IM Heart Rate Assessment
I'd like to institute more of the 'run by HR' vs. purely pace at IMMOO in September. I have rarely looked at HR in the past. For IMAZ (my only previous IM) I tried to follow the EP+30 seconds, then EP for as long as you can. I started to fall back at mile 15ish then it was mostly on RPE as my pace dropped from 8:00 gradually to 9:00 by the end of the race until mile 24-25.
So...given I've not prepared as much as I could by actually looking at my HR and monitoring it, I've done the next best thing which is to track it.
So here are my data points and a few graphs:
Most recent race 2 weeks ago. Racine 70.3 Bike Avg HR of 142 (2:32 split) and Run Avg HR of 154 (1:38 split). Note that I intentionally left a bit on the table as I didn't want to sacrifice too much training post race.
Racine Bike:
 |
| From Racine 70.3 |
Racine Run:
 |
| From Racine 70.3 |
My last standalone running race was a HIM in November which I PRed at 1:26. Avg HR was 159 and pretty stable. Chart follows:
 |
| From Racine 70.3 |
Going back to November 2011 with IMAZ where my fitness was similar, but my power and pace are up modestly (255 to270FTP and 52 to 53 VDOT) my Bike had an average HR of 130. Run avg HR was 144, but wasn't steady and dropped toward the end of the race as shown here
 |
| From Racine 70.3 |
So...that's a few datapoints over a couple years. I'd like to pay more attention to it and plan to integrate into my race execution. I'll work it into my remaining training, starting with the IMMOO camp this weekend where I'll 'test' it on the RR run, but this isn't ideal as I'll only get a read on the first 8 miles or so.
My thinking is that the Racine 70.3 numbers are the best proxy given the recency and longer run, but since I never really pushed the envelope on the run they may be a bit conservative (but that could be offset by the higher intensity of a HIM). Following that logic...I'm thinking that 145-150 is my 'sweet spot' for IM run pacing. I may try the high end first to see how I feel and if it holds up.
Thoughts/suggestions?
Thanks!
Comments
This is as great topic - I guess there's just too much racing going on past weekend for people to notice it?
Here are two threads from about a year ago to check out:
http://members.endurancenation.us/Forums/tabid/57/aft/9596/afnp/118843/Default.aspx
http://members.endurancenation.us/Forums/tabid/57/aft/9607/afnp/120445/Default.aspx
The second one was started by Coach P, and includes his recs in this area. I will quote from one of my posts in those threads with my bullet point ("pearl" in medical education-talk): "...what I experienced as I was teaching myself how to race an IM marathon at a steady pace using RPE and HR. I found myself starting in the upper Z1, and ending up at the very bottom rung of Z2. I have multiple index cards with my pace and HR data from IM marathons 2006-2010 which I just reviewed which tell me this."
The other key point, IMO, is how to use RPE: The idea is NOT to have a steady RPE during the course of the run, but rather have it be gradually but steadily increasing through out the course of the 26.2 miles, from "stupid slow" through (based on RPE during routine training workouts) thru LRP > MP > HMP > TP > 10K > 5k > IP, with the HR "drifiting" ever so slightly upwards, and pace staying pretty much the same.
(1) Hard to compare HR absolute #'s in different races because the conditions will make a difference and I believe an HIM run and an open half-marathon run will have different HR dynamics. For example I PR-ed in a half-marathon (also 1:26!) back in March in DC, avg HR 176 (my max is around 194 and I regularly hit 188-ish in intervals), very flat profile with no drift over the course of the race...looks almost exactly like yours only centered on a different number: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/284912844 . On the other hand some 70.3 runs' average HR: 166, 168, 168, 164, 162. The fastest one of those was 1:34 so clearly an underperformance, but the point is that the dynamic is different from the open HM. The muscular endurance is the limiter I think. But your physiology may be different than mine and you might execute better (i.e. run to your potential, which I don't think I've done yet in an HIM). The other point is that the 166, 168, 168 and 164 run time had a 4 minute spread. So the paces were a lot different despite the similar HRs.
(2) The lack of upward drift in your HR at Racine is impressive. As you saw in the above link I ran my open half-maration with a very flat profile. But all of my 70.3 runs start low and gradually tick upwards, a few examples:
Racine 2012: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/199755874
Racine 2011: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/99940795
Kansas 2013: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/325513073
Vegas 2012: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/221391178
If you can get your HR up to the sweet spot quickly out of the gate and hold it then you'll be in good shape. Read Coach P's write up on this and what he did at IMTX en route to an AG win.
But back to my first observation and I ask...what is the sweet spot? In an IM maybe you take the Racine number and call it the sweet spot. I'd argue that if you weren't totally spent at the end of Racine (which is what you said), then your HR at Racine was low by a bunch of points and you should have been closer to the 159 of your open HM by the end. That probably means the lower number (i.e. the actual Racine number).
Honestly there are so many variables when it comes to HR. You need to calibrate your RPE really well so you know how your HR is playing out on any given day. And once your RPE is that well calibrated, you can use it and pace over HR almost any day IMO.