LT field test results- need guidance
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2009-10-13 8:32 AM |
Veteran 285 indian land, South Carolina | Subject: LT field test results- need guidance Ok so I attempted my first LT field test this AM as per running protocol posted in various forums on BT. My avg HR for the last 20 mins was 170. For some reason this sounds low to me. My pace during that last 20 mins was 8:26 (faster than my 5k PR pace of 8:30) so i know I wasn't dogging it and I was pretty close to reaching my limit at the end of that 20 mins. When i went back to my blog and adjusted my HR zones the results look like this: HR/Pace label Range data label Cumulative Time in zone 1 - Recovery 112 - 144 28m 10s 2 - Extensive Endurance 145 - 154 1h 16m 11s 3 - Intensive Endurance 155 - 162 6h 01m 05s 4 - Sub-Threshold 163 - 169 10h 23m 11s 5a - SuperThreshold 170 - 173 6h 48m 06s 5b - Anaerobic Endurance 175 - 179 5c - Power 180 - 188 |
|
2009-10-13 8:36 AM in reply to: #2456652 |
Runner | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance Only bit of guidance I can give you is to not compare your numbers to anyone else's. |
2009-10-13 8:43 AM in reply to: #2456652 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance If your test was accrate it would appear that you're doing most of your training at too hard of an effort. How do your training paces compare to your race paces? |
2009-10-13 8:51 AM in reply to: #2456681 |
Veteran 285 indian land, South Carolina | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance the bear - 2009-10-13 9:43 AM If your test was accrate it would appear that you're doing most of your training at too hard of an effort. How do your training paces compare to your race paces? 5k race pace for me is about 8:30min/mile....lately have been training in the 9:30 (short) to 11:00 on longer runs. |
2009-10-13 8:57 AM in reply to: #2456695 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-13 8:51 AM the bear - 2009-10-13 9:43 AM If your test was accrate it would appear that you're doing most of your training at too hard of an effort. How do your training paces compare to your race paces? 5k race pace for me is about 8:30min/mile....lately have been training in the 9:30 (short) to 11:00 on longer runs. What paces were you running when you generated that 16+ hours in Z4 and Z5? Edited by the bear 2009-10-13 8:57 AM |
2009-10-13 8:59 AM in reply to: #2456713 |
Veteran 285 indian land, South Carolina | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance the bear - 2009-10-13 9:57 AM jaxbamf73 - 2009-10-13 8:51 AM the bear - 2009-10-13 9:43 AM If your test was accrate it would appear that you're doing most of your training at too hard of an effort. How do your training paces compare to your race paces? 5k race pace for me is about 8:30min/mile....lately have been training in the 9:30 (short) to 11:00 on longer runs. What paces were you running when you generated that 16+ hours in Z4 and Z5? 9-9:30 |
|
2009-10-13 9:01 AM in reply to: #2456652 |
Runner | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance I'm interested in the fact that you ran the LT Field Test 4 seconds per mile FASTER than your 5K PR. That suggests: you have an old 5K PR; you have a soft 5K PR; you ran the test too hard. |
2009-10-13 9:07 AM in reply to: #2456724 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance |
2009-10-13 9:13 AM in reply to: #2456740 |
Runner | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance the bear - 2009-10-13 10:07 AM Scout7 - 2009-10-13 9:01 AM I'm interested in the fact that you ran the LT Field Test 4 seconds per mile FASTER than your 5K PR. That suggests: you have an old 5K PR; you have a soft 5K PR; you ran the test too hard. That's his pace over 20 minutes of running. Wouldn't you expect that to be at faster pace than a full 5K (which would take him an additional 6:30 at his pace)? From my understanding, the field test is 30 minutes total. I was under the impression the first 10 minutes should be run at around the same pace/effort. Regardless, would that pace be indicative of LT? I would think that sub 5K pace would be above LT. |
2009-10-13 9:16 AM in reply to: #2456754 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance Scout7 - 2009-10-13 9:13 AM the bear - 2009-10-13 10:07 AM Scout7 - 2009-10-13 9:01 AM I'm interested in the fact that you ran the LT Field Test 4 seconds per mile FASTER than your 5K PR. That suggests: you have an old 5K PR; you have a soft 5K PR; you ran the test too hard. That's his pace over 20 minutes of running. Wouldn't you expect that to be at faster pace than a full 5K (which would take him an additional 6:30 at his pace)? From my understanding, the field test is 30 minutes total. I was under the impression the first 10 minutes should be run at around the same pace/effort. Regardless, would that pace be indicative of LT? I would think that sub 5K pace would be above LT. I'd have to agree that the test was flawed in some regard, especially when you see that seemingly appropriate training paces result in a lot of time spent in Z4 and Z5 as determined by that test.. |
