Pacing

[ahass]

The Galloway thread brought up the issue of learning pacing, so I just thought I'd share a little
test I did on my run last night. I'd recently read a series of essays by a good coach on training
the aerobic system. In it, he talked about using HRM to train by and run at certain heartrates. I've
been moderately vocal in the past about how I think HRM are nice toys but don't use one to train
with. However, I thought what the heck I'll throw it on and see what happens. According to this
guy's plan, I should do a lot of everyday runs at an easy 145 HR (calculated from my max HR). So I
went out on a measured route on a 10 mile easy run and watched the HRM to keep around 145 and
ignored my stopwatch. At the end of the run I was shocked to see that I had averaged 145 for HR, but
6:22/mile for the run! When I go easy run by feel, I usually do about 6:30-6:35. So while a lot of
people were knocking this guy for telling them to "run slow", I found just the opposite...I ran
faster than my normal easy pace. But here's the interesting part. A lot of people have problems
pacing, especially in marathons. I do too sometimes. However when I race and pick a pace, I can
usually hit it within a few seconds. After I learned what effort the 145 HR was, I rarely had to
check the HRM as I could hold it right there without looking. So I'll revise my stance on HRM. If
you can't learn pace to run the correct effort, by all means use it. However after you learn to run
by feel, your "feel" can probably be just as good as the HRM. Andy Hass

[Keith Gemeinhar]

Andy,

I read the same essays. Good stuff.

I have a HRM but use it more for feeback/data collection than as a guide for training. And I won't
be wearing it when I race in 11 days. However, I think I'm going to try to do my summer training as
described in the essay.

-Keith

ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:
> I'd recently read a series of essays by a good coach on training the aerobic system. In it, he
> talked about using HRM to train by and run at certain heartrates. I've been moderately vocal in
> the past about how I think HRM are nice toys but don't use one to train with. However, I thought
> what the heck I'll throw it on and see what happens.

--
Keith Gemeinhart Technology Service Corp. Sebring, FL
--

[Dot]

ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:
>
After I learned what
> effort the 145 HR was, I rarely had to check the HRM as I could hold it right there without
> looking. So I'll revise my stance on HRM. If you can't learn pace to run the correct effort, by
> all means use it. However after you learn to run by feel, your "feel" can probably be just as good
> as the HRM. Andy Hass

FWIW, and an aside comment as beginner, because of the delayed reaction in hrm, I'm finding "feel"
is much better for hill running, *but* I didn't develop the "feel" until after I learned from the
hrm. If I wait for the hrm to tell me I'm near the upper limit (before entering "gasping" zone),
it's too late to back off and stay aerobic, which is present goal (I *can* and have run through it,
but that's not where I am in present training). And this *is* going slowly and taking small, almost
miniscule, steps. (Most of these are small hills - about 1-2.5 min - but probably 10-20% grade.)

If, however, I recognize the body signals (and they are unmistakable) about 5-7 bpm earlier, I can
run the hill aerobically with smooth hrm curves both up and down, as compared to the gasping and
resultant herky-jerky curves I got when depending on the hrm. That same hr where I need to start
backing off on the hill is the same hr than I can maintain on the flat for 1/2 hr or so, at least on
bikepath (haven't gotten it on flat trail). On the bikepath hills, the hrm worked fine for running
since they were a lot gentler, although I did use a whistle test.

Point being that in the long term, even constant effort may require going by feel rather than hrm,
although the hrm does pick up some of my sluggish efforts (always on one section of trail, always on
way back, never out), even where I thought I was constant. They're great learning tools, but like
everything they've got a lot of variability and idiosyncrasies in them.

Where I've found the hrm most useful is as a learning tool when learning new things or trying to
calibrate old things - like snowshoe running, xc skiing, hiking uphill, and running hills. Usually
after a couple efforts, I've got the feel, and then use the hrm mostly for logging. As I get more
experience with different trails, I suspect even the learning usage will diminish. Some people use
watches and measured courses to learn, others use hrm.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

[Steve Common]

ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:

> So I'll revise my stance on HRM. If you can't learn pace to run the correct effort, by all
> means use it. However after you learn to run by feel, your "feel" can probably be just as good
> as the HRM.

I use mine as a last-minute (two weeks before) cross-check of my planned race pace. According to a
calculator I used (maybe in RunCoach?), my marathon HR range should be 161-166 bpm (this also
corresponds to the evaluation of the local sports med department).

When I pushed up to 4'06/km and stabilised at that pace over a 37 minute period, after 35 minutes of
base endurance (4'50/km) at 140-145bpm, my HR was a stable 162-163 bpm.

