The Running Thread Vol 2
Discussion
cwis said:
My heart rate target is 70% of heart rate range as described here:
I always used a simple calculation for % of max. Resting HR is a variable which can change daily. At peak training a few year back I used 200 as a max, having hit 195-8 in a couple of races. With a resting HR of 40 (on a good day... it could be 50 the day after a hard workout - which is when it's most important to get the intensity right in order to recover), the difference is 152bpm using the formula you refer to vs 140. Pace-wise, that would have been 6:45 @ 140bpm vs 6:09 @ 152, so quite a difference in intensity. The later wouldn't have felt 'easy', even if technically it was.
It probably wouldn't make much difference for an athlete running 40-60mpw, but could potentially push a 100mpw athlete towards over training.
onedsla said:
I always used a simple calculation for % of max. Resting HR is a variable which can change daily. At peak training a few year back I used 200 as a max, having hit 195-8 in a couple of races. With a resting HR of 40 (on a good day... it could be 50 the day after a hard workout - which is when it's most important to get the intensity right in order to recover), the difference is 152bpm using the formula you refer to vs 140.
Pace-wise, that would have been 6:45 @ 140bpm vs 6:09 @ 152, so quite a difference in intensity. The later wouldn't have felt 'easy', even if technically it was.
It probably wouldn't make much difference for an athlete running 40-60mpw, but could potentially push a 100mpw athlete towards over training.
Well another calculation for the top of zone 2 is simply 180 minus your age. Doesn't take resting HR into account at all! It works out at 137 for me, 70% (some people use 75%) of peak Hr would be 140 or 150, and the calc involving resting HR gives 156. So quite a spread.Pace-wise, that would have been 6:45 @ 140bpm vs 6:09 @ 152, so quite a difference in intensity. The later wouldn't have felt 'easy', even if technically it was.
It probably wouldn't make much difference for an athlete running 40-60mpw, but could potentially push a 100mpw athlete towards over training.
I'd say if you're using a calculation that takes resting HR into account it needs to be resting HR whilst actually rested - not ill or in training recovery. So your measure ignoring resting HR is completely valid, as all the rest - as a guide. If it works for you, it works - the proof is in the pudding!
One thing in the resting HR calculation's favour is that it tries to take into account the underlying fitness by looking at the working heart rate range - the wider the fitter, generally, and the lower the resting HR, the lower zone 2 should start for most people.
But remember that heart rate is just an indicator of underlying metabolic processes plus the intensity of the exercise currently being performed.
When training using zones you're not just aiming the training at the heart, it's only part of the process. You're mostly aiming at the muscles, circulation and even at the cellular level of your blood.
Training in zone 2 for example is training at a certain intensity that mainly stimulates type I muscle fibers, ATP production, fat burning, plasma production etc etc etc... - and the heart rate is an indicator of this intensity.
If you were ill or hot or had trained the previous day your heart rate would be higher at the same intensity - it doesn't mean that you are starting to recruit type II muscle fibers, it just means there's a higher load on the heart, aside from the exercise.
An example of this is cardiac drift - the way HR rises during exercise.
http://running.competitor.com/2014/05/training/the...
So the pace or as other posters mentioned breathing rate is more indicative of what zone you are training in than the heart rate in those conditions. In your example above after a heavy session the day before you may find that your 6:09 @ 152 would actually be 6:09 @ 160. It's still zone 2 and it definitely wouldn't feel easy, because you're fatigued from the day before!
It's quite easy to start to see HR zones as the be all and end all of exercise, and I must admit I look at my HRM far too much while out running, but it's good to remember it's only a guide.
I'd love to get 40 miles a week in. I can't imagine 100. I managed 50Km in a week before I broke myself in November - I'm hoping that sticking to either 137, 140, 150 or 154 heart rate for most of my miles will allow me to get more volume. In practice I think if I keep it under 160 I should be OK - I'm far from being an athlete.
I really struggle to run slow enough to keep my HR much under 170. I went out today and was doing 10 minute miles and still had a HR of 170ish! Maybe a just have a fast exercise heart rate? Is that even a thing?
My resting heart rate is 48, max is around 195, blood pressure is good (usually around 110/70).
A "fast" pace for me is about 8 minutes, so running at 10 feels pretty slow indeed, and my cadence drops so much to go that slow that I struggle to maintain form.
My resting heart rate is 48, max is around 195, blood pressure is good (usually around 110/70).
A "fast" pace for me is about 8 minutes, so running at 10 feels pretty slow indeed, and my cadence drops so much to go that slow that I struggle to maintain form.
tenohfive said:
Anyone got any views or experience of the Tom Tom Runner Cardio? I'm looking for a GPS watch with HRM and Amazon have it for £100 which seems pretty reasonable. Open to alternatives too though in the same price range.
I just came on this thread to ask the same thing, although probably going to go for the cardio + music.Do any of the current GPS watches have a real time SPEED display option?
My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
Hi,
Little bit of advice please.
Age 50, currently run about 25miles per week. either 5k or 10k.
times are as follows
5k 22.30
10k 47.30
half marathon 1hr 47m
I'd like to get all these times down but especially the 5k, would love to do 20min.
