Lydiard's effort translated into heartrate

Lorraine Moller once told a story about a clinic where Lydiard was asked to explain those "effort fractions." He said, "1/4 effort is 25% of all out, 1/2 effort is 50% of all out, 3/4 effort is 75% of all out." He probably caused more confusion with those numbers than clarity, even for himself.

reviewer wrote:

Ditch the HRM and go by feel, the way he did. The way his athletes did. You need to learn to run without a device telling you how fast.

QFE

Canadeh: I wasn't the one who brought up the Viren and the like. I merely responded to someone who did.

This "run by feel crap" as you put it is what has produced those greatest runners in the world. The people who hammer every run KNOW they are hammering every run because while they might not have a heart rate monitor to tell them that, they do have a watch. I've seen them too. I've seen it explained to them over and over again that they need to slow down. I've run with guys like that and TOLD them to slow the hell down. But they just love running fast.

It's not a matter of not KNOWING they are running hard. It's a matter of knowing and ignoring it.

I've also seen the folks who do everything the HRM tells them. Day after day they "don't go out of the zone". They do track workouts by it. They race by it. And they never learn what it means to exceed what you thought were your limits. Th

If you would have read what I wrote you would see that I do NOT dismiss this technology. I simply caution people to avoid using it the wrong way.

Didn't you just tell me not to talk about elites? Now you are talking about them. Well yes, performance levels HAVE gone beyond what his guys accomplished. And the guys who hold the current world records aren't using HRMs to hold themselves back or to teach them what "easy" is.

It's not hard to figure out what easy is. What's hard for some is taming the ego and realize you too need to run easy.

And I agree in principle. But you DO get feedback without the HRM. You see how your body recovers. The fact is that while heart rate is a decent analog to effort, it is not a true measure of effort. "Easy" is not a heart rate. Depending on so many factors, the heart rate of "easy" can vary dramatically from day to day and week to week.

Use an HRM to get a ballpark? Great. I just don't want to see you (or anyone) become one of those people who ever after guides every run by heart rate.

I'm not anti-HRM, really. I own one. I wear it from time to time. I'm anti, "Oh my rate is 10 beats higher today, this is too fast" or "Well yes I was running 30 seconds a mile faster than normal but my heart rate was in the right range, so why do my legs feel all beat up today?" etc etc. (No this doesn't sound like you)

In that case, I think you've got the right idea. I think you can learn feel without one but hey whatever gets you started

Wetcoast wrote:

Snell's 800m time of 1:44 would win him medals in all Olympics so far except Beijing.??? I better go look. And he wasn't running on rubber tracks which is worth at least a second per lap.

Since 1976 that no one male runner from 800m to the marathon took the WR in the olympics. The last one was Andreas Garderud from Sweden in the steeple Montreal 76.

If you want to prove that Snell did something special because his 1:44 was enough to win the olympics up to Beijing you miss the target.

Snell is like every other olympic winner or word recordist. Top runners go to the olympics to win the race not to to get a new WR.

I use the Garmin 305 with the foot pod and easily download my run onto Garmin Connect at the end of each run. One can get too nerdy with a HRM, just like anything else.

If nothing else, its a terrific diary. I started downloading my daily runs about 3 years ago. Now, I can scroll back and generally see how my condition has changed over that period of time. For example, I can compare 90 min. runs done this week against those done 3 years ago in terms of heart rate, speed/distance. Personally, its clear that I'm in much better shape now than I was then. I'm currently running faster, at a lower heart rate for a given period of time than I was 2 or 3 years ago. Without the HRM, I can only go by race times.

During a run, I occasionally glance at the HRM to confirm where I am in terms of speed, distance and heart rate but I dont obsess over any of it. In short, its a great tool.

Garmins and Lydiardism don't mix.

As did he.

1:44 on dirt, nearly 50 years ago, without pacers, drugs or being treated as royalty, if very relevant.

I missed nothing, but your point.

without drugs? nice try...

Wetcoast wrote:

As did he.

