Correlation between HR and Pace

There is a correlation but it'll be a bit different for everyone. And it'll change as your fitness changes.

And the trend completely falls apart when you get close to max HR. If your max is, say 200, then there's no steady pace that you can maintain at 195 for more than a minute or two.

That's why the Hadd mini-test is predicated on running 1.5 miles at each of 140, 150, 160, 170 and 180 (assuming a max HR of 200 or so). I generally found that my pace dropped about 4 seconds per BPM at the lower end, and 2-3 seconds per BPM at the higher end.

140 - 7:58/mi

150 - 7:20/mi

160 - 6:40/mi

170 - 6:15/mi

180 - 5:50/mi (lotta slipping)

What is the goal of the hadd mini-test? i've never heard of it, can you elaborate further please?

Train by pace not heart rate. Last I checked, you don't win the race by having the most heartbeats.

Slowpokeman wrote:

Train by pace not heart rate. Last I checked, you don't win the race by having the most heartbeats.

Which tells me that you're an idiot who doesn't get "it' either.

curiousest wrote:

What is the goal of the hadd mini-test? i've never heard of it, can you elaborate further please?

You do the test every 6 weeks or so in order to monitor your progression. Here's the excerpt from the original thread:

"Once Joe got to 50mpw, I told him to perform the following mini-test (he knew the protocol). Go to a track on a windless day, as rested as if for a race, and do the following:

Run 2400m at a steady 140 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 150 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 160 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 170 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 180 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

At all times, adjust the running pace to maintain a stable HR. On each new stage slowly edge the HR up (ie: it is ok if the HR takes the first 600-800m to reach target level), then simply maintain HR. DO NOT start fast and have to slow to maintain target HR.

Joe got back into things in mid-April, and ramped to 50mpw of easy jogging pretty quick. I got him to do the mini-test on 11 May and periodically thereafter (bearing in mind the ~6 week period for mitochondrial growth). The numbers below detail his progression in running speed at each date and each HR. The times are in mins/mile. Joe’s oganised training began immediately after the first test.

In 12 weeks ± Joe improved his HR vs running pace at all intensities. A pace that required 150 HR initially, only required 140 HR a brief 12 weeks later. This was true across the board. A pace that used to require 180 HR now required less than 170 HR...

Dates — 140 — 150 — 160 — 170 — 180

11May – 7.56 – 7.22 – 6.42 – 6.05 – 5.40

06Jun – 8.03 – 7.17 – 6.36 – 6.01 – 5.33

29Jun – 7.23 – 6.49 – 6.12 – 5.42 – 5.18

04Aug – 7.18 – 6.36 – 6.00 – 5.33 – 5.10

Six weeks after this last test (and less than 20 weeks after beginning organised training), Joe entered a marathon with instructions just to sit quiet with the 2.20-low group and stop at halfway. He ran 71.xx.

Managing to finish less than 2 mins off his all-time half marathon PR after only 20 weeks organised training, Joe began to see how his sub-2.25 dream could still happen.

Discussion:

Before I get into the exact details of Joe’s training, let me pre-empt one question you might have: how was Joe able to run 5.33m/m with 170 HR when it used to require 180 HR to run at 5.40m/m?

If you have read and understood all that I have posted, you should have a good idea of why this occurs, but let me just review it quickly...

[My note - I've cut out part of the physiology discussion here]

When Joe ran his first mini-test on 11 May, as well as emailing me the data, he also sent his opinions on the effort levels involved at each stage. At the lower end, he remarked that it was somewhat difficult to keep his HR low enough. This is often the case at first. As can be seen, Joe was very slow initially which showed how much aerobic fitness he had lost. The running pace at this very low effort level improved in time with the training. Most runners would skip this effort level and so lose the valuable adaptations that take place.

At the higher end he found 170 to be a bit of work, and he said he would not like to have maintained the 180 HR effort for much longer. When pressed, he stated that he would be lucky to keep the 5.40m/m pace up for 5km. Definitely not further. This signifies, even without testing, that Joe had passed his lactate threshold at this pace and was now building serious amounts of lactate in his running muscles.

Less than 20 weeks later, Joe would complete a HM (at 21km, a distance that was over four times longer than the first mini-test) at faster than this 5.40m/m pace he had found so tough (HM pace was 5.28m/m). He would be able to do this because, through training, his lactate at this pace was now significantly lower than it had been in his first test. Since this was so, the “effort”, the degree of difficulty to him, the stress at this pace, was greatly reduced and he had no problems maintaining this effort for 71+ mins.

How can we all move our Lactate Thresholds? Actually, the question is not that simple, because for some of you it will be necessary to first establish a threshold..."

The whole thing is posted here:

The tried and true method of training by pace has practical problems, when you don't know the distances you are running, and when you run in different environments. The same training on the track, on the road, up or down a hill, on the beach, in the grass or in the woods will all have different paces.Whereas you may not always know your pace, you can measure your heartrate with greater accuracy.You should learn to train by feel.

Slowpokeman wrote:

Train by pace not heart rate. Last I checked, you don't win the race by having the most heartbeats.

I use a rule of thumb that 10 beats = 25 seconds, which seems to work pretty well for me over the range of recovery to 5K race pace (say around 60-95% HRmax). I used to be more like 35-40 slower at recovery speeds, but over time, my recovery pace improved.

I always wondered if such a rule worked for everyone.

Yes but only on the flat, any hills will make a huge difference. My heart rate can easily climb 10-15 beats a minute going up a sustained steady hill but the pace will go down

This is what I've found for myself:

120 @ 7:30 go for hours at this pace, HR stays the same

130 @ 6:45 HR constant

140 @ 6:15 HR constant

150 @ 5:50 HR elevates after about 20 minutes to 155-160.

160 @ 5:30 (tempo) 30-40 minutes

170 @ 5:15 (tempo) 15 minutes.

180 @ 5:00 (tempo) hits this after about 10 minutes

185 @ 4:40 (interval) hits this after about 2 minutes.

190 @ 4:20 (interval) hits this after about 40 seconds.

195 @ 4:15 hits this after about 30 seconds. mild O2 debt.

200 @ 4:00 pace, hits it after 30 seconds. Deep O2 debt.

204 @ sub 4 pace, hits this after about 30 seconds, max pace.

My PR's are 1:51, 4:08, 14:28. HR max is 204. 24 y/o Caucasian male 6'1", 165 lbs.

Thanks for the great info and replies.

I've noticed my HR/pace seem to work the other way, my max is 197, at 150 i can do say 10-15 miles at 7:33-7:36 pace with only a few seconds fluctuation per mile split (this dropped to this pace this week in the cooler weather). However when I move to the 180 range (half marathon range) my pace is only around the 6:23 - 6:30 mm mark. Where it should be closer to 5:50-6:10 mm from the 150 HR pace. Not sure why?

Cheers,

Good info on this thread. Thanks to those who posted their own experiences.

To the OP: 150 is quite a high (~75%) HR "easy" training effort for someone with a 197 HRmax. Have you figured out yet if you are "more-FT" or "more-ST"?

(if those definitions don't mean anything, read this Cabral&Hadd thread antonio and I put up last year)

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2375989&thread=2375989

Try running easy at slower HRs (~68-70% eg: 135-140) and you should find in time that you start moving quicker at 150 HR.

Also, you need to stretch out the difference in pace between 150-180 by maximising your ability at each range on the way up. If 150-and 180 pace are too close together (as you suggest), start working at 160 pace tills it's easy, then 165 pace, until it's easy and 170 pace, and so on.

With that HRmax, marathon effort should be ~175HR and HM should be 181-183HR.

Sounds to me like you haven't worked at the higher ranges enough. Post up a couple of short distance PRs and I'll let you know what I think. Could be you are more-ST and need quicker work. Don't spend too long on your strengths, work your weaknesses.

HR is just another way to measure your effort. Unfortunately races are usually dtermined by the clock, not whoever finishes with the best average HR.

HR varies greatly with the heat and the nature of the course.

Cheers Hadd,

most recent 5k PR was a few months ago (don't laugh) 18:36. HR average for the race 187. I'm a slow twitch runner, I can plod along (quite happily) at 150 HR rising to around 160HR at around mile 14-15 on a 20-22 mile run at around 7:30 to 7:50 pace. The rise in HR might be because I only use water and electrolyte tablets to increase fat burning development.

Thanks again,

If you are genuinely a slow-twitch runner, do all you can to improve your 800m performance (which means intervals). This will later pay off in spades at all the longer distances.

Don't spend too much time working on your strengths, get out there and work at undoing the negative effects of your weaknesses.

I'd even go so far as to say that in an ST-runner, everything, even all the way up to marathon performance, is ultimately limited by their 800m capability. Seems paradoxical, but it isn't. Work on getting yourself as fast a PR over 1500-3k as possible, and then be very very careful to never lose it.

If you are ST, you'll know can run forever on a 30-40% fat diet, but hit some carbs and get into some serious interval training.

I ain't never gonna laugh at 18:36/5k. I'd be one happy man if I could shoot out the door for a 22-miler right now. These days I need a mountain bike to go that far!

Thanks for the advice Hadd, I've got a few of the workouts you mention in the Cabral and Hadd discussion thread from a while ago, 800m reps etc shall I use these to get faster at 1500m to 3000m or do you recommend some other workouts I could use. I'm assuming the frequency is 1 of these a week keeping with the higher mileage.

Cheers,

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

The tried and true method of training by pace has practical problems, when you don't know the distances you are running, and when you run in different environments. The same training on the track, on the road, up or down a hill, on the beach, in the grass or in the woods will all have different paces.

Whereas you may not always know your pace, you can measure your heartrate with greater accuracy.

You should learn to train by feel.

Slowpokeman wrote:

Train by pace not heart rate. Last I checked, you don't win the race by having the most heartbeats.

Voice, a problem with HR is that so many external (and heck internal) factors play a role. Heat, humidity, sleep, residual fatigue, caffeine, etc may all affect HR.

Your nickname is annoying.

I use a simple test of heart beats per mile to judge my fitness, which can also be used to answer your question. Multiply your average pace in minutes/mile by your average HR in beats/minute. For your example, 7.85min/mi*150 bpm=1178 beats per minute. Given your current fitness, at 160 bpm you could expect 1178/160=7.36 min/mi, or about 7:21. 1178/170=6.92 min/mi, or 6:55, etc. I find that this skews somewhat in favor of faster paces, but it generally holds pretty true. It's also a good way to track your progress over time, if you do similar workouts a few weeks apart.

Come now. No-one is suggesting that medals should be handed out based on HRav over the course of the race. As you (correctly) state, HR is another way to measure your effort. Not everyone masters the art of running "by feel", especially when you suddenly take part in an event with conditions quite unlike those in which you trained (eg: a humid Far East marathon when you trained in cool N. Europe).

HR simply allows athletes external, objective, data in real-time as another method on which to gauge their effort in a race. That plus their own internal feedback should allow them to optimally spread their effort over the whole race to maximise performance.

No, it doesn't. But the graph of running velocity vs HR will vary due to environmental conditions.