The Running Thread Vol 2

[feef]

Went out last night for another 10k... although I wasn't trying especially to go faster, I managed to knock almost 6 minutes off my time from the weekend. Granted, more of last night's route was pavement than the 100% trail at the weekend, but I still surprised myself.

What I'm finding now is that I'm using breathing to manage heart-rate, and heart-rate to manage pace.

I've found that my aerobic to anaerobic threshold occurs at around 190bpm. If I go much higher than 190bpm, I can feel the lactate build-up in my legs. If I just drop my pace when that happens (usually due to going too fast) then my HR does drop and the lactate does clear eventually, but if I increase my breathing rate, I can speed up that drop without lowering my pace as much. If I can get it below 180 then I can feel the lactate clear, and then back into the 180s to maintain a constant pace.

It seems to work for me, but I've no idea if it's good/bad/common practice

thoughts?

[john2443]

Cybertronian said:

Looking for some advice from the interval specialists out there.

I'm not an expert but with the training group I go to we do roughly 10k on Tuesday eve and 5k on Thurs, split into reps, all faster then target pace and different each week eg

10k
4x2500
10x1000
2x5000

5k
10x500
5x1000
6x800
3x1500

[bigandclever]

Belgium beer lovers marathon, in liege, on Sunday. Took 7 hours, just about

Final long ‘run’ before heading to the Amazon next week for the Jungle Ultra.

[smn159]

john2443 said:

Cybertronian said:

Looking for some advice from the interval specialists out there.

I'm not an expert but with the training group I go to we do roughly 10k on Tuesday eve and 5k on Thurs, split into reps, all faster then target pace and different each week eg

10k
4x2500
10x1000
2x5000

5k
10x500
5x1000
6x800
3x1500

Some good stuff here about the merits of slightly lower intensity intervals and shorter recovery times v high intensity intervals. All about the time spent in your target heart rate zone IIRC

[KTF]

bigandclever said:

Belgium beer lovers marathon, in liege, on Sunday. Took 7 hours, just about

Is it a 'serious' event or is everyone pretty much wasted by the end of it?

[WolfieBot]

john2443 said:

Cybertronian said:

Looking for some advice from the interval specialists out there.

I'm not an expert but with the training group I go to we do roughly 10k on Tuesday eve and 5k on Thurs, split into reps, all faster then target pace and different each week eg

10k
4x2500
10x1000
2x5000

5k
10x500
5x1000
6x800
3x1500

Neither am I, but I'm fairly sure the majority of people over complicate the idea of intervals.

For 95% of the running community you don't need to be too specific. What both of you have suggested will be absolutely fine.

Just mix the distances up enough so you don't get bored but fundamentally if you're doing bursts of faster pace training it will work.

[bigandclever]

KTF said:

bigandclever said:

Belgium beer lovers marathon, in liege, on Sunday. Took 7 hours, just about

Is it a 'serious' event or is everyone pretty much wasted by the end of it?

Not serious at all. It’s basically the marathon du medoc but with beer in Belgium, not wine in France. Winner probably did it in about 3 hours. And, obviously, you don’t have to get pissed but 15 different breweries at the aid stations and finishing in a beer festival is persuasive.

[johnwilliams77]

WolfieBot said:

Neither am I, but I'm fairly sure the majority of people over complicate the idea of intervals.

For 95% of the running community you don't need to be too specific. What both of you have suggested will be absolutely fine.

Just mix the distances up enough so you don't get bored but fundamentally if you're doing bursts of faster pace training it will work.

Yes but it is worth being aware of short breaks vs longer and what benefits of each are

[RizzoTheRat]

bigandclever said:

Not serious at all. It’s basically the marathon du medoc but with beer in Belgium, not wine in France. Winner probably did it in about 3 hours. And, obviously, you don’t have to get pissed but 15 different breweries at the aid stations and finishing in a beer festival is persuasive.

Never done a marathon in my life, but you've got me tempted now
There's also the Baccus half at Denbies wine estate in Surrey, I've only signed up for the 5K though while the wife runs the half.

[okgo]

feef said:

Went out last night for another 10k... although I wasn't trying especially to go faster, I managed to knock almost 6 minutes off my time from the weekend. Granted, more of last night's route was pavement than the 100% trail at the weekend, but I still surprised myself.

What I'm finding now is that I'm using breathing to manage heart-rate, and heart-rate to manage pace.

