General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2007-08-02 7:05 PM

User image

Veteran
254
1001002525
San Jose, CA
Subject: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?

Have read that this statement is kinda true but wasn't sure if that was reliable. Can someone confirm or completely shoot it down

Why am I asking ... well since I just did my LT on my bike and was hoping to skimp on a LT test for my running ... hence .

BTW , my LT was 174 for the bike ... hopefully thats in the ballpark for a slow 34 yr old male with a couple of years of sporadic running/endurance training  



2007-08-02 7:14 PM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Champion
8936
50002000100050010010010010025
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
Your running LT = your running LT. 
2007-08-02 7:15 PM
in reply to: #911828

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
DerekL - 2007-08-02 7:14 PM Your running LT = your running LT. 
x2, IOW go out and test it as well!
2007-08-02 8:13 PM
in reply to: #911830

Elite
3130
2000100010025
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?

amiine - 2007-08-02 6:15 PM
DerekL - 2007-08-02 7:14 PM Your running LT = your running LT. 
x2, IOW go out and test it as well!

Your HIM finishing time will be 5:32.

There, now you can skip ALL of your training and move on to something else.

or put more nicely: 

x3, there are no shortcuts.

 



Edited by ScottoNM 2007-08-02 8:17 PM
2007-08-02 10:18 PM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Champion
19812
50005000500020002000500100100100
MA
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?

Suck it up and do the run LT test...it hurts but it will be accurate.

FYI my bike and run were much farther apart than 8-10 beats until this year as it took me 3 years to learn to really push myself on the bike.  

2007-08-02 11:40 PM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Veteran
254
1001002525
San Jose, CA
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?

jeez ... what did I expect anyway :-)
can rely on you folks to keep me honest ! 

just that I had my long run tomorrow and was hoping to leverage what seems like my new Bike/Run LT . Needless to say, I will be doing a Running Field Test next week .

But ... But ... but , for the sake of argument , not that am planning on using the easy way out (definitely , not after the overwhelming anti-response!) , is the fact that , on an average , Running LT is usually 8-10 beats more than the Bike LT ?



2007-08-03 6:12 AM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Champion
7036
5000200025
Sarasota, FL
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?

My coach tested me for my LTHR (& VO2 Max) on my bike using a Computrainer and then used the charts in Friel's The Triathlete's Training Bible to figure out my running HR training zones.   According to the charts, my running training zones are about 5-7 beats faster than the equivalent bike zones.

I suppose I could do a running LTHR test to get exact numbers for running, but the charts seem to give me pretty reasonable numbers based on the bike test.  Because of my mechanical heart valve my cardiologist doesn't like it when I push my HR too high (zones 4 & 5) for any prolonged period of time.

Mark

2007-08-03 1:14 PM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
While I generally agree that you should just go out and do a running LT test, it all comes down to your perceived exertion.

When you do an LT test, you are supposed to push as hard as you can for that duration of time knowing that you could not have gone harder. You are not looking at your HRM during your LT test saying to yourself that you need to keep it above a certain level for your LT test to be accurate.

What that means is your LT testing is based on your perceived exertion and not on feedback from your HRM. What happens next is that many athletes become slaves to the HRM monitor and forget about perceived exertion.

How do you know that in the first 10 minutes of your running or biking LT test that you are running at the right pace? Well, practice for one, if you've done one before. But basically you know by feel that this is the pace you can sustain. In the end, it comes down to your pace more-so than your HR as they key factor in performance.

HR monitor is a great window into your body's response to exercise.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's fine to guesstimate your running HR zones after having done a bike test or vice versa, as long as you know that they may be off by a few beats. But what is more important is taht you should be listening to the feedback your body is giving you while training in various HR zones.

Ultimately, yes, you need to do an LT test for each sport not only to set zones, but also to measure progress and see if your physiology is changing with training.

But if you were my athlete given your current circumumstance, I would just have you do your runs based on perceived exertion rather than your HR zones.

The more I work with athletes & HR monitors, the more i realize how important it is for everyone to be in tune with their body over and above their HRM.
2007-08-03 1:21 PM
in reply to: #911990

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
sachinh - 2007-08-02 10:40 PM

jeez ... what did I expect anyway :-)
can rely on you folks to keep me honest !

just that I had my long run tomorrow and was hoping to leverage what seems like my new Bike/Run LT . Needless to say, I will be doing a Running Field Test next week .

But ... But ... but , for the sake of argument , not that am planning on using the easy way out (definitely , not after the overwhelming anti-response!) , is the fact that , on an average , Running LT is usually 8-10 beats more than the Bike LT ?



