Marathon Pace (MP) % of HR Max?

Thanks for the helpful discussion. I have two question about my marathon HR.

Here are a few facts: (1) Let's assume that my max is 192. (I saw 194 for a few seconds this summer, but the 192 I saw a few different times. Now, after marathon training, my HR doesn't get that high.) (2) This summer/fall, I ran a 10M, 10K, and 5K in that order over about six weeks. Curiously, my HR average for each race was 184, so about 95% of max (assuming that the max is correct).

So what should I expect as my marathon HR average? I ask because I have several MP runs scheduled. I ran 12 miles w/ 8 with the HRM zone to 168-175. For the 8, I averaged just over 170, and I was very steady with pace and HR (171) over the second half. Tomorrow, I plan to run 20 w/ 12 at MP. Does that 168-175 range, shooting for 170-73, sound correct?

Also, should I expect my actual marathon race pace to match the pace in that training run (assuming that I don't bonk in the race)? Does the residual fatigue from training cancel out the fact that I will be obtaining the average over a shorter distance?

Thanks for any help.

I think it depends on the training you've done so far.

Undertrained (aerobically) runners will find their HR gets very high, relative to a well-trained runner, at all paces in training. So if you're not well-trained, M-pace + 30s/mile might get you into the target HR-marathon range (meaning the average HR you'd expect to see over 26.2) after a few miles.

But you've said you get the HR locked in for a while, so I'll assume you're not poorly trained (aerobically).

In my personal experience, the long sessions at HR-marathon (up to about 150 for me) gave me paces about 5:50-6:00 (sometimes quicker), but on race day I could only muster 6:10 pace on average. I'd suggest you can probably to see paces of 10s/mile or more quicker than M-pace during long M-pace sessions (once you're well trained).

In fact, I would expect that if you run 12 miles at M-pace in training, you should just start to see HR-marathon toward the end of the 12 miles (so the average would be a few beats lower). That would be my personal experience, anyway.

Pete wrote:I'd suggest you can probably to see paces of 10s/mile or more quicker than M-pace during long M-pace sessions (once you're well trained).

Well, I'm hoping that I'm not undertrained aerobically! I'm not in PR shape (2:38), but I've gotten in some decent training.

What about the HRs for the MP training run? What zone should I use, given the information that I provided? Or, if I believe that I'm in 6:20 pace shape, should I just hit those paces and see what my HR does? (My 8 at that HR was 6:10 pace, but that seemed fast for MP given my shape.)

Thanks for your help!

I think it's fine to run at HR-marathon for those longer sessions if you've worked your way there from long sessions at lower HR/effort. But I base this on what I've been told to do in the past, rather than claiming any real knowledge or expertise. The data and interpretation I've given is based on experience, but deciding how that translates into smart training is a connection I don't claim to be able to make. With that caveat, though, I think it's fine for the longer work sessions to get faster than M-pace. I wouldn't let HR get outside (above) HR-marathon too much on the long aerobic interval work, though. I think there's a place for faster work during M-prep (like sets of 2000s at HM-pace or thereabouts, etc), but the long aerobic sessions are a different thing and should be kept below HR-marathon (which may be quicker than M-pace).

That all make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. I was planning a 6-mile warmup, so I may get to HR-marathon quicker during the work session than if I were just running 12 at MP from the start.

I still have the question about the correct HR zone. Given my info and all that data that you shared, does 168-175, aiming for 170-173 should about right? I know that I can run 8 steady in that range. If after the longer warm up and more miles, if I start to see the pace get slower by :15/mile, I can jog a lap and then finish, with the knowledge that the HR range or pace was off. Hopefully, that won't happen. Thanks again.

Ok, this morning, I ran 20 -- 6wu, 12 at MP(?), 2cd. The results were confounding. I had anticipated running in the 168-175 range but never quite got there because I was running so much faster than anticipated (6:03 average vs. 6:15-:20), and didn't want to go crazy.

1. See previous posts for info about HRmax and recent races (192 max and 184 average for 10M and 10K in September).

2. I have run a 2:38 (6:03 pace) and 2:46 (6:20 pace) marathon, and my current training definitely is not as good as when I ran those races (whether you look at the previous month, 3 months, year, whatever). Also, this run came at the end of one of my bigger weeks during this training, but I felt well fueled.

