Polarized training
91 watchers
Jun 2015
4:44pm, 22 Jun 2015
1,530 posts
|
Canute
J2R That sounds great. I noted you post on the HR thread in which you asked what your beats per mile indicated. I did not comment there because I try to avoid too much technical stuff on that thread, but maybe people here are more tolerant of my technical rambling. It is true that beats/mile differs between individuals even with similar performance levels, and therefore it is the decrease in your own measurement over time that is most informative (about increased fitness, but also can be as a warning of over-training if the decrease is abrupt and accompanied by unusual subjective effort). Nonetheless, your values in the mid 900’s are low (at least relative to recreational runners) and that is a good sign Race pace can be estimated from a combination of physiological factors: HR at race pace, cardiac stroke volume, oxygen extraction fraction (arterio-venous difference), efficiency , etc. A low value of beats/mile indicates a favourable combination of stroke volume, oxygen extraction fraction and efficiency. There are all trainable things. It is a good thing to have b/mile below 1000, and is an indication of previous effective training (and/or good genes). |
Jun 2015
5:00pm, 22 Jun 2015
20,323 posts
|
SPR
Surely your max HR has a big effect on what is a good value as for the same pace and HR% those with a lower HR max will have the lower beats per mile.
|
Jun 2015
5:11pm, 22 Jun 2015
13,809 posts
|
GlennR
Of course SPR. That's why beats per mile is generally of no use as a comparison with others.
|
Jun 2015
5:17pm, 22 Jun 2015
1,531 posts
|
Canute
SPR VO2 max is determined by the product of HR max, stroke volume, oxygen extraction fraction, and proportion of blood going to relevant muscle. High VO2 max is associated with high performance and indicates effective training and/or good genes. HR max appears to be largely determined by genes. If your HR max is low, your performance will be less than it might have been if you had a higher HRmax with the same stroke volume and oxygen extraction fraction. If your HR at LT as a faction of HRmax is around average, both your HR at race pace and you pace will also be relatively low. Because your pace is low, your beats/mile might not be low despite low HR |
Jun 2015
5:34pm, 22 Jun 2015
1,532 posts
|
Canute
If you have a low HR max, you can only perform at a high level if you have an above average combination of stroke volume, oxygen extraction fraction, proportion of blood going to relevant muscles and efficiency. Because these physiological variables differ between individuals, beats/mile can differ between individuals with similar performance. Similar stroke volume can differ between individuals with similar performance, but it is nonetheless generally beneficial for performance to have a large stroke volume just as it is to have a low beats/mile. In fact increasing your stroke volume will generally lead to increased VO2 max, faster race performance and lower beats/Km (if the other variables are held constant) |
Jun 2015
10:45pm, 23 Jun 2015
20,324 posts
|
SPR
Canute -That's the first time I've heard that a high max is a potential advantage. I understand beats/mile (specific to the individual) will be lower the fitter you are, just not convinced a specific number can be generally specified as good, given it equals different performance levels for different people. |
Jun 2015
11:05pm, 23 Jun 2015
1,538 posts
|
Canute
SPR It is true that high HR max is not essential for high performance but it is one of several physiologic variables that help. In the absence of high HRmax, you need other favourable features to allow high level performance. The amount of oxygen that can be delivered to muscles is limited by cardiac pumping capacity, which in turn is the product of HR and stroke volume. Conversely, a large stroke volume allows you to pump a large volume of blood at relatively low HR. The thorough review by Jim Martin of the mechanisms by which performance decreases with age concludes that the decrease in performance is due to deterioration of 10 relevant physiological characteristics, and of these 10 the only one that does not respond to attempts to delay the decline is the reduction in HRmax. web.archive.org |
Jun 2015
2:25am, 24 Jun 2015
1,539 posts
|
Canute
I accept that the criterion for deciding what is a good value of beats/mile is somewhat arbitrary. However, if we assume plausible values for HR at race pace, we can determine the value of beats/mile required to achieve a ‘good’ performance – let’s say 85% WAVA. As J2R is M50, it is relevant to determine what level of beats/mile a 50 year old male would require to achieve 85% WAVA for 5Km. Assume HRmax = 210 – (0.65xage) = 177.5 Assume average HR for race =95% HRmax = 168.63 85% WAVA = 17:20 for 5Km = 3:28 /Km = 5:33 /mile At HR 168.63, 5:33 / mile pace corresponds to 935 beats/mile Thus, on the basis of plausible (but optimistic) assumptions about HR max and HR at race pace, we find that a 50 year old male who can achieve 935 beats/mile would be predicted to achieve 85% WAVA for 5Km. The assumptions are crude, but this calculation indicates why I regard 950 beats/mile as a ‘good’ value for a 50 year old male. Similar calculation show 950 beats/mile would in fact predict fairly good age-graded performances across a wide age rage. For someone with a substantially different HRmax this estimate would not apply. But if you know your HRmax you can make a fairly good estimate of your likely race pace corresponding to your observed beats/mile at paces near race pace, under similar circumsntaces |
Jun 2015
3:46pm, 24 Jun 2015
93 posts
|
J2R
I'm actually 54, shortly to be 55 - don't know how significant that is. Interestingly enough, my 3 training runs over the last 3 days have all shown beats per mile over 1000 - 1058, 1041, 1031. I'm wondering why that is, but presume tiredness from Sunday's race could be playing its part? Also, for the run today, it was 22-23 degrees, warmer than most of my runs so far this year, so I imagine that pushed my heart rate up a bit. At least it's heading in the right direction (down). I don't know how old you are, SPR, but as an older runner myself (well, not a youngster any more), I do get the sense of an upper cap on possible performance set by a maximum heart rate which is inevitably going down as the years go by. Fortunately there are lots of other things which can be optimized before this becomes a deciding factor, but there's no escaping the fact that there's a kind of reduced headroom at the top. |
Jun 2015
4:59pm, 24 Jun 2015
1,542 posts
|
Canute
J2R Because HRmax (and HR at race pace) tend to decrease at a rate similar to the rate of decrease in the pace required to achieve a specified WAVA, you need a similar beats/mile at 55 to achieve a specific WAVA as you would have required at 50. Beats per mile usually increases with temperature as the heart must deliver additional blood to the skin to achieve cooling. The effect of recent racing is variable – sometimes there is an increase in beats/mile after hard race (this is what is usually called over-reaching), but if the event was very exhausting beats/mile can decrease (the precursor of so-called parasympathetic over-training.) Any substantial change in beats/mile after hard racing or training indicates the need for taking things easily, though mild over-reaching of OK provided you keep an eye on how you are coping and do not push things too far. Your three b/mile scores this week seem OK to me. |
Related Threads
- 80/20 Jun 2019
- Heart rate Dec 2024
- Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire. Jul 2023
- Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate Jan 2021
- No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease Jan 2021
- Resetting Max Heart Rate Dec 2020
- Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal Oct 2020
- Heart rate zones Jul 2020
- Running Heart rate Jun 2020
- Heart Rate monitors Jun 2020