posted Sep-04-2007 11:46 AM            

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/010508.shtml

I do have some questions about where my AeT is. Maybe it's a big higher than I thought.

Cheers!

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 12:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Docster:
I couldn't help but think of this thread after my half marathon race yesterday. (Virginia Beach HM) I was at an Irish pub (of sorts....) and ran into another HM'er. He was, I believe, 54 years old, and talking about qualifying for Boston.

HIs "new" regimen is going to be to run 3 days a week. (and cross train) The first 2 days will be "faster than marathon pace" workouts, and then on his long run run up to one half of it at marathon pace.

---

Congratulations on the PB.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 06:21 PM               

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 08:25 PM            

I can vouch for Frederick of course. That was a strange race. My heart rate splits stayed constant over the last four or five miles instead of rising quickly like they normally do in a marathon. I slowed of course, but I wasn't just jogging it in. Against the wind I just couldn't get my heart rate up. There seemed to be nothing between a sustainable pace and an all out effort. Of course, it might have been the futility in the wind had just sapped my will. (In one gust it felt like both feet landed on the same spot.)

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 09:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I don't have the sample size you have to go on, but I don't believe in the "smoke 'em while you got 'em" approach. I think heart rate is a lagging indicator until you're warmed up and you're borrowing more from the bank (to add another metaphor) when running a 170 bpm first mile versus a 170 bpm third mile (for example). I've done plenty of MAF training runs where I ran say 140 bpm in the first mile and then tried to keep at MAF (145 then) only to struggle and run a slower overall pace than other runs where I rose to 145 more slowly and had an overall lower average. I had a PR 5 mile race where I went out in what should have been too quick a pace. I think that was because it's psychologically easier to hold onto a fast pace than to push it after you're already tired and sometimes going out fast shows you what you're capable of.

---

Are you a Cat A? By the way, I can't really apply what I said above
to training runs, or at least I haven't really explored the data. I've
just looked at results of mine over about 15-20 marathons over the last
couple of years, so I'm really referring to higher intensity stuff. I guess
what I'm really saying is that people get too focused on pace, rather
than on effort. I do know for sure that my ideal marathon heart rate
is somewhere between 172 and 174, a few beats below my AT.
If I were to go out at desired marathon pace when my training is peaked
out, my heart rate would be between about 147 and 152 for the first
4-6 miles assuming moderate terrain. However, I can warm up in a
very benign way at 158-164, letting myself crack into the 170s after
about 10 miles or so. I do believe if I jumped right up to 170, I might
have an explosion coming.

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 09:17 PM            

I don't really have any evidence to support what I'm saying, but it's something I feel. For example, at Cherry Blossom, I got a little fast in the second mile and could feel my threshold. I felt like my 2-2 breathing wasn't quite enough and I couldn't sustain the pace despite the fact my heart rate was well below what I'd end up averaging for the race. I'm guessing other indicators like O2 consumption and lactate concentration reach their steady state values before heart rate.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 09:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
...I guess what I'm really saying is that people get too focused on pace, rather
than on effort.

---

In a race, pace AND effort are intricately related.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 09:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
If I understand correctly, yes I'm a cat A. I average 172 or 172 in a marathon. I've managed to run some pretty evenly paced and I'll average 168 or so in the third mile and creep up to 172 about midway. The first two will be something in the mid-150s and low to mid 160s. (At Frederick I went out at BQ pace and tried to hold it, so I got above 170 quicker.)

I don't really have any evidence to support what I'm saying, but it's something I feel. For example, at Cherry Blossom, I got a little fast in the second mile and could feel my threshold. I felt like my 2-2 breathing wasn't quite enough and I couldn't sustain the pace despite the fact my heart rate was well below what I'd end up averaging for the race. I'm guessing other indicators like O2 consumption and lactate concentration reach their steady state values before heart rate.

---

Ok, what it sounds like you're saying is that your heart rate wasn't
as low as mine is for the first several miles. Maybe you're not
quite "as Cat A" as I! Remember that I'm
just saying that you don't need to slow down just because your pace
is fast, but it's still good to start out at a bit lower heart rate.
I'm not saying that you should jump right up to your target heart
rate, but it may be ok to go over your target pace for a while, as
long as your heart rate is still reasonably low (perhaps 10-15 beats
below the ultimate target). That happens to be the situation I'm
in. I do know that if I jump right into the high-160s, I'm too stressed
too quickly. High 140s, I'm wasting time. Perhaps this is just a
"me" factor, I dunno. I'm curious to see if any others have gathered
enough data to make such an assessment.

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Sep-04-2007 10:37 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 01:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyL:
My birthday is tomorrow. Headed out for a sentimental run with MAF of 142. Tomorrow I lose one stinkin' beat. Hello 141.

