Options
Sheila Leard - Santa Rosa 70.3 report - what to use -Pace-HR-Watts-RPE
Hey Team - a discussion got started in the GroupMe Chat on differing views of which metrics to use when racing. It's interesting to me because as a Boomer athlete I am watching my HR stay disconnected from my watts and pace. For example my HR is reading Zone 3 sometimes 4 on the bike and run but my watts and pace are reading zone 2. When this is happening my RPE is up but I can handle it if I'm hydrated and fueled.
Last week at Santa Rosa 70.3 I wanted to experiment bringing my watts up at the end of the bike and start the run with the same HR. It didn't work mostly because I had to wait 3.5 hours to start the bike because of a canceled swim. My bib# was high and I was staged at the end. When I got going I had to pass packs of very slow riders. So from the get go I started with a high HR. I could see that I was burning matches but had I not took the risk of letting HR go up I would have been stuck behind packs of riders and cars.
Here is where I am wondering which metric to use. HR is not guiding me very well.
* I didn't race the EN way and took a risk of exploding. In the end I rode as best I could with watts given the playing field and ran by RPE. I felt my high HR and thought I might pay the price. RPE was high but manageable and I did fade the last 3 miles.
Joe Freil has an interesting article on this topic. Many variables play into this, fatigue, overreaching,sub-par aerobic fitness.
Power data:
Zone 1-2 62.3%
Z3, 18.9%
Z4-5 18.8%
HR zones are not visible - all in Z3-4.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
HR
Z4-5
Last week at Santa Rosa 70.3 I wanted to experiment bringing my watts up at the end of the bike and start the run with the same HR. It didn't work mostly because I had to wait 3.5 hours to start the bike because of a canceled swim. My bib# was high and I was staged at the end. When I got going I had to pass packs of very slow riders. So from the get go I started with a high HR. I could see that I was burning matches but had I not took the risk of letting HR go up I would have been stuck behind packs of riders and cars.
Here is where I am wondering which metric to use. HR is not guiding me very well.
* I didn't race the EN way and took a risk of exploding. In the end I rode as best I could with watts given the playing field and ran by RPE. I felt my high HR and thought I might pay the price. RPE was high but manageable and I did fade the last 3 miles.
Joe Freil has an interesting article on this topic. Many variables play into this, fatigue, overreaching,sub-par aerobic fitness.
Power data:
Zone 1-2 62.3%
Z3, 18.9%
Z4-5 18.8%
HR zones are not visible - all in Z3-4.
BIKE data
____________________________________________________________________________________________
RUN DATA.
Pace:
Z1-2 65.8%
Z3-4 33.1%HR
Z4-5
Tagged:
0
Comments
Have you factored in heat? If your HR zones are based on FTP and running tests that were done in cooler temps, that would explain the higher HR. When I race/train in warmer temps (90+ degrees), my HR is easily 10-15 bpm higher than in cooler temps and I usually I switch to using RPE and HR and try to ignore watts or pace.
Also, has this been a common occurrence throughout your training/race rehearsals or just during races? If you have similar data in training rides/runs, then it's not an issue during races as your body is used to operating at a higher HR.
I use every ride and run to learn/feel/know at xx pace/power, my HR range is xxx-xxx, and it feels like x RPE. After a while, it's easy to know when these 3 data points are not aligned and there's usually a reason why (e.g. heat, fatigue, change in fitness). Knowing these will stop any panics if a piece of tech fails during a race.
Lastly, IMHO, using your EN FTP/5K test results, either run by HR or pace, not both...don't try to get the calculated pace zones to match the calculated HR zones. In other words, if you train by pace then focus on pace and just note (and know) what your HR is at various pace zones. If you run by HR, don't worry about pace but note your paces for the various HR zones. Same for the bike. I train by power and don't use the calculated HR zones, but I know what my HR should be for each power zone based on my training.
For the bike on an IM, I use HR to just back off as I don't want to explode later on. I think I let my HR get a little higher than most others but I know what's comfortable and not comfortable for me. For a Half IM and less, I don't use HR very much at all. If anything I use it as a whip. That's how I use power as well.
For the run, I look at my power output (I know what numbers are easy, medium and hard and I know what I can hold for various periods of time based on training). As I run at the power, I will glance at HR to make sure its not completely wacky. If its really high at a low power that might get me to think about a change in strategy if its a long race. I only look at pace if I'm trying to hit some predetermined time. For my marathon last Saturday, I just looked at my mile splits to make sure that I was "on time" for my goal time. If I would have been running off pace (instead of power and RPE) in my marathon, I would have ended up quite a bit slower. When I decided to pick up my pace in the marathon, I increased power to a number that was a little higher than I would normally run in training but still was ok with me that day according to RPE. I also knew how much pain I could endure based on the time left in the race and my previous training. For the last 6 miles of the marathon, I used power as a whip as my HR at that time was high and wouldn't have been much help. I use 10 second average power to look at.
In the end, I think using each of the different metrics is helpful but power the most stable. As I get more tired, the power becomes more of a whip. In short races (less than 2 hours) I use RPE and just push as hard as I can
@timsullivan Your success with running with power is intriguing. I'm starting to see a trend in my power on various terrains and foot turnover. I have enough data to apply some running zones to power. If I got this right you established a power that you could run with in the marathon knowing that it would be the pace you needed to hit time goals?
@Trish Marshall definitely some stress from the delayed start. Also, i surged all day just to get around packs of riders. It's so good to reflect on a race and realize later how it played out.
EG, I have a resting HR of 38-40. I NEVER look at my HR during the bike leg of a race. On the run, I'll glance at it, but use RPE as primary tool. I,ve got a Stryd, but keep forgetting to switch it race shoes. Gotta add that to the pre-race checklist, I guess.
however, during training, I record and rebiew all the data I can get. Then, as @Tim Sullivan says, knowing how those #'s all correlate with eac h other and RPE becomes second nature.
I'm a big believer in the "free your mind" school for acheiving succes on race day. Trying to corral myself with numbers seems to inhibit the free flow of my inner competitor.
Al - this is a good reminder that strength training is important. If I have this right striated skeletal muscle is limiting my ability to rely on HR. i need more mitochondria!
I've been working on my SPM over the last year and is still a work in progress. I do increase cadence slightly when running faster. It used to be a much bigger variation between my slower paces and quicker paces. I think about a faster turnover rather than running faster. I notice that when I have more SPM, the effort to run faster doesn't seem to be as much as a slower cadence. Same when going uphill. The higher the cadence, the better off I am (at least that's what it feels like).