Training Peaks Pace vs HR Workouts | 80/20 Endurance

Training Peaks Pace vs HR Workouts

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10956
    Jacques
    Participant

    Hi David,

    I’ve been running on 8020 plans for almost 2 years with great results. In my arsenal I’ve got the 21k, 42k and 100k plans (all HR based). I have trained on HR and understand the limitations when it comes to shorter speed work.

    I’ve read the book, the blogs and scoured the forum and I understand the preferred methods of training is in the order of Power – Pace – and then HR. I have asked for the 100k pace based program which you graciously loaded after I purchased the HR based plan.

    I see there is a difference in predicted average pace (PAP) between the pace and HR workouts when comparing the exact same workout, i.e:
    RF29 PAP (HR) – 4:36/km
    RF29 PAP (Pace) – 4:51/km

    My problem is this, I’ve been training on HR and the HR zones matched the pace zones very closely. Looking at the predicted average pace in most pace based workouts it seems that I will be training considerably slower. I know that’s not a bad thing but I always used the numbers between HR and secondly pace to see if my zones are in check. Why would there be a difference? This made me wonder if I was training to ‘fast’ previously?

    Please advise.

    Regards,
    J

    #10958
    David Warden
    Keymaster

    J,

    Thanks for using our plans and for your kind words about our system. TrainingPeaks manages the predicted pace, the plan author does not enter that. When using the Pace plan, I know that TP uses 75% penetration for predicting the pace-based workouts. Meaning, if your Zone 2 pace was 8:00-10:00 mile, TP would predict 8:30 for a Zone 2 segment.

    For HR workouts, I don’t know how TP estimates this.

    For both methods, it’s just a poor estimate and I would ignore predicted pace. You’re never going to run exactly 75% into the zone. You might be 1% penetrated into the zone one day and 100% penetrated the next. Both are totally acceptable in the 80/20 system and will result in significantly different paces. For HR, frankly, it’s just a marketing stunt to try and predict pace from HR. Even if you could, it would be different every day as HR changes for a given pace based on environmental factors.

    So, just ignore predicted pace in TP, focus on your actual pace.

    David

    #11455
    Jacques
    Participant

    Hi David,

    Sorry for taking a while to respond. Thank you for the detailed explanation, it makes total sense and answers my question. Unfortunately it created 2 more questions slightly off topic but I’m sure relevant non the less.

    1.When you talk about actual pace, do you mean real time or average over the run – this is where the hilly route issue becomes more apparent?
    2. Does that mean that the TSS, fitness and fatigue scores in TrainingPeaks should and can only be used as a broad indicator?

    Regards,
    J

    #11457
    David Warden
    Keymaster

    1. Real time pace. However, you are of course correct that Pace can’t be relied in in hills. This is where Power is the preferred option, and if you don’t have power, then HR is the best available option for hills.

    2. Please see my document Understanding and Adjusting Your Performance Management Chart for a detailed explanation PMC and TSS.

    David

    #11464
    Jacques
    Participant

    Thanks David, that helped a lot. Although a very disciplined believer, practitioner and advocate in HR based training it seems there might be a Power monitor in my future…

    All the best,
    J

    #11774
    d1ego
    Participant

    I find very useful to be able to run the easy workouts based on HR and the hard based on pace. While the reason behind the first is obvious, the main reason I prefer to run easy basing myself on HR is that I mainly run easy WOs in a hilly trail environment in which it is impossible to maintain a constant easy effort at a constant pace.
    Up to now I created my personalised workouts in Garmin Connect, going as far as mixing the two metrics in the same WO (e.g. VO2max intervals on pace in the hard part and HR in the recovery).
    Do you think it is a good idea?
    Of course, it would be much easier if TP could send this kind of wo directly to my watch…

    #11806
    David Warden
    Keymaster

    D,

    This is a great idea, to mix intensity types within a workout. Many runners can’t manage it, as it takes a real self-awareness as a runner.

    I wish we could create workouts of mixed intensity types, but TP is not there yet.

    However, structured workouts are just a few years old. We all had to train by memorizing our zones very recently. So, when you workout tells you to run in Zone 2 by pace, just ignore the pace numbers and use your Zone 2 HR values, which you’ve memorized.

    David

    #11825
    German De La Rosa
    Participant

    Recently I also chatted with David about this. Mixing intensity types within the same workout. And to quote a brilliant analogy he made:

    “Imagine you’re a pilot. Power and Pace are your flight instruments and HR is the horizon. Although most of the times it’s better to rely on your flight instruments, every now and then it is good to do a visual approach”

    Usually I tend to rely more on HR when I’m doing Z1 recovery runs. Because pace really doesn’t matter in a recovery run. They’re just meant to help flush out the legs without inducing any extra fatigue, so for “RRe” workouts I just make sure my HR stays in Z1 regardless of pace.

    Also when doing intervals such as “RCI” or “RAn” workouts; the first 10 to 15 minutes always call for a Z1 warmup. These first minutes are crucial for “getting the engine and the tires up to temperature” but you don’t want to induce excessive fatigue during the warmup portion or you won’t be able to execute the intervals properly. So in this case it’s also a good idea to warm up based on HR alone. And after that 10 – 15 Z1 portion, then you can switch to pace for Z2 and above efforts.

    This exact same principle also applies for bike workouts. I always do my Z1 warmup based on HR rather than power.

    #12110
    d1ego
    Participant

    David, actually you don’t even need to memorize zones. I installed the 8020 ConnectIQ app and the zones are there, well visible and with a good detail (-/z/+) that helps to detect a trend 🙂
    The pilot analogy is a bit misleading as pilots are taught to trust instruments more than feeling… Yes, keep an eye on the horizon but double check your attitude indicator.

    • This reply was modified 4 months ago by d1ego.
    #12112
    David Warden
    Keymaster

    d1ego, great point! The link to the 80/20 Zones GarminIQ app is https://www.8020endurance.com/80-20-garmin-apps/

    You and I are on the same page here, “Imagine you’re a pilot. Power and Pace are your flight instruments and HR is the horizon. Although most of the times it’s better to rely on your flight instruments, every now and then it is good to do a visual approach”

    I’m promoting Pace and Power (instruments) over HR (horizon).

    David

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.