The Running Thread Vol 2
Discussion
Smitters said:
In other news, my HR wouldn't really go above 130 on my recovery/easy run last night. Some time to go yet before opening the taps, post half mara effort then!
How common is it for HR to stay low like this? Even starting dead slow mine just shoots up to 160 in 500m, and on a normal tempo run it sits at 175 ish (I'm 36 so max is about 184). It's wrist based so I know it's not massively accurate but from what I've read it's not too far off.10k from a couple of days back
10 mile race from a couple of weeks back
FunkyNige said:
How common is it for HR to stay low like this?
It's very individual, and obviously depends on a significant number of factors. I use the heart rate reserve method to calculate my theoretical training zones as my resting HR is quite low despite being only moderately trained whereas my max HR is typical for my age.I know that the pace I was running should have elicited a higher HR that I got, from recent runs. In addition, I know my HR is lower in the morning and higher in the afternoon for a given pace, so again, this was an indicator not all was normal. Finally, I tend to compare RPE versus pace versus HR. If it feels hard, the HR is up, but the pace isn't there, then there's a chance I'm not recovered or coming down with something.
On that run, it felt harder than the HR suggested it should. I of course could have run faster and pushed the HR up - it's not like I had a rev limiter, but that RPE to HR comparison is like a little alarm bell. Hard race plus RPE>HR=not recovered yet.
So, is it common to be running ten minute miles at 125bpm? The answer is, it depends who you are. For me, no, hence the point. That said, in six months time I would expect it to be normal and for my very easy/recovery HR of 125-140 to return closer to nine minute miles, because of the effect of the next six month's training.
Without scales and values, it's hard to interpret accurately, but in the two pics you've put, I would argue you haven't started dead slow. For the ten miler you may have warmed up, but on both it actually looks like your pace is generally falling throughout the race, despite HR gradually rising. If I do a tempo run, I would typically run easy for 2km/15mins, depending on how I'm feeling, then do the tempo segment, then cool down. If you go out at tempo pace, your heart rate will have to go to tempo level pretty swiftly.
HTH
ETA - if your average HR for the ten mile race is 179, it suggests your MaxHR is higher than you think. The only way to be sure it to do an utterly horrible test, but if you were monkeying about with numbers for zones, I'd tentatively go for 190, maybe even 195 if the zones feel a little easy. Or just do the test. Close to a bucket.
Edited by Smitters on Thursday 26th October 18:49
mon the fish said:
Challo said:
Ran the Water of Life Half Marathon on Sunday around Marlow. First trail type run which was interesting. Route very picturesque but tricky at the start due to single tracks, and windy sections along the river. Bit of an issue with the length of the course as they had to change the route last minute so ended up being half a km short. Not a huge issue for me as ran a close to PB time.
Really tempted now by the Marathon distance. Never been fitter at the moment, and dont mind training through the winter on the distance although its a huge step up in terms of miles per week.
Just need to choose one and book it. Looking at Edinburgh or even going further a field to Milan, Rome or maybe Madrid. Just need to go ahead and book it.
I've done Edinburgh before and am doing it again next year. The route has changed to see a bit more of the city, but after mile 5 you don't see Edinburgh again, and the finish isn't great IMO if you need to get back to the city - walk the best part of a mile, then join a queue for a bus back. Did that the first time, not great on tired legs. I'm staying near the finish on the Saturday night, then getting transport to the start in the morning.Really tempted now by the Marathon distance. Never been fitter at the moment, and dont mind training through the winter on the distance although its a huge step up in terms of miles per week.
Just need to choose one and book it. Looking at Edinburgh or even going further a field to Milan, Rome or maybe Madrid. Just need to go ahead and book it.
Have a look at the Vienna marathon, same day as London. I'm doing it next year for the first time, there's something a bit special about doing a marathon abroad IMO - done Berlin and Amsterdam so far
Quite excited about the step up in distance and how I cope. As long as I beat my mates time of 4hrs 15m then I will be happy. Beaten his 5k, 10k and Half times and this is the last one.
Running a 1hr 40ish for the half so unsure what would be a good target time.
Challo said:
Edinburgh all booked. Going to take a charity place and run on behalf of the Stroke Association.
Quite excited about the step up in distance and how I cope. As long as I beat my mates time of 4hrs 15m then I will be happy. Beaten his 5k, 10k and Half times and this is the last one.
Running a 1hr 40ish for the half so unsure what would be a good target time.
As mentioned before. I did a 3:30half ish with a 1:40ish but I know people who did 3:36 marathon with 1:34 half.....so based on that you should managed sub 3:45 if you get the right amount of long runs at the right intensity Quite excited about the step up in distance and how I cope. As long as I beat my mates time of 4hrs 15m then I will be happy. Beaten his 5k, 10k and Half times and this is the last one.
Running a 1hr 40ish for the half so unsure what would be a good target time.
Challo said:
Edinburgh all booked. Going to take a charity place and run on behalf of the Stroke Association.
Quite excited about the step up in distance and how I cope. As long as I beat my mates time of 4hrs 15m then I will be happy. Beaten his 5k, 10k and Half times and this is the last one.
Running a 1hr 40ish for the half so unsure what would be a good target time.
You should definitely be sub 4 I would say. The first 4-5 miles are downhill so the typical thing of setting off too fast is negated slightly by this - I aim to be 1 or 2 mins or so ahead of my target pace by this point so that I've got that time in the bank if I struggle in the last 8 miles or so, then back off to the target pace when I hit the front.Quite excited about the step up in distance and how I cope. As long as I beat my mates time of 4hrs 15m then I will be happy. Beaten his 5k, 10k and Half times and this is the last one.
Running a 1hr 40ish for the half so unsure what would be a good target time.
Look at taking your own gels - they sometimes run out at Edinburgh, or make it not so easy to spot them at the water stops. No problems with water though
mon the fish said:
Challo said:
Edinburgh all booked. Going to take a charity place and run on behalf of the Stroke Association.
Quite excited about the step up in distance and how I cope. As long as I beat my mates time of 4hrs 15m then I will be happy. Beaten his 5k, 10k and Half times and this is the last one.
Running a 1hr 40ish for the half so unsure what would be a good target time.
You should definitely be sub 4 I would say. The first 4-5 miles are downhill so the typical thing of setting off too fast is negated slightly by this - I aim to be 1 or 2 mins or so ahead of my target pace by this point so that I've got that time in the bank if I struggle in the last 8 miles or so, then back off to the target pace when I hit the front.Quite excited about the step up in distance and how I cope. As long as I beat my mates time of 4hrs 15m then I will be happy. Beaten his 5k, 10k and Half times and this is the last one.
Running a 1hr 40ish for the half so unsure what would be a good target time.
Look at taking your own gels - they sometimes run out at Edinburgh, or make it not so easy to spot them at the water stops. No problems with water though
After cocking about with it for 48 hours, Sweatshop have taken payment and have processed the order, whatever that may entail. Now waiting for the courier to be assigned. I guess at this point all fears are confirmed and I fight for cash, or against expectations, something gets shipped.
johnwilliams77 said:
As mentioned before. I did a 3:30half ish with a 1:40ish but I know people who did 3:36 marathon with 1:34 half.....so based on that you should managed sub 3:45 if you get the right amount of long runs at the right intensity
Yep, its all down to doing the right quantity of training I reckon.I did a 1hr 29 half in 2014, but then did a 3hr 31 min marathon in Oct 2015.
Better training at marathon pace, saw me hit a 3h 28m at London in 2016 (6 months later) and again, more volume and more marathon paced training this year saw me hit a 3h 22m PB at London this year.
I don't think the half time translates particular well into a full marathon, at 20 miles it all about what you've got in your legs and without the quantity of training, it starts to hurt....well it does at 46 years of age anyway.
I reckon with less traffic on the course (London is ridiculous even when not starting too far back, Pen 3 I think I was in) I reckon I could have gone around 3h 18 though
My wife ran a 1:43 half and translated that into a 3:43 marathon and I reckon that was a pretty good effort.
I reckon for sub 3 hours, you need a 1:23 half, although a few friends recently have run 1:21 and only just hit sub 3
Based on the above (and only based on anecdotal information) I reckon that a 1:33 half means about 3:18-3:20 given optimal training
Marathon basics for me are:
- 1 long, 1 tempo, 1 long intervals or hills every week
- Don't run your miles too quickly
- you are training to run long, so if you can do a mid week medium long run, then do it (12-15 miles)
- Believe you can do it and train for 5 minutes less than you think you can achieve e.g. do interval/tempo times for a 3:15 if you are planning a 3:20
- staying injury free is more important than that extra run and consistency of training is key
I say this as a 5 time marathoner, so some experience and a best of 2:44 (off a max of 70 miles a week)
The jiffle king said:
I reckon for sub 3 hours, you need a 1:23 half, although a few friends recently have run 1:21 and only just hit sub 3
I concur. The McMillan calculator, and many others, all assume that you're equally as well trained for the marathon as you would be for the half marathon, which is often why they come up incredibly optimistic. Whereas many of us will go over-distance for a half marathon, with longest runs of 14-16 miles, I know of very few who train for a marathon and do a soft marathon in the cycle, due to prolonged recovery and what not.Been extending my runs, and seem to have hit a pace of about 5:45/km which I can sustain comfortably, easy breathing.
I used to do far more cycling than I currently do, and there I had an endurance pace of around 18mph which I could sustain all day.
I feel the same at 5:45/km running as I did at 18mph cycling, so I'm thinking that's my optimum pace.
If I CAN sustain that, then I'll happily be on track for a sub 2-hr 1/2 marathon which I'm running in a couple of weeks, although I've still not run a full half-marathon distance yet.
I used to do far more cycling than I currently do, and there I had an endurance pace of around 18mph which I could sustain all day.
I feel the same at 5:45/km running as I did at 18mph cycling, so I'm thinking that's my optimum pace.
If I CAN sustain that, then I'll happily be on track for a sub 2-hr 1/2 marathon which I'm running in a couple of weeks, although I've still not run a full half-marathon distance yet.
The jiffle king said:
My wife ran a 1:43 half and translated that into a 3:43 marathon and I reckon that was a pretty good effort.
I reckon for sub 3 hours, you need a 1:23 half, although a few friends recently have run 1:21 and only just hit sub 3
Based on the above (and only based on anecdotal information) I reckon that a 1:33 half means about 3:18-3:20 given optimal training
Marathon basics for me are:
- 1 long, 1 tempo, 1 long intervals or hills every week
- Don't run your miles too quickly
- you are training to run long, so if you can do a mid week medium long run, then do it (12-15 miles)
- Believe you can do it and train for 5 minutes less than you think you can achieve e.g. do interval/tempo times for a 3:15 if you are planning a 3:20
- staying injury free is more important than that extra run and consistency of training is key
I say this as a 5 time marathoner, so some experience and a best of 2:44 (off a max of 70 miles a week)
Thanks. I need to sit down with my coach and work out a plan.I reckon for sub 3 hours, you need a 1:23 half, although a few friends recently have run 1:21 and only just hit sub 3
Based on the above (and only based on anecdotal information) I reckon that a 1:33 half means about 3:18-3:20 given optimal training
Marathon basics for me are:
- 1 long, 1 tempo, 1 long intervals or hills every week
- Don't run your miles too quickly
- you are training to run long, so if you can do a mid week medium long run, then do it (12-15 miles)
- Believe you can do it and train for 5 minutes less than you think you can achieve e.g. do interval/tempo times for a 3:15 if you are planning a 3:20
- staying injury free is more important than that extra run and consistency of training is key
I say this as a 5 time marathoner, so some experience and a best of 2:44 (off a max of 70 miles a week)
Anyone use either Smashrun or MyZone?
Obviously not related. I like the way Smashrun looks. http://smashrun.com/
http://myzone.org/
My understanding is its a heart rate monitor that is compatible with other deivces/ apps.
A couple of friends have been raving about it recently and as I am now stepping up my training I thought it would be good to upgrade from the TomTom watch I am using at the moment.
Obviously not related. I like the way Smashrun looks. http://smashrun.com/
http://myzone.org/
My understanding is its a heart rate monitor that is compatible with other deivces/ apps.
A couple of friends have been raving about it recently and as I am now stepping up my training I thought it would be good to upgrade from the TomTom watch I am using at the moment.
Smitters said:
It's very individual, and obviously depends on a significant number of factors. I use the heart rate reserve method to calculate my theoretical training zones as my resting HR is quite low despite being only moderately trained whereas my max HR is typical for my age.
I know that the pace I was running should have elicited a higher HR that I got, from recent runs. In addition, I know my HR is lower in the morning and higher in the afternoon for a given pace, so again, this was an indicator not all was normal. Finally, I tend to compare RPE versus pace versus HR. If it feels hard, the HR is up, but the pace isn't there, then there's a chance I'm not recovered or coming down with something.
On that run, it felt harder than the HR suggested it should. I of course could have run faster and pushed the HR up - it's not like I had a rev limiter, but that RPE to HR comparison is like a little alarm bell. Hard race plus RPE>HR=not recovered yet.
So, is it common to be running ten minute miles at 125bpm? The answer is, it depends who you are. For me, no, hence the point. That said, in six months time I would expect it to be normal and for my very easy/recovery HR of 125-140 to return closer to nine minute miles, because of the effect of the next six month's training.
Without scales and values, it's hard to interpret accurately, but in the two pics you've put, I would argue you haven't started dead slow. For the ten miler you may have warmed up, but on both it actually looks like your pace is generally falling throughout the race, despite HR gradually rising. If I do a tempo run, I would typically run easy for 2km/15mins, depending on how I'm feeling, then do the tempo segment, then cool down. If you go out at tempo pace, your heart rate will have to go to tempo level pretty swiftly.
HTH
ETA - if your average HR for the ten mile race is 179, it suggests your MaxHR is higher than you think. The only way to be sure it to do an utterly horrible test, but if you were monkeying about with numbers for zones, I'd tentatively go for 190, maybe even 195 if the zones feel a little easy. Or just do the test. Close to a bucket.
Interesting stuff. I have struggled with HR training as I could never get the numbers to work for me using max heart rate. Using the estimation formulas gives me a max heart rate of ~182 which means a HR of around 136 for 75% effort. When I run, even when not going for it though, my HR is more like 160-170, which the formula suggests is absolutely smashing it at 90% effort; to get it down to 130 I'm pretty much walking.I know that the pace I was running should have elicited a higher HR that I got, from recent runs. In addition, I know my HR is lower in the morning and higher in the afternoon for a given pace, so again, this was an indicator not all was normal. Finally, I tend to compare RPE versus pace versus HR. If it feels hard, the HR is up, but the pace isn't there, then there's a chance I'm not recovered or coming down with something.
On that run, it felt harder than the HR suggested it should. I of course could have run faster and pushed the HR up - it's not like I had a rev limiter, but that RPE to HR comparison is like a little alarm bell. Hard race plus RPE>HR=not recovered yet.
So, is it common to be running ten minute miles at 125bpm? The answer is, it depends who you are. For me, no, hence the point. That said, in six months time I would expect it to be normal and for my very easy/recovery HR of 125-140 to return closer to nine minute miles, because of the effect of the next six month's training.
Without scales and values, it's hard to interpret accurately, but in the two pics you've put, I would argue you haven't started dead slow. For the ten miler you may have warmed up, but on both it actually looks like your pace is generally falling throughout the race, despite HR gradually rising. If I do a tempo run, I would typically run easy for 2km/15mins, depending on how I'm feeling, then do the tempo segment, then cool down. If you go out at tempo pace, your heart rate will have to go to tempo level pretty swiftly.
HTH
ETA - if your average HR for the ten mile race is 179, it suggests your MaxHR is higher than you think. The only way to be sure it to do an utterly horrible test, but if you were monkeying about with numbers for zones, I'd tentatively go for 190, maybe even 195 if the zones feel a little easy. Or just do the test. Close to a bucket.
I've recorded a peak of 192, suggesting my max is much higher than predicted, possibly around 200, but even that didn't really correct the numbers.
On the other hand, if I use that with the heart rate reserve method, it suggests 165 bpm for a 75% effort which is much more like how it feels when running.
Flibble said:
Interesting stuff. I have struggled with HR training as I could never get the numbers to work for me using max heart rate. Using the estimation formulas gives me a max heart rate of ~182 which means a HR of around 136 for 75% effort. When I run, even when not going for it though, my HR is more like 160-170, which the formula suggests is absolutely smashing it at 90% effort; to get it down to 130 I'm pretty much walking.
I've recorded a peak of 192, suggesting my max is much higher than predicted, possibly around 200, but even that didn't really correct the numbers.
On the other hand, if I use that with the heart rate reserve method, it suggests 165 bpm for a 75% effort which is much more like how it feels when running.
As with all estimation, the more variables, the greater the chance things are out. When you're estimating appropriate training zones, which is all very general anyway and needs to be adjusted for each person over time, and you throw in an estimated MaxHR, and assume your resting HR is static (which it isn't, of course), what's even vaguely close now may be wide of the mark in two months.I've recorded a peak of 192, suggesting my max is much higher than predicted, possibly around 200, but even that didn't really correct the numbers.
On the other hand, if I use that with the heart rate reserve method, it suggests 165 bpm for a 75% effort which is much more like how it feels when running.
I use the Heartrate Reserve method (HRR) because I have a low resting HR, so it provides a better fit, but even then I have a spreadsheet with the percentages and HR zones against paces. I enter a new resting HR every few weeks, plus I redo my training paces using McMillan's calculator to make sure my HR range and target pace range are up to date. Being a nerd, I love the stato element.
This essentially gives me the pace and HR ranges to work in on a pre-set training plan that's mostly laid out with workout types, not paces and times. The only deviation on this is workouts that demand x miles at race pace. I also tend to do all my easy stuff at the low end of the percentage rage for easy to make sure it really is easy, and that I have enough energy to do the harder stuff hard.
One of the most obvious training pitfalls I've noticed is there not being enough separation between hard and easy runs. Too many easy runs are done too hard, meaning you're stale for the hard runs, which in turn are not done hard enough. I'm repeating myself, but when I see pro runners doing an recovery run at nine minute miles, it hammers the point home.
HR aside, I'm scheduled for my first run-commute tomorrow. In and out. So naturally, I totally forgot, brought nothing useful today and to add insult to injury, have to work from home on Weds. So I'll be lugging a load of clothes about due to disorganisation, and lugging a laptop six miles home. Wicked. You f'ing t
t Smitters.Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff