|
Jan 2017
11:57am, 16 Jan 2017
12,881 posts
|
Dvorak
Yes Larkim, must try harder ;-). If you are bringing "the formula" into it, for regular runners I'd say only 1bpm drop every two years so in this case next to insignificant. Very consistent HR on a course which was not at all level: were you running to HR or feel rather than pace?
I think the shocking truth is that you are fitter and better trained than four years ago and should be looking for a race to beat that PB at :-).
|
|
Jan 2017
12:23pm, 16 Jan 2017
10,840 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Larkim, that does seem a big drop.
I looked back to compare:
My current HM PB from March 2016 where I averaged 168bpm and my 2010 PB where I averaged 172, so only a slight drop. In my mind I had my HM HR at about 170/171, so maybe I should have run harder in my last HM as well.
|
|
Jan 2017
12:26pm, 16 Jan 2017
1,612 posts
|
larkim
Yes, running to feel. I was pleased with the execution as I know the route well. It was my strongest finish to a half reflecting that heart too I think. I also think it reflects a change in my training approach too - I used to do a lot more running out of my comfort zone with higher heart rates, but now that is less I find it harder to muster the courage to push heart rate as hard too.
Time for plenty of long tempo runs and intervals I think to restore that confidence!
|
|
Jan 2017
1:47pm, 16 Jan 2017
226 posts
|
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss)
Just done a mile test on a flat surface at different HRs:
HR average 131 (73.5%) - Pace 11.05 - Beats per mile 1441
HR average 140 (78.5%) - Pace 9.33 - Beats per mile 1330
HR average 151 - (85%) - Pace 8.26 - Beats per mile 1283
HR average 162 (91%) - Pace 7.29 - Beats per mile 1214
Does this suggest I'm more efficient at HRs closer to maximum, or is this reduction in beats per mile as pace increases normal?
|
|
Jan 2017
1:57pm, 16 Jan 2017
1,614 posts
|
larkim
Is it valid to extract that sort of info from one run? Or is it just as valid as trying to base a single mile each day at different paces, where weather, stress levels, daily flux etc would influence the outcome.
|
|
Jan 2017
3:23pm, 16 Jan 2017
4,881 posts
|
Huntsman
Beats per mile is a trend over weeks/months. I'm in the 1200's now and hope to be consistently in the 1000's by April. I wouldn't put much emphasis on one run.
|
|
Jan 2017
3:27pm, 16 Jan 2017
12,889 posts
|
Dvorak
I generally had significantly less beats a mile as I ran faster. I suspect there is an element of increased efficiency but it is mainly arithmetical (as an experiment, calculate your expected beats per mile if you were dawdling along at three mph).
|
|
Jan 2017
4:03pm, 16 Jan 2017
1,615 posts
|
larkim
In principle I like the beats per minute analysis, but in practice I find it very difficult to use because it lacks consistency for me.
There is just about nowhere (interesting) to run around here which is flat, so even with a consistent pace I have fewer beats per mile on net downhill sections compared to net uphill sections.
I would definitely agree that the fast you get the arithmetic suggests the lower the number would be (up to a point), but the single biggest factor for me (as a 24/25 BMI individual perhaps?) is elevation change.
|
|
Jan 2017
4:09pm, 16 Jan 2017
1,616 posts
|
larkim
Last para made no sense - should start with something like "I would definitely agree that the *faster* you get...."
|
|
Jan 2017
4:20pm, 16 Jan 2017
4,882 posts
|
Huntsman
I've set my graph in the 'TRAIN' section of Fetch to show my beats per mile over the last 12 weeks on a weekly basis. Decent way to see if there is a trend.
A fast run like a 1 mile race will show a low beats per mile reading
|
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023