|
Oct 2016
8:48am, 12 Oct 2016
59,001 posts
|
Gobi
Are you sure the heart rate zones are correct ?
I run a 10 km with hr avg in the 170s and a max of 180 !!!
I get 1 km where my heart rate is below 165 and the last 2 or 3 I run pretty much at about 98% max
|
|
Oct 2016
10:13am, 12 Oct 2016
5,776 posts
|
paul the builder
Brunski - I think I said a while back, before your marathon (well done - great run by the way) that I didn't trust your HR numbers, they look a bit unusual to me. Very variable (unless most of your training is hilly, or you farlek all the time). If I run at a steady (even) pace on a flattish route, then my HR average for each mile won't vary by more than maybe 3-4 bpm either way, and the max HR during each mile won't be more than about 10-12 bpm more than average.
To pick some data from your log fairly at random:
16 Sept -
1) 1m - 8:53(8:53/m) 151/172bpm
2) 1m - 8:21(8:21/m) 118/131bpm
3) 1m - 8:43(8:43/m) 122/130bpm
4) 1m - 8:05(8:05/m) 122/140bpm
5) 1m - 8:26(8:26/m) 125/138bpm
6) 0.84m - 6:55(8:12/m) 134/156bpm
Mile 1 definitely has the effect which most of us see - bad contact until you're warmed up and then sweat allows better electrical conductivity
(I assume you use a chest strap HRM?)
Unless you pick up the pace for a strong finish, or have a hill near the end, then Mle 6 looks a bit odd too.
29 Sept -
1) 1m - 6:58(6:58/m) 124/171bpm
2) 1m - 6:30(6:30/m) 159/200bpm
3) 1m - 6:57(6:57/m) 149/152bpm
4) 1m - 7:18(7:18/m) 148/150bpm
5) 1m - 7:30(7:30/m) 148/156bpm
6) 0.61m - 4:40(7:36/m) 147/152bpm
This looks not too bad, apart from the same start-up effect as above. Which means that the 171 and the 200 definitely aren't to be trusted.
24 Sept (parkrun, I assume?) -
1) 1m - 5:48(5:48/m) 154/174bpm
2) 1m - 5:50(5:50/m) 169/183bpm
3) 1m - 6:05(6:05/m) 182/201bpm
4) 0.02m - 5(5:08/m) 196/198bpm
You've done a warm-up previously, so the HR looks like it's behaving from the start this time (although you're also at race pace, so any false 170 or 180-type reading might be hidden behind it being roughly the 'expected' number anyway).
I'm not sure how to look at mile 3 - it seems unlikely to me that you would still have 20bpm 'headroom' to go after mile 2 (let's assume you're sitting at 180-ish at the end of mile 2). To have average 182 for mile 3 it would mean you held steady for mile 3 (same effort level you finished mile 2 at), and then put in a massive step-up sprint finish for maybe just the last 100m or so (climbing up to 200, yet not really affecting the average for the mile). either that r the readings went kooky for the last 100m or so.
I can't decide between those 2 - the pace (5:08m/m) suggests the sprint finish, but then again pace data for such a short distance 0.02m isn't necessarily accurate.
If you did really have 20bpm still to go after 2m at 5:50m/m pace, then I'd say you are going to get a *lot* faster if you carry on running and train properly.
|
|
Oct 2016
12:00pm, 12 Oct 2016
12,307 posts
|
Dvorak
Looking at the same data and putting the split breaker to 0.25 miles, the readings for the 29th go right out between 0.5 and 1.5 miles (the graph shows this as well. I'm wondering if you walked a little bit and the strap lost proper contact?
For the parkrun, looks ok to me: I surmise there is a substantial hill just after 2.5 miles.
Agree that there is potential for a lot more to come, especially over the longer distances.
|
|
Oct 2016
12:32pm, 12 Oct 2016
4,350 posts
|
Huntsman
A lot more to come from the longer distances for myself and for Brunski.
