Racer X Virtual Trainer

The last couple of months I have started training with a heart rate monitor. Great investment! After reading all the info on here I bought one and found that I was pushing way too hard on easy days and not hard enough on tempo runs (e.g. zone #4)!!

I train with a friend regularly. He isn't quite as fit as I am, but pretty close on most exercises. As a rule, take either my weight or time and multiply it by 2/3rds and that will be where he is at. I am 35 and he is 43 and we have been training together for a couple of years.

When we got the heart rate monitors we did a Max HR run test. My max is 185 and his is 188. So here is what happened. We decide to do a 27 minute, zone #4 tempo run - 10 minute warm up and 10 minute cool down. My target zone is 157-167 (just using 85-90% of max not the Karvonen method) and my friend's is 160-169.

During the run I am working hard (which is what I would expect) to keep my heart rate at or above 157 - under 8 minute miles. My friend on the other hand, isn't working very hard, running terribly slowly (around 11 min miles) and can barely keep his heart rate below 169!! Now he is capable of running for an hour at about a 10 to 10.5 minute pace. I know his heart rate monitor is correct since it matches machine rates when we use those.

We have experienced a similar effect on recovery runs. I am barely able to get above 120 and he is barely able to stay below 150 - I am nearly walking!!

My question is: what can be inferred from this? I have thought about this for some time and really don't have a good argument why it would be easy for him to work at this level or why his heart rate escalates so easily. If the answer is that he is just out of shape, I really don't see how since we workout together. Maybe he simply needs more recovery??

Thanks for your input.

Jason

Just spoke to my friend. Last week he ran for 65 minutes while maintaining a heart rate of 170!! Said he could have kept going except he was getting a blister on his foot.

What gives?

Hmmm, let me think about this one a bit and give the rest of the trainers a chance to weigh in.

How long have you both been running (experience levels?)

I have a strong feeling the error is in the max heart rate numbers. Try doing aLactate Threshold test instead of the max heart rate test and see if that makes a difference.

_________________
Tim Crytser
Your Virtual Trainer
www.racerxVT.com

IMO, using heart rate zones based on formulas that don't use LT aren't worth anything really. Especially for comparative reasons like you are trying to do.

He can have a smaller stroke volume, a lower ejection fraction, etc. tons of individual differences that using the formulas w/o and actual and individual LT will never have any comparative value.

I guarantee if you both do an LT test and use HR zones based on that, all the sudden it will all make sense.

_________________
Coach Seiji
www.coachseiji.com

Thanks! Great information as always on this site. I guess I thought that since we weren't using formulas, but actual max heart rates that the zones would be correct.

Now that I read that answer, it makes perfect sense. Next on my agenda is some LT testing (I had this on a long to do list anyway). I will report back after the test and then using those zones (probably about a week and a half).

Tim - I initially forgot to answer your question. I have been running for quite some time longer than he has. From 2002 through early 2006 my only training was running - I averaged around 25 miles per week. He just started running in 2006 and never put in those weekly mileage totals since I started to become more educated on my training and stopped logging only training with LSD miles!!

Thanks again,
Jason

Once you guys both do the Lactate test, make sure you come back and report so every one else can learn from a real world example and train smarter!

_________________
Tim Crytser
Your Virtual Trainer
www.racerxVT.com

We both completed the test this morning. Needless to say it was about as much fun as expected!! For whatever reason, I always run slower on a treadmill (I know this is opposite of most people), but we used the treadmill so we could guarantee consistency when we retest in the future.

Joe (my friend): LTHR (average over last 20 minutes work):179
Total Distance: 3.05 miles. Min HR: 172 Max HR: 187.

Me: LTHR: 176
Total Distance: 3.6 miles. Min HR: 163 Max HR: 187.

We were both completely exhausted at the end, but Joe ramped up a bit quicker and had to back off whereas I just gradually made small increases throughout trying not to have to back off the pace.

Using Coach Seiji's recommended zones, this appears to give a fairly large range for Zone #4 for Joe. In particular, because he absolutely doesn't breath hard while maintaining a HR around 169-171. I guess he would have to go on the higher end of the range to get a more anaerobic workout. I will post another update when we do a zone #4 workout next.

Awhile ago I read Chris Carmichael's Food for Fitness (book that focuses on periodization for your diet to correspond to your ATP. That is, as intensity increases the percentage of carbs and total calories increases....). Anyway, he recommended a test similar to Coach Seiji's except it is an 8 minute all out test with (and I would have to check) potentially different percentages. In that test, he states that he varies this depending on the sport. If one of you wouldn't mind, I would love to hear the thought process that goes behind choosing the appropriate "time" for a test and if the percentages change depending on the length of the test? Is there any logic behind altering the standard LTHR test?

Thanks for all the help! The information that is being provided on this website and forum really just doesn't exist elsewhere on the internet.

Jason

I used to work at CTS so I am very familiar with their testing protocol. I like the longer test for several reasons. The main one being that in a lot of trained athletes, it takes much longer than 8 minutes to elicit a steady state heart rate that is indicative of a true LT. I know you warm up, etc. before doing the 3 x 8 CTS test but still, again, in trained individuals in 8 minutes your HR may still be on the rise, power may still be going up, etc. When I first started at CTS I though the reason for this protocol was to make the testing easier for the average guy and to make athletes more motivated to retest on a regular basis since a 30 minute all out effort is pretty daunting. I know that in some individuals the two protocols produce nearly the same number for LT but IMO if you are going to test then TEST and to me this means an LT elicited by enough volume to mimic a true world maximum voluntary effort which for a true "aerobic" sport will certainly involve efforts longer than 8 minutes. Remember that testing is very specific to activity so you are testing to produce HR zones for cycling NOT motocross and your cycling efforts are going to be longer than 8 minutes usually. Just my .02.

_________________
Coach Seiji
www.coachseiji.com

Thanks for the information - that makes perfect sense. The test is definitely not easy. As to your comment of not getting to the true heart rate that could very well be true. During the LTHR test I did today I actually achieved a higher heart rate than I did when performing the Max HR test I did a couple of months ago with 400m interval repeats. I thought my max was 185, but today I achieved 187 at the end of the 30 minutes.


Thanks again for the help. I can't believe this forum is actually free!!
Jason

Glad we (well actually only Coach Seiji) could help.

hmmmm, maybe I should start charging to use the site......nahhhhh

_________________
Tim Crytser
Your Virtual Trainer
www.racerxVT.com