|
May 2009
9:51am, 2 May 2009
9 posts
|
dave_m
Hope this isn't too stupid a question!
With the formulas listed in Fetch articles my Lactate Threshold is approx 163bpm. I am fully aware that this isn't 100% accurate but bear with me.
During a race my heart rate is always higher at a given pace than in training and I'm assuming this is normal. However, in the race is my LT still 163bpm?
Or to put another way, my 7:20 pace in training was 150bmp (about 75% effort). My aim was to run 75% effort in the marathon. At London my 7:20 pace was 165bmp-170bpm (85-90%). Should I have ran beneath LT and reduced my pace to match 75% during the race?
Although, going by gut feeling during the race I knew I was struggling and should have slowed. I'm just curious about the discrepancy.
|
|
May 2009
10:17am, 3 May 2009
15,835 posts
|
CB.
Re measured my resting HR this morning....it has come down from 55 to 43 :-o.
Im assuming this means that im fitter?..if it doe why does that mean that my 70% mark has come down from 155 to 151 ?
Surely if you are getting fitter you would expect HR zones to move upwards ?
|
|
May 2009
10:59pm, 3 May 2009
1,097 posts
|
paul the builder
dave - sorry, I can't help as I never have raced with an HRM. I'd expect HR readings to be different in a race due to lots of different factors - adrenalin, race-day nerves, crowds etc. all probably make it higher, and the effect of a taper should be to make it lower for the same pace (fresh legs). But I can't really answer you, hope someone is along who can.
CB - yep, resting HR going down is an indicator of being fitter. And 12 bpm lower is a lot fitter 
It probably seems frustrating to lose a few bpm off your 70% value, but you have calculated correctly. As you get fitter, you'll actually find it harder to reach the higher heart rates, so don't worry too much about it. Whatever you could do at 155 when your RHR was 55, you will also be able to do at 151 off a RHR of 43 (if not more).
|
|
May 2009
9:33pm, 4 May 2009
2,458 posts
|
Big Al Widepants
I just did a 10K with my HRM and ran the race at an average of about 93% with a peak during the uphill sprint death finish of 98%. Was nice to be able to re-live it from the comfort of my sofa after the race.
|
|
May 2009
11:07pm, 4 May 2009
1,643 posts
|
Bob!
Try a bit harder next time Big Al, and you'll have a new max HR!
|
|
May 2009
8:47am, 5 May 2009
166 posts
|
thechunkygentleman
Didnt even get close to a new max at my 10k over the weekend. Legs had gone long before the end and it ended up being nearer a crawl finish than a sprint one. That being said i took over a minute and a half off my pb and that over a much hillier course than my best was set on so there is no doubt at all that i *have* got faster by training slower.
|
|
Jun 2009
10:01am, 14 Jun 2009
7,947 posts
|
Boing
After deciding never to follow a "plan" again have decided to go back to the beginning running wise - enjoying the running at around 70%whr, with extra effort on the hills
|
|
Jun 2009
12:35pm, 14 Jun 2009
178 posts
|
thechunkygentleman
Not following a plan has worked for me. On the back of almost no speedwork and just about everything being below 70% whr i have taken over 3 minutes off my 10k PB
|
|
Jun 2009
8:37pm, 14 Jun 2009
7,415 posts
|
TCG,
Just think of the improvements you will see when you start adding some intensity:)
|
|
Jun 2009
9:12pm, 14 Jun 2009
28,968 posts
|
Gobi
Not running at all but got a new stat today. Sprint finish was crazy and my HR hit 188!!!!!!!
2 higher than ever seen before.
I hope everyone is well
regards
|
