Consistant Pace VS Consistant HR

In article Sktkc.5208$%o1.2648@lakeread03 said:

I have been using a HR monitor for about a year now.
Mostly it has been to keep my overall training in check
and to accumulate data so that I can get a feel for what
the heart rate really means.

So now I am starting to incorporate the HR zones a little
more and I am curious about what your HR should look like
during a race.

It will usually be quite high. If you pay much attention
to your heart rate during a race, you will probably run
very slowly.

Quoted message said:

I just read the Active.com article about consistent pace
during racing, and I have heard the theory that consistent
paces are the most efficient/fastest.

More or less correct.

Quoted message said:

But is it more important to have a flat-line pace with
your HR fluctuating based on things like hill slope and
wind speed,

It's almost impossible to maintain a truly uniform pace if
there are any nontrivial hills on your course. For example,
most people who race 5k at 8 minutes per mile would have a
hard time holding that pace for 800m up a 10% grade hill.

What this means is that even a 400m hill with a 5% grade or
so will add several seconds to your split for that mile.

If there were no hills and no wind, even pacing would be
ideal.

Quoted message said:

or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other than "0"😉
with your pace fluctuating?

The best thing to do is run at the same level of effort up
and downhills. So your heart rate ideally shouldn't go up
and down with the incline. However, your heart rate will
steadily increase during the race.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In article <Sktkc.5208$%o1.2648@lakeread03>,

ChronoFish said:

or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other than "0"😉
with your pace fluctuating?

The best thing to do is run at the same level of effort up
and downhills.

So

Quoted message said:

your heart rate ideally shouldn't go up and down with the
incline.

However,

Quoted message said:

your heart rate will steadily increase during the race.

.... also, it's all very relative to the moment. The way I
feel at km#8 and km#16 in a half marathon is quite different
- but my HR is almost exactly the same in both instances,
more or less.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."

In article <[email hidden]>,

SwStudio said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In article <Sktkc.5208$%o1.2648@lakeread03>, ChronoFish

Quoted message said:

or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other than
"0"😉 with your pace fluctuating?

The best thing to do is run at the same level of effort
up and downhills.

So

Quoted message said:

your heart rate ideally shouldn't go up and down with
the incline.

However,

Quoted message said:

your heart rate will steadily increase during the race.

.... also, it's all very relative to the moment. The way I
feel at km#8 and km#16 in a half marathon is quite
different - but my HR is almost exactly the same in both
instances, more or less.

Whoa, since when do they have kilometers in a half-marathon?
I thought a half-marathon was 13.1 miles!

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Th-
en it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

SwStudio said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In article <Sktkc.5208$%o1.2648@lakeread03>,
ChronoFish wrote:
> or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other than
> "0"😉 with your

pace

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> fluctuating?

The best thing to do is run at the same level of
effort up and

downhills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So

Quoted message said:

your heart rate ideally shouldn't go up and down with
the incline.

However,

Quoted message said:

your heart rate will steadily increase during the
race.

.... also, it's all very relative to the moment. The way
I feel at km#8 and km#16 in a half marathon is quite
different - but my HR is almost exactly the same in both
instances, more or less.

Whoa, since when do they have kilometers in a half-
marathon? I thought a half-marathon was 13.1 miles!

Sounds far more manly to run for more than 40 km's than to
run for a dinky 26 miles 😉 M~

Quoted message said:

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson

For long distance the flat-line HR, when in the correct
zone, will be most efficient. You need to find your zone.

Ken

"ChronoFish" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Sktkc.5208$%o1.2648@lakeread03...

Quoted message said:

I have been using a HR monitor for about a year now.
Mostly it has been

to keep my overall training in check and to accumulate data

Quoted message said:

so that I can get a feel for what the heart rate
really means.

So now I am starting to incorporate the HR zones a little
more and I am

curious about what your HR should look like during a race.

Quoted message said:

I just read the Active.com article about consistent pace
during racing,

and I have heard the theory that consistent paces are the

Quoted message said:

most efficient/fastest.

But is it more important to have a flat-line pace with
your HR fluctuating

based on things like hill slope and wind speed, or is it

Quoted message said:

better to have a flat-line HR (other than "0"😉 with your
pace fluctuating?

-CF

Quoted message said:

Whoa, since when do they have kilometers in a half-
marathon? I thought a half-marathon was 13.1 miles!

--Harold Buck

Only in your world Harold, In New Zealand, and other places
where they drive on the wrong side of the road, they use
kilometers, even in Half Marathons.

