General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2010-03-09 9:07 PM

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by UrsusAdiposimus 2010-03-09 9:11 PM


2010-03-09 9:23 PM
in reply to: #2717659

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
one of the reasons i dont train by HR.

100% of my running is done by effort level. ALL non workout runs are done at a comfortable pace forthat day. If thats 8 min miles, so be it, if its 6:40 miles, thats fine too. And the same 7 mile run one day can be 8:20 pace, and the next day at the same effort level can be 6:30 pace.
2010-03-09 10:47 PM
in reply to: #2717659

Extreme Veteran
502
500
Washington
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
Is it possible you left something in the tank during your LT field test?

Also, my pace for a given HR can vary quite a bit day to day.  For example, if I try to go running while dehydrated, I'm afflicted by the flu, if I have 5 cups of coffee at work, ect, these can affect my HR.

Edited by ionlylooklazy 2010-03-09 10:51 PM
2010-03-09 10:56 PM
in reply to: #2717659

Veteran
208
100100
Perth
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
I think you need to do those tests three or more times and get the avarage from the three. Sounds like a pain but it's the only way to get an acurate figure ( you improve with experience in doing those tests)

Good luck!
2010-03-10 6:07 AM
in reply to: #2717659

Runner
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
Pick ONE methodology and stick with it.

This example is why I generally go against the idea of using more than one metric for determining effort. If you want to track the data, go for it, but use either HR, pace, or RPE during your runs to determine your effort level, not a combination.

I'd go with RPE, especially since it has been working for you.
2010-03-10 6:44 AM
in reply to: #2717659

Champion
7595
50002000500252525
Columbia, South Carolina
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
UrsusAdiposimus - 2010-03-09 10:07 PM

Running pace LT during same test (approximates my pace during a sprint tri and stand alone 5k) - 6:05/mile. Next to it, I have put what my actual heart rate is at those pace zones. Look at how out of sync they are with the above HR zones:

Z1/active recovery - <8:11 (120-130)
Z2 - 7:14-8:10 (131-145)
Z3 - 6:44-7:13 (146-156)
Z4 - 6:21-6:43(157-165)
Z5a - 6:05-6:20 (165+)



I'm not sure I get this part.  These were paces you were hitting during an LT test where your average speed was 6:05/mile?  How long were you actually at any of the slower paces?  Did your HR really have time to settle in at each of these paces?

My personal (non-expert) opinion, which is a little different from Scout's, is that HRM is pretty good to use at the lower end of the scale (e.g., a long Z2 or Z3 run), but I always check myself against pace (as you are doing here), and for me pace trumps HRM at the higher zones.  And for intervals I ignore HR completely and go solely by pace.  I tend to use McMillan's paces, but have used Daniels' as well (they are similar).  But I still think of it as a 'single system' (as Scout advocates) -- it is just a 'hybrid' system.

Edited by Experior 2010-03-10 6:45 AM


2010-03-10 7:05 AM
in reply to: #2717894

Champion
9407
500020002000100100100100
Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
Scout7 - 2010-03-10 8:07 AM

Pick ONE methodology and stick with it.


x2

To paraphrase Andrew Coggan, if you know pace knowing HR is at best redundant.

Shane
2010-03-10 9:01 AM
in reply to: #2717659

Master
1222
1000100100
Lafayette, IN
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive

Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 165 bpm

Z1- <141
Z2 - 141-150
Z3 - 151-157
Z4 - 158-164
Z5a - 165-168

Have I done something wrong with my zones?  Here is how I have mine set up:

Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 170 bpm

Z1- <116
Z2 - 116-141
Z3 - 142-160
Z4 - 161-179
Z5a - 180+

These are based on a percentage of my LT. 

Edited by Gregkl 2010-03-10 9:02 AM
2010-03-10 9:10 AM
in reply to: #2717970

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
gsmacleod - 2010-03-10 8:05 AM
Scout7 - 2010-03-10 8:07 AM

Pick ONE methodology and stick with it.


x2

To paraphrase Andrew Coggan, if you know pace knowing HR is at best redundant.

Shane


X3.