Brunski has NO relationship in times from 5K to longer distances. I have copied from HADD below as I thought it was a really interesting point -
Older runner: 17.02 (5k), 36.45 (10k), 1.24 (HM), 3.10+ (marathon)
5k = 17.02 (5.28m/m)
10k = 36.45 (5.55m/m – should be 5.44m/m from 5k time)
HM = 1.24 (6.24m/m – should be 6.00m/m from 5k time and 6.11 from 10k time)
Mar = 3.10 (7.15m/m – should be 6.40 from HM time and 6.27 from 10k time)
I'm poor aerobically and so is Brunski. Harsh but true 
HADD gives an example of a runner who is excellent aerobically -
Who can run 5k at 5.20m/m & 10k at 5.31, HM at 5.40 and marathon at 5.59m/m
My PB times 5k at 6:01m/m 10k at 6:36m/m HM at 6:49m/m and Marathon at 8:16m/m
It's as PTB said to me after my Bournemouth marathon debacle '40-50 miles a week for a year and then see where I am aerobically'
|
|
Oct 2016
12:41pm, 12 Oct 2016
37 posts
|
Brunski
Wow, thanks for such an in-depth breakdown/analysis Paul - Just what I was after...and something I've been running over my head a bit trying to work out where I can improve.
I do most of my running on hills - Sheffield is built on 7 hills and I live just about on the top of one of them. So a lot of the HR data is uphill/downhill running. A lot of my running is to/from work!
I sometimes notice the HR going a bit 'giddy' so I adjust the connection (so that accounts for any slips) - I wear a watch with a built in HR and when it works I trust it, when it doesn't it's next to useless.
I'd say that the data for the week before (on 17 September) is probably more accurate. But here I drifted off in mile 2 before picking it back up in mile 3. This was my 5km PB of 17:47 on a pretty much pancake flat course Rother Valley parkrun.
I do think I'm saving a bit for my sprint finishes (and general comfort) in all runs, but by doing this I finish quickly and strongly and in my mind I'm making up more time than I'm getting elsewhere.
I could definitely do with training smarter. This would be a normal week below:
Saturday parkrun
Sunday Long run (or at least when I was in marathon training)
Monday - Meeting with a few mates from parkrun, not a club. Recently this has been 5km uphill, followed by 3x1km efforts on teh way back.
Tuesday - steady to work 4 miles (sometimes further if I vary route)
Wednesday - Off
Thursday - Tempo effort between 10km and 10 miles (when I say tempo I'm running at 145-155 bpm) - This is the one I am going to play with to see how hard I can push for 10 miles.
Friday - Easy or off.
Cheers guys for all your feedback, I trust my max being around 205, but I really don't enjoy running at above 170bpm and can't do this for more than a short distance (I DON'T THINK).
|
|
Oct 2016
12:41pm, 12 Oct 2016
32,742 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
My current times
are 5k 7m/m ish, 10k 7.24 /m, half 7.45 m/m, marathon don't ask
I have a long way to go
|
|
Oct 2016
1:35pm, 12 Oct 2016
59,002 posts
|
Gobi
As a retired runner
This year
9.59 3km
17.10 5km
35.58 10km
Pace a 1.21.54 for someone
In 2014 I ran
16.45 35.50 79.xx
|
|
Oct 2016
2:27pm, 12 Oct 2016
4,351 posts
|
Huntsman
Gobi - perfect example. There is a relationship between your races as your aerobic condition is good. Do you think you had a 79:xx HM in you when you paced someone this year?
|
|
Oct 2016
3:02pm, 12 Oct 2016
59,006 posts
|
Gobi
78 actually
|
|
Oct 2016
3:16pm, 12 Oct 2016
38 posts
|
Brunski
Right there's enough evidence to me that I'm poorly trained. The 10km to 10mile tempo and the long run were only really added in the last couple of months. I've basically been running to work/home from work some days and then had a parkrun. The only training has been interval/speed work on the Monday with my mates.
Anyway I'm keeping the Tempo run, and at least one long run. I'm going to practice holding around 160-165 bpm on the Thursday until this is achievable. This will help me bring my 10k time in line with my 5k, as should be able to race that at least at 175 bpm, with proper training closer to 185 with a 205 MHR. My 5kms never come out with more than a 170 average at present so should be improvements there too.
That is all assuming my HRM can be trusted and with proper training I can really kick on?
|