---

My HRmax has gone up a few beats the last couple years. Could be I didn't push myself hard enough a couple years ago or perhaps I am more fit. Last tested a couple of weeks ago using the hill climb method (aka near cardiac arrest HR).

Maybe do a test and see what you come up with. The 220-age is a guideline if you do not know your HRmax.

------------------
------------------
About Me ~~~ My Log ~~~Find a Race

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 07:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Ok, what it sounds like you're saying is that your heart rate wasn't
as low as mine is for the first several miles. Maybe you're not
quite "as Cat A" as I! Remember that I'm
just saying that you don't need to slow down just because your pace
is fast, but it's still good to start out at a bit lower heart rate.
I'm not saying that you should jump right up to your target heart
rate, but it may be ok to go over your target pace for a while, as
long as your heart rate is still reasonably low (perhaps 10-15 beats
below the ultimate target). That happens to be the situation I'm
in. I do know that if I jump right into the high-160s, I'm too stressed
too quickly. High 140s, I'm wasting time. Perhaps this is just a
"me" factor, I dunno. I'm curious to see if any others have gathered
enough data to make such an assessment.

---

I'm not sure I "get" this discussion. I do, though, have data from a couple marathons in the past year. In the Spring, I set out to run the same pace for every mile and used the HRM only to tell me if I was going to blow up. Stats: Mile 1 (145), miles 2-10 (147), 11-13 (145), 14-16 (147), then the creep began. 17-21 essentially gained 1 bpm (148, 149, 150, 151, 152), cruised home at between 151-52. For whatever it's worth, my max is 169 and I felt like I was busting it those last 6 miles. Similar experience at Marine Corps, except I didn't have the ability to pick it up the last 6 miles, so the HR was a smooth 145 +/- 2 for the whole shebang (except mile 1 was 133 in the crowd). Is this the kind of data you're talking about?

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 08:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Stats: Mile 1 (145), miles 2-10 (147), 11-13 (145), 14-16 (147), then the creep began. 17-21 essentially gained 1 bpm (148, 149, 150, 151, 152), cruised home at between 151-52.

---

Do you know your pace in mile 1 versus 2-10? I'm surprised it was that high.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 12:17 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 01:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:

The 220-age is a guideline if you do not know your HRmax.

---

Most people won't fall into the old 220-age formula.

Getting an objective max HR is another problem in itself.

Then, if you get an accurate max HR, what do you do with it?

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 01:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by labhiker:
Im not sure if its too early to raise the question but Im looking ahead at my first marathon in mid-October (6 weeks) and starting to thing about an appropriate MP or race day stretegy. Based on recent posts Im more of a Category A runner.
With all training being done at sub-MAF(typically MAF-5), what is a good stretegy for race day? Hoping to be most efficient Im considering something that may start out at a low HR and then slowly build throughout the race. With a MAF of 135, is it appropriate to start as low as 130bpm (for me this would be a very slow traing pace near 11:15 mm), build to MAF and then start to climbing above MAF at some point? At what rate should you let your HR climb during a marathon? I question if this approach is too conservative, but am concerned about starting too fast and having to deal with the wall too early.
Otherwise, Im thinking about starting at a higher HR (say 140s) and then letting things build into the the mid 150s during the middle third and letting it climb to 160s after 20.

---

I've found http://www.teamoregon.com/publications/wizard.php to be pretty accurate especially if you have race data with a HRM. As you can see from the above discussion people tend to reach their average at different points in the race. As long as you don't hit it in the first mile, you should probably be OK though.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 01:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
Do you know your pace in mile 1 versus 2-10? I'm surprised it was that high.

---

Data geek that I am, of COURSE I do.

7:31 (145),
2 7:30 (147),
3 7:30 (147),
4 7:39 (147),
5 7:36 (147),
6 7:37 (147),
7 7:36 (146),
8 7:35 (147),
9 7:35 (147),
10 7:39 (148)
the rest were all @7:35, except there was one big hill that cost me a lot of time (8:17) and a corresponding downhill section near the end (7:24, 7:10).

For this race, I set my Garmin to pace me at 7:35 (cool feature). I was a little worried about the HR but I could feel that the pace was OK. That's why I caution against being too rigid with the HR. It just happened to be a little high that day. Maybe it was humid. Dunno.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Data geek that I am, of COURSE I do.

7:31 (145),
2 7:30 (147),
3 7:30 (147),
4 7:39 (147),
5 7:36 (147),
6 7:37 (147),
7 7:36 (146),
8 7:35 (147),
9 7:35 (147),
10 7:39 (148)
the rest were all @7:35, except there was one big hill that cost me a lot of time (8:17) and a corresponding downhill section near the end (7:24, 7:10).

