Australia 4 Qatar 0
Mon 9.5k 48:12 (HR 137 5:04) 695 93
Tue 18.0k 1:33:11 (HR 137 5:10) 709 102
Wed Socceroo duty
Thu 18.0k 1:31:41 (HR 137 5:05) 697 95
Fri 13.0k 1:04:00 (HR 139 4:55) 684 82
Sat Rest
Sun 25.0k 2:08:40 (HR 148 5:08) 761 112
Week 83.5k
Oct 244k
Year 2626k
Maybe there was some lessons to be learnt from last week. Wednesday was the Socceroo's World Cup Qualifying game against Qatar, so I took the night off. It turned out to be a good decision because their was an enormous thunderstorm which started about 6:30pm. Lots of lightning , buckets of rain and it all delayed the kick-off by 30 minutes. It did mean that the training runs on Thursday and Friday were far more satisfactory in terms of performance than most have been lately.
But by Sunday, even though my long run was around 3 minutes faster than last week it was done at a higher heart rate (148 vs 144). At it seems I am still a long way from matching my fitness from July when I did this run 6 minutes faster at the same 148 Heart Rate. So it still seems a bit up and down with a fair way to go back to top condition.
Ewen was questioning my Index of (Heart Rate * pace). It is the blue number above. Whilst I agree that it has some limitations, for my runs in the 70 - 80% Max HR Zone I find it useful. For runs above that Heart Rate Zone a more useful index I use is (HR - 50) * (Pace -4). This figure is in red. It gives a bit more weighting to pace but I am not doing much training in that zone at the moment. If anyone has the perfect index to compare one run to another I am all ears.
Tue 18.0k 1:33:11 (HR 137 5:10) 709 102
Wed Socceroo duty
Thu 18.0k 1:31:41 (HR 137 5:05) 697 95
Fri 13.0k 1:04:00 (HR 139 4:55) 684 82
Sat Rest
Sun 25.0k 2:08:40 (HR 148 5:08) 761 112
Week 83.5k
Oct 244k
Year 2626k
Maybe there was some lessons to be learnt from last week. Wednesday was the Socceroo's World Cup Qualifying game against Qatar, so I took the night off. It turned out to be a good decision because their was an enormous thunderstorm which started about 6:30pm. Lots of lightning , buckets of rain and it all delayed the kick-off by 30 minutes. It did mean that the training runs on Thursday and Friday were far more satisfactory in terms of performance than most have been lately.
But by Sunday, even though my long run was around 3 minutes faster than last week it was done at a higher heart rate (148 vs 144). At it seems I am still a long way from matching my fitness from July when I did this run 6 minutes faster at the same 148 Heart Rate. So it still seems a bit up and down with a fair way to go back to top condition.
Ewen was questioning my Index of (Heart Rate * pace). It is the blue number above. Whilst I agree that it has some limitations, for my runs in the 70 - 80% Max HR Zone I find it useful. For runs above that Heart Rate Zone a more useful index I use is (HR - 50) * (Pace -4). This figure is in red. It gives a bit more weighting to pace but I am not doing much training in that zone at the moment. If anyone has the perfect index to compare one run to another I am all ears.
posted by Robert Song @ 10:21 pm
2 Comments:
At Wed Oct 22, 09:02:00 am AEST,
Tesso said…
Did you manage to avoid last night's storm? It was another ripper.
Hmmmm, wonder if HRMs attract lightning ....
At Wed Oct 22, 09:05:00 pm AEST,
Ewen said…
I remember Louise had a link to a page by a PhD runner, but I can't find it.
How about AHR minus (some arbitrary number) * ave pace?
This seems to bring the extremities closer to the middle. For example, if I choose 30 for the arbitrary number on the three runs I used before...
AHR 100 - 30 * 9:00 = 630
AHR 120 - 30 * 6:00 = 540
AHR 154 - 30 * 4:20 = 537
You still get a variation in the close range...
AHR 121 - 30 * 6:00 = 546, which is an inferior run to the middle example above.
The arbitrary number would vary for runners with different max HRs.
Post a Comment
<< Home