Marathon Pace (MP) % of HR Max?

Pete wrote:

Omaha wrote: to give you some other data, so that you dont get so caught up in absolutes, i dont race the marthon near 88%HR. 88% heart rate is 4:42 mile pace for me and my name is not tergat. more like 82%, which is more like 4:58.

Do you know this because you've worn an HRM for a whole marathon (and worked out the average afterward, or got it from the HRM directly), or because your typical HR at marathon pace in training (at distances less than the marathon) is about 82%? I ask because there's a significant difference between the two, and am wondering where you're coming from.

My typical HR at MP in training is higher than it is on race day because I am running 140 miles a week, so in order to run 4:55 the HR goes into the low 180s, so i either run tempo work at the correct HR or i run slightly faster than marathon pace for say, 2k repeats, aeorbic intervals to get closer to anaerobic threshold. My race day data was collected by attaching a small transmitter to my back, so that i couldnt feel it and wouldnt be bothered. The science crew then had something that looked like a radar gun and would run around the course aiming it at the chip at getting a snap shot of data. they managed to collect 35 samples, riding bikes on the side of the course and whatnot. so the race day data is accurate. the correct HR or effort stayed below 180 (i max at 220), and i ran very well that day, so this was certainly the ideal testing situation.

KudzuRunner wrote: ...This is the way we run longer races: finding sustainable sub-threshold paces early on, holding them and, if possible, slightly inching them up as we go, then, as we know we've passed the danger point later in the race, increasing pace a bit...

Omaha wrote:My race day data was collected by attaching a small transmitter to my back, so that i couldnt feel it and wouldnt be bothered. The science crew then had something that looked like a radar gun and would run around the course aiming it at the chip at getting a snap shot of data. they managed to collect 35 samples, riding bikes on the side of the course and whatnot. so the race day data is accurate. the correct HR or effort stayed below 180 (i max at 220), and i ran very well that day, so this was certainly the ideal testing situation.

That's an interesting way of gathering data. Mind if I ask a couple more questions to try to put your experience into context (if only in my mind)? I will anyway...

How confident are you in the HRmax number? 220 is pretty high, although certainly not unreasonable. However, HRmax can (will) drop with training (as an example Vigil documented the drop in Deena's HRmax during her prep for Athens - I'll try to dredge up the reference if it becomes salient). Was it tested/confirmed relatively close to race day?

What's your 5k pace relative to marathon pace? Is there a really good relationship (like M-pace something like 90% of 5k pace, or thereabouts)? You mention the marathon was a good result, but was it close to the optimum you could expect based on shorter distances?

Thanks

Omaha wrote:My race day data was collected by attaching a small transmitter to my back, so that i couldnt feel it and wouldnt be bothered. The science crew then had something that looked like a radar gun and would run around the course aiming it at the chip at getting a snap shot of data. they managed to collect 35 samples, riding bikes on the side of the course and whatnot. so the race day data is accurate. the correct HR or effort stayed below 180 (i max at 220), and i ran very well that day, so this was certainly the ideal testing situation.

That's an interesting way of gathering data. Mind if I ask a couple more questions to try to put your experience into context (if only in my mind)? I will anyway...

How confident are you in the HRmax number? 220 is pretty high, although certainly not unreasonable. However, HRmax can (will) drop with training (as an example Vigil documented the drop in Deena's HRmax during her prep for Athens - I'll try to dredge up the reference if it becomes salient). Was it tested/confirmed relatively close to race day?

What's your 5k pace relative to marathon pace? Is there a really good relationship (like M-pace something like 90% of 5k pace, or thereabouts)? You mention the marathon was a good result, but was it close to the optimum you could expect based on shorter distances?

Thanks

How confident are you in the HRmax number? 220 is pretty high, although certainly not unreasonable. However, HRmax can (will) drop with training (as an example Vigil documented the drop in Deena's HRmax during her prep for Athens - I'll try to dredge up the reference if it becomes salient). Was it tested/confirmed relatively close to race day?

Pete: What role does that drop in HRmax play in determining the 88% of HRmax that you suggest for marathon HR? I've noticed that, although I got to 194 during racing this summer and regularly saw mid and high 180s, I have difficulty getting above 180 now that I'm running repeats after a base period. As I mentioned, I've run MP runs at 168-174 (generally 170-72), so I'm wondering if that's the correct range. Thanks.

I apologize for the bold. I don't even know how I did that.

MarathonMind wrote:

This is the most sensible thing I've read on here in a while. Although I'd describe it as pushing yourself to the edge of an abyss, and staying as close to the edge as you can without going over.[/quote]

Thanks.

