You are unlikely to get cardiac drift during a sub threshold interval session. Even if you did, this would just cause you to go a bit easier, so not a problem.
I agree with using RPE, where I disagree is that it is giving some kind of accuracy. There is not a great deal of accuracy, precision, or whatever the word is, in any of this. As long as it is not too hard, there doesn’t have to be any great accuracy.
My friend, how many LTHR tests have you looked at? How many 30 minute time trials have you ran yourself? I can show you a half a dozen of mine that are textbook and have a flat HR response during the last 20 minutes of a 30 minute time trial.
You're splitting hairs now.
Just because you ignore the very real existence of cardiac drift and the impact of duration on heart rate doesn't mean I'm splitting hairs or that LTHR is at all valid. We haven't even touched on all the ways that heart rate will vary from session to session which further obfuscates it as a measure of anything that isn't how frequently your heart is beating. Does it not strike you as curious why physiologists don't use LTHR if it's so simple and effective?
Is it too much to ask that the cargo cult take their own advice and actually try to simplify their training if they're not going to bother with legitimate testing protocol and instead get offended at the very mention of the idea? We can at least try to throw something of benefit into the snake oil.
And of course it will vary. Everything varies.
You dont think RPE varies session to session?
The point was to talk about something somewhat objective here.
RPE can be low and you can be at 6.0 mmol lactate. Now that might be the intent and might not be a problem for your schedule but would anyone go ‘oh yeah, that was objectively an easy session’?
I posted a few pages back about my experience using HR. My coach at university has been using HR and blood lactate testing for over a decade. One of the reasons that he started doing this was because the vast majority of people have a terrible idea of what threshold is meant to feel like. RPE has not heard-up. Whenever freshman or transfers would come in, using RPE for their entire running careers previously, they always overestimated threshold. Every single time without fail. The point isn’t to use HR as the only metric. HR and blood lactate testing help you dial in RPE. After a few tests you can use HR as a guide. It really helps you dial in the effort. I now live in an area with a lot of sub-elite runners. None of them use HR or have tested their blood. They all go off RPE. They swear it feels easy. You’d think they’d all be running at the marathon trials in a few months based on their workout times. In reality, they’re several, several minutes slower. Most people run too hard on their threshold and tempo days.
I don't doubt that there are many coaches still using HR, just like I doubt don't that there are many coaches who still think lactic acid is terrible and what slows you down. If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus. If those coaches had a PhD in a relevant field they would be physiologists, but they're not. Why not get those athletes to run a 30-60 minute maximal effort, which they then can associate to RPE, grade adjusted pace, and power, with much higher accuracy than still trying to use HR as a guide despite all the disadvantages?
It's sad to witness that the vast majority of runners are proudly 20-30 years behind the times and refuse to change. Even Joe Friel in 2009 required that his triathletes use power and pace as a guide instead of just using HR because he recognized the problems it has. IIRC he only developed his system because runners didn't have a way to measure power at the time and in one of his books he specifically referenced Coggan's work, it's ironic that HR is now being used to try to preclude training with power.
You are unlikely to get cardiac drift during a sub threshold interval session. Even if you did, this would just cause you to go a bit easier, so not a problem.
I agree with using RPE, where I disagree is that it is giving some kind of accuracy. There is not a great deal of accuracy, precision, or whatever the word is, in any of this. As long as it is not too hard, there doesn’t have to be any great accuracy.
I certainly get cardiac drift in my time trials and I don't know anyone who doesn't. This is from a group 280 of sub-elite marathoner (2h 30 - 3h 40). Note that their heart rate is increasing the whole time while their pace is either flat or decreasing. At which point are they over threshold based on their heart rate? I think reading tea leaves would produce greater insight.
You are unlikely to get cardiac drift during a sub threshold interval session. Even if you did, this would just cause you to go a bit easier, so not a problem.