3. But this morning, the 12 miles part of the 20 miler was at 6:03/mile pace (5:59 for last 10), and my HR was a steady 166HRav (maybe 168 for the last 10). I felt fine, and while I didn't feel like I had another 12 miles at that pace in me this morning, I easily could have continued running at the end of the 20. Laps/HRav = 6:28/154 :14/62 :05/66 :05/69 :05/68 :05/67 :04/67 5:59/67 :56/68 :51/68 :47/69 :49/68. As you can see, I pressed the pace a bit, but the HR was steady.

4. The last 10 miles were only :08/mile slower than the 10-mile race in September, but 18bpm slower! Although it was cooler today, I was by no means racing this workout.

So what does this mean for my HR marathon (relevant for my training over the next 6 weeks) and my HR pace? I'm left scratching my head. Thanks for any help!

epberlin: Looks like Marathon PR time to me... Were you rested before the 12 mi "tempo" run? How much rested? Just my opionon, but you sound like higher in the aerobic catagory and probably not so high in the 3K, 5K racing points etc... My advice: Don't over do it. With a 6:01 pace Marathon PR, this run should take a few days to be absorbed by your body... Are you doing 20+ mile runs every 2 weeks or so? Are you doing shorter tempo runs at say 5:40 pace?

What amount of your past 6 months training has been at 70% HR (140 - 145 BPM) or lower? If you have a decent percentage at that level, then you have a nice Base... Good Luck!

Braavo: Thanks for the response. I reiterate my second point. I am not, I repeat not, in marathon PR shape, although I appreciate the good and optimistic wishes. My PR was in Oct. 2003, and I haven't run a marathon since. I've approached this one as just a race to get my toes wet again, and my training reflects that -- I have less volume and my workouts are less impressive than they were prior to the 2:38 or 2:46. In addition, I had two weeks around 30 due to two viruses. Hopefully, the PR will come in the fall.

I was not well rested prior to this run. My peak weakly mileage has been 85, but my average is much lower, and this run comes at the end of 84 miles in the last seven days. I ran 8x800s on Tuesday and 4x400 on Thursday (so I did go easier then, but that's about it). To your last question, my base is decent. I did lots at 135-145, and was careful to move up HRs gradually. My volume is nothing to write home about -- averaged about 67 mpw since late September, including ups and down.

But back to the original question -- at what HR should I be running my MP runs? I'll then assume +5 for shorter tempo runs. Thanks again.

One bump for Pete or not Pete or any one else who wants to comment.

liffiker wrote:

An important point regarding % max, whether HR or VO2, is that it depends a good deal on how fast you are. What % of max you run at is more dependent upon duration of the race than distance. For example, a runner who goes 2:10 for a half marathon will be working about the same % as the faster runner who races a full marathon in 2:10 -- both were putting out for the same duration of time. So, you can't conclude that for everyone there is a particular % max HR at which they should or can run for a marathon,

-----------------------------------------------------

I agree! Duration of the event, environmental conditions, fitness level, and availability of glycogen all factor into what heart rate is achieved / used in a marathon race.

HR is a good deal of bull, when Lyidard was in Iowa seven years ago now. I had the chance to talk to hem about heart rate. And he started it was a product really worthless he started this ''It is not the of the the size of the hart that matters, there have been guys who have hearts that could not beat with much zip, and a good deal of them have got to the top. It is how the body can process 02 Without going into O2 debt. The the only way to do that is run fast but relaxed up to about 100 miles a week, and then do as much easy miles as you have time to do''

Lydiard has great insights into how to train. He was a tinkerer and arrived at his methods through trial an error. His ideas form the basis for my training and that of many others. That said, he was not a scientist. Some of his proclamations about the biological processes underlying distance running are incomplete or wrong.

Heart rate monitoring is a useful tool. Along with blood pressure and blood oxygen saturation, heart rate monitoring forms the backbone of data used to monitor human beings in hospitals. While it may not be the perfect indicator for intensity of training intensity it is easy to measure and comes pretty close to giving you a sense of where your body is at. Listening to your body, without a a monitor is fine, as well. I trained myself to do that over a two year period. Then, I got a monitor. What I find is that the mind sometimes gets ahead (or behind) the body. Particularly when adrenaline kicks in or you are far into a run. The monitor keeps you focused at these moments.

epberlin wrote:But back to the original question -- at what HR should I be running my MP runs? I'll then assume +5 for shorter tempo runs. Thanks again.

epberlin, I wasn't on here over the weekend, sorry.