Either go by pace or by HR, you can't do both.  Too many variables.
2010-03-10 10:16 AM
in reply to: #2718214

Extreme Veteran
322
100100100
Reston, VA
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
Gregkl - 2010-03-10 10:01 AM
Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 165 bpm

Z1- <141
Z2 - 141-150
Z3 - 151-157
Z4 - 158-164
Z5a - 165-168

Have I done something wrong with my zones?  Here is how I have mine set up:

Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 170 bpm

Z1- <116
Z2 - 116-141
Z3 - 142-160
Z4 - 161-179
Z5a - 180+

These are based on a percentage of my LT. 



Hate to hijack the OP, but what percentages did you use to calculate your zones?  IIRC, your LT is generally the top of Z4/bottom of Z5.  I went to the HR zone calculator in the training logs and plugged in a 170 bpm LT and got the following:

Z1   112 - 144
Z2   145 - 154
Z3   155 - 162
Z4   163 - 169
Z5a  170 - 173
Z5b  175 - 179
Z5c  180 - 188
2010-03-10 10:34 AM
in reply to: #2718240

Elite
4235
2000200010010025
Spring, TX
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive

Marvarnett - 2010-03-10 9:10 AM
gsmacleod - 2010-03-10 8:05 AM
Scout7 - 2010-03-10 8:07 AM

Pick ONE methodology and stick with it.


x2

To paraphrase Andrew Coggan, if you know pace knowing HR is at best redundant.

Shane


X3.

Either go by pace or by HR, you can't do both.  Too many variables.

Dan, Shane & Scout,

I agree that for training you can only use one protocol.  Pick a method, whether RPE, HR or pace and stick with it.

That being said, it's still an interesting observation and speaks to the differences in the methods.  I ran using Daniels v-dot paces last year and this year have been doing heart rate.  With RPE being the only real judge of how hard I'm actually running, I can tell you that my HR Z1 running is a lot harder/faster than my Easy Pace running from last year.  Same holds true for all my HR zones compared to my other paces per Daniels formula.  My fitness has improved since last year, but there is still a big disparity between the two.

So what does this say about the training stress being applied?  If you took two otherwise identical plans but based one on HR and the other on paces you could end up with very different training loads.  They doesn't seem like different but equally valid methods.  I don't know that one could be described as 'better' than the other, but I think the OP makes a valid observation.



2010-03-10 10:45 AM
in reply to: #2718520

Runner
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
AndrewMT - 2010-03-10 11:34 AM

Marvarnett - 2010-03-10 9:10 AM
gsmacleod - 2010-03-10 8:05 AM
Scout7 - 2010-03-10 8:07 AM

Pick ONE methodology and stick with it.


x2

To paraphrase Andrew Coggan, if you know pace knowing HR is at best redundant.

Shane


X3.

Either go by pace or by HR, you can't do both.  Too many variables.

Dan, Shane & Scout,

I agree that for training you can only use one protocol.  Pick a method, whether RPE, HR or pace and stick with it.

That being said, it's still an interesting observation and speaks to the differences in the methods.  I ran using Daniels v-dot paces last year and this year have been doing heart rate.  With RPE being the only real judge of how hard I'm actually running, I can tell you that my HR Z1 running is a lot harder/faster than my Easy Pace running from last year.  Same holds true for all my HR zones compared to my other paces per Daniels formula.  My fitness has improved since last year, but there is still a big disparity between the two.

So what does this say about the training stress being applied?  If you took two otherwise identical plans but based one on HR and the other on paces you could end up with very different training loads.  They doesn't seem like different but equally valid methods.  I don't know that one could be described as 'better' than the other, but I think the OP makes a valid observation.



You say your effort at Z1 is harder/faster than Easy Pace last year. Faster....I would hope so. Harder....Depends. How did you determine your VDot pacing in the first place? How does the projected HR percentages match up to the HR zones you are using.

And, in my mind, all the more reason to stick with one methodology. Easy should always be the same throughout your training, however you define "Easy". If it's HR, then it's Z1. If it's pace, then it's always based on most recent race times, and based on the same formula every time (VDot, McMillan, whatever). If it's RPE, easy should feel the same, no matter how fit you are. If you start comparing efforts between two different metrics, there is bound to be discrepancies. It's the nature of physiology, and of training. And that is why I advocate picking one and sticking with it; it eliminates the noise.
2010-03-10 11:03 AM
in reply to: #2718574

Elite
4235
2000200010010025
Spring, TX
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive

Scout7 - 2010-03-10 10:45 AM
AndrewMT - 2010-03-10 11:34 AM

 

Dan, Shane & Scout,

I agree that for training you can only use one protocol.  Pick a method, whether RPE, HR or pace and stick with it.

That being said, it's still an interesting observation and speaks to the differences in the methods.  I ran using Daniels v-dot paces last year and this year have been doing heart rate.  With RPE being the only real judge of how hard I'm actually running, I can tell you that my HR Z1 running is a lot harder/faster than my Easy Pace running from last year.  Same holds true for all my HR zones compared to my other paces per Daniels formula.  My fitness has improved since last year, but there is still a big disparity between the two.

So what does this say about the training stress being applied?  If you took two otherwise identical plans but based one on HR and the other on paces you could end up with very different training loads.  They doesn't seem like different but equally valid methods.  I don't know that one could be described as 'better' than the other, but I think the OP makes a valid observation.

You say your effort at Z1 is harder/faster than Easy Pace last year. Faster....I would hope so. Harder....Depends. How did you determine your VDot pacing in the first place? How does the projected HR percentages match up to the HR zones you are using. And, in my mind, all the more reason to stick with one methodology. Easy should always be the same throughout your training, however you define "Easy". If it's HR, then it's Z1. If it's pace, then it's always based on most recent race times, and based on the same formula every time (VDot, McMillan, whatever). If it's RPE, easy should feel the same, no matter how fit you are. If you start comparing efforts between two different metrics, there is bound to be discrepancies. It's the nature of physiology, and of training. And that is why I advocate picking one and sticking with it; it eliminates the noise.

I agree with everything you're saying.  I just find it interesting that an "Easy" effort can be so different between the different methods.  An easy 45 min run for one could be much harder than an easy 45 run for another.  The workout descriptions are the same, but the training load is different.  Along that vein, one method may result in more training stress that leads to better fitness gains but may also set a person up for injury.  I don't know if that's the case, but based on my observations it seems possible. 

I'm not looking to change my training, but I can use it as an example.  Last year, my Easy VDot pace was around 8:15 which felt pretty easy.  That was established based on several field tests and races as prescribed by Jorge, who was my coach at the time.  This year, based on HR, my Zone 1-2 running is between 7:00 - 7:30 min/mile.  So much faster, it feels harder, but my HR stays low.  Yeah, I'm faster than last year, but based on RPE, I know that one "Easy" is significantly different training stress than the other "Easy." 

Anyway, like I said, I'm in total agreement with you.  I just find it interesting. 

2010-03-10 11:12 AM
in reply to: #2718639

Runner
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
Unfortunately, part of the issue we need to take into account is testing protocols (I'm not saying you have done anything wrong at any point, so keep that in mind).

I think that, for some people, doing a field test for LT is not easy. It requires moderating your effort appropriately, and there's a number of external factors that will influence it. Races are no different. You could be undertrained/overtrained for the race that day, and it throws off your pace, which could in turn throw off your training. Same thing with the field test. RPE is just plain difficult to get without practicing it a lot. You have to do a fair bit of running at various efforts to get an idea of what the efforts feel like. If you don't run hard, how do you know what hard is? Or what easy is for that matter.

In other words, there are inherent inaccuracies with all of these methodologies, which could lead to differences as well. Which makes the likelihood of differences in feel between them fairly substantial, at least in my opinion and experience.
2010-03-10 11:12 AM
in reply to: #2717659

Elite
5316
5000100100100
Alturas, California
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
I am not sure you can backwords calculate speed from your LT as a percentage of your average speed at LT.  There may not be a linear relationship between pace and HR for you.  In fact, I would assume a curvilinear relationship making your linear derivation not accurate.  If you did your LT test as 30 minutes at very hard effort to establish HR zones, then use them.  If you want to run RPE and then look at pace and HR when you feel Z1 or Z2, 3 etc., then go by that.  However, small changes in grade, wind, etc., will impact your pace even if you hold your HR constant at the top of Z4/bottom of Z5 for your LT test. 


As for this:
Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 170 bpm

Z1- <116
Z2 - 116-141
Z3 - 142-160
Z4 - 161-179
Z5a - 180+

These are based on a percentage of my LT. 


Hate to hijack the OP, but what percentages did you use to calculate your zones?  IIRC, your LT is generally the top of Z4/bottom of Z5.  I went to the HR zone calculator in the training logs and plugged in a 170 bpm LT and got the following:

Z1   112 - 144
Z2   145 - 154
Z3   155 - 162
Z4   163 - 169
Z5a  170 - 173
Z5b  175 - 179
Z5c  180 - 188

The second one is correct for zones based on all the calculators I have looked at.  If your LT is 170, you are going to have a hell of a time hitting 180+ in your repeats.   

 

Edited by Baowolf 2010-03-10 11:19 AM
2010-03-10 11:26 AM
in reply to: #2718444

Master
1222
1000100100
Lafayette, IN
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
cmrey528 - 2010-03-10 10:16 AM
Gregkl - 2010-03-10 10:01 AM
Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 165 bpm

Z1- <141
Z2 - 141-150
Z3 - 151-157
Z4 - 158-164
Z5a - 165-168

Have I done something wrong with my zones?  Here is how I have mine set up:

Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 170 bpm

Z1- <116
Z2 - 116-141
Z3 - 142-160
Z4 - 161-179
Z5a - 180+

These are based on a percentage of my LT. 



Hate to hijack the OP, but what percentages did you use to calculate your zones?  IIRC, your LT is generally the top of Z4/bottom of Z5.  I went to the HR zone calculator in the training logs and plugged in a 170 bpm LT and got the following:

Z1   112 - 144
Z2   145 - 154
Z3   155 - 162
Z4   163 - 169
Z5a  170 - 173
Z5b  175 - 179
Z5c  180 - 188


ZONE% LT(166)RPEBPMRIDE
168% or less1-2< 113RECOVERY
269-833-4115-138ENDURANCE
384-944-5139-156INTENSIVE ENDURANCE
495-1055-6157-174LACTATE THRESHOLD
5106% and over6-7175+ANAEROBIC ENDURANCE

Above are my zones for bike.  Below is for run. Are they all wrong?  Maybe that's my problem.
ZONE% LT(166)RPEBPMRun
168% or less1-2< 116RECOVERY
269-833-4116-141ENDURANCE
384-944-5142-160INTENSIVE ENDURANCE
495-1055-6161-179LACTATE THRESHOLD
5106% and over6-7180+ANAEROBIC ENDURANCE




2010-03-10 11:31 AM
in reply to: #2718659

Master
1222
1000100100
Lafayette, IN
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
Baowolf - 2010-03-10 11:12 AM I am not sure you can backwords calculate speed from your LT as a percentage of your average speed at LT.  There may not be a linear relationship between pace and HR for you.  In fact, I would assume a curvilinear relationship making your linear derivation not accurate.  If you did your LT test as 30 minutes at very hard effort to establish HR zones, then use them.  If you want to run RPE and then look at pace and HR when you feel Z1 or Z2, 3 etc., then go by that.  However, small changes in grade, wind, etc., will impact your pace even if you hold your HR constant at the top of Z4/bottom of Z5 for your LT test. 


As for this:
Running HR LT (based on 30-minute all out effort and recording average HR for the last 20 minutes) - 170 bpm

Z1- <116
Z2 - 116-141
Z3 - 142-160
Z4 - 161-179
Z5a - 180+

These are based on a percentage of my LT. 


Hate to hijack the OP, but what percentages did you use to calculate your zones?  IIRC, your LT is generally the top of Z4/bottom of Z5.  I went to the HR zone calculator in the training logs and plugged in a 170 bpm LT and got the following:

Z1   112 - 144
Z2   145 - 154
Z3   155 - 162
Z4   163 - 169
Z5a  170 - 173
Z5b  175 - 179
Z5c  180 - 188

The second one is correct for zones based on all the calculators I have looked at.  If your LT is 170, you are going to have a hell of a time hitting 180+ in your repeats.   

 


Baowolf, this could be good news for me.  Because I go so slow to do a run in Z2 that I keep thinking why do it?  How am I supposed to train myself to A, go faster and B go longer.  I run at a 10:40 pace now to stay in what I think is Z2, I don't feel like I am getting enough milles in and I know I can easily go 9:30's. If I use the calculator you have, I could immediately cover more distance on my runs since I train by time, not mileage.
2010-03-10 11:49 AM
in reply to: #2718659

Pro
6011
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
Baowolf - 2010-03-10 12:12 PM I am not sure you can backwords calculate speed from your LT as a percentage of your average speed at LT.  There may not be a linear relationship between pace and HR for you.  In fact, I would assume a curvilinear relationship making your linear derivation not accurate.  If you did your LT test as 30 minutes at very hard effort to establish HR zones, then use them.  If you want to run RPE and then look at pace and HR when you feel Z1 or Z2, 3 etc., then go by that.  However, small changes in grade, wind, etc., will impact your pace even if you hold your HR constant at the top of Z4/bottom of Z5 for your LT test. 

 


This ^^^^^

Plus, assuming accuracy of the tests and calculations per the individual protocols, I think this thread is a good example of how, no matter how anal we try to be about establishing and following training zones, they are still only an approximation of something that is a moving target and is actually a continual progression of effort level, not 7 neatly delineated effort levels.  Zones are an inexact tool that we use to manage our training, but they can never be exact, even using extensive lab testing.   Our bodies don't magically respond differently when our HR increases 1 beat from one zone to the next.
2010-03-10 12:01 PM
in reply to: #2718790

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
TriMyBest - 2010-03-10 10:49 AM

Baowolf - 2010-03-10 12:12 PM I am not sure you can backwords calculate speed from your LT as a percentage of your average speed at LT. There may not be a linear relationship between pace and HR for you. In fact, I would assume a curvilinear relationship making your linear derivation not accurate. If you did your LT test as 30 minutes at very hard effort to establish HR zones, then use them. If you want to run RPE and then look at pace and HR when you feel Z1 or Z2, 3 etc., then go by that. However, small changes in grade, wind, etc., will impact your pace even if you hold your HR constant at the top of Z4/bottom of Z5 for your LT test.



This ^^^^^

Plus, assuming accuracy of the tests and calculations per the individual protocols, I think this thread is a good example of how, no matter how anal we try to be about establishing and following training zones, they are still only an approximation of something that is a moving target and is actually a continual progression of effort level, not 7 neatly delineated effort levels. Zones are an inexact tool that we use to manage our training, but they can never be exact, even using extensive lab testing. Our bodies don't magically respond differently when our HR increases 1 beat from one zone to the next.


this is why outside of swimming, and running on a track, i NEVER train by pace. so many things can come into play to screw with it.

Easy runs can vary so much, i have seen in the last 3 weeks easy runs range from mid 6 min up to lower 8 min range for the same effort level. if i did this by pace, i would have killed myself some days, and hardly been working others.

This is one case where i think HR would be a better training tool but i think running by feel is a very very good idea and can do a lot to help you get used to what running smart feels like (this is by new means law, there are plently of people that do the other two well).
2010-03-10 12:09 PM
in reply to: #2718819

Elite
4235
2000200010010025
Spring, TX
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive

newbz - 2010-03-10 12:01 PM this is why outside of swimming, and running on a track, i NEVER train by pace. so many things can come into play to screw with it. Easy runs can vary so much, i have seen in the last 3 weeks easy runs range from mid 6 min up to lower 8 min range for the same effort level. if i did this by pace, i would have killed myself some days, and hardly been working others. This is one case where i think HR would be a better training tool but i think running by feel is a very very good idea and can do a lot to help you get used to what running smart feels like (this is by new means law, there are plently of people that do the other two well).

Based on my comments above, I'm starting to feel that you're right on this.  This assumes a person can be honest with themselves on their RPE and be willing to push themselves on the hard days and go easy on easy days without the use of a metric telling them to speed up or slow down!

2010-03-10 12:29 PM
in reply to: #2718833

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
andrew,

for better or worse, the system i use for my running is pretty simple. I run the volumes i need to allow me to hit the faster workouts i want. on day to day runs i run at a comfortable pace. whatever feels good that day and allows me to run the next again.

Simply put, the daily runs should not effect the next workout. As long as i am keeping track of that, i have had NO issues at all and am seeing steady improvement.


2010-03-10 12:35 PM
in reply to: #2717659

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
The OP's issue is also why I advocate metabolic testing for LT as opposed to field testing. I don't think he has determined his actual run LT and is basing training zones off data which is incorrect, making everything off. If you are going to train by HR zones, you better make sure you etsablish the base lines right.

Edited by bryancd 2010-03-10 12:37 PM
2010-03-10 12:39 PM
in reply to: #2718833

Runner
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
AndrewMT - 2010-03-10 1:09 PM

newbz - 2010-03-10 12:01 PM this is why outside of swimming, and running on a track, i NEVER train by pace. so many things can come into play to screw with it. Easy runs can vary so much, i have seen in the last 3 weeks easy runs range from mid 6 min up to lower 8 min range for the same effort level. if i did this by pace, i would have killed myself some days, and hardly been working others. This is one case where i think HR would be a better training tool but i think running by feel is a very very good idea and can do a lot to help you get used to what running smart feels like (this is by new means law, there are plently of people that do the other two well).

Based on my comments above, I'm starting to feel that you're right on this.  This assumes a person can be honest with themselves on their RPE and be willing to push themselves on the hard days and go easy on easy days without the use of a metric telling them to speed up or slow down!



Bingo. And this is true regardless of the metric used. You can just as easily ignore or misinterpret pace or HR and train too hard with those. I like RPE because it doesn't matter what the terrain is, or the weather, or whatnot. Hard is hard, easy is easy. Like Newbz said, if you can hit your training day in and day out, that's the key.

As an aside, it's a byproduct of lots of training. The higher the training volume, the harder it will be to NOT run easy on a consistent basis
2010-03-10 12:49 PM
in reply to: #2718819

Expert
1087
1000252525
Portland
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive
newbz - 2010-03-10 12:01 PM
TriMyBest - 2010-03-10 10:49 AM
Baowolf - 2010-03-10 12:12 PM I am not sure you can backwords calculate speed from your LT as a percentage of your average speed at LT. There may not be a linear relationship between pace and HR for you. In fact, I would assume a curvilinear relationship making your linear derivation not accurate. If you did your LT test as 30 minutes at very hard effort to establish HR zones, then use them. If you want to run RPE and then look at pace and HR when you feel Z1 or Z2, 3 etc., then go by that. However, small changes in grade, wind, etc., will impact your pace even if you hold your HR constant at the top of Z4/bottom of Z5 for your LT test.



This ^^^^^

Plus, assuming accuracy of the tests and calculations per the individual protocols, I think this thread is a good example of how, no matter how anal we try to be about establishing and following training zones, they are still only an approximation of something that is a moving target and is actually a continual progression of effort level, not 7 neatly delineated effort levels. Zones are an inexact tool that we use to manage our training, but they can never be exact, even using extensive lab testing. Our bodies don't magically respond differently when our HR increases 1 beat from one zone to the next.
this is why outside of swimming, and running on a track, i NEVER train by pace. so many things can come into play to screw with it. Easy runs can vary so much, i have seen in the last 3 weeks easy runs range from mid 6 min up to lower 8 min range for the same effort level. if i did this by pace, i would have killed myself some days, and hardly been working others. This is one case where i think HR would be a better training tool but i think running by feel is a very very good idea and can do a lot to help you get used to what running smart feels like (this is by new means law, there are plently of people that do the other two well).


This is how I have been training on my runs for the past 5.5 monthes and I have had EXCELLENT results.  I run how I feel like running that day.  If I'm feeling good I'll push a bit, if I'm not feeling so hot, I'll slow it down.  It takes some serious honesty with yourself to know when you need what, but I have chopped almost 1 min/mile off my pace while more than tripling the distance of my long runs.
2010-03-10 1:49 PM
in reply to: #2718870

Elite
4235
2000200010010025
Spring, TX
Subject: RE: Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive

newbz - 2010-03-10 12:29 PM andrew, for better or worse, the system i use for my running is pretty simple. I run the volumes i need to allow me to hit the faster workouts i want. on day to day runs i run at a comfortable pace. whatever feels good that day and allows me to run the next again. Simply put, the daily runs should not effect the next workout. As long as i am keeping track of that, i have had NO issues at all and am seeing steady improvement.

So Dave, as a coach, how do you communicate intensity to your athletes using RPE?  How can you ensure they're meeting your intent without a metric or data?

When it comes to running, I know my body and have a good feel for gaging intensity using RPE.  But I also overthink my training, which is why I have a coach.  I like structured training and will follow a plan/workout EXACTLY as prescribed, which is hard to do without a clear means of communicating the inteded intensity.  Conversely, the metrics help a coach gage what the athlete is actually doing and how to plan training in the future.

Getting back to the OP though, I'm still struck by how different methods of measurement can result in such different intensities, even for the same "easy," "moderate" or "hard" efforts.  Kind of makes you realize how arbitrary these methods really are. 

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2