2009-10-13 9:17 AM in reply to: #2456652 |
Expert 792 Leicester | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance It looks like LT is approx 90% of your max (170/190) although elite guys and pro's are higher most of us mere mortals are below that % wise. Training below 170BPM should still give you plenty of options. I just did the LT test and came out with 160, I was happy with that, simple reference for run/bike when I'm trying to concentrate on the road. Edited by alex jb 2009-10-13 9:19 AM |
|
2009-10-13 9:18 AM in reply to: #2456652 |
New user 73 Collegeville | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance /Hijack |
2009-10-13 9:19 AM in reply to: #2456652 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance I would go with them for now and retest in a month. If your pace was that close to your 5k PR then you probably did the test right. HR could have been off for any number of reasons...temp, time of the day, caffeine, etc. So, use the zones for now and retest in a month... |
2009-10-13 9:28 AM in reply to: #2456652 |
Veteran 285 indian land, South Carolina | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance ^^^^^Thanks, it was close so I'll use it. The cumulative time is skewed because that's the total time since I've been using the HR monitor on runs. Yes, it was an old PR (6 months), but it was close (only 4 secs faster). I've probably been pushing a little too hard on my longer training runs (which is why I did the test to see where I need to be) thanks for all the advice and input. |
2009-10-13 2:19 PM in reply to: #2456771 |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance edmac - 2009-10-13 10:18 AM /Hijack Yes |
2009-10-13 4:29 PM in reply to: #2456652 |
Expert 950 Ann Arbor | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance I actually did my first LT test this morning and ended up with 171. I was setting up my new Timex and realized that the zones that it outputs for whatever input HR(It asks for MHR but I plug in LT) start at 50% and increase my 10% until zone5. As Follows: Zone1 86-102 Zone2 103-119 Zone3 120-136 Zone4 137-153 Zone5 154-171 With these zones, my heart rate never goes above 100% of LT. These are the zones from the BT calculator: 1 - Recovery 113 - 145 2 - Extensive Endurance 146 - 155 3 - Intensive Endurance 156 - 163 4 - Sub-Threshold 164 - 170 5a - SuperThreshold 171 - 174 5b - Anaerobic Endurance 176 - 180 5c - Power 181 - 189 1 66%-85% 2 85%-90% 3 90%-95% 4 95%-99% 5 100%-102% 102%-105% 105%-111% I understand what the results of the LT test mean. And my MHR for my test was 189 but why are the percentages of LT so high from the BT calculator. Which zones should I train under? The zones determined with my Timex seem considerably lower than the BT zones. If I use the zones on my Timex based on my MHR during my LT test rather than my AVHR from my LT test, then my zones are higher. What numbers should I train with? |
|
2009-10-13 4:36 PM in reply to: #2457805 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance carlwithac - 2009-10-13 4:29 PM I actually did my first LT test this morning and ended up with 171. I was setting up my new Timex and realized that the zones that it outputs for whatever input HR(It asks for MHR but I plug in LT) start at 50% and increase my 10% until zone5. As Follows: I understand what the results of the LT test mean. And my MHR for my test was 189 but why are the percentages of LT so high from the BT calculator. Which zones should I train under? The zones determined with my Timex seem considerably lower than the BT zones. If I use the zones on my Timex based on my MHR during my LT test rather than my AVHR from my LT test, then my zones are higher. What numbers should I train with? Your test is designed to determine your LTHR, not your MHR. Even your maximum heart rate reached during the test is probably not your MHR. If you plug any number derived during the test into your watch where it asks for MHR, the resulting zones are liable to be incorrect. GIGO. |
2009-10-13 4:40 PM in reply to: #2457816 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance the bear - 2009-10-13 6:36 PM Your test is designed to determine your LTHR, not your MHR. Even your maximum heart rate reached during the test is probably not your MHR. If you plug any number derived during the test into your watch where it asks for MHR, the resulting zones are liable to be incorrect. GIGO. x2 - the Timex zones are simply based off %'s of MHR not based on your fitness (like the LTHR) so I would not use the Timex zones. When I was using HR zones and my Timex, I programmed my custom zone to zone 4 numbers and would used the alerts to guide my effort (before I was confident in my ability to just go out and run in zone 4). You could do this for whatever target zone you wanted for a given workout. Shane |