Looks like a nice workout. First, you probably were underfuelled, having run two work sessions on Tuesday and Thursday, and that will tend to lower your HR during one of these sessions.

That said, you ran sub-6 pace for 12 miles in a 20 miler and it didn't kill you, so you have to take that as a good sign. I never like to look at one of these long aerobic sessions as a conclusive indicator of anything, because the pace vs. HR will tend to vary from session to session for a variety of reasons (most of those reasons - like wind, some kind of bug, etc - will tend to increase HR, but poor fuelling has the opposite effect; you can recognize these factors over time with experience).

If it were me, I'd keep running the longer work sessions (like 4 x 5k, 2 x 10k, or 20k continuous like you did Saturday) at HRs up to the 168-173 range, and just watch over time to see how they go, without getting too caught up about any one session (good or bad). But it does look like you're starting to get into better marathon shape than you think you are.

On a separate note, do you ever do longer interval sessions, like 5 x 2000, 6-8 x 1200 at paces getting close to HM pace in your marathon prep?

To solrichards - hey buddy, this thread wasn't about whether training by HR is right or wrong, it's just a discussion about training HR among people who are interested in that subject. That said, I will suggest (pray the running gods don't strike me dead) that not every single word that escaped Lydiard's lips was a gold nugget, and this is a case in point. Just like Snell was wrong about 7 min pace being glycogen burning pace for all runners (see the van Aaken thread) - my wife can't run ONE mile at that pace, let alone use it as her primary distance pace. Just because someone knows MOST there is to know, doesn't mean they know everything.

Thanks Pete. I normally to those long interval sessions in my training, but the training for this race has been a bit shortened. I've never viewed this as a bit goal race. I've just tried to get back in shape to set up a good fall marathon. I do have five more weeks before a two-week taper, so I have time for a few more workouts and long runs. If I were to run 22 and 20 w/ 16 at MP 3 and 4 weeks out, would you recommend the 22 at 4 and the MP at 3, or should I reverse that, or does it not matter? Thanks.

I'm not sure what solrichards's point was. Of course, HR has some relevance, and of course other factors do as well. The advice, just go run 100 mpw and then add some fast stuff, doesn't help me a lot. I'm 38, a partner in a large law firm, and a father of two. I don't see consistent 100-mile weeks in my future. But I do try to find effective and efficient ways to train. Thanks for your help.

I've never tried 16 miles at marathon effort, other than in a marathon, but my personal inclination would be to have something like that further removed from the race (ie 4 weeks instead of 3) because it'll be a beast to recover from. But that's just an opinion.

You're a lawyer? I hate lawyers. I'm not chatting with you anymore. :-)

I've got nothing important to add to the discussion other than to say thank you to Pete for such excellent information and humour. Good luck to you.

epberlin: If you can average 80 mpw for 6 wks or so, do the 1/2 Marathon pace intervals (3 - 5K distance), stay fresh.. You will run under 2:38, soon. I see no reason for faster than 10K pace for some repetitions. Most of these should be at 1/2M pace, if you're pointing for a Marathon... (4 x 400 can be replaced by 3 x 5k (1/2m pace). Take easy days. Personally, I am a Lydiard person. If you don't have his last "Running With Lydiard", I recommend it. In Marathon Training chapter:

Mon: 15k 1/4 effort

Tue: 25k 1/4 effort

Wed: 20k 1/2 effort

Thur: 30k 1/4 effort

Fri: 15k 3/4 effort

Sat: 35k 1/4 effort

Sun: 25k 1/4 effort

For 1/4 effort day I use:

60-70%.. HR = (max HR - resting HR)x.7 + resting HR = 150 (for you?)

For 1/2 effort = 70-75%.. HR = (194 - 45)x .75 = 155

For 3/4 effort = 75-80%.. HR = (194 - 45)x .80 = 164

Lydiard's "post base period" Marathon schedule (chapter 12) is very, very good... The mix of easy days, fast days, long runs is PERFECT.

Lydiard + HR Training is a perfect match, as far as I'm concerned... Using the monitor in the Base period is excellent...

The effort vs HR% are my "guestimates". You are already past the "base" (Lydiard's Marathon period)

Braavo Furgi wrote:...4 x 400 can be replaced by 3 x 5k (1/2m pace)...