- This topic has 11 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve some doubts regarding the hr-based structured trainings.
Let’s say I run a 4x(Zone4 3min/Zone1 2min) loop. My heart rate would be in the mid Zone 3 at the end of each Zone4 repetition. Another example: 6x(Zone5 1min./Zone1 3 min.), the HRM gauge will barely touch zone X for a few seconds in total while the pace is almost as fast as I can. The Garmin watch counts all of these training sessions as base training. Otherwise than that, if I run 20 min. in Zone 3 then the training is Tempo according to Garmin and heart rate is mostly zone 3, as it shoud ne.
Is it something wrong with my pace zones or my heart is just lazy?
Heart rate is a lagging indicator, which is why it doesn’t ‘catch up’ in short intervals. Use pace or power for them instead
Yes, we’ve all got “lazy hearts.” The phenomenon you’re experiencing is universal and is known as cardiac lag.
Ok, clear enough. I’m happy to hear that not only mine heart is lazy 🙂
Btw, does all hearts have this increased heart rate in first 8-12 minutes of run? In my case in the first 5-8 minutes my heart rate often goes up to ZoneX/Zone3 and then gradually slows down to mid Zone1 somewhere between 12-15 min. The pace is all the time steady.
I noticed this happens especially on days when I’m rested.
Thanks Matt, do you know what causes this initial spike in HR?
The other thing is that many of the foundation runs in the 8020 plans are structured in the way that suggests 5 min warmup in zone1 and then Zone2. Should I speed up after 5 min even if my heart rate is in zone 3?
The 15 min. warmup in pace zone1 would give a stable initial part of the run, would that be a better idea?
Not at all. It’s important that you generally avoid focusing too much on the nuances of your heart’s response to exercise and trying to micromanage it. The heart rate overshoot phenomenon, for example, is an indicator of high fitness and as such is not something you want to try to correct. Heart rate is a highly imperfect indicator of exercise intensity; you’ll get the most out of it if you’re mindful of its flaws and limitations. This piece that Coach David wrote may be helpful to you in this regard:
Somewhat related… My power ranges were recently set using the Stryd 6/3 protocol on an indoor treadmill. I’m using a power-based plan and did an endurance run today (RT19), using it to confirm my zones.
I’m scratching my head because for the Z3 effort:
– my HR averaged 5 BPM below the low-end of the target range
– my KW averaged 8 watts above the high-end of the target range
– my RPE, as always, was spot on 🙂In contrast, for both Z2 efforts, my HR was spot on but my power, again, was 13 and 20 watts higher, respectively, than the top end of target range.
Having read Coach Dave’s caveat about HR that Matt mentioned above, I’m inclined to adjust my zone power ranges higher. But I don’t want to be exercising too much in Zones X and Y, so I am hesitant. Does anyone have any advice? Thanks, J
Stryd’s Critical Power is not a true threshold power. Whereas CP equates to 30-minute max effort, FTP by definition equates to a 60-minute max effort. There’s your 8-watt discrepancy.
My experience with Stryd on treadmill is that it’s about 7% off when it comes to distance and because Stryd computes power from velocity and acceleration (both require proper time and distance measuring) then the power was also wrong. I’d do the test on road or better on track.
@matt – Thanks for the quick reply! It’s awesome to have access to such expertise!
eternalglitch – That makes sense in my case – the Stryd test was done on the treadmill, and I have noticed that distances reported by the treadmill (and on Zwift) are non-trivially greater than the distances reported by Stryd.
I live in the Northeast and it’s still pretty icy. I’ll wait until it melts and test for FTP on the road (or track if it’s cleared up).
Thanks again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.