I've found that my aerobic to anaerobic threshold occurs at around 190bpm. If I go much higher than 190bpm, I can feel the lactate build-up in my legs. If I just drop my pace when that happens (usually due to going too fast) then my HR does drop and the lactate does clear eventually, but if I increase my breathing rate, I can speed up that drop without lowering my pace as much. If I can get it below 180 then I can feel the lactate clear, and then back into the 180s to maintain a constant pace.

It seems to work for me, but I've no idea if it's good/bad/common practice

thoughts?

Unlikely that it would be that high unless you're very young/and have a very very high max HR. I've found that my garmin 235 is miles away with Hr when exercising, nowhere near as accurate as when using a strap. Not sure what you're running with but could be that.

[Smitters]

Must be the summer of intervals...

Just done my first proper intervals in about a decade.

WU

6 x 3 mins w. 90 secs walk recovery

CD

Mostly fun. Until it wasn't. Now mostly tired and a bit achey. Pleased they were fairly consistent distance but progressively harder as it was all a bit finger in the air after so long.

[feef]

okgo said:

Unlikely that it would be that high unless you're very young/and have a very very high max HR. I've found that my garmin 235 is miles away with Hr when exercising, nowhere near as accurate as when using a strap. Not sure what you're running with but could be that.

My max HR is high, and testing between the strap and the watch doesn't show the discrepancy that some have found. I DO wear my Suunto a little tighter on my wrist when I'm running to minimise movement and that does make a difference. If it's as loose as I wear other watches, it's not quite as consistent.

For example, my average HR on the Wimpole 10K was 186bpm.

At the previous race, I averaged 189 and peaked at 208. I've 'calculated' that my max HR is 210 and that seems to fit with the zones I experience

[Smitters]

feef said:

okgo said:

Unlikely that it would be that high unless you're very young/and have a very very high max HR. I've found that my garmin 235 is miles away with Hr when exercising, nowhere near as accurate as when using a strap. Not sure what you're running with but could be that.

My max HR is high, and testing between the strap and the watch doesn't show the discrepancy that some have found. I DO wear my Suunto a little tighter on my wrist when I'm running to minimise movement and that does make a difference. If it's as loose as I wear other watches, it's not quite as consistent.

For example, my average HR on the Wimpole 10K was 186bpm.

At the previous race, I averaged 189 and peaked at 208. I've 'calculated' that my max HR is 210 and that seems to fit with the zones I experience

So, essentially your "engine" is a Honda - screaming along. Must be fun when VTEC kicks in (yo). I think I may be a diesel. Chipping along nicely at about 8.15/mile earlier at 125bpm. 165bpm and life is getting hard. Definitely changes with age too - I ran my half marathon pb at an average of 177bpm back in 2005 or so. Now, no chance!

[feef]

Smitters said:

feef said:

okgo said:

Unlikely that it would be that high unless you're very young/and have a very very high max HR. I've found that my garmin 235 is miles away with Hr when exercising, nowhere near as accurate as when using a strap. Not sure what you're running with but could be that.

My max HR is high, and testing between the strap and the watch doesn't show the discrepancy that some have found. I DO wear my Suunto a little tighter on my wrist when I'm running to minimise movement and that does make a difference. If it's as loose as I wear other watches, it's not quite as consistent.

For example, my average HR on the Wimpole 10K was 186bpm.

At the previous race, I averaged 189 and peaked at 208. I've 'calculated' that my max HR is 210 and that seems to fit with the zones I experience

So, essentially your "engine" is a Honda - screaming along. Must be fun when VTEC kicks in (yo). I think I may be a diesel. Chipping along nicely at about 8.15/mile earlier at 125bpm. 165bpm and life is getting hard. Definitely changes with age too - I ran my half marathon pb at an average of 177bpm back in 2005 or so. Now, no chance!

I started running a year past Feb, and I'm 45 this year. Haven't noticed any decrease yet

[travel is dangerous]

Crazy. I’ve worked out I start to feel sick/gag/retch if I get too close to 180, but have seen 190 before.

[tenohfive]

feef said:

My max HR is high, and testing between the strap and the watch doesn't show the discrepancy that some have found. I DO wear my Suunto a little tighter on my wrist when I'm running to minimise movement and that does make a difference. If it's as loose as I wear other watches, it's not quite as consistent.

