|
Sep 2011
2:50pm, 30 Sep 2011
3,245 posts
|
GlennR
Good work daviec! Can you rearrange the function to map pace against beats per mile? That's the one that's doing my head in.
~blows dust off copy of Mathcad~
|
|
Sep 2011
2:54pm, 30 Sep 2011
3,312 posts
|
Jhuff
Did someone say an F-bomb? 
|
|
Sep 2011
3:39pm, 30 Sep 2011
11,135 posts
|
Fenland Runner
Glenn beat me to it! Good work daviec. I like it. A lot.
|
|
Sep 2011
5:20pm, 30 Sep 2011
262 posts
|
puzzler
Great stuff Daviec.
I use bpm as the default way of comparing runs over time. It helps that I run almost all on the flat because I am training for a flat marathon so not doing any hills. What I've found is that as i've got fitter bpm for the slow runs and for the fast runs/races have got much closer together. Used to be 250 bpm difference now less than 100.
As to the question of what happens to bpm at the extremes, as we know sadly post challenger disaster, making out of sample predictions can have deadly consequences.
|
|
Sep 2011
7:08pm, 30 Sep 2011
4,612 posts
|
Dvorak
Beats per mile for me varies between over 1700 bpm taking it really easy (sub 65%WHR) to 1400 or so for a 5K race. I find a fairly linear progression WHR vs speed eg if I am a certain pace at 70%, then at 84% I will take about 16% (inverse of 20 %) off my time (assuming similar conditions).
(though this is historical data, I don't think would be near that just now . And I have managed to mislay my monitor )
|
|
Sep 2011
8:59pm, 30 Sep 2011
11,142 posts
|
Fenland Runner
Tonight wore the HR for a tempo session (this was a first). Get the excuses in, it was warm, very warm, in fact, a very rough estimate is that I lost about 4 lbs in an hour!!! Weighin after the run was 12st 8lbs and I've not seen that in ages, normally, at this time of day it is 12 st 12 or 13.
Mile and a very small bit warm up, then five miles very slightly progressive tempo at around HM pace.
The stats are very, very ugly!!
89% WHR
91.7% MaxHR
7:27, 7:26, 7:17, 7:15, 7:13
The two miles warm down were both identical at 8:24, but the HR remained elevated, about 20 bpm higher than if I'd run at that pace from the start.
However, when home and sat down taking my shoes off, the HR dropped relatively quickly to sub-120, less than a minute or so.
It just proves that I'm a crap endurance runner and there is a huge amount of improvement, if I can just learn to run efficiently at 9:30-10 pace.
|
|
Sep 2011
9:33pm, 30 Sep 2011
6,698 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
You just need to do more of it. When I started tempo runs in July, I only needed to sneeze to reach 88% of max and my HR would stay around 83% for a 10mm cool down. In short, I was fucked. 3 months later it's a bit better. It was 27 degrees here tonight - that won't help. Further still, I recently went mad on a tempo run and ran much harder than HR training allows, almost like a race effort. That came to 90 max. Your stats suggest you were going above tempo in terms of max HR even. How did it feel?
|
|
Sep 2011
9:37pm, 30 Sep 2011
11,145 posts
|
Fenland Runner
KB, that's the weird thing, it didn't feel as tough as the stats indicate, breathing was 1-2-3-out. Could have managed to talk, maybe not entire sentences. Also felt that I had an extra gear (if required).
|
|
Sep 2011
10:03pm, 30 Sep 2011
11,147 posts
|
Fenland Runner
Also, why do I have less (or zero) muscle soreness the faster I run!!!
|
|
Sep 2011
10:38pm, 30 Sep 2011
8,277 posts
|
Meglet
My phys explained that (or at least why an injury hurts less when you run faster). It's to do with recruiting more of the lesser muscles when you run, needing to use all you have so spreading the work out.
*I think*
|