2009-10-13 4:43 PM in reply to: #2457816 |
Expert 950 Ann Arbor | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance My Timex is just giving percentages of whatever number I input. It just happens to ask for MHR because that's what it was setup to do. I am thinking about just using the manual zone for anything about 100% of my LT |
2009-10-13 4:43 PM in reply to: #2457805 |
Expert 1310 Alabama | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance keep in mind, i'm no expert. your timex is finding your zones based on your Max HR, which is different than calculating them based on LT. My understanding is that your LT zones are more accurate. You should be able to program in your LT zones to your timex somehow, i would think. Also from my uderstanding, you are to do most of your training in Z2 based on your LT, so that would be in the Extensive Endurance Zone. That's about all i have so far. Others will be able to provide much more and probably better information. |
2009-10-13 5:57 PM in reply to: #2457828 |
Expert 950 Ann Arbor | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance pilotzs - 2009-10-13 4:43 PM keep in mind, i'm no expert. your timex is finding your zones based on your Max HR, which is different than calculating them based on LT. My understanding is that your LT zones are more accurate. You should be able to program in your LT zones to your timex somehow, i would think. Also from my uderstanding, you are to do most of your training in Z2 based on your LT, so that would be in the Extensive Endurance Zone. That's about all i have so far. Others will be able to provide much more and probably better information. My Timex will give me 5 zones each including 10% of whatever HR value I plug in regardless of if the number I plug in is my LT or my MHR. I am just wondering what zones I should be using. I would like to use my Timex to keep track of my zones during workouts since I just payed a nice chunk of change for it. I would just like to know if the more specific BT zones will be better. |
|
2009-10-13 7:58 PM in reply to: #2457943 |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance carlwithac - 2009-10-13 6:57 PM My Timex will give me 5 zones each including 10% of whatever HR value I plug in regardless of if the number I plug in is my LT or my MHR. I am just wondering what zones I should be using. I would like to use my Timex to keep track of my zones during workouts since I just payed a nice chunk of change for it. I would just like to know if the more specific BT zones will be better. OK, you need to stop over analyzing it. A vast majority of your runs should be in the 146-155 range, the Z2 of the LT calc. Forget what the HRM says the ranges are. In my cheapo Polar HRM I can manually input a zone to use and I only used the LT Z2 range because I used the HRM the most on my endurance runs. |
2009-10-14 7:08 AM in reply to: #2457805 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance carlwithac - 2009-10-13 6:29 PM These are the zones from the BT calculator: 1 - Recovery 113 - 145 2 - Extensive Endurance 146 - 155 3 - Intensive Endurance 156 - 163 4 - Sub-Threshold 164 - 170 5a - SuperThreshold 171 - 174 5b - Anaerobic Endurance 176 - 180 5c - Power 181 - 189 Use these zones not the Timex ones. The Timex ones (as you point out) are just 10% blocks based on a HR you enter while these are based (more or less) on the training response due to the physiological stress training places on the body. Shane |
2009-10-14 7:20 PM in reply to: #2456660 |
Veteran 123 | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance Scout7 - 2009-10-13 8:36 AM Only bit of guidance I can give you is to not compare your numbers to anyone else's. I couldn't agree more. My run LT avg was 134, max 145 using the 20 minute TT. I tried using Joe Friels "Going Long" to calculate my zones but his zones didn't go low enough. I googled the subject and came up with this link- http://www.sheerbalance.com/fitness-section/exercise-basics/exercise-intensity-target-heart-rate/ My zones still need tweaking but it's not too far off. Good luck |
2009-10-14 8:24 PM in reply to: #2456652 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: LT field test results- need guidance X whatever on lots of the comments above. My advice: trust the numbers then retest in maybe 6 weeks. Assuming that you followed the protocol (10 minutes WU, 30 minutes all out, LTHR is avg over last 20 minutes) -- and it looks like you did -- then you didn't go too hard during the relevant portion of the test (last 20 minutes), so if anything the number is too low (but there's no reason to think it is), and training lower than prescribed is not a disaster. And since you're new to HR training, I'll add that you need to start learning how other factors (temperature, hydration, nutrition, sleep, stress, training load, etc.) affect your HR, which can be done only by careful long-term observation. Don't be a slave to the numbers. Learn how to interpret them. Good luck! |
|