Actually, when I picked things way up to a hard sprint in the final half-mile of a 15-miler--with more than two hours under my belt and the last hour just below threshold--it took only about 400 yards to hit HR max. I held it for 5-10 seconds and then POW! Nothing left, incipient nausea, and I had to slow to a jog for 200 yards.

I felt great the rest of the day. No aches or pains, apart from my usual mild pain-in-the-butt (piriformis, I think).

But the following evening, when I went out for a slow recovery jog, I suddenly discovered that the tendons on the back of my left leg, in the knee area, felt totally messed up, like steel cables that had somehow gotten twisted together. I jogged very slowly and tried to figure out what I'd done. Then I realized that I'd never actually hit it super-hard in the final mile of a two-hour run. (I've been reading McMillan lately about super-fast-finish long runs and thought I'd try that.) I was fine this morning. But it gave me a scare. It's always nice to discover that a new training method has super-stressed a system that has never previously given you trouble. What ELSE can I injure? My god, I'm held together with ice packs and Advil right now......

Pose22 wrote:What role does that drop in HRmax play in determining the 88% of HRmax that you suggest for marathon HR? I've noticed that, although I got to 194 during racing this summer and regularly saw mid and high 180s, I have difficulty getting above 180 now that I'm running repeats after a base period. As I mentioned, I've run MP runs at 168-174 (generally 170-72), so I'm wondering if that's the correct range. Thanks.

I'll have a go at this as long as you recognize that I'm just another schmoe, not a coach or ex-phys guy.

With that caveat in hand, my understanding is that, if you're attempting to guide your aerobic training by HR, the HR ranges you aim for should depend on your CURRENT HRmax, which will vary with training, so if you're aiming for 90%, it should be 90% of a reasonable current number.

I've personally found my HRmax drops by only a few (small handful) of beats with training, so doesn't affect my target HRs a lot, but I did drop my M-effort sessions in the fall from 150-153 to something closer to 145-150 when I saw (from race efforts) that my HRmax had dropped from about 168-170 to 166ish.

I had a look back at the Vigil stuff. It came from a seminar that a friend attended, where he said her HRmax was 197 in 1999 (while running 40 mpw), and dropped to 194 and then 190 in 2000 (after some training improvements). I guess that was well before Athens, so apologies if my misremembering caused any confusion.

Shoes - Sorry, didn't come back to LR, got busy at work. But yes man, you are on the right track. That's rocking good stuff. Be sure you eat well, eat often. Refuel asap after those long runs and long tempos. Low glycogen can bring down the HR and give you a false fast pace, though you'll feel pretty crummy, too. Pete's giving some really good insight into when HR and pace might diverge, and when HR really isn't all that insightful. He's got this mastered. Go Pete!

Pete Do you really think a 30-minute 5k runner and a 15 minute 5k runner are both running at the same fraction of their aerobic capacity and the same fraction of their HRmax? Think about it. If so, then that suggests that the 15-min 5k runner would also race 10k (about the same amount of time the 30-min 5k runner took for 5k) at the same fraction of max that was used for the 5k. You could carry that out to 2 or 3 hours nd show that the same fraction of max would be used for every distance regrdless of time spent racing that distance

well, the last max type test i took was about 8 weeks out from the marathon, so it is possible that it got lower in the last few weeks, although it never has during previous marathon buildups, but certainly possible. however the other training zones remained fairly consistant, so my guess is that the high end varied very little. My marathon is statistically better than my 5k, and comparable to the 10k. I am not sure about the exact percentages, but 2:09 is alot better than 13:30.

liffiker wrote:

Pete Do you really think a 30-minute 5k runner and a 15 minute 5k runner are both running at the same fraction of their aerobic capacity and the same fraction of their HRmax?

No, I don't think I said that, exactly, but the data (admittedly limited dataset) do show similar relationships for runners between about 15 minute 5k and 20 minute (or so) 5k (I don't have numbers from any 30 minute 5k runners), and the marathon numbers are definitely very similar (87-90%) for all the runners I know (who record HR), and that is for 2:31 to 3:35ish (with no apparent relationship between race time and average HR).

I won't claim any exact relationship for anything (just general trends/relationships), and I think the numbers I put up earlier for the 5k-HM HRs show considerable scatter. However, scatter be damned, they also don't show any clear relationship between "time on feet" (or race pace for the same race distance) and average HR, but again, it was a very small data set. Maybe I'll dredge up a bunch more results if I can find an hour to mine the data later today.