For example, my average HR on the Wimpole 10K was 186bpm.

At the previous race, I averaged 189 and peaked at 208. I've 'calculated' that my max HR is 210 and that seems to fit with the zones I experience

I'm glad the inverted commas were there, as like most I take the best guess stuff with a massive of pinch of salt. I have to admit my first thought when I saw your numbers was 'fairly unlikely,' like okgo, but if you're using a decent quality chest strap to compare it (and you're ensuring it's wet/good contact with skin) then it's fair to say that some people do have a high max HR.

If you're interested in your HR though I wouldn't bother with watch based optical HR. I haven't personally noticed much in the way of inaccuracy per se when using optical HR on my last couple of watches (my current is the 935, so a higher end one) - it's in detecting change. It takes awhile to notice changes. It always makes me wonder how they achieve what they do - optical HR needs a fleshy place to sit, but the wrist (even higher up and tightly fitted) of a keen runner is often the diameter of a smarties tube. So to get reasonably accurate numbers is impressive anyway, but it's still far from perfect.

If you're actually using the HR data for any sort of measurement or analysis, I'd run with the chest strap more often than not.

That said, as an average/guide it's fine - it's just the changes it sometimes misses, so if you're running at a steady intensity it does the job. I'm running most of my shorter easy runs on optical and for a rough guide of where my average HR is over the run, it suits my needs. For workouts and long runs though I'll still use the Tickr X - not because I really use it when running, but sometimes it's handy for geeking out after the fact.

[okgo]

Interestingly I stopped using HR altogether in cycling and rode to watts. I'd imagine in running what with conditions being less of a factor in terms of speed, that surely speed is the best way to pace. And like my cycling I'd just have to do max efforts every now and then to know whether I was getting fitter etc.

I did 5k tonight but had to have a couple of seconds at halfway as I was literally overheating, in shorts and t shirt, christ I'm a hot person. Felt comfortable hard at 7.20 mile pace.

Has anyone got a good idea on what 1kg weight loss would do to your pace, I figure I could probably do with losing 5.

[tenohfive]

okgo said:

Interestingly I stopped using HR altogether in cycling and rode to watts. I'd imagine in running what with conditions being less of a factor in terms of speed, that surely speed is the best way to pace. And like my cycling I'd just have to do max efforts every now and then to know whether I was getting fitter etc.

Using power is pretty much standard in cycling now. HR has always been an imperfect measurement of effort because things like stress levels, caffeine and cardiac creep can all skew your HR. But I think it's still used in running as frankly there isn't anything better. Yes, you can use pace to an extent - if you're running somewhere completely flat and on non-technical terrain.

Running power is an interesting idea, but again it can't factor in technical terrain. If I was a roadie I definitely think about getting a Stryd or similar. But for off-road use it's still flawed in that it can't factor in the terrain again which can make a real difference to the amount of output needed. But the technology is coming on, I reckon in 3 years or so there will be something credible that can measure the output at foot/ground level with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

[feef]

tenohfive said:

Using power is pretty much standard in cycling now. HR has always been an imperfect measurement of effort because things like stress levels, caffeine and cardiac creep can all skew your HR. But I think it's still used in running as frankly there isn't anything better. Yes, you can use pace to an extent - if you're running somewhere completely flat and on non-technical terrain.

Running power is an interesting idea, but again it can't factor in technical terrain. If I was a roadie I definitely think about getting a Stryd or similar. But for off-road use it's still flawed in that it can't factor in the terrain again which can make a real difference to the amount of output needed. But the technology is coming on, I reckon in 3 years or so there will be something credible that can measure the output at foot/ground level with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

I have a set of Carv insoles for my ski boots. These measure pressure distribution from the foot to the boot over numerous points and assist in determining if your technique is correct.

As this sort of technology gets more compact, I can’t totally see something similar coming to shoes.

[Smitters]

Agree that unless the terrain is unrelentingly similar, running power is going to be difficult to measure. Like any measurement of exercise, you can't really consider that training session in isolation - intervals after a few days rest ,versus intervals after a long day will feel different, even if the speed is the same. Power measures what you're doing. HR measures what you're heart's having to do to create that power, so I still see it is a good tool.

All that said, many, many coaches and successful athletes use RPE. Let's face it, the most powerful and best informed "machine" on how our body is feeling is our brain! It just takes practice and consistency to be objective after each workout.