I agree with using RPE, where I disagree is that it is giving some kind of accuracy. There is not a great deal of accuracy, precision, or whatever the word is, in any of this. As long as it is not too hard, there doesn’t have to be any great accuracy.
I certainly get cardiac drift in my time trials and I don't know anyone who doesn't. This is from a group 280 of sub-elite marathoner (2h 30 - 3h 40). Note that their heart rate is increasing the whole time while their pace is either flat or decreasing. At which point are they over threshold based on their heart rate? I think reading tea leaves would produce greater insight.
I certainly get cardiac drift in my time trials and I don't know anyone who doesn't. This is from a group 280 of sub-elite marathoner (2h 30 - 3h 40). Note that their heart rate is increasing the whole time while their pace is either flat or decreasing. At which point are they over threshold based on their heart rate? I think reading tea leaves would produce greater insight.
No one is saying use HR only. Why are you arguing this? It's just been a method of correlating effort since the 70's when HRMs came out. I prefer speed at the track and power everywhere else. Can we get back on topic?
Took some time off from the Marathon but realize I need to build my speed. I'm not that good at the marathon yet and it may take years to realize my potential. But a coach told me to focus on building speed and starting over at the bottom (5k) before working my way up.
Fascinated to see if the threshold training (even the singles) can work over time...Every other day EZ and the long run on Saturday should be good enough to start.
1K reps (usually 8-12 x 1K) with 60" rest at 10mi to 15K pace (7:23 to 7:09/7:16 average), 4:26-4:35 range/4:30 average total time 2K reps (usually 4-6 x 2K) with 60" rest at HM pace (7:31), 9:20 total time 3K reps (usually 3 x 3K) with 60" rest at 30K pace (7:41), 14:19 total time
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Edited for clarification.
That graph shows an entire marathon. We're talking about a 30 minute time trial at or very near threshold, my friend. What gives?
During the first 30 minutes, do you believe that they are supra-threshold despite running at their marathon pace and not their 10k pace? No? Then it's highly relevant that their heart rate is still increasing despite that their effort is less than if they were exclusively running a 30 minute TT.
No one is saying use HR only. Why are you arguing this? It's just been a method of correlating effort since the 70's when HRMs came out. I prefer speed at the track and power everywhere else. Can we get back on topic?
That is indeed the topic. It's no longer the the 1970s, there are better options, and prescribing intensity based on heart rate is at best erroneous but at worse a gross misrepresentation of threshold, it should not be used to delineate anything. I've said as much from the beginning and then people tried to turn it into RPE vs. HR debate, while ignoring everything else, because I stated that you may as well just use RPE and save yourself from any confusion since one is much more relevant to performance and has immediate value. When it comes down to it, it should be assumed that HR is incorrect and that any other useful metric is correct, thus it doesn't provide any actionable intelligence.
Took some time off from the Marathon but realize I need to build my speed. I'm not that good at the marathon yet and it may take years to realize my potential. But a coach told me to focus on building speed and starting over at the bottom (5k) before working my way up.
Fascinated to see if the threshold training (even the singles) can work over time...Every other day EZ and the long run on Saturday should be good enough to start.
1K reps (usually 8-12 x 1K) with 60" rest at 10mi to 15K pace (7:23 to 7:09/7:16 average), 4:26-4:35 range/4:30 average total time 2K reps (usually 4-6 x 2K) with 60" rest at HM pace (7:31), 9:20 total time 3K reps (usually 3 x 3K) with 60" rest at 30K pace (7:41), 14:19 total time
This should be 10mi to 15k pace (7:23 to 7:20), 4:33-4:35 total time. I had put 10k pace in there (7:09) by accident and can't edit it.
You are unlikely to get cardiac drift during a sub threshold interval session. Even if you did, this would just cause you to go a bit easier, so not a problem.
I agree with using RPE, where I disagree is that it is giving some kind of accuracy. There is not a great deal of accuracy, precision, or whatever the word is, in any of this. As long as it is not too hard, there doesn’t have to be any great accuracy.
I certainly get cardiac drift in my time trials and I don't know anyone who doesn't. This is from a group 280 of sub-elite marathoner (2h 30 - 3h 40). Note that their heart rate is increasing the whole time while their pace is either flat or decreasing. At which point are they over threshold based on their heart rate? I think reading tea leaves would produce greater insight.
Looks like their RPE for what marathon pace should feel like was over estimated if they get this drop. It’s nothing to do with cardiac drift, it’s a over estimation of fitness or poor training for marathon distance.
RPE = proxy for effort
HR = proxy for effort
blood lactated at a given pace = proxy for effort
power = depends because the only consumable tool is Stryd and that has major problems (I’ve owned every single version and sometimes multiple)
Anything can effect a test using any of the metrics above, using HR as a proxy is what most people have access too, if you have access to other tools use them. Then stay under that or percentage point over when training.
This is the point of this thread, as much work at sub threshold pace as you can handle and keep improving.
Using critical power, or speed, or heart rate, or lactate for what you have, it’s ballpark only. If this was elite training it would like different again, there would be a lot of specific work for their race distance. This is hobby recreational athletes which are time limited who run 5km to half marathons
This is the point of this thread, as much work at sub threshold pace as you can handle and keep improving.
Using critical power, or speed, or heart rate, or lactate for what you have, it’s ballpark only. If this was elite training it would like different again, there would be a lot of specific work for their race distance. This is hobby recreational athletes which are time limited who run 5km to half marathons
Ditto.
This is the premise of this thread, its essence really is the fact that you could keep progressing with a relatively big load of sub threshold as long as you play it safe, with whatever metric you would like.
Looks like their RPE for what marathon pace should feel like was over estimated if they get this drop. It’s nothing to do with cardiac drift, it’s a over estimation of fitness or poor training for marathon distance.
It is however cardiac drift and they are not supra-threshold at what may be slightly faster than a proper marathon pace. The same uptick in the first stages of the race was found in the group of runners who ran a negative split, and contrary to some of the claims made in this thread, it does happen over short durations, especially in warm weather. As per a study on it: "Cardiovascular drift, the progressive increase in heart rate and decrease in stroke volume that begins after approximately 10 min of prolonged moderate-intensity exercise"
power = depends because the only consumable tool is Stryd and that has major problems
Most watches now have running power and I find it to be very consistent. There's also grade adjust pace so critical pace can be made useful for hilly areas. HR is the worst tool anyone has access to, even if they don't have any other tools. LTHR itself is an unnecessary overcomplication yet no one wagged their finger at the person talking about how to find it, just my suggestion that he instead use something else.
Can you guys at least have the moral consistency to call out everyone else 'overcomplicating things' rather than just what you disagree with? It's hypocritical when there are 64 pages of what is mostly unreadable nonsense and it all gets a pass as long as it doesn't trigger the more sensitive members. Now if this post offends anyone, as I'm sure it has, please direct all comments and concerns to your local whipping boy so I don't have to field them.
and contrary to some of the claims made in this thread, it does happen over short durations, especially in warm weather. As per a study on it: "Cardiovascular drift, the progressive increase in heart rate and decrease in stroke volume that begins after approximately 10 min of prolonged moderate-intensity exercise"
This I can attest to. During the brutally humid & hot summers I endure, I'd have a considerably higher HR after the 2nd kilometer despite maintaining a stable RPE.
I've done 60' runs in the summer where my HR touched 170 bpm (83.7% of Max HR for me) despite running an absurdly slow pace of 6:00/km. In contrast, I averaged 170 bpm for my latest HM (3:52/km avg pace) racing in ideal conditions (~ 9 degrees Celsius).
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
This is the premise of this thread, its essence really is the fact that you could keep progressing with a relatively big load of sub threshold as long as you play it safe, with whatever metric you would like.
