| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Mij0
848 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 8:10:40 PM
|
I have some information for elite athletes comparing their max HR to the highest HR they should be able to maintain in a race. Unfortunately I'm not an elite thingy ..... so can those who have run mara's to date please cough up information on what HR's they actually ran at (pref as either %max or %WHR. If this gets a good reply I'll ask again for other distances and that should give quite a usefull data source for other club members.
Less fat, more fit, but still hedonistic
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 8:45:23 PM
|
Target is about 87% max (170 bpm for me)
London Marathon: 165 (84%)
This was lower than target due to a stitch
Wolverhampton Mara: 169 |
Edited by - StephenPrice on 01 Feb 2009 8:46:16 PM |
 |
|
|
fishyweb
2310 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2009 : 06:23:22 AM
|
Mike, my WHRav was 159 (77%) when I ran London in 2006. This is the one and only mara I've done, so was run at a fairly conservative effort. I hope this helps!
---
Steve |
|
|
|
joopsy
622 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2009 : 3:28:51 PM
|
Mike, I did London last year at 79% and then did Edinburgh six weeks later 8 mins quicker and at 75%.
Please sponsor me for my 2009 fundraising efforts at www.justgiving.com/nickdunk2009 |
|
|
|
Wicked D
2207 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2009 : 8:17:25 PM
|
Mike - I ran Mablethorpe Mara last september Average 166bpm (75%WHR as such) target was a Max of 80%WHR = 174bpm
my training for mara's is 70%WHR so for me to be just over that with the average stated above and get a PB felt great 
"If you're going through hell, KEEP GOING"....W Churchill |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2009 : 10:27:32 AM
|
Have just read the following article and it occurred to me that it was relevant to this discussion:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/slow-component-vo2-understand-it-go-faster-39797
From the few posts above, I targetted a higher HR than other UKNRs during our marathons.
Reading the PP article, it basically says that (using my target of 87%) whilst 87% for me may be sustainable, 87% for someone else may not.
We could all aim to sustain 80% (for argument's sake) for the marathon, but this might be too easy for some and too difficult for others. The % of Max HR neglects the point at which your Lactate Threshold (LT) is. So, if your LT occurred at 77% Max HR and mine occurred at 85% of Max HR, I would comfortably complete the run at 80% Max HR, but you would not. You would manage perhaps an hour but then would need to slow as Lactic Acid levels rose.
The above may be technical but I'm basically saying that one size doesn't fit all and along with Max HR, you need to work out where your LT occurs. It's no good aiming for a specific % HR if that is too high, or too low, in relation to your LT |
|
|
|
Mij0
848 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 08:26:42 AM
|
Stephen that was taken as read but thanks for the link. I hoped that if we got enough data then any runner could search for others of a similar sort of level and compare race strategies. I'd only compare mine to yours if you did it carrying 15 stone!
Less fat, more fit, but still hedonistic |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 08:59:09 AM
|
I don't think the time it takes has much of a bearing on it. Even for someone else with a similar target time to you, you may have two complete different target HRs.
Even when I was a 42 minute 10k runner and a 1:30 HM, I was still running at the same HRs as I am now. |
|
|
|
mdunn77
1540 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 2:50:09 PM
|
good article that. I've been meaning to add some threshold (interval) sessions to my training - I might do that sooner rather than later after reading this and start working on pushing my lactate threshold up.
Two marathons in two months in aid of Cancer Research - please sponsor me at http://justgiving.com/mdunn |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Heart Rate training/racing - Mara
