Yet another Hadd test, sort of

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

29:32 (9:51) hr 134 (70.5%) temp 62f
27:27 (9:09) hr 143 (75.3%) temp 65f
24:50 (8:17) hr 152 (80.0%) temp 68f
22:40 (7:33) hr 161 (84.7%) temp 72f

For every 9 bpm higher in HR my speed increased an average of 46 seconds
per
mile.

Same here. Pretty interesting, huh?

Quoted message said:

So I should be able to run quite a bit faster than 7:33. HR 170 would put
me
in the ballpark of 7:33 - :46 =~ 6:50 (without bothering to do the best
fit
etc.), and HR 179-180 would put me at 7:33 - 1:32, or let's say a bit over
6:00 pace. That would get me my sub 20 5k. Any thoughts?

I suggest trying the Hadd-type thing of 80-83% max HR a couple of times a
week (I do a 10 miler on Tue & Thurs) I'm surprised at how well it's
worked for me. After that preparation, 170 won't seem that tough.

-- Dan

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

Quoted message said:

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

29:32 (9:51) hr 134 (70.5%) temp 62f
27:27 (9:09) hr 143 (75.3%) temp 65f
24:50 (8:17) hr 152 (80.0%) temp 68f
22:40 (7:33) hr 161 (84.7%) temp 72f

For every 9 bpm higher in HR my speed increased an average of 46 seconds
per
mile.

Same here. Pretty interesting, huh?

Quoted message said:

So I should be able to run quite a bit faster than 7:33. HR 170 would

put

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me
in the ballpark of 7:33 - :46 =~ 6:50 (without bothering to do the best
fit
etc.), and HR 179-180 would put me at 7:33 - 1:32, or let's say a bit

over

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

6:00 pace. That would get me my sub 20 5k. Any thoughts?

I suggest trying the Hadd-type thing of 80-83% max HR a couple of times a
week (I do a 10 miler on Tue & Thurs) I'm surprised at how well it's
worked for me. After that preparation, 170 won't seem that tough.

Well, it would have been tough yesterday, because I had bad legs, but
normally I wouldn't shy away from that pace, or even higher in a test. Being
that I was doing 3 miles loops, I thought better of it. Perhaps I'll even
make it to the track next time.

I don't run enough miles to do 2 ten milers at 80-83%, but I've been doing
some running at that pace every week for the past couple of months. The way
thing's have been going this year, I might try to run more miles next year,
but I'm not going to change dramatically for the rest of this year.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

-- Dan

Tony S. said:

I've yet to go to a track, but decided to do today's flats step-style, like
a Hadd test, to both get a bit of faster running, and to attempt to slate
the boredom of doing 15 miles on flats.

I calibrated my bike odometer to the local 5k course, then marked out a more
convenient course of 3 miles around the lake. It's almost flat, and it has a
dirt trail around most of it, and where there's no trail, you can run on
grass. (I avoid the paved path wherever possible).

It turned out my legs were really tight today, but I went ahead and did it
anyway, though just 4 measurements. The 5th I was going to drop back a notch
and do at 80% also, but thought better of it and did it at an easy pace.

29:32 (9:51) hr 134 (70.5%) temp 62f
27:27 (9:09) hr 143 (75.3%) temp 65f
24:50 (8:17) hr 152 (80.0%) temp 68f
22:40 (7:33) hr 161 (84.7%) temp 72f

You get some deflection at the low end, the other three points are on a
perfect straight line.

Seems deflection around a heart rate of 130 or so is fairly common.

Quoted message said:

For every 9 bpm higher in HR my speed increased an average of 46 seconds per
mile. Since I have a race in 2 weeks and my legs aren't used to it, I didn't
want to do anything faster than 85%.

When turning to the 5k later (probably in about 2 months) I'm curious how
fast I'll be able to go. My results are more or less linear, and assuming I
can get my legs used to running faster, I should be able to do the 5k at
about 180 bpm (95%).

My threshold region is somewhere in the mid 170's. My HR's for races last
year are: 50k hr 159, marathon hr 162, 10 miles hr 175. My 5k in May this
year was 21:37 hr 176 (max 188), but I wasn't yet in shape, and I'd only
done one much slower tempo run before that race.

So I should be able to run quite a bit faster than 7:33. HR 170 would put me
in the ballpark of 7:33 - :46 =~ 6:50 (without bothering to do the best fit

I get 6:56 for a HR of 170 if you just count the last three points
(recommended!), 7:02 if the first point is left in. This is extrapolating
the line of best fit on *pace* vs heart rate (this is nearly always a better
fit than time vs HR). Extrapolating like this is dangerous in general but if
you have three colinear points and the one you're extrapolating to is sub LT,
should be fairly safe.

Quoted message said:

etc.), and HR 179-180 would put me at 7:33 - 1:32,

Gets harder to extrapolate when you get close to max. But the extrapolation is
6:22 (with the first point discarded) or 6:30 (if it's left in).

Quoted message said:

or let's say a bit over
6:00 pace. That would get me my sub 20 5k. Any thoughts?

Yes. You're bad at math.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In other words, you should be fitting *speed* (or, if you like, 1/time) to
heart rate, NOT pace to heart rate.

I'm missing something. Here are my thought steps, show me where I'm off:

speed = distance/time e.g., miles per hour
pace = time/distance e.g., minutes per mile

plotting speed (x-axis) against heartrate gives a positively sloping line.
plotting pace against heartrate gives a negatively sloping line.

the slope of the line depends on the units. If the same units are used, eg,
miles/hour and hours/mile, the abs(slope) would be the same.

Why would one of these lines give a better prediction of an outer point than
the other?

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In other words, you should be fitting *speed* (or, if you like, 1/time) to
heart rate, NOT pace to heart rate.

I'm missing something. Here are my thought steps, show me where I'm off:

speed = distance/time e.g., miles per hour
pace = time/distance e.g., minutes per mile

plotting speed (x-axis) against heartrate gives a positively sloping line.
plotting pace against heartrate gives a negatively sloping line.

the slope of the line depends on the units. If the same units are used, eg,
miles/hour and hours/mile, the abs(slope) would be the same.

No. Back to high school for you.

Hint: what is the derivative of the function y=2/x ? What about y = 2x ?

For the people who didn't do calc or who have forgotten it,

(1) plot the function y = 1/x. It looks like this:

..
..
..

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Doesn't matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to fit that thing
with a straight line.

Not even on log scale paper?

steve common said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Doesn't matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to fit that thing
with a straight line.

Not even on log scale paper?

Well, that's the point -- you need to transform the data to make it fit.
Graphing it like that is just a sneaky way to transform your data.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Doesn't matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to fit that
thing
with a straight line.

Quoted message said:

Why would one of these lines give a better prediction of an outer point
than
the other?

Because y = 1/x is NOT a line.

Thanks for the HS math lesson. I think I will decline your invitation to
re-enroll, however....

By luck or instinct, I plotted my results using miles/hour.

I await your Hadd retest now that you're 10 lbs lighter. I've always
suspected that speed increase would be roughly proportional with weight, so
let's get some data!

-- Dan