My first tempo workout in a month. Back to the 'unholy trinity,' 3x3w/3. Cloudy, 59º, wet track, rain threatening, and strong winds from the SE giving a stiff headwind in my last 100m. Finally a conditioning workout. Conditioning goes away fast. This was comparable to what I was doing in Dec.
Hoka trainers on
stretches, drills, 100m, bands
100m - 15.72
Hoka Rocket X2s on
3 x 300m w/ 3 min rest - 50.23, 50.59, 50.94 (avg 50.58)
Went fairly cautious, just wanted to get it done, and with conditions not so good, wasn't worried about the time. Set a pace beep at 51 (3x17) exceeded it and stayed fairly consistent. Wasn't so tired at the end that I couldn't sprint the last 100m into the wind.
The hamstring is sore when I put the massage gun on it but not while running. Feeling generally more healthy overall.
Data from the Coros monitor:
Interestingly, my HR reached max at 180bpm 5 seconds after the first interval. Recovered to 130bpm after the first rep. Second rep reached a max HR of 170 3 seconds after the run. Recovered to 146 after the second rep. Third rep max HR during the run was only 160, but peaked at 178 20 sec after the run. Confirms what I've thought, always feels harder just after the run, not during. Interestingly, my highest HR during any of the reps was on the first one. It took almost 12 min for my HR to drop below 120 when finished. Also interesting to see stride cadence. I'm usually about 245 in a 400m race, max for this set was 234. Maximum stride length was 5.94'. In a race it's usually about 2m (6.56'). Not to get carried away with this new data toy, but it's interesting. Not sure how accurate the stride length reading is. (They make a shoe attachment for more accurate measurements).
140.8 lbs after workout. Weather looks good after Friday, summer like by the weekend. Maybe I'll take the boat out.
So you really think that is accurate? Given the consistent work/rest interval, your actual heart rate was higher for each subsequent interval. If you kept doing intervals and they got slower due to exhaustion then HR would be lower for the slower intervals ran in an exhausted state. I’m telling ya it ain’t right.
ReplyDeleteNo actually HR was surprisingly lower for each subsequent interval, but not by much. It was 180, 170, 178, all maximums reached shortly after the end of the interval.
DeleteWhat your device read was 180,170,178 I’m telling you that is not what your heart rate was. It’s just basic sports science and medical knowledge. With the very controlled protocol you have with precise work and rest times each subsequent interval will have higher HR. Indisputable.
DeleteI've checked the sensor numerous times and it's always spot on. HR is definitely weird
DeleteDraw lines in paint where the work period ends. And was the rest period consistent in terms of activity? Sitting? Walking?
ReplyDeleteRest period was about an 100m walk to the start of the next interval then sitting for about a minute. Stand up 30 sec before the next interval. Pretty confident of accuracy. HR is really weird for sure.
DeleteIf it is not your device then you have arrhythmia and should have a graded exercise stress test.
DeleteThe only curve that looks like it could be right is the first. The others have way too much variation.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what looks unusual with that curve, the rest intervals have increasingly higher HR, as expected with an intensive tempo
DeleteA few thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMy heart rate is sometimes higher on the first rep or at the beginning of a contious steady state run if I am not fully warmed up in a cardio fashion. I seperate that from muscular readiness. Once I am warmed up HR `stabilises`.
HR may move upwards with cardiac drift over a perod of exercise. Hence the statement "If you kept doing intervals and they got slower due to exhaustion then HR would be lower for the slower intervals ran in an exhausted state" may well be wrong.
HR readings are sensitive to the positioning of the device, they can slip around on your wrist or chest.
Flat out 300m/400m are likely to get you close to your max HR. Yours may be , say, 185, so once you hit 180 you are unlikely to get a higher figure. My max is probably about 175, I get a range of hard effort readings in the range of 160-167.
Your HR behaviour does not just depend on your time but how you got to that time. For example, if you start slowly then run like a lunatic you may well get a higher finishing heart rate, or vice versa. Irrespective of whether you are doing a 1st or last rep.
3 reps is only small sample number. At 3 beats per second, the slightest variation in device reading could explain a range of 170-180. Ditto the race pacing I describe above.
There may not be anything wrong with your device, nothing can be perfect at this level of intensity. Look at how it performs over a period of several runs, do a manual pulse check when you are on a stationary bike.
The statement "If it is not your device then you have arrhythmia" fails to take into account any of the above variables that are credible explanations.
“If you kept doing intervals and they got slower due to exhaustion then HR would be lower for the slower intervals ran in an exhausted state". This is true as eventually you cannot generate anaerobic power and your power output drops. Perceived effort may be higher though.
ReplyDelete“ HR may move upwards with cardiac drift over a perod of exercise” this is a fact and is why his device is not providing clean data
ReplyDelete“ HR readings are sensitive to the positioning of the device, they can slip around on your wrist or chest” LED type sensors are much more sensitive than electrical conductivity sensors. Even Bills device manufacturer website says if accuracy is important use a chest strap.
ReplyDelete"If it is not your device then you have arrhythmia" fails to take into account any of the above variables that are credible explanations. There is a concept called Source of variation, or SOV. It doesn’t really if it is fit, the calculation, the device itself (sensor vs data processing). There is obviously a lot of noise in the data I group into his device. It is obviously inaccurate, or, his heart does have some weird electrical signals. Which is obviously unlikely. So it is an inferior device.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I've checked the device with a watch and manual count, it's spot on.
Delete