Yep. I'll reiterate to the wider audience. Just stick to one metric and you'll probably improve. Choose the metric based on how useful it is. We have spoken many times, HR is useless for you, due to conditions, for me it's probably OK. Pace is even better for me, due to the flat area I live and so on.
I won't bore the thread too much, but obviously power is really in the early stages when it comes to running and is obviously hugely inaccurate compared to cycling power meters consistency. But you can probably use it, again for a ball park. But it's really quite poor, when you compare it to the consistency you can get from a running power meter. (Issues range from estimated frontal area for the wind Stryd, to elevation spikes on watch based, increasing spikes in power, I've tested both extensively now). This comes from someone who is desperate to train by power, but it's just not quite good enough yet to be my main go to, especially on the fly. Afterwards, data can be smoothed out in golden cheetah, but this obviously doesn't help during the session.
The other huge advantage of just picking one metric, is your training load is hugely trackable and it can help you 1. Predict performance but 2. Also know when to increase training load. Your CTL will be as accurate as a hobby jogger needs, using your same metric to calculate daily training load.
Everyone is digging so far into the weeds at this point, I think the spirit of the thread is slowly being eroded. Not that this is a problem, the Strava group and mini spin off WhatsApp groups have come out of this.
This is the premise of this thread, its essence really is the fact that you could keep progressing with a relatively big load of sub threshold as long as you play it safe, with whatever metric you would like.
Yep. I'll reiterate to the wider audience. Just stick to one metric and you'll probably improve. Choose the metric based on how useful it is. We have spoken many times, HR is useless for you, due to conditions, for me it's probably OK. Pace is even better for me, due to the flat area I live and so on.
I won't bore the thread too much, but obviously power is really in the early stages when it comes to running and is obviously hugely inaccurate compared to cycling power meters consistency. But you can probably use it, again for a ball park. But it's really quite poor, when you compare it to the consistency you can get from a running power meter. (Issues range from estimated frontal area for the wind Stryd, to elevation spikes on watch based, increasing spikes in power, I've tested both extensively now). This comes from someone who is desperate to train by power, but it's just not quite good enough yet to be my main go to, especially on the fly. Afterwards, data can be smoothed out in golden cheetah, but this obviously doesn't help during the session.
The other huge advantage of just picking one metric, is your training load is hugely trackable and it can help you 1. Predict performance but 2. Also know when to increase training load. Your CTL will be as accurate as a hobby jogger needs, using your same metric to calculate daily training load.
Everyone is digging so far into the weeds at this point, I think the spirit of the thread is slowly being eroded. Not that this is a problem, the Strava group and mini spin off WhatsApp groups have come out of this.
Yeah the plot is disappearing here.
I think everyone understands that different variables can push exertion, perceived and real, so not sure what the argument is about at this point.
If it's hot of course youre going to get more exertion, your body is under more stress. Stress is what we've been trying to measure and quantify. If a variable (heat, humidity, elevation, etc) is creating more stress you obviously have to factor that into the load you are creating for a particular session.
Measure what you want to measure, but try to understand the limitations
Looks like their RPE for what marathon pace should feel like was over estimated if they get this drop. It’s nothing to do with cardiac drift, it’s a over estimation of fitness or poor training for marathon distance.
It is however cardiac drift and they are not supra-threshold at what may be slightly faster than a proper marathon pace. The same uptick in the first stages of the race was found in the group of runners who ran a negative split, and contrary to some of the claims made in this thread, it does happen over short durations, especially in warm weather. As per a study on it: "Cardiovascular drift, the progressive increase in heart rate and decrease in stroke volume that begins after approximately 10 min of prolonged moderate-intensity exercise"
power = depends because the only consumable tool is Stryd and that has major problems
Most watches now have running power and I find it to be very consistent. There's also grade adjust pace so critical pace can be made useful for hilly areas. HR is the worst tool anyone has access to, even if they don't have any other tools. LTHR itself is an unnecessary overcomplication yet no one wagged their finger at the person talking about how to find it, just my suggestion that he instead use something else.
