LT field test results- need guidance (Page 2)

jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-13 8:32 AM

Ok so I attempted my first LT field test this AM as per running protocol posted in various forums on BT.  My avg HR for the last 20 mins was 170.  For some reason this sounds low to me.  My pace during that last 20 mins was 8:26 (faster than my 5k PR pace of 8:30) so i know I wasn't dogging it and I was pretty close to reaching my limit at the end of that 20 mins.  When i went back to my blog and adjusted my HR zones the results look like this:

HR/Pace label Range data label Cumulative Time in zone

1 - Recovery 112 - 144                       28m 10s

2 - Extensive Endurance 145 - 154    1h 16m 11s

3 - Intensive Endurance 155 - 162     6h 01m 05s

4 - Sub-Threshold 163 - 169              10h 23m 11s

5a - SuperThreshold 170 - 173          6h 48m 06s

5b - Anaerobic Endurance 175 - 179

5c - Power 180 - 188

Does this look "normal' or in the ballpark...new to the HR training so I need some guidance.

JorgeM - 2009-10-14 9:40 PM

how much distance did you covered over the 30 min test?

jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-15 8:19 AM


2.43 miles. So running at 8:13 pace.

jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-15 7:19 AM


2.43 miles. So running at 8:13 pace.

JorgeM - 2009-10-15 9:06 AM that doesn't add up, if you ran 30 min @ 8:13 min/mile pace you then should have covered around 3.65 miles, no? do you train with a HRM exclusively or also by pace (i.e. GPS or polar pedometer)

jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-15 9:25 AM   I use a garmin 305, so I have been training by either one depending on the run.

Experior - 2009-10-15 8:40 AM

I think you mean 20 minutes, not 30.

Did you do the protocol correctly?  10 minutes warm-up, 10 minutes HARD, then 20 MORE minutes HARD.  LTHR is avg HR over the last 20 minutes.  If you went straight from the 10 minute warm-up to the 'final' 20 minutes then your number is probably too low.

Scout7 - 2009-10-15 9:27 AM

Either one?  Pardon my ignorance, by how do you determine which to use and when?  And is there a particular reason you switch between them?

I ask in all sincerity, as this is something I have seen some people do.

jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-15 9:36 AM

Well, the reason I did the LT test was to move more towards an HR based program.  Previously I used HR on longer runs trying to stay in z2 (as calculated by my HRM).  I did this primarily because I was not used to running more than 5 miles and wanted to make sure I could finish.  I used pace on shorter runs 3-5 miles.  Running at a cetain pace and measuring HR along the route to judge "intensity" of the run.  Whether this was right, smart, etc...it was how I was training on my runs...

Scout7 - 2009-10-15 9:39 AM

I have no judgement as to right or smart or anything else.  I was just curious how you were training.

So you are trying to move to using just HR, and not pace?  Or do you plan on still using both?  Again, I am curious, nothing more.

jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-15 9:44 AM

Looking at my training plan...I would say both depending on the run....Staying in specified zones for endurance and strength runs and pace for speed work

Scout7 - 2009-10-15 9:50 AM

OK.  What's the reasoning behind your plan?

JorgeM - 2009-10-15 10:48 AM

Reading the above if *I* was you I would rather set my training levels based on pace rather than HR. Having a GPS allows you to train by pace anywhere and be more specific in the training adaptations you seek (i.e. increase speed, endurance etc). training by pace will allow you to adjust your pacing every run based on your RPE and that is more representative of your metabolic fitness, that is how your muscles are adapting to the training load. if a particular day you are a bit more tired do you accumulated fatigue, work, life etc then you know what pacing you should shoot for and adjust by RPE. OTHO if you are feeling good that day then it is easier to go a bit faster.

Using a HRM can limit that as it only tells you how hard your heart is working at a given moment (cardiovascular strain) and not necessarily tells you the work done on your muscle or it can be skewed by external factors not specific to the work done such as diet, rest, stress, temperature, dehydration, etc. For that reason, training with a HRM can be more challenging.

Using a GPS takes the guessing out of the question; by defining your levels based on a filed test tells you how fit you are today to run certain distances and what's your potential based on today's fitness. Also as your fitness improves same your paces hence you'll be able to notice the improvements rather simple if you test periodically giving extra motivation and if not progress is made it is easier to make adjustments to the plan. LTHR will hardly change even when your fitness improve, and since we establish other factors can affected your testing can be a bit more difficult.

Again I would recommend training by pace and use any of the online calculators like VDOT or Mcmillan.

http://www.runbayou.com/jackd.htm

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm

Scout7 - 2009-10-15 10:47 AM

Now you lost me...  Since I don't know what the plan looks like, I don't know what the strides are, but I've never done strides by pace, and I've never seen them prescribed that way.  Not saying it's wrong, just saying I've never seen that before.  Could be a case of a different workout with the same name.

jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-15 3:50 PM



From BT marathon training plan:Run Speed
Speed/Efficiency
30
30' run with 8x30" strides. These are best if done on a slight downhill on a dirt path. Warm up for at least 10' before the first stride. For your recovery, you can walk back to the starting point. Strides are quick bursts that are as fast as 5k pace. You are looking to get in about 45 left foot strikes per 26-28".