Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

1356713

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,407 ✭✭✭Lazare


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭shotgunmcos


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭Sam the Sham


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,407 ✭✭✭Lazare


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,407 ✭✭✭Lazare


    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 :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,407 ✭✭✭Lazare


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,407 ✭✭✭Lazare


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,407 ✭✭✭Lazare




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,407 ✭✭✭Lazare


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭Sam the Sham


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭Sam the Sham


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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..


  • Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭Sam the Sham


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    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/


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭Sam the Sham


    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 B) 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    Ceepo wrote: »

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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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.


Advertisement