HRM's & Such

kemibe wrote:

Seems as though regardless of the technology involved, you simply went out too hard and died. When you say your watch told you that you were "on pace," what were you on pace for and how did you develop this goal?

I think what Hodgie meant by "novice mistake" was failing to correlate perceived effort with physiological effort (including HR) on account of adrenalin ("nerves"). It's a mistake made by experienced runners as well, but veteran marathoners learn to mete out their "excitation energy" over a period of a few hours rather than in the first 10K.

Agreed that I am truly a novice marathoner. Though I've been running competitively on and off for 20 years, this was only my second marathon.

My goal pace was based on previous races and training. Most recently, I had run very well at the Lake Winnie Relay and a few other non-standard distances. For sake of comparison, I did 1:15:55 at the New Bedford half this year and was in equal or better shape for Cape Cod. I'd had a summer of high mileage (averaging about 100) and some good tempo runs. Judging by all that, I thought that 6:15-6:20 pace was a very conservative target for a marathon. Turned out to be just much too fast me. My watch told me that I was right on that pace through some very flat miles so I felt safe.

epberlin wrote:

I agree that in base training you can normally go by feel, but I did find the HRM very helpful when I was learning to go by feel. I'm wondering if you are anti-gadget. For example, what if I want to vary my courses and want to use the Timex GPS monitor to do that? Sure, I can estimate my mileage from the feel of the intensity and the time, but what if I want to make sure that I am more accurate. Thoughts?

I don't think he's anti-gadget; I think that it's more of an issue where people become so dependent on the gadgets that they can't think/feel for themselves. I've seen posts on other message boards where someone skipped a run because the battery in their HRM died.

Regarding the second point of your post, what did you do prior to the GPS? You probably drove the route in your car, and that was your mileage for the day. How accurate was that? Depending on the car, it might vary a bunch.

However, it's no big deal. Building a base is about putting time on your feet. Hodgie-san, and others, use miles because that's a standard everyone can relate to. In my case, I use minutes because I run in such a variety of places, I couldn't possibly measure them all. If I asked Hodgie-san what I needed to do in a base period, he would probably say, "Run 35-40 minutes every morning and run 70-80 minutes every evening. Once a week, run for 1:50-2 hours."

Simple, eh?

Joe,

Just to be clear, I wasn't taking issue with anything you had said - my original post was in reference to "guest"s ill-reasoned response to Hodge.

I've never run a marathon, but have seen and talked enough well-prepared athletes who blew up somewhere in the last 10 miles to believe that even if all 3 indicators had shown you to be doing fine early on, you still might have crashed later. It's just a different race.

And affectations aren't even worth arguing about (except maybe Florence Joyner's racing skirts).

Running by sensory feedback is certainly preferable, but use of an apparatus can also be helpful at times. For example, when running repeats at 3k to 5k race pace, letting the pulse rate drop to about 65% of maximum during the recovery periods provides the best stimulus for left ventricular hypertrophy and allows for adequate reuptake of blood lactic acid. This *usually* occurs after a rest period which is about 90% of the run period. This could be done using the stopwatch alone, but some people tend to recover quicker between reps while others may take longer to return to the ideal HR. For those people (and you may not know who you are), using a heartratometer might be advisable (at least at first) to make sure the pulse goes low enough during the recovery period without going too low.

Relying on HRM feedback for only one or two workouts obviously won't make a huge difference, but using it to stay within your ideal recovery range over the course of a few seasons will confer an advantage over the guy who thinks exemplary training is all about being a tough guy and ends up going to the well too often. Much like studying batter tendencies and "playing things by the book" in baseball, a bit of informed application of technology can start to work in your favor after several seasons of patient execution.

My original post is offered as a "suggestion". I was just curious about who uses the HRM & why.

There's no such word as heartratometer, you moron.

Hodgie, never could figure out why you wore those fancy "running shoes." A pair of leather Hush Puppies was good enough for us...

Hodgie PRs: 3,000m 8:04 5,000m 13:54

Marius PRs: 3,000m 7:40 5,000m 1309

Um, nevermind....

I didn't mean my post as an accusation. I was just wondering. I used to use my HRM to make sure that I wasn't going to fast on easy days and for measuring tempo runs. I don't use it much any more, but I still use the spiffy Polar watch. The problem is that determining your exact percentages is not entirely accurate, so you have a garbage in, garbage out problem. Plus, I am not convinced that there is anything so magical about the specific percentages to begin with.

I don't have a GPS watch. I just run on routes that I measured with my car and on the track. When I step off the route, I estimate my mileage based on time. I understand why folks like the GPS watch, though. It provided the freedom to roam with accuracy, which is fun and can be motivational when you are tired of the same old routes. I confess that I am considering getting one, even though I recognize that it will provide deminishing amounts of fun over time.

I am surprised that you don't recommend longer weekly long runs, even if doing them meant sacrificing some mileage on the day after.

Thatherton propane wrote:

There's no such word as heartratometer, you moron.

There is now.

Hodgiesan PRs 10000 28:24 Marathon 2:10:59

Marius PRs Um, nevermind

Hey,

BR was known to have done a run or two in a pair of those, but you knew that.

Nirvana wrote:

Hodgiesan PRs 10000 28:24 Marathon 2:10:59

Marius PRs Um, nevermind

Marius PRs

10000 - 28:26

5000 - 13:09

3000 - 7:40

Hodgie's 2:10 is more impressive than that 7:40 or 13:09

Hector Matos wrote:Hodgie's 2:10 is more impressive than that 7:40 or 13:09

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing the relative merits of a 2:10 marathon vs a 13:09 5k (though personally I think they are equally impressive performances). They are vastly different races with vastly different requirements.

But when someone who has run that fast tells you what works for him, you don't just write him off with a "nevermind". Clearly Marius is doing something right.

I'll listen to them both.

13;09 > 2;10;59

What was the WR for 5000m at the time of the first sub 2;11?

I did not intend to "write marius off" I enjoy his website which is service to the running community & I certainly respect him as an athlete.

I disagree that the use of the HRM is needed as some sort of "advantage" to keep up with superior endowed runners or whatever he is suggesting.

Skinny,

I think you might be missing my point with lactate acid and heart rate. First of all, the lactate treshold in terms of a given lactate acid level is almost a 100 % constant in terms of mmol/l for top trained athletes but it is not in terms of speed. Therefore you can hit the exact given internal training stress much more accurate than with any other training tool. When competition period comes around you have to hit exact training times but I am mostly talking about the long, hard buildup period to get the optimal allround condition you need to run fast during the summer season (3 months)

Yes, many variables can effect the lactate treshold but because you have this set point (as oppose to heart rate at the lactate treshold which is a variable +/- up to 10 beats at the treshold ) this is actually a constant. The inaccuracy you are talking about is in terms of speed (which again is influenced by training stress, day condition, temperature, altitude etc) and maybe also some instrumental things. But the equipment we like to use has been scientifically tested 0 to 5000 meters (altitude chamber) and +35 down to -30 degrees C. Only 0.15 mmol/l failure margine.

I agree with you that you have different schools of training. But if you look at the details, the total training intensity (and mileage) is much of the same. The goes for the old school of East German and Russian athletes, the Marroccons, the Kenyans. The way they do it might be somewhat different but you find much of the same mileage in the range from (based on tests on WC Kenyans (sub 13) and Marroccons (sub 13.05) ) 3.0 mmol (typical lactate treshold for world class distance runners) to 9 mmol. Even Radcliffes training week (her 8 day cycle) goes right in there. I have done a comparison between the training of El Guerrouj and Radcliffe during their buildup period. They are almost exactly doing the same kind of training ! In terms of mileage, hillwork, minutes on the different intervalls/intensity etc. In the racing season of course, El G does more intensive work as a 1500 m. athlete. But I actually do think you have a red line going through the performance of world class athletes.

Marius

http://www.mariusbakken.com

No, I'm not missing the point. Average Joe, look if the HRM does REALLY determine your effort then why did Marius end up over-doing it and getting injured last season. The HRM is not necessary and it is only a gadget created by someone to make a profit. Building a base is very simple, listening to the body is not difficult.

Oh and by the way, 2:10 is still better than 13:09.