If someone generally runs their easy runs at 8mins per mile say average 70% of max HR and manages to run a 3 hour marathon, what would you expect if later they could run 7:20mins per mile at 70% of max HR?
Logically to me it would malke sense that have improved by 40 seconds per mile, so could run a 2:43 marathon (0.66mins*26 faster), but I don't actually think that that is the case.
Does anyone have experience of what would be expected?
I would never use HR as a primary predictor of race time.
There is no correlation between easy pace and race. Don't believe me? Head to Kenya and watch how slow they jog.
There can't be no correlation.
If I run 12 min miles to keep to 70% of max heart rate, I would obviously expect to run a race slower than if I could run 6 min miles at 70% of max HR.
I beleive you about Kenjan's running very slowly sometimes, but I reckon they run with very low heart rates when they do.
Actually, there CAN be no correlation, but there doesn't have to be no correlation. The reason is that you don't do the same thing every day.
If you only ran one pace and distance every day and slowly moved that pace and distance up and then you tested what your pace at 70% of max heart rate was, that would have to have at least some correlation.
If you run workouts, short and long tempos, long runs, easy days and even slower recovery days, then you can improve as much as you want by making your hard days harder. This means that on your easy days you are tired and your heart rate doesn't respond the way it would on race day, when you are rested. So again, on race day there has to be some correlation but maybe not much depending on weather, hydration and so on but on just an average day between workouts heart rate just isn't a tachometer.
^^(*_&034isd wrote:
Actually, there CAN be no correlation, but there doesn't have to be no correlation. The reason is that you don't do the same thing every day.
If you only ran one pace and distance every day and slowly moved that pace and distance up and then you tested what your pace at 70% of max heart rate was, that would have to have at least some correlation.
If you run workouts, short and long tempos, long runs, easy days and even slower recovery days, then you can improve as much as you want by making your hard days harder. This means that on your easy days you are tired and your heart rate doesn't respond the way it would on race day, when you are rested. So again, on race day there has to be some correlation but maybe not much depending on weather, hydration and so on but on just an average day between workouts heart rate just isn't a tachometer.
Good point. ALL that other stuff has a big effect on racing pace.
But there are a lot of people who run almost exclusively at an easy pace and improve their times. I'm thinking of those who use the Maffetone method. They'll run at HR 180-age for a really long time. Months. Years. And it is possible to get your pace at that HR down quite a bit. I read about an ultrarunner whose MAF pace is in the low 6's. However, his marathon race pace is above that, at 6:30.
Basically he found that he was severely limited by only training the aerobic system. He had no specific muscular training for running fast 5 or 10k paces or even the marathon pace he was most likely capable of.
If I use a 5k and pace calculators to determine my easy pace , that pace is way too fast for me. It's way higher than 180 minus age. It's as fast as calculated LT pace, or faster ( a hour at easy pace would be a race). I can run slow all I want and it never changes appreciably. Some people just don't have any range , or have a small slice of all possible range where they run better than the rest of it..
180-age is a faster than my Easy pace, today in the sunshine and heat my E run with strides pace was lower than 147.
I find the last comment interesting, are your race paces improving? If not I would guess you are just fast twitch so can race a 5k fast, but have less endurance. Have you tried running easy, like 70% of max HR for your easy runs to see if that helps?
180-age is bogus. My Max HR is 195 and I'm in my mid 50s. If I used that ludicrous calculation, I'd have to walk. Wear a HR strap in a 5K, you'll likely find yours doesn't fit that pat calculation either.
180-age has nothing to do with max HR. It is generic, but it's for easy aerobic pace. So it suggests 130 as an easy aerobic pace for you. And there are modifiers for age and years of training. But I'm not that old, so I haven't paid attention to them.
anotherperson wrote:
180-age has nothing to do with max HR. It is generic, but it's for easy aerobic pace. So it suggests 130 as an easy aerobic pace for you. And there are modifiers for age and years of training. But I'm not that old, so I haven't paid attention to them.
Er, it's a standard max HR formula. Regardless, it has absolutely nothing to do with easy pace. Lol.
I mistyped, not a "standard max HR formula.", it's a standard "find your aerobic zones" formula. Max HR is what counts, not some arbitrary calculation.
A person wrote:
Er, it's a standard max HR formula.
No it's not. It's Maffletone's silly easy pace formula.
Heart rate for runners is like power meters for cyclists.
Pointless. You're either going fast or you're not. I once had a guy ask if he could take my pulse after we sprinted to the finish of a 5k and claim that he actually "won" because his heart rate was lower than mine and recovered faster which indicated he was fitter but just didn't show it.
Q ring up the O ring wrote:
Heart rate for runners is like power meters for cyclists.
Pointless. You're either going fast or you're not. I once had a guy ask if he could take my pulse after we sprinted to the finish of a 5k and claim that he actually "won" because his heart rate was lower than mine and recovered faster which indicated he was fitter but just didn't show it.
Power meters for cyclists are not pointless, since they actually gauge how much work you're doing, unlike speed, which is heavily dependent on the wind, road surface, and any kind of draft. Speed and effort are much more highly correlated in running, and HR is a crapshoot.
Q ring up the O ring wrote:
Heart rate for runners is like power meters for cyclists.
Pointless. You're either going fast or you're not. I once had a guy ask if he could take my pulse after we sprinted to the finish of a 5k and claim that he actually "won" because his heart rate was lower than mine and recovered faster which indicated he was fitter but just didn't show it.
Hilarious. I can't imagine having someone think they were fitter because their HR was different. Totally insane.
But power meters are super useful for cyclists. They are used all the time by pros and recreationalists alike.
Advisor wrote:
I find the last comment interesting, are your race paces improving? If not I would guess you are just fast twitch so can race a 5k fast, but have less endurance. Have you tried running easy, like 70% of max HR for your easy runs to see if that helps?
I haven't found any sure work arounds for easy pace being so much work for me and jumping into tempo hr area so fast. I have tried as much as 10 hours a week of low HR training for 4 months , mostly running with a little bike spin. My easy pace/HR relationships didn't improve a bit , and I was not better at any thing I can hope to actually sort of race (5k and below). My conclusion is that I just don't have that much specific running natural talent from sprints to long distance. So back to correlation , yes it does occur, but probably in your physiologically
Here is a good article on the topic of low hr training.
http://strengthrunning.com/2015/02/maffetone-method-and-base-training/Sorry accident hit post. I think correlation can be found, but nature determined
in which people.
no correlation wrote:
If I use a 5k and pace calculators to determine my easy pace , that pace is way too fast for me. It's way higher than 180 minus age. It's as fast as calculated LT pace, or faster ( a hour at easy pace would be a race). I can run slow all I want and it never changes appreciably. Some people just don't have any range , or have a small slice of all possible range where they run better than the rest of it..
I tell why your calculated easy pace is too fast for you at this moment: you have poor running economy. If you train it, easy easy your "easy pace" will come faster and start to correlate.
Good training:
1) easy pace is approaching to Marathon pace
2) Marathon pace is approaching to LT pace, but LT pace itself is approaching to HRmax.
Well developed runners have:
Easy pace x avg heart rate at this pace=race pace x avg heart rate at this pace=Pulse Price (PP):
Example:
04:00x140=03:26x163(marathon pace).
Take data of any good athlete and compare, you will see, that PP is the same at their easy pace and marathon pace +-few digits
This formula is valid from 65%HRmax - 90% HRmax range
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year