Now this Omaha dude's info is interesting. In Letsrun fashion, though, I suppose I should say he sucks, if all he could muster was a paltry 2:09 off his 13:30 5k time (everyone gets that I'm kidding, right?). If the 82% he claims is an accurate number, it seems on the low side, outside the "norm" for aerobicall well trained (being a relative term, relative to the individual's potential) runner, but having said that, I have a buddy who ran a good marathon a while back with HRavg in the low 80% range. Mind you I don't think he would claim his aerobic fitness was finely tuned at the time.

If I might continue with some traditional Letsrun bashing of the Omaha dude (again, someone stop me if the intended sarcasm isn't apparent), he must be making this up, because it's a well-established Letsrun fact that elite runners never train with an HRM.

Omaha, have you been training with the HRM for very long? I'd sure be interested to get a general idea of how you use it in your training, since we rarely have legit elite runners admit to training with an HRM on here, and your experience has obviously been a good one.

OMAHA: You are in the Marathon Masters league... obviously. Question... Your max HR is up there... What would your HR be at the end of a 5000 or 1500 meter race? If it were closer to 220 - your age, then you could more resonably use the moniter in some of your training.

Personally, I like the formula: (Max Heart Rate - Resting HR) X .9) + Resting HR = 90% Heart Rate. For you this would still yield over 200... The 5K HR would be in line???

Pete: well, if it helps any, I absolutely hate the HRM. I use it for two reasons, first, my coach and physio people want feeback data on what workouts i am doing and should be doing. I try to ignor the data completely, because running with a head full of data will do you no good on race day. I trust them to turn the data into workouts and then execute the workouts with the same relaxation and mindlessness that i try to race with. I do like it in certain circumstances though, for example if it is extremely hot and humid. the correct effort varries much more than i ever thought it would, so it helps me to not overtrain in adverse conditions. For the most part, what my gut is telling me is usually the same as what the HRM is telling the scientists.

Braavo: I have never used HR training in relation to any event other than the marathon, so i dont have any data on what it might be at the end of a 5k or 1500. I assume it would be pretty high at the end as most 5k races go out a little, calm down, and then close under 60. as for the equation, 220-42 x .9 + 42=202. that is probably pretty close to 5k HR i would guess. it sounds alot like a HR i might see doing mile reps at 4:20.

Is this Luc Krotwaar? Keep up the good discussion.

bump

Isn't Krotwaar's PR 2:10:59?

Here are a bunch more individual data for 12 different runners of different talent levels and different levels of aerobic fitness:

Runner Distance (km) Time Percent HRmax

A 5 0:16:18 95

A 5 0:16:20 94

A 21.1 1:13:43 96.2

A 21.1 1:12:55 95

B 5 0:16:08 94.3

B 8 0:28:36 92.8

B 10 0:34:06 93

B 10 0:33:46 95.2

B 21.1 1:15:03 94

B 21.1 1:14:58 93.1

C 5 0:16:12 93.1

C 10 0:26:20 93.8

C 16 0:34:25 93.8

C 21.1 0:57:44 90.7

D 6.4 0:22:54 95.3

E 21.1 1:25:21 91

E 21.1 1:29:37 86.3

E 21.1 1:27:40 90.4

E 30 2:12:56 85.5

F 12.9 0:52:34 85.4

F 15 0:59:12 86.2

F 17.7 1:11:46 83.3

F 21.1 ?? 82.5

G 10 ?? 92.5

H 5 0:16:45 95

H 10 0:33:41 94.2

H 16 0:57:50 93.7

H 21.1 1:16:54 92

H 21.1 1:13:40 92.2

I 21.1 1:28:43 91.7

J 5 0:15:12 95.3

J 12 0:39:44 96.7

J 16 0:52:26 90.7

J 21.1 1:10:42 96.4

J 21.1 1:11:44 94.8

J 21.1 1:10:30 90

K 21.1 1:10:50 91.6

K 21.1 1:15:58 90.4

L 5 0:19:40 92.3

L 21.1 1:30:08 89.9

I'll post up the averages for each distance as soon as the spreadsheet spits them out for me.

Sorry about the format - that looks pretty ugly. Anyway, if you take the average for the race distances with reasonable sample sizes, you get:

5k - 94.1% of HRmax

10k - 93.7%

10M - 92.7%

HM - 91.6%

As you can see, there is plenty of scatter about those means, but nevertheless there is an overall relationship, and the trend is toward the 87-90% we already saw for the marathon results.