Runners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My cold is almost gone, so I decided to do a 10 mile time trial with my Garmin. I wanted it to be pretty fast (as close to my pb of 64 mins as possible) and ended up completing in 65 minutes and 4 seconds (average pace 6:30). Anyway, I looked at my mile splits, and I'm not sure if they are really erratic or around what one would expect. The route doesn't have any major hills or anything (+428/-372ft elevation). Anyway here are the splits. When I run I tend to just run at a pace that I feel comfortable or slightly uncomfortable. I rarely go all out and truly push myself. Maybe that's what I need to do to get average pace down to 6min/mile, which is what I need to do a sub 1 hour 10 miles.

mile 1: 5:47
mile 2: 6:23
mile 3: 6:40
mile 4: 6:39
mile 5: 6:29
mile 6: 6:22
mile 7: 6:40
mile 8: 6:49
mile 9: 6:43
mile 10: 6:27
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
It looks like you may have gone a bit to quick in mile 1 and mile 6 to me.

It isn't easy to stay consistant when outdoors anyway-undulations/wind etc.

overall, I reckon it's quite a good consistancy, but maybe ease up slightly next time in your first mile, this might help prevent the recovering and pushing to a level that, at the moment, you can't maintain in your 6th mile.

It'd be a good idea to run with your hr strap on and just have your heart rate displayed on your watch screen, keep your hr consistant, then look at your time splits afterwards.

if you've maintained the same heart rate throughout, it'd be interesting to see what that does to the times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Good idea. I haven't worn the heart rate monitor yet. Next run I will strap it on and see what the data looks like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,185 Posts
I'd agree Hot Foot, the first mile looks a bit fast.

I've got the Garmin too and it shows that my splits are erratic at times too. I'd suggest looking at the results in the Training Centre Software for the Garmin - sometimes, it shows that there is a slight incline on the my routes that I wouldn't have noticed myself and the inclines have an impact on my pace.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,089 Posts
Looks like my last half mara ;) You were keen to get a good time so set off fast - you then settled into a slower pace (possibly having realised you'd set off quite fast) that was perhaps a little too slow so started to pick up the pace a bit - then in the latter stages you started to struggle. Last mile obviously being quicker because you know you're coming up to the finish.

Now you've got your garmin you'll be able to monitor your paces after runs and you'll soon learn to run a bit better. Negative split is massively beneficial in my opinion. If you consider that in any race you have an optimum time you can achieve for that run, it is believed that every second you run quicker than your optimum pace for the first half, you will repay in DOUBLE during the second half of the race.

Running an even effort is supposed to be a great way to run, but personally I found it didn't work for me. I ran according to my heart rate in a half marathon a year ago and found that despite keeping a fairly consistant heart rate up to 10miles, I started much faster than I would normally and by 10miles I was muchy slower... the last 3 miles of teh race then were at a much higher heart rate than the first 3 miles, yet they were still slower. For me and even paced effort, with increased effort towards the end works better. Of course this is just my preference, you may well find yourself to be very different.

Anyway, from the original post you made, your pace isn't too erratic - it could be better, but it shows that at least you're constantly analysing how you feel and adapting your pace. The more you run the easier you'll find pacing yourself from the start. I certainly find it easier than I did but I'm still a bloody long way off perfecting it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yeah, I was quite pleased with the run, especially considering I was still fighting a cold and the second half of the run I was completely soaked because of a downpour. My socks and shoes were seriously waterlogged. So not bad all in all, but could do better is the verdict I think. I was pleased that my pace remained at sub 7min/mile. I just need to keep the pace in the low 6's and throw in a few sub 6 now and then. I still felt pretty good at the end of the run. Could easily have run another 3 miles at sub 7min pace. I am going to go for an easy paced 10k run tonight and try out the heart monitor. Might do a couple of sprints in the middle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
Ok, I've just been for a run and used the heart rate monitor. I ran 8 miles and tried to make sure I was relatively comfortable throughout. My legs were a bit sore from my 10 miler yesterday and I wasn't really feeling up to it, so my pace was a bit off. Finished in 52.46. Anyway, here are the splits with my average and maximum bpm for each mile following the time. I thought they looked a bit high. I thought I was fitter than this, but then again I know nothing about what my bpm should look like. What do you guys think? Average overall heat rate was 169bpm. I am a 34 year old male, so I guess my max heart rate should be 186. Is that right? If so I was close to 100% max heartrate a number of times, but I didn't feel like I was going all out. What does this say about the state of my heart?