[Frank In-Toront]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:09:07 -0400, Keith Gemeinhart <keithg@nospam.sebring.fl.us> wrote:

>Andy,
>
>I read the same essays. Good stuff.
and as interesting as these essays obviously are, you are not going to share the link? c'mon.
...thehick

[Tim Grose]

Interesting. I think that pace judgement is very much down to experience and fitness.

I've always found it a lot easier to run a race or track session at a roughly constant speed when
fit. Of course don't confuse even pace with even effort. For me doing a session of 10x400 in the
winter, the first 400 would feel easy, by the 8th or 9th one I am gasping! The last one is never a
problem...

Using a pulse monitor to stop you over reaching on supposed easy days is what I find most useful.
The other is on "tempo" runs where I'm going fairly hard but not too hard. I never find it
particularly useful in track sessions but it's interesting to review the pulses afterwards.
Sometimes I can't get my pulse up at all and then I know I'm overly tired.

Although I wear a pulse meter on most of my runs, I often leave both it and even my watch off in
races, especially short ones. Aside from being one less thing to worry about (once I wasted time in
a race adjusting the strap in a race when it became loose) one feels that the reason why you train
is to get used to running at the pace you want to strive for in races.

Cheers Tim

<ahass@dontspamumich.edu> wrote in message news:ouela.2992$XR3.89916@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> The Galloway thread brought up the issue of learning pacing, so I just thought I'd share a
> little test I did on my run last night. I'd recently read a series of essays by a good coach on
> training the aerobic system. In it, he talked about using HRM to train by and run at certain
> heartrates. I've been moderately vocal in the past about how I think HRM are nice toys but don't
> use one to train with. However, I
thought
> what the heck I'll throw it on and see what happens. According to this guy's plan, I should do a
> lot of everyday runs at an easy 145 HR (calculated from my max HR). So I went out on a measured
route
> on a 10 mile easy run and watched the HRM to keep around 145 and ignored
my
> stopwatch. At the end of the run I was shocked to see that I had averaged 145 for HR, but
> 6:22/mile for the run! When I go easy run by feel, I
usually
> do about 6:30-6:35. So while a lot of people were knocking this guy for telling them to "run
> slow", I found just the opposite...I ran faster than
my
> normal easy pace. But here's the interesting part. A lot of people have problems pacing,
> especially in marathons. I do too sometimes. However when I race and
pick
> a pace, I can usually hit it within a few seconds. After I learned what effort the 145 HR was, I
> rarely had to check the HRM as I could hold it right there without looking. So I'll revise my
> stance on HRM. If you can't learn pace to run the correct effort, by all means use it. However
> after you learn to run by feel, your "feel" can probably be just as good as the HRM. Andy Hass

[Sam]

Keep in mind that a couple of studies (including unpublished data from Tim Noakes' group) has shown
that intensity from a lab test under-predicts actual performance at least in 10K runners. In other
words, if you get a lab assessment and go run the race at that HR, you will run slower than you
could run. The same has been shown in one study for cyclists time trialing based on lab assessments.

"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:or4c9v41uo2l96l41vce757mfqb8plj5gp@4ax.com...
> ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:
>
> > So I'll revise my stance on HRM. If you can't learn pace to run the correct effort, by all
> > means use it. However after you learn to run by feel, your "feel" can probably be just as good
> > as the HRM.
>
> I use mine as a last-minute (two weeks before) cross-check of my planned race pace. According to a
> calculator I used (maybe in RunCoach?), my marathon HR range should be 161-166 bpm (this also
> corresponds to the evaluation of the local sports med department).
>
> When I pushed up to 4'06/km and stabilised at that pace over a 37 minute period, after 35 minutes
> of base endurance (4'50/km) at 140-145bpm, my HR was a stable 162-163 bpm.

[ahass]

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote:
> FWIW, and an aside comment as beginner, because of the delayed reaction in hrm, I'm finding "feel"
> is much better for hill running, *but* I

> Where I've found the hrm most useful is as a learning tool when learning new things or trying to
> calibrate old things - like snowshoe running, xc skiing, hiking uphill, and running hills. Usually
> after a couple efforts, I've got the feel, and then use the hrm mostly for logging. As I get more
> experience with different trails, I suspect even the learning usage will diminish. Some people use
> watches and measured courses to learn, others use hrm.
-SNIP-SNIP ---Couldn't agree more. Great for data points and such, but I still won't be relying on
it every day.. Andy Hass

[Sam]