Can you guys at least have the moral consistency to call out everyone else 'overcomplicating things' rather than just what you disagree with? It's hypocritical when there are 64 pages of what is mostly unreadable nonsense and it all gets a pass as long as it doesn't trigger the more sensitive members. Now if this post offends anyone, as I'm sure it has, please direct all comments and concerns to your local whipping boy so I don't have to field them.
i think people are genuinely confused as to what you are on about at this point
It is however cardiac drift and they are not supra-threshold at what may be slightly faster than a proper marathon pace. The same uptick in the first stages of the race was found in the group of runners who ran a negative split, and contrary to some of the claims made in this thread, it does happen over short durations, especially in warm weather. As per a study on it: "Cardiovascular drift, the progressive increase in heart rate and decrease in stroke volume that begins after approximately 10 min of prolonged moderate-intensity exercise"
Most watches now have running power and I find it to be very consistent. There's also grade adjust pace so critical pace can be made useful for hilly areas. HR is the worst tool anyone has access to, even if they don't have any other tools. LTHR itself is an unnecessary overcomplication yet no one wagged their finger at the person talking about how to find it, just my suggestion that he instead use something else.
Can you guys at least have the moral consistency to call out everyone else 'overcomplicating things' rather than just what you disagree with? It's hypocritical when there are 64 pages of what is mostly unreadable nonsense and it all gets a pass as long as it doesn't trigger the more sensitive members. Now if this post offends anyone, as I'm sure it has, please direct all comments and concerns to your local whipping boy so I don't have to field them.
You've spent all this time trashing anything else anyone proposes then you literally suggest running power as more valuable than HR. Running power is literally a pure algorithm guesswork at this point, even mentioning the watch wrist power is so ridiculous you have totally exposed yourself as having zero idea what you are talking about. Literally time to bow out of the thread before you embarrass yourself further.
It is however cardiac drift and they are not supra-threshold at what may be slightly faster than a proper marathon pace. The same uptick in the first stages of the race was found in the group of runners who ran a negative split, and contrary to some of the claims made in this thread, it does happen over short durations, especially in warm weather. As per a study on it: "Cardiovascular drift, the progressive increase in heart rate and decrease in stroke volume that begins after approximately 10 min of prolonged moderate-intensity exercise"
Most watches now have running power and I find it to be very consistent. There's also grade adjust pace so critical pace can be made useful for hilly areas. HR is the worst tool anyone has access to, even if they don't have any other tools. LTHR itself is an unnecessary overcomplication yet no one wagged their finger at the person talking about how to find it, just my suggestion that he instead use something else.
Can you guys at least have the moral consistency to call out everyone else 'overcomplicating things' rather than just what you disagree with? It's hypocritical when there are 64 pages of what is mostly unreadable nonsense and it all gets a pass as long as it doesn't trigger the more sensitive members. Now if this post offends anyone, as I'm sure it has, please direct all comments and concerns to your local whipping boy so I don't have to field them.
You've spent all this time trashing anything else anyone proposes then you literally suggest running power as more valuable than HR. Running power is literally a pure algorithm guesswork at this point, even mentioning the watch wrist power is so ridiculous you have totally exposed yourself as having zero idea what you are talking about. Literally time to bow out of the thread before you embarrass yourself further.
Yeah i have a Stryd and i would probably take RPE over it 9/10 days.
Cute gadget, but got a long long way to go to rival a cycling power metric
Interesting chart. This is so opposite to my own experience though. I've ran over 40 marathons in 2:37 to 3:43 range and I have never been able to do a negative split. About 75% of those would probably be classified as 'bonks', from moderate to quite hard. When I slow down in the later part of the race significantly, my HR would also drop into corresponding range like 140s.