Mile 1: 6:18 149 163
Mile 2: 6:31 166 170
Mile 3: 6:33 171 177
Mile 4: 6:47 173 178
Mile 5: 6:41 169 179
Mile 6: 6:41 173 176
Mile 7: 6:59 175 177
Mile 8: 6:12 179 186

Ps: mile 4 had a a really big climb for about a quarter mile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
JBB,

The fact that you weren't up for it is probably, as you've suggested, because you had a hard run yesterday.

You're heart rate would probably have been higher than usual today as a result of yesterdays run.

Todays run doesn't mean that you are not as fit as you think you are.

As you're aware, I'm sure, After a hard run one day, most would suggest that you follow it with either an easy run, or perhaps a day off to allow your body to recover.

If you were to follow this theory, and you were to train using your hr as the way to pace yourself, you would have run much slower today.

Your target heart rate today would have been 60-70% of your maximum- 111-130 bpm.

The average heart rate that you hit today is in your speed training at race pace range.

It is not easy to achieve this low end heart rate, and naturally, you feel like you should be pushing harder, but in the terms of recovery and avoiding burn out, it is essential to follow this guidline (if you are a believer in the training hr theories).

By continually having hard runs, some experts,(of which I'm not one :p), would tell you that although you might feel fine today,next week,or next month it will catch up with you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Thanks hot foot. What you say does make a lot of sense. I guess my question is, should my heart rate be at those kinds of levels when running at the pace I was? I guess what surprised me about the numbers is that I felt pretty comfortable for most of it and wasn't breathless at all. I could have just about had a conversation throughout my run. Then again, my resting heart rate before I started running was unusually high - 72 bpm when it is usually in the low 50s. Recovering from cold may also have played a part. gah, these are just lame excuses :p

But you are right that I probably shouldn't have done this kind of distance and pace after yesterday's run. I found yesterday far more comfortable even though I ran longer and at a quicker pace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
You said "I could have just about have a conversation throughout my run."

If you were able to "just about", this perhaps confirms that you were at least at top end tempo pace, so yes your heart rate would've been expected to be at that level.


I had a tempo run myself today and felt comfortable. At that level you are just about below your Lactic acid threshold pace, so you are still able to run at that pace without any real discomfort.

your 169 is literally just outside the tempo pace and in the bottom end of speed training at race pace. Thats probably why you still felt good.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it JBB, each to their own;),

If you train to the principles of heart rate training, then you would have trained slightly easier, thats all.

All I can suggest, is that if you are curious as to whether this form of training might be more beneficial to you, then give it a go for a couple of weeks or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I'd put a large wedge of money on your max HR being above 186bpm ;)
I just used the standard forumula of 220 - age. I always thought the higher the maximum heart rate, the less fit you are? Have I got that wrong? I'm really clueless when it comes to heart rate. It seems to be a very complex science. As soon as you look it up on google, you end up being bombarded with different equations and theories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,640 Posts
It just means that's how hard you can push yourself is to 186 bpm, nothing to do with lack of fitness and this changes with age.

If you take a resting hr which should be done first thing in the morning before you get out of bed, I believe it should be around 50 -60 bpm the lower end generally means the fitter you are, but with everything the will always be a minority that will be different.

My resting hr is approx. 47 bpm.

Hope that makes sense :d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,640 Posts
My Max HR 183

Recovery run - 112 -131 60-70% HR

aerobic fitness run - 131 -159 70-85% HR

tempo or threshold run - 159 - 168 85-90% HR

speed training/race pace - 159 - 183 85-98% HR (generally run about 175 no lower)

These are the ranges I use through out a normal week for running.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,089 Posts
Max HR has virtually nothing to do with fitness... though it's probably a little easier to reach your Max HR if you're unfit (as your body needs to work a lot harder to get the same results)... though in terms of comparing one person to another it has no relevance at all. My Max HR I measured about 1.5 years ago at 197bpm (which fitted in surprisingly well with 220-age calculation)... I'd like to think that doesn't make me more unfit than someone twice my age just starting out ;)

The various formulae are pretty good at estimating what sort of Max HR you're likely to have, but there are always people who are way off this mark. The reason I think your Max HR is above 186 is because you hit 186bpm in mile 8 of your run - by this time the muscles will be a little fatigued and I would estimate your legs would be limiting your max speed at this point rather than your heart.