Whats the best way of reducing the 5k, more miles or speed intervals?
Little bit of advice please.
Age 50, currently run about 25miles per week. either 5k or 10k.
times are as follows
5k 22.30
10k 47.30
half marathon 1hr 47m
I'd like to get all these times down but especially the 5k, would love to do 20min.
Whats the best way of reducing the 5k, more miles or speed intervals?
Speed.
ETA
You're almost certainly running everything at the same speed. Next 5K/short run. After a warm up. 10mins is good try some intervals. 30seconds HARD (not sprinting!) 45 seconds EASY. Say 10 reps. . i.e RPE of maybe 7-8 / 10 Then 10mins cool down.
ETA
You're almost certainly running everything at the same speed. Next 5K/short run. After a warm up. 10mins is good try some intervals. 30seconds HARD (not sprinting!) 45 seconds EASY. Say 10 reps. . i.e RPE of maybe 7-8 / 10 Then 10mins cool down.
Edited by Rich_W on Sunday 10th January 17:13
tenohfive said:
Anyone got any views or experience of the Tom Tom Runner Cardio? I'm looking for a GPS watch with HRM and Amazon have it for £100 which seems pretty reasonable. Open to alternatives too though in the same price range.
I have one and love it. Very easy to use, nice simple interface, Tom Tom software is great and automatically exports to Endomondo, Strava, Myfitnesspal, etc as soon as you plug in the USB. The Tom Tom interface itself is pretty awesome too. It's my first GPS and I'm not a particularly hardcore runner (5km/10km/Half so far) so there may be better out there, but it's certainly more than adequate for me.
The only feature it doesn't have is an estimated finish time, though if you run regularly you'll know what sort of average pace you have to hit to beat any PBs.
Rich_W said:
Do any of the current GPS watches have a real time SPEED display option?
My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
Tom Tom Runner Cardio certainly does, though it's your minutes per km / mile rather than kph / mph - it refreshes every 5sec or so and seems pretty accurate, even where I run in central London. It's based on the speed you're running at right at that second. If you stop it takes a couple of seconds and reaches --:--. There's still the option for average pace over the whole run if you'd prefer to display that.My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
I'm very much new to running.
My previous sporting achievements include a 340kg deadlift, a 270kg squat and a 165kg bench press. I'm 6ft 5" and 125kg. I feared running and disliked running and scoffed at runners and generally didn't want anything to do with running.
Anyway, about 3 months ago, I decided to drop a bit of weight and get the cardio side of my training in order. Being strong is good but honestly, there's no need for me to be so heavy and my cardio was poor.
I've been working out here in the UAE for a while and found a local 5.6km run every Tuesday night, which happened to be a lap around the Yas Island F1 track! This is conducive to my gains. Good distance, nice environment and good structured run, all things i felt important if i was going to stick at it, as i said i loathed running.
My first run was 38minutes for the 5.6km... pretty poor, i struggled with pumps in my calves and shins, it wasn't a great start.
Fast forward 2 months of pretty much week on week PBs and i've just nailed my first 30minute run, at 30m13s - over 8 minutes off since i started and my 5km split was 27m01s. I'm delighted with that! My bodyweight is around 120kg now and i'm still able to rep 150kg on the bench too which is encouraging, will test my deadlift and squat when i get back to the UK and into a decent gym.
Going forward, a sub 55minute 10km is the next challenge running wise. Doubt i could maintain the pace i ran 5km in over the 10km. I don't want to get too much lighter but there is still fat to come off so hopefully see some changes there too as i up the distances.
Running is ok.
My previous sporting achievements include a 340kg deadlift, a 270kg squat and a 165kg bench press. I'm 6ft 5" and 125kg. I feared running and disliked running and scoffed at runners and generally didn't want anything to do with running.
Anyway, about 3 months ago, I decided to drop a bit of weight and get the cardio side of my training in order. Being strong is good but honestly, there's no need for me to be so heavy and my cardio was poor.
I've been working out here in the UAE for a while and found a local 5.6km run every Tuesday night, which happened to be a lap around the Yas Island F1 track! This is conducive to my gains. Good distance, nice environment and good structured run, all things i felt important if i was going to stick at it, as i said i loathed running.
My first run was 38minutes for the 5.6km... pretty poor, i struggled with pumps in my calves and shins, it wasn't a great start.
Fast forward 2 months of pretty much week on week PBs and i've just nailed my first 30minute run, at 30m13s - over 8 minutes off since i started and my 5km split was 27m01s. I'm delighted with that! My bodyweight is around 120kg now and i'm still able to rep 150kg on the bench too which is encouraging, will test my deadlift and squat when i get back to the UK and into a decent gym.
Going forward, a sub 55minute 10km is the next challenge running wise. Doubt i could maintain the pace i ran 5km in over the 10km. I don't want to get too much lighter but there is still fat to come off so hopefully see some changes there too as i up the distances.
Running is ok.
Rich_W said:
Do any of the current GPS watches have a real time SPEED display option?