For this race, I set my Garmin to pace me at 7:35 (cool feature). I was a little worried about the HR but I could feel that the pace was OK. That's why I caution against being too rigid with the HR. It just happened to be a little high that day. Maybe it was humid. Dunno.

---

You really need to work on your pacing :-) The heart rate in the first mile could also be HRM wonkiness (to use a technical term). Mine is always artificially high for the first 5 minutes until I break a sweat.

Have to say I'm getting a little jealous of the 305. My 201 wasn't accurate enough for pacing and the Suunto T6 I replaced it with has an unreliable footpod that has to be calibrated just right to be accurate and adds another 40g on your foot.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 04:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I thought I'd throw a little twist in here about race pacing, perhaps
to see if anyone would bite. If I look at various ways of slicing
the pie for types of people with different heart rate trends, one
type is the person whose heart rate starts out low and doesn't
reach steady state until a couple of miles into the run. I'll call
this Category A. The other type starts out high and gets lower
over the first few miles. Let's call this category B. I'm
not really sure what all of this means, but for those of you who
have been doing this for a while, do you fit nicely into one of
these categories? I'm a category A runner, with no ambiguity.
I know many category B runners. I believe that for a category A
runner, slightly positive splits will bring the optimal marathon time
(perhaps the last mile or two faster than others, depending on
what's left, as you tap into your anaerobic system.) Category
B runners may be more susceptible to early pacing problems
(i.e., don't start out too fast or you'll pay dearly.) Since I've
been a dedicated MAFfer, I have little sensitivity to fast starts
(although, I always keep my heart rate low at the start anyway).
Since I'm a category A runner, I don't know much about B, and
I haven't collected people's data on it. I do know this - as a
cat A runner, if I'm targeting, say, 7:10-7:15/mile, my first 5-10
miles will be in the 6:40-6:55 realm at a heart rate in the high
150s up to about 165 or so. After that, I will hit a somewhat
steady state point of around 170, at paces in the 7:10-7:20
realm (of course, this is hill dependent). All of my best marathons
have had the fastest early splits except one, the Frederick Marathon
of this year. However, in that race I hit a 20 mph head wind
(gregw may have a comment on that) at around mile 21 and I
was running right at my limit the entire time and I didn't have it
in me to endure the pain. Plus it was one week after a very fierce
50k which followed a string of about 6 marathons and ultras
(including PRs at all distances and 100 miler) over a period of
about 7 weeks. Kind of a random
post, I know, but I'd say that if you're a category A runner, and
you wear your monitor in the race, you may want to consider
"smokin' 'em while you've got 'em" at the beginning, as long
as your heart rate is staying low - i.e., follow effort/heart rate and
don't worry so much about pace. If you're a Cat B runner, well,
someone will have to put in some trial and error to figure out
what's best there.

---

I fall under the Category A runner, however I tend to get my HR up quickly and hold it for a while. By mile 2 or 3, I'm pretty well set. I definitely don't see the lower HR you do in being able to start out that fast. Here are my splits from the Virginia Beach HM last Sunday....very flat course (mile 2 was faster, the "hill", and still dodging slower runners, etc)

I appear to be very steady here:

1 7:09 169
2 6:52 180
3 7:01 176
4 7:02 178
5 7:00 178
6 7:05 178
7 7:04 178
8 7:04 178
9 6:57 180
10 6:57 181
11 6:54 182
12 6:47 186
13 6:41 189

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by catwoman73:
Oh- one more question- does anyone else find themselves getting ravenously hungry part way through your runs? I can typically run up to 6-7 miles on an empty stomach without difficulty. Anything more than that and I'll usually eat some eggs before heading out. But lately, I've found myself feeling absolutely starving after 3-4 miles. I'm sure this is having an impact on my HR and my speed, just like the stress and the allergies. Could I just not be eating enough in general? My eating habits and calorie intake really haven't changed at all, so maybe my metabolism has. I'm not sure what's going on here, so I was hoping someone here could help me out.

---

Pam,

I've stepped it up from an average of 44-45 miles week to high-70s over the last year (in gradual increments) and found that I just end up eating more overall. I was actually hoping to lose a few pounds as I have an aggressive marathon goal; but my body "wants" to stay the same weight - so I've ended up eating more because I can't focus on work otherwise - I just think about food.

So.... now I just take in what feels comfortable.

For really long slow runs, I'll take in gels while on the go.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyL:
My birthday is tomorrow. Headed out for a sentimental run with MAF of 142. Tomorrow I lose one stinkin' beat. Hello 141.

