No Limits Day 6
This No Limits journey just in one week has really focused my attention. When I envisioned this in the beginning I considered only how to increase my physical training. Now I realize that Ironman is more than physical conditioning but total body alignment and mental knowledge.
That being said, my No Limit for Day 6. I have had a feeling for the last two months that my Polar HR testing had given me lower indications than I really have. In particular it listed my max HR as 180 and my resting pulse as 70.
The Polar software is great in that when the information is downloaded it will show how much training time occurred in six different HR zones. As I reviewed my runs, it should way too much time is Zone 5 and 6. Considering that many of those runs were 13-18 miles, it is simply not possible to maintain those HR's for that long a distance. I also factored in my Rate of perceived Effort (RPE) and there is no way that I could run that many miles at 95% of my max HR. Furthermore I have had my resting pulse measured between 60-64 bpm for many months.
I have long held that the 220-age calculation is inaccurate based on increase efficiency and aerobic endurance and when I began studying my hypothesis I found this article that gave me some comfort that I wasn't a conspiracy theorist.
My goal for this year and perhaps I will include it in my 39 day program is to have a VO2 test for running. However, the Triathlete Training Bible down plays VO2 and HR zones for lactate threshold and pace, (pgs. 30-44). I must confess I have never taken a LT test, nor now how to do one. I will find out though.
Reading many online training articles, researching through some personal reference guides and reviewing my RPE and HR compared to distance and then including an established new resting HR, I believe my max heart rate is between 194-200 bpm not 180 as diagnosed by Polar test software. When those numbers are updated into the software it makes all the statisical information make much more sense.
The point is that we should not take for granted the established models. Especially in light of the article I hyperlinked above dismissing the superiority of 220-age. Its a good start point but don't discount your own RPE and aerobic endurance. This just goes to show that a good HRM with training software can help establish baselines and track progress but you may have to dig deeper to get to the real numbers.
posted by Comm's @ 8:18 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Good post CMS. The 220 theory is only a theory (a bad one). There are cases where a normal female has a max HR of 200 and a pro with a max HR of 170. To find one's Max HR or LT, one has to do an actual test.
The most important of HR is finding out the aerobic zone and anaerboic zone. There is more to that but that's the basis of it. Once we know the zones, we can discipline ourselves to train within them.
Peter Reid mentioned in one of his interview that he is so fine tune with his HR that he hardly trains with a HRM. He can tell his zones by his RPE.
Haven't seen your plots, but for half marathon races I maintain a heart rate of about 170 or so, 175 for a 10-miler. I do keep it a lot lower during workout runs!
220-age is a good starting point for a guesstimate, but everyone is different, and the best way to know your own max is to actually check it! It underestimates my maxHR by 15-20 bpm (as seen on my own HRM at maximal exertion levels - sprinting for the finish line, or during tough hill repeats).
Hey - if you've ever swung by my blog, you'll know that heart rate and power-based training methods are high on my list of interests.
For someone in your position, an LT test might actually be a better place to start, as there are established methods for doing it on your own and getting mighty good estimates of HR(LT) for running (or cycling, for that matter).
Feel free to drop me a note if you'd like to discuss further!
Hey JV, your right on the money thanks I will stop by.
Not sure if you have Going Long in addition to TTB, but there are some LT tests that he lays out in the back of his book. They more less involved pushing at your max sustainable effort for a given period of time and recording your HR for the last portion of the workout if I remember correctly? If you don't have the book or can't find the info anywhere, let me know and I'll get you the info.
I sent Okolo several protocols for establishing Max. Heart Rate for running, and then how to estimate your swim and bike values from those. Ask him for what I sent.
For running you can train by pace, HR, RPE or some combination of all 3.
For biking, WATTS ARE KING (but you knew that, right?) but in absence of that, HR, RPE work well, too.
I wouldn't worry too much about swim HR's--just swim!
A simple bike LTHR test is as follows: warmup for 15', then do about 3' of spinups, then do 3x(2' Mod-Hard,1' easy). Then you are going to do (2) 20' efforts, with 2' of easy spinning in between. The 20' efforts are not all out, but very hard--such that you can maintain the same effort for the second interval as the first. Keep track of your HR for each interval. Your average is about where your LTHR is. Obviously, you do this either on a trainer or a relatively closed course, so that weather and terrain are not a factor. Preferably a flat course. If you have a power meter, you figure out the normalized power for the entire 42' of riding time, and that is your FT watts. Heart rate just isn't as accurate an indicator of effort as is power, but you knew that from reading my blog and pointers to power articles, right?
If you are interested in doing run training by pace, THE book is Daniels' Running Formula. There's a chart in there that shows you how to figure out training paces based on recent race results. VERY ACCURATE!!!!! Any run coach worth their salt knows about this book and uses it to an extent.
Post a Comment
<< Home