Training LTHR vs Race LTHR

It's been said that one should use 98% for a 10k, 95% for a 5k.  So the 176 becomes ~172, still off from the 165.

Also the difference in the temp/humidity can have an affect on HR build. Colder/dryer takes longer than warmer/humid.

Yeah, I would agree and wouldn't worry too much. Field tests are great as they are free, but the environmental factors need to be considered. If you really want to know the data for your training, pay the money for an LT test, it's cheap relative to other costs of the spoert and well worth it if this is the protocol you want to use.

Edited by bryancd 2010-02-19 8:24 AM

LT (which, be aware, is defined in about 17 different ways) is a physiological event.  Testing for LTHR is an attempt to peg a HR to that event.  Many factors can interfere with this attempt, as previous poster noted.

However, assuming that you've pegged it properly, there should be no difference between 'training' LTHR and 'race' LTHR, as your muscles do not know the difference between training and racing---the physiological event of LT occurs in response to muscular effort, not 'racing' or 'training'.  These observations suggest to me that one (or both) of your 10K race or your test was off the mark (as an indicator of LT).

ETA:  Bryan got between me and 'previous poster'.  I agree with him too!

Edited by Experior 2010-02-19 8:20 AM

Thanks for the answers.

Donto, I've read about the 98% and 95% percent but forgot to apply it somehow. Thanks for reminding. You are also saying that climate affects HR and colder weather takes longer on HR build.

What are other peoples' experiences in colder vs. warmer weather LT tests.

Bryan, thanks for the answer. I realize that environmental conditions affect the result and I do not worry. I am just curious. I do not live in US and I have nowhere to go for a real LT test, so I have to make do with field tests.

Michael, thanks. I always thought my average HR would be higher in a race, though I cannot really explain the physiological reason. I do not have much race experience but some of my friends who have more experience also say that their race HR is higher. Maybe it is psychological.

Here's my comparison.  State of Florida (tropical) and I run mostly when the sun is not shining in the summer to reduce heat loading.  Summer is typically 80-85F/70-90%RH (Heat indexes usually upper 80-low 90's) when I run. "Winter" is 40-50's and ~ 40-60% RH.  Summer I can get to Z2 within 0.5 mile at a slower pace than Winter, which will take me 1-1.5 miles at a faster pace.  In the summer I usually run by RPE and ditch the HRM.

Higher HR in races, you're amped up to run, the crowd pushes you harder than you would on your own, you see the splits and figure out that you can PR, there's an awesome ponytail right if front of you...you get the point!

Edited by Donto 2010-02-19 9:31 AM

I am becoming more and more disenfranchised by the whole 20 - 30 minute field test.  If you truly did the bolded portion then it would give you a high number.

If I were to take the last middle or last 20 minutes of one of my 10k's then my average would be in the 188 range.  If I were to take a 5 mile race (which took in the range of 30 - 32 minutes) then my average would be closer to 190.  If I were to go out and do the prescribed field test as is the standard practice on BT (and other places) I would be able to put up those same sorts of numbers.

But I could never hold that pace for an hour which is really the closer measure to where your LT would be.

If you really want a better measure of what your running LT is to me?  Race a 15k to half marathon and whatever your overall average is for that, that is your LT +/- a few beats.  A short field test will give you high numbers and then your zones will be all skewed accordingly.

Just my opinion.

Plug your numbers into a pace calculator like Daniel's or MacMillan and forget about HR...too variable.

I find the Daniel's and MacMillan calculators too variable. To the OP, I agree with Rick, you really do need to go longer OR do lab based test. If you are going to train using HR it's money well spent.

Just so we're clear:  for the same time or distance, yes, I'd say that for the same conditions, your avg HR during a race is likely to be higher than during training, even during a (personal, not race) time trial.  That's not psychological.  You are going harder.  (It's possible that adrenaline is playing a role here as well, but in general I'd say it's just because you are pushing harder during a race.)  My point was just that you don't have two different LTHRs (one for racing and one for training).  You just have a LTHR, and either the race, or the field test, or neither, is revealing it to you.



Edited by Experior 2010-02-19 6:37 PM

Really?  I've worked with several triathletes and a large number of runners and in almost every case, Daniel's paces match up well with what their RPE (and HR for those who use it) is telling them.

Shane

That's great... that's not what I have seen.

Where exactly do you find that they fall down (prediction, training paces, everything)?

Shane

Predictions mostly.

I usually don't give a rat's azz about the potential times available (although mine have been really close other than marathon times - I've been within less than a minute across the chart up until that distance).  All of the calculators are very quick to tell you that unless you are putting in the correct training level that one will not meet those times.  And I have found that to be true.

But using McMillan allows one to establish realistic training paces based on current fitness.  Same with Daniels.  Throw out the "prediction" portions of the tables and focus on the training pace ranges.

I'll definitely agree with that; as Rick mentioned they are based on doing the appropriate training for the distance and very few athletes are as well trained for the marathon as they would be for a 5 or 10k.

When working with athletes, I primarily use the paces to prescribe training and then use race data to update VDot values.  However, if an athlete is inexperienced at a distance, I have used the predictions to give an idea of pacing (usually with T&F athletes so distances of 5k and less).

Shane

Thanks for all the answers.There are many good pointers for me in this thread. Now, I have to read about McMillan and Daniel's, I really have no idea about them. After reading them, I will try to compare methodologies and decide which one to use.

and in colder areas.. the opposite is true on the bike.  HR on a bike outside this time of year is useless. 

10K avg. HR is not really your LTHR. It is a 15km race avg. HR and pace that are closer to your LTHR/ LT pace, unless it takes you an hour to run a 10k.My personal experience with LTHR is that it changes very little once I do an initial LT training. I test in Base 2 Week 4 usually and than Build 1 Week 4 and they are the same for me. My LT pace changes significantly though, but not HR.

I believe the LT test give a ball park number but environmental factors need to be considered...

If I'm hyped up for a race, it could be higher.  There is more at stake and I may put up with the pain more?????

But what I know for SURE, is that on some hot arse days here in Vegas (110 degrees), I can run at a higher HR and feel pretty comfortable.  If I try to run at the same HR when it's 60 degrees out, it's next to impossible - too much effort.

Yes, this is very much a valid consideration. Testing in similar conditions is apples to apples. Test in 40F vs. test in 75F will have a limited value when comparing. Your paces will be way different so will the heart rate.