To answer this question specifically...I don't know the answer! BUT, Joe Friel is an exercise physiologist and has real data on thousands of athetes. So if he's compiled averages, then they are probably accurate. HOWEVER, for the same reason that the MAX HR formula is garbage (article on my website), using an average to obtain your running LT has the same drawbacks. IF you don't know what the standard deviation is of that sample, the RANGE of differences could be anywhere from5 to 20 beats or more.

You just don't know UNLESS
1) You test it
2) You really listen to your body, and have the experience as KathyG alluded to, of knowing when you are truly pushing yourself. Or have built up the strength to push yourself.
2007-08-03 1:36 PM
in reply to: #911990

Elite
3130
2000100010025
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
sachinh - 2007-08-02 10:40 PM

 is the fact that , on an average , Running LT is usually 8-10 beats more than the Bike LT ?

That is the conventional wisdom, yes.

And my own data are consistent with that.

 

2007-08-03 4:53 PM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
There is a LT test on the computrainer?


2007-08-06 2:50 PM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Veteran
254
1001002525
San Jose, CA
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?

Just thought I'll let everyone know that I did do my running LT field Test Seems like I had a LT of 183 but am not entirely sure since my FR sync is not working and from the lap readout am not sure if it tells me average HR or peak HR for the lap.

But , the important thing is yes ... I did do a field test and not rely on the "formula" :-

2007-08-06 4:22 PM
in reply to: #912646

User image

Veteran
254
1001002525
San Jose, CA
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?

AdventureBear - 2007-08-03 11:14 AM While I generally agree that you should just go out and do a running LT test, it all comes down to your perceived exertion. When you do an LT test, you are supposed to push as hard as you can for that duration of time knowing that you could not have gone harder. You are not looking at your HRM during your LT test saying to yourself that you need to keep it above a certain level for your LT test to be accurate. What that means is your LT testing is based on your perceived exertion and not on feedback from your HRM. What happens next is that many athletes become slaves to the HRM monitor and forget about perceived exertion. How do you know that in the first 10 minutes of your running or biking LT test that you are running at the right pace? Well, practice for one, if you've done one before. But basically you know by feel that this is the pace you can sustain. In the end, it comes down to your pace more-so than your HR as they key factor in performance. HR monitor is a great window into your body's response to exercise. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's fine to guesstimate your running HR zones after having done a bike test or vice versa, as long as you know that they may be off by a few beats. But what is more important is taht you should be listening to the feedback your body is giving you while training in various HR zones. Ultimately, yes, you need to do an LT test for each sport not only to set zones, but also to measure progress and see if your physiology is changing with training. But if you were my athlete given your current circumumstance, I would just have you do your runs based on perceived exertion rather than your HR zones. The more I work with athletes & HR monitors, the more i realize how important it is for everyone to be in tune with their body over and above their HRM.

Its really interesting to see this kind of input since this is/was my concern . While I'm concerned about just blindly relying on my HR-zones, it helps if I know that following this I will get fast/efficient.  The flipside to this , is that  I see friends/others do without HR training and run just great . Of course , each to his own and all .

Guess the challenge that I have is how does one balance the HR training versus the RPE approach . 

 

2007-08-06 7:47 PM
in reply to: #911820

User image

Expert
1049
100025
Jacksonville, FL
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
How far off were your results than if you did the 220-age formula?

I did the bike LT test on Saturday and my result was 166. Using the age formula comes to 167. I should have skipped the test, except it was a great workout and good test to see how fast I could go for 30 minutes.
2007-08-06 7:53 PM
in reply to: #915422

User image

Pro
6582
50001000500252525
Melbourne FL
Gold member
Subject: RE: Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ?
sachinh - 2007-08-06 5:22 PM

Its really interesting to see this kind of input since this is/was my concern . While I'm concerned about just blindly relying on my HR-zones, it helps if I know that following this I will get fast/efficient.  The flipside to this , is that  I see friends/others do without HR training and run just great . Of course , each to his own and all .

Guess the challenge that I have is how does one balance the HR training versus the RPE approach . 

Ah Grasshopper, it comes with time!  I started HR training ~Dec 05, about year & a HIM later I was so in tune with my RPE having logged many miles with the HRM that I hardly wear the HRM anymore, and haven't for any race this year.  I wore it for the first time in a very long time last week to re-check my HR vs RPE with the intense summer heat & humidity we're having now.  Stick with the HRM training and you'll become in tune with the RPE over time...however heat and humidity will affect your HR when your training in it so that is where RPE becomes very handy.

Oh, BTW, when I started HR training my run LT was +11 bpm vs the bike. Earlier this year I rechecked my bike LT and it increased 9 bpm from last year.  Haven't bothered with rechecking my run, RPE tells me where I'm at these days

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Running LT = Biking LT + 8-10 beats ? Rss Feed