr, sleep etc on top of training.

Last year peaked at 59 for a sub 3. Best shape I was in for years. Then off the wagon. 49 by xmas. Starting on 50 in Jan it's now up and down 58-59. Sure I forget the HRM, use wrist hr sometimes and it drops down a notch.

Tracking the trend is interesting for ones own value. Maybe it's not perfect as a measure but it does tend up or down as you gain/lose fitness.

Important to put in accurate settings. I'm sure if you are really 60kg, run every day and enter 100kg at training level 2, then knock out a 17min 5k, Garmin will think you are marvellous.

Heart Rate can be a lot more erratic but over time it tends well and I've found it useful. Just ignore the spikes or that sometimes it takes a mile to realise you are not sprinting up a hill!

I do like that it asks you to accept a new LT value and it's also not far off.

ariana` · 21-05-2020 9:40am

Swashbuckler wrote: »

I had a vo2max of 61 two weeks ago. One long run where the HR monitor went funky and it dropped to 58. Useless.

That's mental, i've never seen it drop by anything more than 1 and only when the little arrow has been point down for a few days so i have advance warning it's on the way down. Actually my vo2 stats moves very little, if i look at the last 6m it is almost a straight line with just the odd fluctuation of 1pt either way for a few days or maybe a week.... But i wear a chest strap so maybe that's why it's consistent.

In terms of trend my Runalyze stats seem to match my Garmin stats so that has given me some confidence in the trend although GC gives me a Vo2 max 7 higher than Runalyze :rolleyes:

***Edited to add that this made me think - am i doing something wrong that my v02 doesn't really change much

I mean i'm looking for improvement, right. It fell a lot November '18-Feb'19 when i had a lot of post-marathon sickness but by June '19 it was back up near it's peak and it's been steady ever since then

KSU · 21-05-2020 9:55am

ariana` wrote: »

***Edited to add that this made me think - am i doing something wrong that my v02 doesn't really change much I mean i'm looking for improvement, right. It fell a lot November '18-Feb'19 when i had a lot of post-marathon sickness but by June '19 it was back up near it's peak and it's been steady ever since then

Wouldn’t worry Vo2 max is not a measure of performance so you can see dramatic improvements in racing ability without any such change to Vo2 max

If it was just about this figure Kenyans wouldn’t stand a chance vs Nordic Skiiers who on average tend to produce amongst the highest numbers on record

shotgunmcos · 21-05-2020 11:56am

If you have 5 minutes and coffee to hand

The fittest of them all: endurance athletes
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 21, 2014 · UPDATED OCTOBER 10, 2014

Photo courtesy of Sportsnet.ca Marit Bjørgen and four other top finishers from the Skiathlon gasping for air after all-out effort.
Photo courtesy of Sportsnet.ca
Marit Bjørgen and four other top finishers from the Skiathlon gasping for air after all-out effort.
https://www.norwegianamerican.com/the-fittest-of-them-all-endurance-athletes/

Swimmers, marathon runners, and cyclists get the most credit for being fit, but cross-country skiers outdo them all

Tom Rodgers
Arlington, Texas

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fittest of them all? You may never have this conversation with the quicksilver on your wall, but many athletes are waking up today in Sochi, Russia and asking themselves that question. Just what do we mean by fitness? Do we mean the strength found in weightlifting competitions? Do we mean the explosiveness found in American Football players or 100-meter sprinters? Or the balance and control of figure skaters and gymnasts?

In the current Sochi games, we have the most popular sports like downhill skiing, a mix of strength and speed; figure skating, mostly skill and presentation; speed-skating, which is similar to both distance running and cycling; and snowboarding, a test of balance not unlike surfing. If we define “fitness” in a medical way, we mean cardiorespiratory fitness, or the ability to process oxygen and turn fat into energy. Most doctors agree this kind of fitness makes you live longer and helps your brain resist aging.

Physiologists have a convenient single number that measures this fitness: VO2-max, which is the maximum rate of oxygen consumption as measured during incremental exercise, sometimes referred as “aerobic capacity.” It’s measured in milliliters of oxygen consumed per minute per kilogram of body weight (ml/kg/min). Size does matter when it comes to aerobic capacity, which is why most endurance athletes have lower body mass than larger athletes from sports emphasizing short-term bursts of strength and speed.

How do VO2-max numbers stack up across various sports? Male Olympic swimmers usually come in somewhere with a VO2-max around 70, top marathon runners something like 75, and pro cyclists as high as 88. In most of these sports, women tend to come in about 10 points lower than comparable men. Even though men weigh more than women, they have a higher percentage of muscle, and as you might have guessed, testosterone helps men burn oxygen rapidly.

But by far the highest VO2-max numbers come from cross-country skiers, who have tested as high as 96 ml/kg/min. What makes them the fittest athletes? The crosscountry events are some of the longest in the Olympics, up to 50 kilometers (31 miles), and they cover the toughest terrain, including steep climbs. Compared to other sports like swimming (mostly upper-body muscles), cycling (lower body without much upper body) and running (mostly lower body with arms swinging freely), cross-country skiers actively use their upper-body muscles to pole up hills and in the flats, and of course need strong hips and legs to move the skis. Because they use both the upper- and lowerbody in tandem, they must also engage core muscles in the abdomen and lower back, some of the largest in the human body.

I first became acquainted with top crosscountry skiers and biathletes via triathlon, where many European triathletes come from a cross-country skiing or biathlon background. I met Uros Velepec when he won the 2000 Ultraman Triathlon World Championship in Hawaii (about 2.7 times longer than the famous Hawaii Ironman triathlon) where I got fifth place overall. He then went on to become the coach of the Slovenian men’s national biathlon team. Many other long-course triathletes in North America train the aerobic engine in the winter on cross-country skis.

In the 2014 Sochi games, this conflagration of oxygen burned brightest for the Norwegian cross-country team on the opening weekend. The fire started with the women’s Skiathlon, a mixture of classic-style skiing for 7.5 kilometers on narrow trails with longer poles (resembles exaggerated walking or an indoor elliptical trainer); followed by a quick change of skis and 7.5 more kilometers using the newer freestyle method (looks more like skating on the snow).

On a multiloop course with wickedly tough climbs, a group of three Norwegians and one Swede broke away from the pack and fought ski-to-ski to the last 400 meters. Then Marit Bjørgen followed the breaking Swede Charlotte Kalla up the final climb, drafted in behind, then passed inside on the final turn to pull away for a clear win.

That left two other Norwegian women, Heidi Weng and Teherese Johaug, to fight for the bronze medal. Johaug had done most of the work breaking the wind while leading the original four-woman breakaway, so faded to the surging Weng who took the bronze.

If you need still more evidence that cross-country skiers process the most oxygen and put out the most energy at the finish, all four women collapsed flat into the snow and continued to pant rapidly for several minutes after the event. We’ve all seen this kind of thing in the old days when marathon runners and Ironman triathletes would collapse at or before the finish line, but modern training techniques and race nutrition have all but eliminated the dramatic collapse in these other sports. Not so in cross-country skiing, where the herculean effort requires the very last decimal of their remaining aerobic capacity.

Adding to the emotional fatigue, both Bjørgen and Weng said they were skiing hard for teammate Astrid Uhrenholdt Jacobsen, who heard on Friday that her brother and training partner had died. Bittersweet tears were apparent in the Norwegian dressing tent after the Skiathlon medals. The cause of death was not given. Jacobsen decided to go ahead with Tuesday’s cross-country sprint despite being in mourning.

You could see oxygen depletion again the following day in the men’s freestyle sprint, where the top finishers all collapsed at the line. Even in the more controlled exertion of the men’s biathlon, where competitors must freestyle-ski around a challenging hilly loop, then stop to fire a .22 caliber rifle at five tiny targets, the finish can get hairy. Biathlon is a sport where baseline fitness, or the heart rates experienced well below V02-max, are very important, because you must allow your heart rate drop from a near-maximal effort of 165-185 beats-per-minute (bpm) down to 120 bpm in only a few seconds–so that you aim steadily with the 3.5-kilogram (7.7-pound) rifle. Missed shots incur a 150-meter loop penalty, costing competitors about 25 seconds against the field.

In the Sochi sprint biathlon, the gold medal winner was a surprise. Forty-year-old Norwegian Ole Einar Bjørndalen, seeded well down in the field against younger competitors, won his 12th Olympic medal to tie the all-time record of Bjørn Erlend Dæhlie, the legendary Norwegian cross-country star who retired in 2001 after a back injury. In fact it was Dæhlie who set that record for the highest-ever recorded VO2-max of 96. Amazingly, this high number was recorded out of competition without yet reaching his peak fitness. Experts estimate his competition levels could well have been over 100.

As I write this article, more Norwegians are winning medals in men’s and women’s cross-country events, showing the depth of their talent, including some younger Olympians sure to win more medals in the future.

Right now in February 2014, if you want to find the highest average V02-max of any single building earth, look no further than the dormitory of the Norwegian crosscountry skiers and biathletes.

Sam the Sham · 21-05-2020 12:15pm

shotgunmcos wrote: »

I agree. I wear all the time so its constantly tracking hr, sleep etc on top of training.

Last year peaked at 59 for a sub 3. Best shape I was in for years. Then off the wagon. 49 by xmas. Starting on 50 in Jan it's now up and down 58-59. Sure I forget the HRM, use wrist hr sometimes and it drops down a notch.

Tracking the trend is interesting for ones own value. Maybe it's not perfect as a measure but it does tend up or down as you gain/lose fitness.

Important to put in accurate settings. I'm sure if you are really 60kg, run every day and enter 100kg at training level 2, then knock out a 17min 5k, Garmin will think you are marvellous.

I don't think that's true. I think it's the opposite.

I don't check or adjust my weight that often. But I do remember that one time I did check my weight and found I'd lost a kg or two, entered the new weight into Garmin connect and found that my VO2 reading next time I ran went up a couple of points. That suggests that lowering the weight raises the VO2. I know VO2 calculations include weight as a variable since it's millilitres of oxygen per kg of body weight per minute. If kg goes up, mL of oxygen per kg goes down.

partyguinness · 27-05-2020 2:31pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I don't think that's true. I think it's the opposite.

I don't check or adjust my weight that often. But I do remember that one time I did check my weight and found I'd lost a kg or two, entered the new weight into Garmin connect and found that my VO2 reading next time I ran went up a couple of points. That suggests that lowering the weight raises the VO2. I know VO2 calculations include weight as a variable since it's millilitres of oxygen per kg of body weight per minute. If kg goes up, mL of oxygen per kg goes down.

The VO2 measure with Garmin is primarily based on how often you hit say, 60-80% HR intensity.

If you decide to start a say, a 12 week aerobic programme of long slow runs and leave out intervals, speedwork and HIIT then your VO2 with Garmin will plummet because you are not hitting HR high threshold or even anerobic.

VO2 dropping doesnt necessarily mean you are losing fitness as such but rather that you are not doing a certain type of training. That is not necessarily bad depending on individual needs and targets.

The way VO2 is tested in a lab is nothing how you train in real life. While it is one interesting tool I wouldnt read into it too much.

ariana` · 27-05-2020 3:22pm

partyguinness wrote: »

The VO2 measure with Garmin is primarily based on how often you hit say, 60-80% HR intensity.

If you decide to start a say, a 12 week aerobic programme of long slow runs and leave out intervals, speedwork and HIIT then your VO2 with Garmin will plummet because you are not hitting HR high threshold or even anerobic.

VO2 dropping doesnt necessarily mean you are losing fitness as such but rather that you are not doing a certain type of training. That is not necessarily bad depending on individual needs and targets.

The way VO2 is tested in a lab is nothing how you train in real life. While it is one interesting tool I wouldnt read into it too much.

Interesting, this isn't my experience of it i have to say. I'm doing a base plan at the moment with very little running other than aerobic (a tempo OR strides once per week only) and my Vo2 max has held fairly steady throughout.

