Heart beats per km as training strategy

George Ilie wrote:

From all data one can collect from training, I found that heart beats per kilometer (or mile) is the information which has the most constant value between sessions and reflects current fitness level.

Of course that there are factors which affect the bpkm (beats per kilometer) value, like terrain inclination or weather.

But otherwise the value is pretty accurate.

I wonder what others think about this.

Is it possible to create a training strategy especially to improve this value?

For example accelerations during easy running could improve the bpkm?

Heart rate training isn’t a new theory. And which rate you should train is still widely debated.

Sadly, the best way to lower your heart rate at a given pace is to train your 3 phases:

1. General endurance (Long runs and easy runs)

2. Aerobic capacity (v02 workouts)

3. Threshold training (tempos 20-30 min at 60 min race pace)

You can stick to a low HR (70% max) to stay fresh everyday.

better 800 field wrote:

Heart rate training isn’t a new theory. And which rate you should train is still widely debated.

....

You can stick to a low HR (70% max) to stay fresh everyday.

I wasn't talking about heart rate per minute, but about heart rate per kilometer.

Is more difficult to comprehend because we are more used with heart rate per minute and we tend to take that as reference.

Beats per kilometer isn't constant. VO2 per kilometer is roughly constant, but VO2 and heart rate aren't directly proportional. But even if they were, this meaningless factoid doesn't help your training at all

This is a very interesting theory. I really think it has some merit, and I would like to see it fleshed out some more.

For what it's worth, I'm not interested in training by heart rates and zones (etc, etc..) anymore, but I still think this is something worth considering for those who are interested that kinda stuff.

My concerns regarding this idea is that it would really only be useful for comparing personal performances due to the variability of each individual's resting and maximum heart rates.

For example, I really liked using Heart Rate Reserve because it incorporated each individual's resting and max HRs. If these factors could be considered, then I think you would be able to use your idea to compare different individuals accurately. (Check out this link for those who are unfamiliar with HRR:

https://fellrnr.com/wiki/Heart_Rate_Reserve

)

As far as being able to develop/improve/reduce the number of heart beats per kilometer(or mile) ran, I would think tempo runs and long runs would be the best bang for your buck.

I would really like to know how you stumbled across this idea. As it stands right now, I think it's a very good tool to measure your personal development over time. It doesn't have to be limited to easy runs, but can be used for your tempo runs, interval workouts, and races as well.

All this theories will finally get you to simple conclusion: " train and run more" ?:

1) Building cardiovascular system:

a) 60h+-10h(individ. factor: fast or slow twitch) is equal to +1 point to your vo2max

b) 6h+-2h weekly run volume is necessary to keep vdot=60

7h=62

8h=64

9h=66

10h=68

11h=70

12h=72

13h=74

14h=76

15h=78

16h=80

...choose your destiny?

2) building muscles:

a) Tempo runs: 20min - 1h weekly volume

b) Strides, sprints etc: ?min weekly volume

c) Economy workouts: 15min-25min weekly volume.

You can control progress by different way:

Heart rate, pace, effort, beats per km, pulse price, laboratory, tt's and so on.

Yes, I tried it and always keep it in the back of my mind as a basic running economy metric. Though at faster paces it is less. Like for me under 700 bpkm is typical but it can get down to 650 when I'm in race shape.

Canefis wrote:

1) Building cardiovascular system:

a) 60h+-10h(individ. factor: fast or slow twitch) is equal to +1 point to your vo2max

b) 6h+-2h weekly run volume is necessary to keep vdot=60

7h=62

8h=64

9h=66

10h=68

11h=70

12h=72

13h=74

14h=76

15h=78

16h=80

...choose your destiny?

Choose your destiny? With that bs?

Do you think ElGuerrouj was running almost 20h/week? Or even Cheptegei?

Who are you to come on here and spout this drivel, pretending to be some sort of expert and maybe influencing young runners in a wrong way, leading them to overtraining and injury?

Can you please explain the 60h+-10h? and 6h+-2h?

sdfkjbndsbvksndfklvnskdfvkj;sdfnvdfslvbn wrote:

...

I would really like to know how you stumbled across this idea. As it stands right now, I think it's a very good tool to measure your personal development over time.

The idea came from something you might find interesting.

I developed a running app for myself, to track my exercises.

And I wanted to see what artificial intelligence can do for a training program in order to improve running performance.

But I needed a way to determine the effect of the past exercises and the only way I found was to calculate the number of heart beats per kilometer/mile for each exercise.

Everything else is unreliable.

So far I found that with artificial intelligence I can get a prediction about the current fitness level, in case there is a race. And also to predict the results of a training program.

However, I need more data collected in order to make accurate predictions.

So when I was asking about ways about how to improve the bpkm, I was actually thinking at exercises which allows you to have a lower bpkm value than if you were running constant.

Because if you are capable to lower the number of bpkm, then hopefully your body trains to run constantly at less bpkm.

I thought at accelerations because you may keep a lower heart rate for a while, then you slow down suddenly before the heart rate increased too much.

I don't know if it works, is just a theory.

Probably is something similar to fartlek exercises.

How do you account for elevation changes and terrain differences in runs? My HR/km obviously will be higher when I am doing hill repeats than doing doing a flat run.

George Ilie wrote:

From all data one can collect from training, I found that heart beats per kilometer (or mile) is the information which has the most constant value between sessions and reflects current fitness level.