"Tim Grose" <tim@runtrackdir.com> wrote in message news:1050054551.407907@ernani.logica.co.uk...
> Interesting. I think that pace judgement is very much down to experience
and
> fitness.
>
> I've always found it a lot easier to run a race or track session at a roughly constant speed when
> fit. Of course don't confuse even pace with
even
> effort. For me doing a session of 10x400 in the winter, the first 400 would feel easy, by the 8th
> or 9th one I am gasping! The last one is never a
problem...
>
> Using a pulse monitor to stop you over reaching on supposed easy days is what I find most useful.
> The other is on "tempo" runs where I'm going
fairly
> hard but not too hard. I never find it particularly useful in track
sessions
> but it's interesting to review the pulses afterwards. Sometimes I can't
get
> my pulse up at all and then I know I'm overly tired.
>
> Although I wear a pulse meter on most of my runs, I often leave both it
and
> even my watch off in races, especially short ones. Aside from being one
less
> thing to worry about (once I wasted time in a race adjusting the strap in
a
> race when it became loose) one feels that the reason why you train is to
get
> used to running at the pace you want to strive for in races.

I like recording my splits even in a 5K to see if I hit the marks I wanted to hit. I am
one of those people that feels naked without a watch and now without a HRM when I run.

>
> Cheers Tim
>
> <ahass@dontspamumich.edu> wrote in message news:ouela.2992$XR3.89916@news.itd.umich.edu...
> >
> > The Galloway thread brought up the issue of learning pacing, so I just thought I'd share a
> > little test I did on my run last night. I'd recently read a series of essays by a good coach
> > on training the aerobic system. In it, he talked about using HRM to train by and run at
> > certain heartrates. I've been moderately vocal in the past about how I think HRM are nice toys
> > but don't use one to train with. However, I
> thought
> > what the heck I'll throw it on and see what happens. According to this guy's plan, I should do a
> > lot of everyday runs at an easy 145 HR (calculated from my max HR). So I went out on a measured
> route
> > on a 10 mile easy run and watched the HRM to keep around 145 and ignored
> my
> > stopwatch. At the end of the run I was shocked to see that I had
averaged
> > 145 for HR, but 6:22/mile for the run! When I go easy run by feel, I
> usually
> > do about 6:30-6:35. So while a lot of people were knocking this guy for telling them to "run
> > slow", I found just the opposite...I ran faster
than
> my
> > normal easy pace. But here's the interesting part. A lot of people have problems
pacing,
> > especially in marathons. I do too sometimes. However when I race and
> pick
> > a pace, I can usually hit it within a few seconds. After I learned what effort the 145 HR was, I
> > rarely had to check the HRM as I could hold it right there without looking. So I'll revise my
> > stance on HRM. If you can't learn pace to run the correct effort, by all means use it. However
> > after you learn to run by feel, your "feel" can probably be just as good as the HRM. Andy Hass

[ahass]

---If you want to wade through them, go to the message board on www.letsrun.com and open the
"another approach to distance training" thread. It'll take an hour or better to digest it all,
theres almost 300 posts (the ones by Hadd are the ones I was referring to and the point of the whole
thread.) Andy Hass Frank in-toronto <thehickNOSPAM@canada.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:09:07 -0400, Keith Gemeinhart <keithg@nospam.sebring.fl.us> wrote:

>>Andy,
>>
>>I read the same essays. Good stuff.
> and as interesting as these essays obviously are, you are not going to share the link? c'mon.
> ...thehick

[Sam]

That is the only really good thread over there. I copied and pasted Hadd's posts, the ones
outlining his philosophy, into a Word document to make it easier to read. I still need to sit down
and digest it.

<ahass@dontspamumich.edu> wrote in message news:uGAla.3043$XR3.90791@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> ---If you want to wade through them, go to the message board on
www.letsrun.com
> and open the "another approach to distance training" thread. It'll take
an
> hour or better to digest it all, theres almost 300 posts (the ones by Hadd
are
> the ones I was referring to and the point of the whole thread.) Andy Hass Frank in-toronto
> <thehickNOSPAM@canada.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:09:07 -0400, Keith Gemeinhart <keithg@nospam.sebring.fl.us> wrote:
>
> >>Andy,
> >>
> >>I read the same essays. Good stuff.
> > and as interesting as these essays obviously are, you are not going to share the link? c'mon.
> > ...thehick

[Steve Common]

"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Keep in mind that a couple of studies (including unpublished data from Tim Noakes' group) has shown
>that intensity from a lab test under-predicts actual performance at least in 10K runners.

Yes. The doctor did the tests at 0% incline and told me to adjust the results as necessary to get
the best possible "fit" between real-world performance and the lab readings (or vice versa?).

[Doug Freese]

Sam wrote:

> I like recording my splits even in a 5K to see if I hit the marks I wanted to hit. I
> am one of those people that feels naked without a watch and now without a HRM when I
> run.

As soon as the kids come so does the damn HRM. Your going to poop in a hurry. ;)

--
Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" - B. McKibben Doug Freese
dfreese@hvc.rr.com