I find it will drop if my HR is relatively higher on like for like runs... So for example if last week i was doing my easy runs @ 10min/m with a HR of 135 bpm and this week for the same pace my HR is @ 140 bpm then Vo2 max on the Garmin may drop as i'm working harder for the same pace. And conversely if my 10 min/m suddenly sees me at a HR of 130 bpm then i may gain a V02 point. In my case it's usually a fairly temporary loss/gain. The only time i've seen it plummet is when I've been injured, repeatedly sick, run down etc for an extended period of time.

partyguinness · 27-05-2020 3:31pm

ariana` wrote: »

Interesting, this isn't my experience of it i have to say. I'm doing a base plan at the moment with very little running other than aerobic (a tempo OR strides once per week only) and my Vo2 max has held fairly steady throughout.

But even so, you are still doing tempo or strides once a week. It sounds like that is enough to hold steady.

I am currently finishing up a base aerobic program and tempo/strides etc is completely banned. I havent sprinted in months- it has helped that my usual track speedwork shut down 2 months ago due to C19.

I should be back to speedwork next month and hill sessions. It will be interessting to see if my Garmin based VO2 will start to rise- well, it should.

ariana` wrote: »

I find it will drop if my HR is relatively higher on like for like runs... So for example if last week i was doing my easy runs @ 10min/m with a HR of 135 bpm and this week for the same pace my HR is @ 140 bpm then Vo2 max on the Garmin may drop as i'm working harder for the same pace. And conversely if my 10 min/m suddenly sees me at a HR of 130 bpm then i may gain a V02 point. In my case it's usually a fairly temporary loss/gain. The only time i've seen it plummet is when I've been injured, repeatedly sick, run down etc for an extended period of time.

Interesting. My Garmin does not appear to be that sensitive but I guess as I am not mixing it up it has probably plateaued.

eyrie · 28-05-2020 11:27am

ariana` wrote: »

Interesting, this isn't my experience of it i have to say. I'm doing a base plan at the moment with very little running other than aerobic (a tempo OR strides once per week only) and my Vo2 max has held fairly steady throughout.

I find it will drop if my HR is relatively higher on like for like runs... So for example if last week i was doing my easy runs @ 10min/m with a HR of 135 bpm and this week for the same pace my HR is @ 140 bpm then Vo2 max on the Garmin may drop as i'm working harder for the same pace. And conversely if my 10 min/m suddenly sees me at a HR of 130 bpm then i may gain a V02 point. In my case it's usually a fairly temporary loss/gain. The only time i've seen it plummet is when I've been injured, repeatedly sick, run down etc for an extended period of time.

Same - this is how it works for me too and it's fairly reliable - not the actual number, which I'm sure has no relationship to VO2 max, but as a relative measure of what kind of shape I'm in over a few days. Plus it's kind of fun!

partyguinness · 28-05-2020 11:36am

eyrie wrote: »

Same - this is how it works for me too and it's fairly reliable - not the actual number, which I'm sure has no relationship to VO2 max, but as a relative measure of what kind of shape I'm in over a few days. Plus it's kind of fun!

Mine was 56 on Garmin up to February but I went to the lab and given 49 so I adjusted Garmin to 49 and have watched it slump to 44 since I took up slow runs- no tempo or speedwork whatsoever. In fact I have not sprinted in months.

But strangely I check it last night and it has gone up to 45.

eyrie · 28-05-2020 11:47am

partyguinness wrote: »

Mine was 56 on Garmin up to February but I went to the lab and given 49 so I adjusted Garmin to 49 and have watched it slump to 44 since I took up slow runs- no tempo or speedwork whatsoever. In fact I have not sprinted in months.

But strangely I check it last night and it has gone up to 45.

Strange! I'm doing exclusively heart-rate based base building at the moment, all aerobic and well below tempo pace, and the vast majority of it very slow and easy. My number dropped a bit at the very start (for unrelated reasons, I think) and has since come back up. I'd expect if I continue and my heartrate starts to drop for the same pace that the number would go up, as that's what usually happens. I've never tried entering VO2 manually on Garmin though, I wonder if that's affected it for you?

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Comments