My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
Generally they're all over the place if you try and get a current reading, you just need to look at the plot afterwards to see how much they tend to flap about. If you get one that can do programmed intervals you should be able to set it to show the average speed in the current interval. Pretty sure most of the Garmins beyond the bottom couple in the range can do that but it'd be worth checking the manuals online. 99% sure my 610 and the wife's 310xt can do that.My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
ETA: Is see the 210 has got interval settings, are there any options on display setup to switch between average pace and average per lap?
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Monday 11th January 13:01
RizzoTheRat said:
Rich_W said:
Do any of the current GPS watches have a real time SPEED display option?
My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
Generally they're all over the place if you try and get a current reading, you just need to look at the plot afterwards to see how much they tend to flap about. If you get one that can do programmed intervals you should be able to set it to show the average speed in the current interval. Pretty sure most of the Garmins beyond the bottom couple in the range can do that but it'd be worth checking the manuals online. 99% sure my 610 and the wife's 310xt can do that.My Forerunner 210 only shows "average" page for the KM you're doing. Which is not very helpful when doing a structured interval set. (i.e 30secs Race Pace / 45s easy)
I'd much rather have it say (Accepting of a 1second delay due to the way it triangulates) Your Speed now = 15km/h instead of 4.00 per KM for the fast bits and then when you hit the next interval is says your average will be 4m30 (guestimate) since its factored in the slow section.
ETA: Is see the 210 has got interval settings, are there any options on display setup to switch between average pace and average per lap?
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Monday 11th January 13:01
Edited by Cybertronian on Monday 11th January 13:34
My bold statement last week regards running the Fan Dance route
Quads are sore from the descending, and I'm generally stiff, so a really easy week for me coming up.
Smitters said:
Hoping for sub three, ...
Ha! Aside from the extra couple of miles we tacked on by parking away from the traditional start to avoid the event guys, we were nowhere close. 3.40 in the end. Absolutely blowing up the hills, not much in the legs for the runnable sections. Tough day out. I reckon if I went back and did it again this weekend I could knock 20mins off, mainly on the downhill sections, but otherwise, I'm fitness limited on this one. The lightweight runners did it in 2.10! I'm in awe.Quads are sore from the descending, and I'm generally stiff, so a really easy week for me coming up.
ewenm said:
Well done! Some of the clips I've seen of the wild conditions are epic! A friend of mine was very happy with third place.
Cheers - Saturday was wet and windy, but to be honest, about as good as we could have expected for early January. Above zero, some visibility, wind not strong enough to knock you over. Sunday looked amazing, but much tougher underfoot. I'll bet there were some falls on the ice and snow. We actually summitted PYF and Corn Du, so were off route a bit, but not so much to change the timings drastically.First, second and third were still pretty close early in the return leg - probably a minute or so between them - definitely visible to each other on the Roman Road. They all looked surprisingly chipper, but some of the later folks looked decidedly glum at having to retrace their steps.
I'm training for a half marathon in april.
The plan i'm following has 3 runs but also has strength training twice a week.
Can i use a rowing machine on the hard setting as strength training?
The gym i use is part of a public school , the free weights section is always busy whereas i could pretty much guarantee to get on the rower or the weight machines like leg extension/press, again there's a squat rack but that's going to hard to get on.
The plan i'm following has 3 runs but also has strength training twice a week.
Can i use a rowing machine on the hard setting as strength training?
The gym i use is part of a public school , the free weights section is always busy whereas i could pretty much guarantee to get on the rower or the weight machines like leg extension/press, again there's a squat rack but that's going to hard to get on.
Flibble said:
I really struggle to run slow enough to keep my HR much under 170. I went out today and was doing 10 minute miles and still had a HR of 170ish! Maybe a just have a fast exercise heart rate? Is that even a thing?
My resting heart rate is 48, max is around 195, blood pressure is good (usually around 110/70).
A "fast" pace for me is about 8 minutes, so running at 10 feels pretty slow indeed, and my cadence drops so much to go that slow that I struggle to maintain form.
If you've never run in zone two it makes sense that you're not going to be very fast in it. I can't give you any meaningful numbers though - your slow is my fast!My resting heart rate is 48, max is around 195, blood pressure is good (usually around 110/70).
A "fast" pace for me is about 8 minutes, so running at 10 feels pretty slow indeed, and my cadence drops so much to go that slow that I struggle to maintain form.
Onedsla - how slow was your 70% pace when you started doing it? And compared to now?
tenohfive said:
Anyone got any views or experience of the Tom Tom Runner Cardio? I'm looking for a GPS watch with HRM and Amazon have it for £100 which seems pretty reasonable. Open to alternatives too though in the same price range.
I ordered the TomTom Runner Cardio with Music last night... will let you know my thoughts when it arrives if you've not already taken the plunge.Just to revisit the running paces as % of training chat from a few posts up, I found it very interesting to see what pros do. Using Strava you can actually see what some pros are doing and when they say easy run, or recovery run, they are going really, really slowly. In some cases, slower than I do for a recovery run, which probably means something! Might be worth a look if anyone's wondering about how slow to run for the easy, less glamorous sessions of their training.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff