General Discussion Triathlon Talk » 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2007-08-06 1:48 PM

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Northern California
Subject: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

I went out this morning to do a run LT test. My last LT test was 8 weeks ago, and my HRLT was 183bpm with an average pace of 8:25/mi. My HRLT before that was 187bpm @ 8:40/mi pace (I got these numbers from a 10K race last November).

This morning I ran 10K in 49:13 @ 7:55/mi pace, cutting 4:27 off my last 10K PR, so I'm very excited about that. However, I'm a little confused. Here's why: My AHR was only 171, and MHR was only 178. Based on my last LT of 183bpm, 171 = mid Z3, and 178 = low Z4 (and I only hit Z4 for about 11 minutes of the run). At the time I felt like I was running at near full capacity (I've never run that fast before), but looking at the HR numbers, I'm wondering if I could've pushed it more.

I ran this test eary this morning while it was ~60 degrees. My previous tests have been when it was maybe 10 to 15 degrees warmer.

I am figuring that the lower HR is due to the cooler weather, but here's my question (finally): Should I adjust my HR zones to reflect my AHR from this run, or should I consider this a tempo run and keep my HR zones based on my last LT test?

I don't always run when it's nice and cool outside like today: Should I have a warm weather HRLT and a cool weather HRLT?

I know these are probably dumb questions. It's just that while I expected to run faster than I did on my last LT test, I didn't expect my HRLT to drop by 10bpm.

Also, my resting HR was normal today, so I don't think that was the issue. 

Any thoughts are appreciated

brad

 



Edited by bshehan 2007-08-06 1:54 PM


2007-08-07 1:42 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Master
1641
100050010025
Cambridge, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

I'd like to know when a 10K race became a good distance for a LT test...I thought it was always closer to a 5K race, as in a 20 min all-out effort? 

Given the rising speed, falling HR and falling PR's, I'd say you're doing great, Brad, even if you're getting into the apples to oranges comparisons.  I think LT results are VERY dependent on weather conditions and course conditions.  Trying to replicate the test is noble, but mother nature doesn't always cooperate. 

That said, I would keep testing it every few months and look for general trends.  I would just chalk up today's numbers to a very good weather day and very good energy day for yourself, and not adjust the LT's you'd calc'd from your formal test 8 weeks ago.

Keep up the strong running and do tell where the 10K HR test for LT idea comes from if you get a chance....I'm curious, thanks!!

2007-08-07 2:03 PM
in reply to: #916713

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

SunnyS - 2007-08-07 2:42 PM I'd like to know when a 10K race became a good distance for a LT test...I thought it was always closer to a 5K race, as in a 20 min all-out effort? 

Nope ....... because then my running LT would be around 193 or so ...........

Your running LT is right around what your 1/2 marathon pace would be (for a faster runner) or a 15k (for a slower runner).  A solid 10k effort is a good gauge of what your LT would be, but still not quite accurate.  For example I averaged around 190 in my last 10k (and I'm a 36 year old guy).

Don't worry so much about the pace you were doing, but think about the perceived effort and variance in HR.

Did you have a good warm-up period or did you run the 10k cold?  This would account for some of the lower HR averages.  Using the typical LT testing you would warm up, then start your 30 minute TT and after 10 minutes, THEN hit your HRM to start the "lap" for the last 20 minutes, which is where you take the average.

It takes a bit for the HR to catch up with the effort, so while you may be feeling likt you are going all out, it takes a little bit for that HR to get to where the level of effort is.

Were you tired?  What sort of rest did you get?  Did you eat before hand?  Are you getting over a cold/flu?  Or maybe your last test was misrepresenting your real LT?  That is the problem with trying to train by HR ....... there are so many variables that change it (one of the many reasons to not be a slave to the monitor ).

2007-08-07 2:11 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
bshehan - 2007-08-06 1:48 PM

I went out this morning to do a run LT test. My last LT test was 8 weeks ago, and my HRLT was 183bpm with an average pace of 8:25/mi. My HRLT before that was 187bpm @ 8:40/mi pace (I got these numbers from a 10K race last November).

This morning I ran 10K in 49:13 @ 7:55/mi pace, cutting 4:27 off my last 10K PR, so I'm very excited about that. However, I'm a little confused. Here's why: My AHR was only 171, and MHR was only 178. Based on my last LT of 183bpm, 171 = mid Z3, and 178 = low Z4 (and I only hit Z4 for about 11 minutes of the run). At the time I felt like I was running at near full capacity (I've never run that fast before), but looking at the HR numbers, I'm wondering if I could've pushed it more.

I ran this test eary this morning while it was ~60 degrees. My previous tests have been when it was maybe 10 to 15 degrees warmer.

I am figuring that the lower HR is due to the cooler weather, but here's my question (finally): Should I adjust my HR zones to reflect my AHR from this run, or should I consider this a tempo run and keep my HR zones based on my last LT test?

I don't always run when it's nice and cool outside like today: Should I have a warm weather HRLT and a cool weather HRLT?

I know these are probably dumb questions. It's just that while I expected to run faster than I did on my last LT test, I didn't expect my HRLT to drop by 10bpm.

Also, my resting HR was normal today, so I don't think that was the issue. 

Any thoughts are appreciated

brad

 

a few questions: the AHR was for the entire 10K? was the AHR from previous tests also for the entire 10K?
2007-08-07 2:22 PM
in reply to: #916781

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
Daremo - 2007-08-07 3:03 PM

one of the many reasons to not be a slave to the monitor.

Next thing you're going to tell us that Newton's won't make me faster....... 

2007-08-07 2:28 PM
in reply to: #916713

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
SunnyS - 2007-08-07 1:42 PM

I'd like to know when a 10K race became a good distance for a LT test...I thought it was always closer to a 5K race, as in a 20 min all-out effort? 

10K is a better effort to obtain a number closer related to Lactate Threshold (term commonly used and misunderstand by many). For most athletes a 5K will be shorter to test LT and even the field test suggested here on BT is for 30 min not 20 min. from that test you can guesstimate your LT, but still and quoting Andrew Coggan “the best indicator of performance is performance itself”.

Some coaches believe they can guesstimate the training zones with a short test to spare their athletes from the long painful tests but IT IS supposed to be hard anyway… Some go as far a proposing training zones based on RPE to newcomers when most beginners don’t have the experience or feel for their bodies to gauge effort properly and most ended up training faster of what they should.

If you want to test your athletes and get a better guesstimate for their training zones have them run at the very least 30 min although IMO they should run a 10K as a minimum and a 12-15K would be even better (or 60 min) which will yield results closer to MLSS which is a lot more relevant for endurance sports. Plus, you not only want to get an AHR to define zones, you also want to use pace and RPE for them to better train and develop that feel different running efforts.



2007-08-07 2:29 PM
in reply to: #916829

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

Scout7 - 2007-08-07 3:22 PM Next thing you're going to tell us that Newton's won't make me faster....... 

Only if you're not a heel striker ..... Innocent

2007-08-07 2:29 PM
in reply to: #916829

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
Scout7 - 2007-08-07 2:22 PM
Daremo - 2007-08-07 3:03 PM

one of the many reasons to not be a slave to the monitor.

Next thing you're going to tell us that Newton's won't make me faster....... 

they won't???  >>> insert my freaking out face right here <<<

2007-08-07 2:37 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

bah, never mind



Edited by ChrisM 2007-08-07 2:40 PM
2007-08-07 4:01 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Master
1641
100050010025
Cambridge, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

Alright, I feel duped.  I thought the 20 min LT test was a well-worn, oft-used protocol.   Is this another case of Coach A says this and Coach B says that.... I'd really like some references to look up on this one, so I guess I'll be off to google and check my running resources links again soon.

Now I need to sign up for a 10K, run it like hell, and then use that as my LT HR?!?

Ugh.  Thanks for giving me more work, another run test, etc. 

Still love ya, Jorge.  Just pouting a little here... 

 

2007-08-07 4:22 PM
in reply to: #917061

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
SunnyS - 2007-08-07 4:01 PM

Alright, I feel duped.  I thought the 20 min LT test was a well-worn, oft-used protocol.   Is this another case of Coach A says this and Coach B says that.... I'd really like some references to look up on this one, so I guess I'll be off to google and check my running resources links again soon.

Now I need to sign up for a 10K, run it like hell, and then use that as my LT HR?!?

Ugh.  Thanks for giving me more work, another run test, etc. 

Still love ya, Jorge.  Just pouting a little here... 

 

Same here   Sadly many coaches recommend certain things because they either don't know any better, they don't understand the physiology behind it or both. As I told you at the NE tri expo; anyone can train a beginner, and some of those coaches I am making reference IMO take advantage of that.

Send me a PM with your email or just email me at [email protected] and I can share with ya some sites/documents and recommend some books (if you want to really understand it) with great info about LT, OBLA, MLSS, AeT, VT1, VT2, etc how each relates with each other, plus testing protocols, etc.



2007-08-07 5:41 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Master
2491
2000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
Judging by what's been said about run LT tests, then would a 15 mile bike TT be an acceptable LT Test?
2007-08-07 5:47 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Master
1641
100050010025
Cambridge, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

OK, Jorge, I'll drop you a note and make this my research project for Fall'07.  Right now I'm just trying to cruise into Timberman with a few more BRicks, distance OWS swims, and long-runs to go before taper week.   EEEEK!

-Sunny 

2007-08-07 5:50 PM
in reply to: #917225

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
monkeyboy64 - 2007-08-07 5:41 PM Judging by what's been said about run LT tests, then would a 15 mile bike TT be an acceptable LT Test?
yes although a better equivalent would be a 40k (or 25 miles) to calculate it. I am about to ride the trainer right now but I'll post later a few tests that you can try...
2007-08-07 6:31 PM
in reply to: #917228

User image

Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
SunnyS - 2007-08-07 3:47 PM

OK, Jorge, I'll drop you a note and make this my research project for Fall'07.  Right now I'm just trying to cruise into Timberman with a few more BRicks, distance OWS swims, and long-runs to go before taper week.   EEEEK!

-Sunny 

Some coaches, including the sponsoring coaches for this site, say that a 5K may be used.

just sayin

2007-08-07 6:40 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
My coach had determined my LT was around 162 bpm and I have been able to confirm that racing Olympic races where I use that as my max heart rate during the bike and run. I also verified it, as Jorgwe said, by running an open marathon averaging exactlty 162 bpm and finishing, in 2:59:33, completely spent.


2007-08-07 6:50 PM
in reply to: #917234

User image

Master
2491
2000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
amiine - 2007-08-07 6:50 PM

monkeyboy64 - 2007-08-07 5:41 PM Judging by what's been said about run LT tests, then would a 15 mile bike TT be an acceptable LT Test?
yes although a better equivalent would be a 40k (or 25 miles) to calculate it. I am about to ride the trainer right now but I'll post later a few tests that you can try...


Alright. I've recently found and been doing a 15 mi. TT with a local bike club, but I'll track the HR at my next/final Oly for the season.

Thanks, Jorge.
2007-08-07 7:24 PM
in reply to: #916781

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Northern California
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
Daremo - 2007-08-07 12:03 PM

SunnyS - 2007-08-07 2:42 PM I'd like to know when a 10K race became a good distance for a LT test...I thought it was always closer to a 5K race, as in a 20 min all-out effort?

Nope ....... because then my running LT would be around 193 or so ...........

Your running LT is right around what your 1/2 marathon pace would be (for a faster runner) or a 15k (for a slower runner). A solid 10k effort is a good gauge of what your LT would be, but still not quite accurate. For example I averaged around 190 in my last 10k (and I'm a 36 year old guy).

Don't worry so much about the pace you were doing, but think about the perceived effort and variance in HR.

Did you have a good warm-up period or did you run the 10k cold? This would account for some of the lower HR averages. Using the typical LT testing you would warm up, then start your 30 minute TT and after 10 minutes, THEN hit your HRM to start the "lap" for the last 20 minutes, which is where you take the average.

It takes a bit for the HR to catch up with the effort, so while you may be feeling likt you are going all out, it takes a little bit for that HR to get to where the level of effort is.

Were you tired? What sort of rest did you get? Did you eat before hand? Are you getting over a cold/flu? Or maybe your last test was misrepresenting your real LT? That is the problem with trying to train by HR ....... there are so many variables that change it (one of the many reasons to not be a slave to the monitor ).

To try to answer a few of the questions:

.I learned about using the 10K for a LT test by reading here on BT.
.I was well rested--took the previous two days off, and got a solid night's sleep.
.I warmed up before running the 10K.
.I'm not getting over being sick.
.I had a Gu with a glass of water before the run.
.For my previous LT test (8 weeks ago)  I used the protocol mentioned above: WU, then 30' TT, using the AHR for the last 20'.  I got 183bpm on that test.
.The time before that I ran a 10K race and used the AHR for the last 27' of the race (187bpm).  My AHR for the entire race was 180bpm.  I had done a couple of tests prior to that 10K, using the 30' TT protocol.  Those results were 182bpm and 185bpm.

This time my AHR for then entire 10K was 171bpm.  If I break out the 30' TT from the beginning of the run the AHR is 173bpm.  And if I break out the AHR from the end of the run it's still 173bpm.

My results (while I'm very happy with the progress I've made in speed and endurance) confused me since all my previous tests had an LT of >180bpm.  I'm still trying to figure out if I should adjust my HR training zones for the lower HR, or if I should consider this an anomouly and keep using 183bpm as my LT. 

I AM changing my training paces to reflect the knew 10K time.  I use the McMillan pace calculator. 

2007-08-08 10:14 AM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

I'd stick with around the 180 mark then ......