Ken

"IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For long distance the flat-line HR, when in the correct
zone, will be most efficient. You need to find your zone.

Ken

I've been using a hr monitor for a couple of years now to
try to find my zone, and am now able to run a good pace at
a steady heartrate by varying the speed or effort. But
short of stopping, my heartrate does drift upward slowly
after 2-3 hours of sustained effort at constant speed. I've
noticed this both with long (boring) track runs, and also
while running outdoors with my gps gizmo on.

One curiosity - I've noticed that my heartrate will increase
consistently within a few minutes of taking in nutrition
while continuing to run at a constant speed or effort. I
have experienced this with gels, bars, Boost (and assorted
similar products) all with similar results.

Mike p

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <Sktkc.5208$%o1.2648@lakeread03>,

ChronoFish said:

I have been using a HR monitor for about a year now.
Mostly it has been

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

keep my overall training in check and to accumulate data
so that I can

get a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

feel for what the heart rate really means.

So now I am starting to incorporate the HR zones a
little more and I am curious about what your HR should
look like during a race.

It will usually be quite high. If you pay much attention
to your heart

rate

Quoted message said:

during a race, you will probably run very slowly.

Quoted message said:

I just read the Active.com article about consistent pace
during racing,

and I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have heard the theory that consistent paces are the most

efficient/fastest.

Quoted message said:

More or less correct.

Quoted message said:

But is it more important to have a flat-line pace with
your HR

fluctuating

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

based on things like hill slope and wind speed,

It's almost impossible to maintain a truly uniform pace if
there are any nontrivial hills on your course. For
example, most people who race 5k at 8 minutes per mile
would have a hard time holding that pace for 800m up a

10%

Quoted message said:

grade hill.

What this means is that even a 400m hill with a 5%
grade or so will add several seconds to your split for
that mile.

If there were no hills and no wind, even pacing would
be ideal.

Quoted message said:

or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other than "0"😉
with your pace fluctuating?

The best thing to do is run at the same level of effort up
and downhills.

So

Quoted message said:

your heart rate ideally shouldn't go up and down with the
incline.

However,

Quoted message said:

your heart rate will steadily increase during the race.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

If the race is short enough, say a 5K there will not be a
lot of upward drift of HR once you reach steady state (and
ignoring a sprint at the end). I have done races lasting 30
minutes with no cardiac drift and have seen similar results
from others. It just takes a while for dehydration to set in
and have a noticeable effect.

That said, I would vote for even intensity (as Donovan
suggests) taking into account that pace will change with
topography.

I do orienteering races and biathlons. To get the best
performance, your effort, not your pace should be
consistent. That being said, some people run hills better
than others, and if you have good leg strength and anerobic
tolerance it might make sense to use some of it there. It
depends on the length of the race and the length of the hill
too. Bike training on hilly terrain teaches you to use
effort not pace as the measure of training. When running a
50 mile trail uttra a few years ago I ran with the 50k crowd
and keyed off of them too much and ignored my heart rate
feedback - which was telling me to slow down for the longer
distance. For example, I can run for 1 hour at heart rate
175, which is lactate threshold (LT) for me. I can run for
up to 3 hours at about 165, and beyond this I have to lower
the overall heart rate. For 50 miles it should be no higher
than 145 on average, but durning that 50 miler it was in the
mid 150's too much. I dearly paid the price in the last 15
miles and was forced to walk the last 5 miles.

ChronoFish wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I have been using a HR monitor for about a year now. Mostly
it has been to

keep my overall training in check and to accumulate data

Quoted message said:

so that I can get a feel for what the heart rate
really means.

So now I am starting to incorporate the HR zones a little
more and I am

curious about what your HR should look like during a race.

Quoted message said:

I just read the Active.com article about consistent pace
during racing, and

I have heard the theory that consistent paces are the

Quoted message said:

most efficient/fastest.

But is it more important to have a flat-line pace with your
HR fluctuating

based on things like hill slope and wind speed, or is it

Quoted message said:

better to have a flat-line HR (other than "0"😉 with your
pace fluctuating?

-CF

"qTrader" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When running a 50 mile trail uttra a few years ago I ran
with the 50k

crowd and

Quoted message said:

keyed off of them too much and ignored my heart rate
feedback -

which was

Quoted message said:

telling me to slow down for the longer distance. For
example, I

can run for

Quoted message said:

1 hour at heart rate 175, which is lactate threshold
(LT) for me.