1:44 on dirt, nearly 50 years ago, without pacers, drugs or being treated as royalty, if very relevant.

I missed nothing, but your point.

You missed my point. Sad that you have not enough gestalt to understand.I try to be more specific. May be one day you will understand.

You miss what your HRE dear friend of cult once said. Each performance cant be related to another one.

You miss something else. I try to be more specific once again. Faster than Snell 1500m pb is done in every olympics after 1964 except by, imagine who, 1980 Sebastian Coe and 1992 Fermin Cacho. Poor Sebastian Coe and poor Cacho both were so slow, not as fast as Snell. This you miss to inform.

jeriod wrote:

without drugs? nice try...

Is that supposed to be funny?

J.O. wrote:

jeriod wrote:

without drugs? nice try...

Is that supposed to be funny?

Very funny. No one knows if it's drug clean or done with drugs by the simple fact that on that past didn't drug tests.

Funny how the Lydiard spell is so fanatic they need to add hypothetic conclusions to justify rankings, results, what so ever.

I'm not sure it's right to translate "3/4" or "1/2" effort into VO2. That only works if you are always talking about the same distance - basically a steady run.

If Lydiard said to run a 1200m time trial at "3/4 effort", and a 3 mile run, do you really think he was proposing the same heart rate?

I always thought of them like the Borg scale. Sure, you can map them for longer runs and marathon training, but not for 1500 training.

When using a HRM for workouts, HR Max is nearly 7%-10% higher than HR Reserve.

Example 60-65% HRR is equal to 70-75% HR Max

75-78% HRR is equal to 85-85% HR Max

make sure the numbers are correct or your bound to over train.

Glycerin Runner wrote:

When using a HRM for workouts, HR Max is nearly 7%-10% higher than HR Reserve.

Example 60-65% HRR is equal to 70-75% HR Max

75-78% HRR is equal to 85-85% HR Max

make sure the numbers are correct or your bound to over train.

You sure about that? I think you have that backwards. Training at 75% of HRR would seem to me to be painfully slow. I'm not sure I'm actually even jogging at that pace.

Math Check wrote:

You sure about that? I think you have that backwards. Training at 75% of HRR would seem to me to be painfully slow. I'm not sure I'm actually even jogging at that pace.

He definitely does not have it backwards. Numbers aren't perfect (for me), but not backwards.

If you can't even jog at 75% HRR, I'd say you're calculating it incorrectly, or your aerobic system is horribly out of shape. If you're sure you're calculating it correctly, search for the "Hadd's Approach to Distance Training" thread, follow it, and prepare to improve a lot.

For me: Max 188, Resting: 36, HRR: 152 (188-36)

75% HRR = .75*152 + 36 = 150 = 6:15 pace

150 also = 80% of Max (150/188 = .789)

thanks! wrote:

For me: Max 188, Resting: 36, HRR: 152 (188-36)

75% HRR = .75*152 + 36 = 150 = 6:15 pace

150 also = 80% of Max (150/188 = .789)

So are you saying that your aerobic running is about 3:45 min/km pace? How much of that do you do a week and what's your PB's?

reviewer wrote:

I should say I like heart rate monitors. I have one. But when I use it, I do so for feedback after the fact. Using one to tell you how fast to run is almost like trying to be OUT of touch with your body.

+1

but it can be useful before the fact, for raw beginners, to get a rough tuning in. Then it must be put away or used like you do, after the fact, but this takes some willpower.

Wetcoast wrote:

Snell's 800m time of 1:44 would win him medals in all Olympics so far except Beijing.??? I better go look. And he wasn't running on rubber tracks which is worth at least a second per lap.

It's all relevant.

A few people from Lydiardism are so ignorant about everything, even what concerns their own range.

In fact Peter Snell, himself, disagrees with such an speculative idea that cinder or grass track is slower than everyother modern surface.

Just google on Youtube and Search Peter Snell interview. Peter says that grass track where he did the WR is as faster than every other surface. Didn´t you watch ? Be so poor informed.

Of course that Peter that did the runs is wrong, but you, you might be right. Funny.