| Author |
Messages |
|
nancy
Posts:50
 |
| 03/29/2007 3:33 PM |
|
As with everyone on this forum, I'm always trying to find new ways of improving my training. I have resisted heart rate training until now because I greatly dislike the idea of having to have the extra gear (although I already own a HRM), and the intuitive side of me likes to think constant self assessment is better than using some arbitrary numbers.
With that said, I've been doing some reading on some other forums (http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/022020.shtml)
about heart rate training. I'd like to try it, but the type A person in me would not be happy. Anyone use this training with good results? Also, if I do most of my training at a really low heart rate, is it all ruined if I occasionally throw in a race or two?
Any comments are greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
trigordo
Posts:8
|
| 03/29/2007 7:19 PM |
|
I've spent most of the last 15yrs training and racing with a HRM. I had almost given up on running due to injury and poor performance.(After 3yrs of collegiate running, I was slower that I was in HS.) My HRM got me back into training and within 6 months I was setting PRs in nearly every run distance even though I was really training for triathlons. HR is by far the most important training tool you can use. The problem is that alot of the information you read about HR training is crap. Actually alot of the stuff I read about all aspects of training is pretty poor.
The important thing you need to do is figure out what HR lactate threshold occurs at. Unfortantely, it will be different for swimming, cycling, and running so you will need to do separate tests for each. Based on my HR at lactate threshold, I know exactly what HR I should be able to maintain for every race!!!! I also keep track of my pace/speed at certain race HRs so I also know how fast I can do any race. Furthermore, I monitor my training by tracking HRs and pace/speed. If my training is going well, my speed/pace at a certain HRs will get faster and faster. For example, back in the day, I was running 5:12/mile pace for my 10k HR. I went out and ran a 25:50 8k, averaged 5:10 mile pace. Prior to using a HRM, I could never predict my race times. Now, I am exceedingly accurate. I used these ideas to train my wife for her first marathon last spring. She negative split a 4:06 marathon that was within roughly 1min of her predicted time.
Needless to say, in my opinion, training with HR is essential for reaching optimal performance. If all goes well, I expect to be signing up for Redman yet I already know what HRs I will race at. Moreover, I already have base line speeds for those HRs. If the race was tomorrow, I would know exactly how hard to race and be able to accurately predict my finish time.
There are other training tools that are helpful but you will reap the greatest benefit from knowing how to training and race with a HRM. The difficult part will be sifting through all the crap out there.
Joe Friel's triathlon is good in it's description of training cycles and organization of training plans but it lacks specific workouts. For understanding of training, HR, and lactate threshold as related to designing workouts, I'd suggest Peter Janssen's "Lactate Threshold Training" book. It has over a 100 pages of HR curves for almost every type of race and every type of workout.
http://www.amazon.com/Lactate-Threshold-Training-Peter-Janssen/dp/0736037551
|
|
|
|
|
Bryiron
Posts:5
|
| 03/29/2007 9:09 PM |
|
| Great info Trigordo. Is it just me or does this guy sound really fast? |
|
|
|
|
Kris K
Posts:70
|
| 03/29/2007 9:39 PM |
|
| He's also a physiologist (or something related to that field), so it's a double-whammy. |
|
|
|
|
nancy
Posts:50
|
| 03/30/2007 8:38 AM |
|
trigordo -
You have made me a believer!! I plan to get the book today and use it this summer for Redman. Please let me know any additional sources of good info. As you say, there is a lot of crap out there, and I always appreciate a push in the right direction.
Thanks again.!!! |
|
|
|
|
apw0397
Posts:93
|
| 03/31/2007 10:16 AM |
|
The biggest bunch of misinformation related to HR training in my opinion is using the 220 - Age formula to find your max heart rate. It's an antiquated formula that provides little to no benefit. It doesn't take anything into account but your age, so Joe Couch Potato and I would have the same number. Furthermore, the number doesn't even mean all that much on its own.
The key to HR training is to find your Lactate Threshold (LT) heart rate. Pretty simple to find using a 30 minute time trial. Or you can pay some bucks and have lab testing. I prefer to time trial.
Warm up easy for 15 minutes, throwing in a few bursts of speed the last few minutes to get your HR up. Then start pushing the pace for the next 10 minutes. Then hit the lap button on your HR monitor. Go all out for 20 minutes and hit the lap button on your HRM again. Then it's a 15 minute cooldown.
Your LT heart rate is the average heartrate during that 20 minute all out period. From there you can calculate your HR zones. This is a spreadsheet you can use for bike and run LT heart rate - http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/Calculating_HR_Zones.xls
From then, it's all about patience. It's tough at first to do most of my training in Zone 2 (the fat burning zone), but I've seen the benefits. Before that, most of my training was in Zone 3. I had my Garmin a few weeks before doing the testing, so I went back to look at the numbers. No wonder I was fading like mad at the end. Keeping your HR in Zone 2 on an LSD run, you'll see the benefits. My wife has taken 30 minutes off her 1/2 marathon pace doing this.
Even moreso, you can use your HR zones in racing to prevent yourself from going out too hard. Take a race like a 1/2 marathon. You can divide it up into a 5/5/5K - 5 miles in Z2, 5 miles in Z3, and 5K with whatever is left. You'll be the one passing people up at the end, instead of the other way around.
It's especially important in HIM and IM racing. Keeping it in Zone 2 on the bike leg may make you a bit slower than the others on the bike, but you'll see the benefits as you whizz past them on the run leg. |
|
This is what I do.
http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/training/index-weekly.asp?memberid=22399&year=&month=&day= |
|
|
trigordo
Posts:8
|
| 03/31/2007 8:43 PM |
|
As stated in the last post, determining HRmax or LT can be difficult and/or confusing. I don't do anything with HRmax even though I know what mine is. The only reason people are interested in determining HRmax is to predict what HR LT is at. Typically, LT occurrs between 80-90% of HRmax. In this method, you are predicting HRmax in order to predict LT...the more predictions you make the lesser correlation you have to the real value. So, in the end, I prefer to choose to do a heart rate threshold test to predict LT or better yet do a real lactate threshold test but those are difficult to do.
The tests which determining HR at "all out" efforts for 20-30min are pretty good but I'd probably make the time closer to 45min since typically you can maintain LT paces for around 45minutes. Understand this is an all out effort that requires intense effort and concentration which can be difficult to do as a workout. The real problem with these tests are that they rely on an intuition and experience to "know" what HR to try to maintain for 45min. Prior to using a HRM, I doubt that I would have had much success with these tests. That said they do work pretty well for very experienced athletes who have used a HRM quite a bit. I do know that I wouldn't have believed that I could hold the HRs that I hold for say a 5k or 10k without doing a performance test to tell me what HR to do. The first few HR based workouts I attempted were 4x8min@HR175-2min recovery. I never thought I could make 8min@HR175 except my performance test told me I could. I was in extreme panic mode 2mins into the first interval but at 5min I had relaxed and knew I could make it. My point is that I doubt that I would have attempted to maintain a HR of 175 for a 30-40min test described above yet I now realize that I can actually do it. Hence, I can do more than I thought I could.
You will have to see what works for you. |
|
|
|
|
nancy
Posts:50
|
| 04/02/2007 11:59 AM |
|
Thanks for the great advise! I have two questions.
First, I am running Boston in a couple weeks so I"m not doing any all out effort until after that, so is there a substitute formula until I get through? Over the weekend, I've tried hard to keep my HR < 145, but it's arbitrary.
Second, do I need to do separate tests for bike and run? I'm assuming so, but just thought I'd check.
And why is my HR less on the bike? I guess that's three questions, my bad.
|
|
|
|
|
trigordo
Posts:8
|
| 04/02/2007 4:40 PM |
|
I haven't found any good substitute for the all-out performance tests. I wish I could. It would make everything a lot easier. If you are tapering for Boston and don't want to do a harder interval workout, then you could TRY to calculate your LT using 220-age to determine HRmax. Your LT HR is typically about 90% of HRmax. Once you determined your goal HR, you will need to compare it to perceived exertion. Even now, I am always comparing perceived exertion and HR. Don't expect to get good numbers with this method but you might get lucky. Based on this method, my calculated LT HR would be 162 but it's actually 175. That's a huge difference. You won't know if it works for you until you try.
You will need to do separate tests for the bike and run. My LT HR for the run is 10 beats higher than my LT HR for the bike. Why is my bike LT HR lower? I don't know for sure but I'd guess it has to do with how much muscle is involved in cycling and running. Cycling involves mostly your legs while running includes your upper body as well. More working muscle = higher HR. VO2max is also influenced by the working muscle. The highest VO2max are typically observed in athetes involved in events that use the greatest muscle, ie cross country skiing. My VO2max for running was (emphasis on was) 78ml/kg/min while my cycling was 71ml/kg/min. |
|
|
|
|
nancy
Posts:50
|
| 04/02/2007 7:16 PM |
|
trigordo -
thanks so much. I plan to do some experimenting, plus I ordered the book mentioned above. I'm more than sure I'll have some more questions.
Happy training!!! |
|
|
|
|
Kris K
Posts:70
|
| 04/03/2007 8:41 AM |
|
Nancy,
I can attest to the merits of knowing various HR points, including HRT, because trigordo has measured mine and I find them very useful for training and racing. BUT....
I would highly recommend not doing any experimentation until after Boston. There is plenty of time left after that to get them and use them for Redman. Boston is a huge race, and you got there because of your natural running abilities, so don't mess with anything. I'm a firm believer in not springing anything new for racing that you haven't used for previous training or racing for quite some time. Wouldn't you be miserable is you start fiddling with things and then have a bad marathon in Boston? Why take the chance? Just start with this stuff after Boston.
As an example, let's say you use the whole 220-age thing (which others and trigordo all have agreed that its useless). And from this horrible formula, you get an estimated HRmax. From that, you find the 90th percent and estimate your HRT. From there, you find your estimated target HR for a marathon. Then you use that leading up to and during the race in Boston. But then you find out that you have overestimated and you're running the first 7 miles at LT or above. You'd blow up and not even finish. Just doesn't seem worth the risk to me for a race as big as Boston.
As yet another example, if I use the 220-age formula, my LT estimation (HRT, actually) is 169, whereas in reality, it's 185. My HR for half-iron is 172, which is 3 beats higher than my predicted LT!!!
Anyway, just wanted to voice my opinion, as I'd hate to see someone not have a good day in Boston. Best of luck. |
|
|
|
|
nancy
Posts:50
|
| 04/03/2007 3:02 PM |
|
| Kris K - I totally agree. I'm in taper madness and so reading up on all sorts of theories, but no plans to put them into practice until after Beantown. Thanks so much!!! |
|
|
|
|
|