Of course that there are factors which affect the bpkm (beats per kilometer) value, like terrain inclination or weather.

But otherwise the value is pretty accurate.

I wonder what others think about this.

Is it possible to create a training strategy especially to improve this value?

For example accelerations during easy running could improve the bpkm?

Have you tried measuring the number of strides you take per kilometer as the best measure of your fitness? Understanding, of course, that metric will also be conditional on the terrain, but maybe not as much on the weather.

XC rules wrote:

How do you account for elevation changes and terrain differences in runs? My HR/km obviously will be higher when I am doing hill repeats than doing doing a flat run.

That is tough to take in the equation, because the elevation may vary a lot.

Right now I use the exercise type to distinguish between flat running and various exercise types.

The current data collected for a training day is:

- avg. heart rate

- distance

- duration

- exercise type

The exercise type can be any. Easy run, intervals, fartlek, hills, etc. Also I use rest days and even sick days.

What I expect the software to do after that is to evaluate what happens in the next period of time after certain exercise types.

Basically should give accurate estimations, but for that it requires a lot of data, which is difficult to collect.

76chine wrote:

Have you tried measuring the number of strides you take per kilometer as the best measure of your fitness? Understanding, of course, that metric will also be conditional on the terrain, but maybe not as much on the weather.

I don't see it working. The energy spent can be different for the same number of strides and same distance.

Is there a Garmin Connect IQ field for this metric?

George Ilie wrote:

76chine wrote:

Have you tried measuring the number of strides you take per kilometer as the best measure of your fitness? Understanding, of course, that metric will also be conditional on the terrain, but maybe not as much on the weather.

I don't see it working. The energy spent can be different for the same number of strides and same distance.

OK, I'll bite....how did you come up with that conclusion?

I am assuming you don't mean trivial changes in energy spent.

What you are suggesting is analogous to trying to manipulate stride length or cadence (aka stride rate) [strides per minute]. They are directly related through pace just like heart rate [beats per minute] will give you about the same data to observe whether you look at it as beats per minute or translate it through pace to beats per unit distance.

Like others suggest, you will probably find that the correlations that you think you observe right now will break down when you consider threshold efforts in the data set.

Also, you are just using the same data that has been observed and published for decades with thousands of participants studied, but you are suggesting a new correlation (unless someone has published what you suggest already, which very well may be the case). You should find some literature to support your idea, or you should study more athletes and publish your findings.

It's very half-baked at this point. I think that a little reading will give you some clarity and a little math will show you that all you are doing is manipulating the same old data, but you haven't actually found any new correlation.

Canefis wrote:

All this theories will finally get you to simple conclusion: " train and run more" ?:

1) Building cardiovascular system:

a) 60h+-10h(individ. factor: fast or slow twitch) is equal to +1 point to your vo2max

b) 6h+-2h weekly run volume is necessary to keep vdot=60

7h=62

8h=64

9h=66

10h=68

11h=70

12h=72

13h=74

14h=76

15h=78

16h=80

...choose your destiny?

Hahahahahaha I don't run even close to 6h per week, have never run longer than 90 minutes, and my tested VO2 has been over 60 for years.

I use this. It’s essentially a field-based economy measure. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t been widely disseminated or used, as I find it pretty informative. I don’t use it to guide training, however, but rather as a barometer to check-in on fitness once or twice a week.

Its not very stable to use instantaneously (due to both GPS speed noise and heart rate fluctuations), but good to use over a long segment (several minutes or even kilometers).

I have a 2 km and 4 km stretch that’s flat and sheltered that I’ll run locked into a steady pace the whole way at the end of a run and then check the average HR over that stretch at that speed. Coming back from a long period of injury and de-training, I progressed from 600 b/km down to 574 b/km. This is pretty consistent over a range of sub-threshold speeds. Again, it’s essentially a running economy gauge.

It’s important to get the measure while running at a constant speed for an extended period, though, as HR lags. It’s also sensitive to all the same things that affect HR consistency (temperature, drift, time of day, etc). But again, if you use it in a consistent way - same stretch on a typical training run, it has good internal validity.

Doing it on a track is another good option (if the wind isn’t an issue).

There is a Garmin add-on from their Connect store that gives the number real-time (I think it’s called beats per mile), but I don’t think it’s that useful, as again, the instantaneous number isn’t that helpful. Just dial into a steady pace for an extended period and do the math post-hoc.

elvid32 wrote:

What you are suggesting is analogous to trying to manipulate stride length or cadence (aka stride rate) [strides per minute]. They are directly related through pace just like heart rate [beats per minute] will give you about the same data to observe whether you look at it as beats per minute or translate it through pace to beats per unit distance.

Actually after I discovered this I checked the literature and is not something new.

There are discussions on some forums (maybe even here).

And yes, I'm thinking to manipulate the heart rate per distance, if that is actual energy expense.

But unlike cadence, you can't mimic the heart rate per kilometer you want, isn't so?

If your heart beats for 1000 times until you finish a kilometer, it doesn't matter if you run faster or slower, it will beat for the same number of times.

Of course that if in an exercise you run 3x more than your average, at some point your heart will start beating more times per kilometer than usual.

As a matter of fact this is a hint on how to manipulate the heart rate per kilometer.

But I have no idea how such data could be used.