How did you feel when you hit 186bpm? could you physically have pushed any harder for any longer at this point? I mean my max HR may have been above 197bpm, but at 197bpm I was ready to collapse and was gasping for air like never before. I can't even remember the last time I went above 190bpm since though, and I've had some pretty hard sessions!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Max HR has virtually nothing to do with fitness... though it's probably a little easier to reach your Max HR if you're unfit (as your body needs to work a lot harder to get the same results)... though in terms of comparing one person to another it has no relevance at all. My Max HR I measured about 1.5 years ago at 197bpm (which fitted in surprisingly well with 220-age calculation)... I'd like to think that doesn't make me more unfit than someone twice my age just starting out ;)

The various formulae are pretty good at estimating what sort of Max HR you're likely to have, but there are always people who are way off this mark. The reason I think your Max HR is above 186 is because you hit 186bpm in mile 8 of your run - by this time the muscles will be a little fatigued and I would estimate your legs would be limiting your max speed at this point rather than your heart.

How did you feel when you hit 186bpm? could you physically have pushed any harder for any longer at this point? I mean my max HR may have been above 197bpm, but at 197bpm I was ready to collapse and was gasping for air like never before. I can't even remember the last time I went above 190bpm since though, and I've had some pretty hard sessions!
You might be right there. When I hit 186 I was going pretty fast to make up for the fact that my previous mile was so slow. I think I was running at 14.4 mph at that point, trying to do a final push. I felt my heart could have pushed a bit more, but my legs were holding me back then., They were stiff when I started the run and by the end they were quite sore. Today they are still achy. I'm not running today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
There is no law saying that you can't or shouldn't exceed max hr.

In my last event, mine hit 210 at one point albeit for a short period, when pushing up a steep incline.

It's not unsafe to exceed you MHR, but I couldn't run an entire distance race at that rate.

As TT mentioned, a gauge of how fit you are is how low your "resting" heart rate is.

It's best measured first thing in the morning before you've started your day.

As you get fitter, you'll probably notice a decrease in your resting heart rate, but obviously, there is a limit on how low it will go for every individual.

It is not easier to reach your maximum heart rate the more unfit you are. In terms of speed yes, an unfit person of 30 might run at 12 mins/mile and an Elite runner of the same age might run at 4 mins/mile and their heart rate would be the same.

But in terms of effort,they are working as hard as each other. Effort is relative.

An unfit person of 30 is working as hard as a fit person of the same age who is working to the same percentage of their MHR.


some elite athletes resting heart rate (RHR), have been measured as low as 28bpm.

If you record your RHR daily over the course of your training it is a good way to gauge what your fitness is like.

It's is also a good way of knowing whether you are overtraining, a resting hr of 10% or above may indicate that you have not recovered sufficiently from training. Rest or cut back until it has returned to normal.

a number of other factors can also affect RHR, it can be a sign of illness, a lack of sleep, being overstressed or dehydrated are just some issues that can cause a higher than usual RHR.

There are exceptions of course, as we are all individual.

A relative of mine for example has an abnormally large heart, and as a result has a very low resting/working HR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Well, I do know that my resting heart rate first thing in the morning ranges between 52 and 58. I measured that over a 2 week period a few months ago. Not sure if this data can be used to calculate MHR. When I ran yesterday my resting heart rate before I set out was 70, but I had been rushing back from work and still had remnants of a cold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
Your RHR is going to be different to your pre-excercise HR JBB, as your body is anticipating excercise. It's best measured when you wake up.

you checked your RHR a couple of months ago, it'd be interesting to get yourself a more up to date reading, perhaps while your still getting over your cold and then compare it with when you are feeling 100% to see if there is any change.

52 -60 is a good rhr anyway though.:d
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top