---

Chuckle. I first got a heart monitor at age 29. My max HR then was 192. I'm now age 44; my max HR is 183. So, in 15 years, I've lost 9 beats. Not as bad as "one stinkin' beat per year" - but enough where my times have slowed by at least the 5% that my max HR has dropped over that time.

Unfortunately, my MAF seems to have fallen proportionately. I used to be able to routinely run at 150-151 beats/minute when I was 29 or 30 years old. Now, that's definitely above MAF - and I can "feel it" if I get over 144.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 05:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
I've found http://www.teamoregon.com/publications/wizard.php to be pretty accurate especially if you have race data with a HRM. As you can see from the above discussion people tend to reach their average at different points in the race. As long as you don't hit it in the first mile, you should probably be OK though.

---

I just tried this site; and put in a few times for me. The projected race times are pretty much right on. The max HR, though, is actually 9 beats higher than what they'd predict. For the slower runs, their expected heart rate is on pace with what mine is. For the race runs, my heart rate is generally higher than what they've forecasted. I'm a statistician by trade, though, and found that my heart rate is generally between 20-21 times my pace in miles per hour. So, if I'm running 6 MPH (10:00 min/mi), my heart rate is usually between 120 and 126. If I'm running 8 MPH (7:30 min/mi) my heart rate is between 160 and 168. Whether its high end or low end is weather dependent and how recovered I am.

Anyway... the formula used by Team Oregon would have a moving scale. At faster runs, they'd have my heart rate at about 18-19 times my pace in miles per hour, whereas in slower runs, they have it closer to 21.

I believe I have good aerobic conditioning; although not all that much speedwork as I've been doing 95%+ runs at MAF or slower.

[This message has been edited by dfcameron (edited Sep-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 07:43 PM               

6:59/155, 6:56/164, 6:58/163, 7:12/164, 7:08/164,
7:14/165, 7:29/164, 7:32/164, 7:29/164, 7:07/163

6:41/154, 6:53/163, 6:55/164, 6:52/165, 6:59/167,
6:54/167, 7:16/168, 7:03/168, 7:26/167, 7:08/167

6:37/153, 6:55/163, 7:05/165, 7:15/167, 7:14/166,
7:18/167, 7:08/167, 7:16/167, 7:23/168, 7:04/168

This was from Boston this year where I couldn't
go any faster at the beginning due to the crowd:

7:23/147, 7:10/161, 7:03/162, 6:55/164, 7:11/167,
7:10/166, 7:01/167, 7:05/168, 7:04/168, 7:15/169

I don't know, maybe it's not obvious, but it seems
to me at the beginning of marathons, I can somewhat
effortlessly hold a pretty good pace.

------------------
MyRunningLog
MyStuff
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ
My marathons and ultras
My races and reports

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 08:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
The max HR, though, is actually 9 beats higher than what they'd predict.

---

Assuming you filled in the max hr portion, your "recent run or race" must be a lower percentage of max than they are expecting in order to drive the max hr down. For me, the average heart rate is off for 5K but is pretty much right on for 10K - marathon. (Of course, my 5K time is also 45 secs slower than predicted based on my 10 mile time.)

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 08:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfcameron:
Pam,
I've stepped it up from an average of 44-45 miles week to high-70s over the last year (in gradual increments) and found that I just end up eating more overall. I was actually hoping to lose a few pounds as I have an aggressive marathon goal; but my body "wants" to stay the same weight - so I've ended up eating more because I can't focus on work otherwise - I just think about food.

So.... now I just take in what feels comfortable.

For really long slow runs, I'll take in gels while on the go.

---

Getting hungry during a relatively short aerobic run (or early in a long aerobic run) may be a symptom of poor fat burning, but it could also mean you're too anaerobic.

People often talk about losing weight for a marathon, but you want to burn off body fat. Sure, if you're too heavy for your structure reducing weight may be good, but not at the expense of muscle. Ideally, one wants to burn off body fat which would make someone LOOK like they're lost weight, even though they didn't lose much weight.

IP: Logged

posted Sep-05-2007 08:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Getting hungry during a relatively short aerobic run (or early in a long aerobic run) may be a symptom of poor fat burning, but it could also mean you're too anaerobic.

People often talk about losing weight for a marathon, but you want to burn off body fat. Sure, if you're too heavy for your structure reducing weight may be good, but not at the expense of muscle. Ideally, one wants to burn off body fat which would make someone LOOK like they're lost weight, even though they didn't lose much weight.

---

Can you explain that first part a little more? I'm in the boat where I want to drop BF not so much weight persay and I am finding that I'm hungrier as I up the mileage...what does too anaerobic mean? And is slower running the way to improve fat burning? Sorry I couldn't read the 30 previous pages if you did answer this already!

------------------
It's never too late to be what you might have been
Run to Finish

IP: Logged