I'm in a similar conundrum in that for my tempo workouts I'm typically in the low 170's for my average but then in 10k racing situations I up in the low 190's, high 180's and can maintain that for the duration of the race ...... strange ....... I did have my LT at around 176, but I'm tossing around bumping it to 180.

Bryan ....... if you are marathoning at your LT you are a beast!!  That is supposed to be your 1/2 mary. pace.  And in pretty much every case I've heard, you cannot maintain work at or above your LT for more than an hour to an hour and a half.  So I'd actually throw the question out to your coach as to whether that number is really your LT.  My guess is that it is actually higher, if only slightly.



Edited by Daremo 2007-08-08 10:36 AM
2007-08-08 12:07 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
Yeah, Rick, it's sort of an estimate. My intitial aerobic and anerobic zones were dtermined via 2 VO2 tests, the last one being back in Nov. Where it get's confusing, for me and as Jorge pointed out earlier, is the differences between the definition of LT vs. aerobic and anerobic threshold. I may be mis-representing that 162 as being LT when what I am really refering to is an estimate of AT, or anerobic threshold, which in my case might be closer to 165. He isn't really concerned with my LT as I do all my training and racing below AT in an aerobic zone.

Edited by bryancd 2007-08-08 12:10 PM
2007-08-08 12:32 PM
in reply to: #918188

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

Yup ....... all makes sense there.

From everything I've read and experienced, running a few beats below my supposed LT got me my BQ last year (stayed around 165 - 172 or so).  In my 1/2 marathon before Boston I averaged in the 175 range, which is right around where my LT should be based on field tests.



2007-08-08 12:37 PM
in reply to: #918188

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test

bryancd - 2007-08-08 12:07 PM Yeah, Rick, it's sort of an estimate. My intitial aerobic and anerobic zones were dtermined via 2 VO2 tests, the last one being back in Nov. Where it get's confusing, for me and as Jorge pointed out earlier, is the differences between the definition of LT vs. aerobic and anerobic threshold. I may be mis-representing that 162 as being LT when what I am really refering to is an estimate of AT, or anerobic threshold, which in my case might be closer to 165. He isn't really concerned with my LT as I do all my training and racing below AT in an aerobic zone.
True for most of us tri-training and in particular HIM/IM, AT is the meat and potatoes of our training. However to become faster we need to increase our LT, hence it is very important to train at that intensity as well (in particular for someone at your level). Of course the beauty is that if you have a great base you will be able to absorb greater workload (which doesn’t necessarily mean more volume but maybe more intensity) in hopes to achieve peak performance.

Maybe he is not concern about it for now, but you'll get to that cycle 4 weeks before Kona or maybe since if I am not mistaken, you are relatively new to endurance sports thus your time will be better spent increasing your aerobic engine. (not saying it is right or wrong, just clarifying that LT training it is a key component of training)

EDIT -  and yes, unless you are an elite marathoner it will be almost impossible for you to run a mary at your LT, however you could run at or justt below your MLSS



Edited by amiine 2007-08-08 12:41 PM
2007-08-08 12:49 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
Indeed and he does. When I do interval work, as I did prior to IMAZ, we would use 165 as my cap HR for the speed work, ocassionally doing 100% short duration stuff as well. Although relatively new to triathlon, I did come from a running background, I had aerobic capacity, just no discipline on how to train it to be better.
2007-08-08 1:19 PM
in reply to: #915110

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
It should be noted that while the longer test will provide more accurate measurements, a 5k test is just fine.  Many people (new to endurance activities, especially on "Beginner Triathlete" will not be able to complete a 10k test.  That does not mean that the can not perform a field test and get a good estimate of LT.  Heck for those who can't run 20 minutes or a 5k, they could use HR or RPE so that they can still improve.  Truth be told outside of an actuall LT test where they draw blood, all these are estimates anyway.
2007-08-08 2:29 PM
in reply to: #917264

User image

Pro
6582
50001000500252525
Melbourne FL
Gold member
Subject: RE: 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test
ChrisM - 2007-08-07 7:31 PM

Some coaches, including the sponsoring coaches for this site, say that a 5K may be used.

just sayin

I do know one sponsoring coach on BT published this in Triathlete magazine this past winter:
"Results: Like the cycling tests, you can use your average heart rate over the duration of these tests to determine training zones. If you decide to use a 5K race as your benchmark -- or anything less than 30 minutes -- you should probably use 95 percent of the average heart rate for your LT, as its easy to drive your heart rate up knowing you only have to suffer for a short period of time."

I was told to use 98% of a 10k race average for Run LT.  Taking the last 30 minutes sounds logical too as it removes the initial lower HR from the average. 

10-15F difference in temp's can make a difference in HR especially if humidity is factored in.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » 10K PR, and making sense of latest LT test Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2