I can run

Quoted message said:

for up to 3 hours at about 165, and beyond this I have
to lower

the overall

Quoted message said:

heart rate. For 50 miles it should be no higher than 145
on

average, but

Quoted message said:

durning that 50 miler it was in the mid 150's too much.
I dearly

paid the

Quoted message said:

price in the last 15 miles and was forced to walk
the last 5

miles.

This also happens with most rookies that move from the road
marathon to trail 50k or 50k to the 50 miles and so on. Some
how they think it's just a few more miles and fail to
conserve some early energy. In a recent 50k I ran with
people during miles 5-8 that finished 2-3 hours after I did.

For short races I would agree with constant to negative
effort but with longer races it has to be negative or you
will really [censored] the bed.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]
(remove the NOBS)

ChronoFish said:

I just read the Active.com article about consistent pace
during racing, and I have heard the theory that consistent
paces are the most efficient/fastest.

But is it more important to have a flat-line pace with
your HR fluctuating based on things like hill slope and
wind speed, or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other
than "0"😉 with your pace fluctuating?

I agree with all the flat-line the HR responses. As IMKen
indicated, find the zone and keep it there.

In some long running races (50mi or more), there *might* be
a need to back off some to be able to ingest food.

FWIW, what I've seen in many places like active.com and/or
RW, they seem to assume that most people are running on flat
courses, with no wind, and usually ideal temperatures
(occasionally mention heat, seldom cold like subzero F).
When they say things like even pace or negative/even splits,
I *think* they really mean to say even effort. They're just
not thinking in terms of prolonged 20% hills, 50 mph winds,
etc. At least I hope they're not advocating keeping the same
pace up and down a 3000ft mtn with 20-30% slopes 😉 The
difference isn't as dramatic on smaller hills, but it's
still there.

Dot

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

Harold Buck <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

SwStudio said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In article <Sktkc.5208$%o1.2648@lakeread03>, ChronoFish
wrote:
> or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other than
> "0"😉 with your pace fluctuating?

The best thing to do is run at the same level of effort
up and downhills.

So

Quoted message said:

your heart rate ideally shouldn't go up and down with
the incline.

However,

Quoted message said:

your heart rate will steadily increase during the race.

.... also, it's all very relative to the moment. The way
I feel at km#8 and km#16 in a half marathon is quite
different - but my HR is almost exactly the same in both
instances, more or less.

Whoa, since when do they have kilometers in a half-
marathon? I thought a half-marathon was 13.1 miles!

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson

Feeling particularly mischevious today, eh Harold?

ChronoFish said:

I have been using a HR monitor for about a year now.
Mostly it has been to keep my overall training in check
and to accumulate data so that I can get a feel for what
the heart rate really means.

So now I am starting to incorporate the HR zones a little
more and I am curious about what your HR should look like
during a race.

I just read the Active.com article about consistent pace
during racing, and I have heard the theory that consistent
paces are the most efficient/fastest.

But is it more important to have a flat-line pace with
your HR fluctuating based on things like hill slope and
wind speed, or is it better to have a flat-line HR (other
than "0"😉 with your pace fluctuating?

-CF

When I did my first Duathlon in '92 I wore a HRM chest strap
on the first run but the receiver was mounted on my bike so
I never got the reading till I hit transition. At the time I
had been using the HRM for running for a few months and my
established max during maximal efforts on the track was
about 183. I came off the first run, grabbed my bike, and as
I was heading out I looked down at the receiver and noticed
it was at 183. I never bothered with a HRM in a race again
until 5 years late at the world endurance duathlon, and even
there I only used it on the 112 mile bike ride.

JJ

In article <[email hidden]>,
Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

In some long running races (50mi or more), there *might* be
a need to back off some to be able to ingest food.

If you're running at steady effort level, then, iirc from
Noakes, any race over about 4 hours is at a low enough
effort level for your digestive system to be picking up
nutrition fairly normally. (Taste and desire are different
matters, and things get really weird, if one believes
Doug, if you go past 15 hours or something like that.)

Quoted message said:

FWIW, what I've seen in many places like active.com and/or
RW, they seem to assume that most people are running on
flat courses, with no wind, and usually ideal temperatures
(occasionally mention heat, seldom cold like subzero F).
When they say things like even pace or negative/even
splits, I *think* they really mean to say even effort.
They're just not thinking in terms of prolonged 20% hills,
50 mph winds, etc. At least I hope they're not advocating
keeping the same pace up and down a 3000ft mtn with 20-30%
slopes 😉 The difference isn't as dramatic on smaller
hills, but it's still there.

Yeah, the little bumps in the landscape they have in the
Appalachians just don't count the same.

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences