Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[Rowan McSheen]

Week 8 is now complete so it's onwards and upwards to week 9, after retaking that pesky 3 x 1000m. My 500m pace was just too much, even with the relatively long rest. The halfway house between current 500m and 1500 interval paces turned out about right, energetic but achievable while feeling I could go a little faster next time.

Surprising how much more effort it takes to shave off just 3-4 seconds when covering 1000m.

[mitchel674]

Week 8 is now complete so it's onwards and upwards to week 9, after retaking that pesky 3 x 1000m. My 500m pace was just too much, even with the relatively long rest. The halfway house between current 500m and 1500 interval paces turned out about right, energetic but achievable while feeling I could go a little faster next time.

Surprising how much more effort it takes to shave off just 3-4 seconds when covering 1000m.

Great that you're working this out.

The power needed to increase speed is not linear. Trying to shave off those next few seconds is much harder than the previous few seconds.

[mitchel674]

Week 18 interval is 3 x 2k, r4. Supposed to aim to beat the pace from week 14 which was 2:15 for me. Please ignore the heart rate as my monitor was not charged and gave inconsistent readings.



I just realized that I was supposed to do 4 intervals this week. I had been feeling good until I read this. I'm not sure what my pace would have been. I certainly had more left in the tank. I probably could have beaten 2:11.

[Tsnor]

You’re using too basic (and a discredited) method of working out your HR zone.
Is 194 your actual max (MHR) - have you seen that during intense exercise or have you used 220 minus your age?
Your resting rate (RHR) is what it is when you wake up, and usually fairly consistent. 49-60 is too big a range. Is that what it is when you’ve sat and rested during the day?
Your %ages should be worked out using the formula MHR minus RHR = heart rate reserve (HRR). Take the % of your HRR and add your RHR. So assuming 194 is your MHR and take 50 as your RHR your HRR is 144.
60% of 144 = 86.4 + 50 = 136.4
70% of 144 = 100.8 + 50 = 150.8.
So your steady state (UT2) training should be in the 136-150 range.
The ErgData data shows you pushed a bit too hard by going into zone 4 - don’t use those zones - they are set for average people and very few of us are average. Work out your personal zones.
Keep your SS workouts capped at 150 and you won’t go far wrong.
Listen to what Cameron has to say about it.
https://youtu.be/zokds0OUzzE
Good luck.

Cameron does his UT2 at 65% of max Hr (130 off a 200 max) because his world class trainers at British National Team with access to lactate test results told him he was doing his UT2 at too high a rate, hurting his training and making himself sick. It's here in his video: https://youtu.be/XWKMG__UVQo?t=88

You’re using too basic (and a discredited) method of working out your HR zone.

Any refs saying this approach is discredited? (There are many formula that compete based on percent power, percent heart raste reserve, percent max HR. All have supporting data.)

There is no consensus that someone with a 194 max should be doing UT2 at up to 150 BPM. 70% of 194 is 135. 70-72% is where I do mine after looking at a lot of studies and trying various options. There is a huge difference between 135 and 150. I'd bet a beverage that if OP tries 150 they will still see HR drift. (Trying things is good, trying 150 won't kill you. Just verify it's doing what you need. Plenty of ways to cross check UT2.).

Exceptional athletes (and Tony Cook is exceptional) typically have much stronger/faster recovery then most people. The formula that gives 150 bpm might work for him, but it did not work for me when I tried it for a few months 2 years ago, it said up I could go at up to 140 bpm. I now do my UT2 targeting a 125 bpm HR with a hard cap at 127-ish.

Tony, If you have HR data for a 90 minute UT2 row at the HR computed by the "heart rate reserve / resting heart rate" formula pace that you are willing to share I'd be interested to see if your HR drifts or if the splits rise or if you are truly in UT2. (Or if posting graphs is too much hassle just say if your HR is flat for decent duration in the range, mine wasn't at the formula prescribed HR).

[Tony Cook]

You’re using too basic (and a discredited) method of working out your HR zone.
Is 194 your actual max (MHR) - have you seen that during intense exercise or have you used 220 minus your age?
Your resting rate (RHR) is what it is when you wake up, and usually fairly consistent. 49-60 is too big a range. Is that what it is when you’ve sat and rested during the day?
Your %ages should be worked out using the formula MHR minus RHR = heart rate reserve (HRR). Take the % of your HRR and add your RHR. So assuming 194 is your MHR and take 50 as your RHR your HRR is 144.
60% of 144 = 86.4 + 50 = 136.4
70% of 144 = 100.8 + 50 = 150.8.
So your steady state (UT2) training should be in the 136-150 range.
The ErgData data shows you pushed a bit too hard by going into zone 4 - don’t use those zones - they are set for average people and very few of us are average. Work out your personal zones.
Keep your SS workouts capped at 150 and you won’t go far wrong.
Listen to what Cameron has to say about it.
https://youtu.be/zokds0OUzzE
Good luck.

Cameron does his UT2 at 65% of max Hr (130 off a 200 max) because his world class trainers at British National Team with access to lactate test results told him he was doing his UT2 at too high a rate, hurting his training and making himself sick. It's here in his video: https://youtu.be/XWKMG__UVQo?t=88

You’re using too basic (and a discredited) method of working out your HR zone.

Any refs saying this approach is discredited? (There are many formula that compete based on percent power, percent heart raste reserve, percent max HR. All have supporting data.)

There is no consensus that someone with a 194 max should be doing UT2 at up to 150 BPM. 70% of 194 is 135. 70-72% is where I do mine after looking at a lot of studies and trying various options. There is a huge difference between 135 and 150. I'd bet a beverage that if OP tries 150 they will still see HR drift. (Trying things is good, trying 150 won't kill you. Just verify it's doing what you need. Plenty of ways to cross check UT2.).

Exceptional athletes (and Tony Cook is exceptional) typically have much stronger/faster recovery then most people. The formula that gives 150 bpm might work for him, but it did not work for me when I tried it for a few months 2 years ago, it said up I could go at up to 140 bpm. I now do my UT2 targeting a 125 bpm HR with a hard cap at 127-ish.

Tony, If you have HR data for a 90 minute UT2 row at the HR computed by the "heart rate reserve / resting heart rate" formula pace that you are willing to share I'd be interested to see if your HR drifts or if the splits rise or if you are truly in UT2. (Or if posting graphs is too much hassle just say if your HR is flat for decent duration in the range, mine wasn't at the formula prescribed HR).

Well you embarrass me ‘exceptional athlete’
I was a little lazy in my wording - it’s the 220-age but that’s not accurate. I’ve read that in many places, including by posters on here. Here’s a link to something I quickly found https://www.castlehillfitness.com/fitne ... 0-age-myth
Fox and Haskell, who created the formula, extrapolated data from other studies using groups of people that did not represent the general population. Many studies since have shown that 220-age is not an accurate way to guess your MHR.
Here’s what I call a UT2 piece for me, 80 mins not 90 but I think that’s long enough. I was working on HR range of 130-140 for UT2. You may say there was some drift after an hour here but (and I may be wrong) I say this was all in my intended UT2 HR range with no drop in pace.
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
1:20:00.0 20,148m 1:59.1 207 1012 20 133
10:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 126
20:00.0 2,528m 1:58.6 209 1020 20 130
30:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 130
40:00.0 2,520m 1:59.0 207 1013 20 133
50:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 135
1:00:00.0 2,514m 1:59.3 206 1008 20 139
1:10:00.0 2,516m 1:59.2 206 1010 20 140
1:20:00.0 2,504m 1:59.8 204 1000 20 138

[btlifter]

Tsnor,

Nothing academic, as such. But, I was surprised to hear that, when recently asked by Dylan Johnson, Dr. Seiler suggested using the HRR method to determine "Zone 2".

[Tsnor]

Tsnor,

Nothing academic, as such. But, I was surprised to hear that, when recently asked by Dylan Johnson, Dr. Seiler suggested using the HRR method to determine "Zone 2".

Yes, agree. I saw those videos.

Seiler does go through the HRR method, then he immediately goes on to say the equivalent percent of max HR would be 60% for some people, 65% or 70% for others. https://youtu.be/U17_x1HI6LU?t=692 Compare to the 78% predicted by the HRR formula above (150 for a max of 194). Does not match.

At Seiler's personal resting heart rate (36 bpm resting, 166 max) the HRR formula is close to a max HR formula because his Heart rate reserve HRR (166-36 = 130) is actually pretty close to max. At an untrained person person's resting heart rate (say 76 resting, 166 max), the HRR (166-76=90) is not close to HR max, and the HRR based formula gives different/higher projections for UT2 than max HR formula. NET: for untrained athletes HRR gives higher zones. As they get more trained and their resting heart rate falls their zones go lower. Not great.

Sometimes Seiler's communication approach is not helpful. His focus on "80% low intensity" is really hard to understand. For people working out 4 to 5 times per week, applied directly 80% says to do 1 hard session per week (1 in 5). But Seiler says he does 10 hours/week of cycling with 2 to 3 hard sessions. Hard to get 80% there without a lot of squinting, cyclist tend to do one long session per day vs many short ones. If he just consistently said "Do 2 to 3 hard sessions a week and the rest long/slow with 1 to 2 rest days" without throwing in the 80% people could follow that much more easily.

[Tsnor]

... - it’s the 220-age but that’s not accurate. ...

OHHH.... never mind. Strongly agree with you. Formula drive max HR cannnot be used to set training zones. My bad.

Here’s what I call a UT2 piece for me, 80 mins not 90 but I think that’s long enough. I was working on HR range of 130-140 for UT2. You may say there was some drift after an hour here but (and I may be wrong) I say this was all in my intended UT2 HR range with no drop in pace.
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
1:20:00.0 20,148m 1:59.1 207 1012 20 133
10:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 126
20:00.0 2,528m 1:58.6 209 1020 20 130
30:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 130
40:00.0 2,520m 1:59.0 207 1013 20 133
50:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 135
1:00:00.0 2,514m 1:59.3 206 1008 20 139
1:10:00.0 2,516m 1:59.2 206 1010 20 140
1:20:00.0 2,504m 1:59.8 204 1000 20 138

Grin, From the HR drift starting 30 mins in I'd say this is an impressive workout, but not a long/slow UT2 session. It was seeing drift like this that made me back off my UT2 target.

(The heartrate in the table above is the HR seen at the end of the interval, not the average, so could be a little misleading. If the ending HR's are representative then you were above UT2.)

0-30 minutes --> getting to steady state of 130 at 208 watts)
30-40 mins --> + 3 BPM for same wattage
40-50 mins --> + 5
50-60 mins --> + 9
60-70 mins --> + 10
70-80 mins --> + 8

Aside. 20K at sub 2:00 splits as a "Long Slow" workout is just sick.

[nick rockliff]

... - it’s the 220-age but that’s not accurate. ...

OHHH.... never mind. Strongly agree with you. Formula drive max HR cannnot be used to set training zones. My bad.

Here’s what I call a UT2 piece for me, 80 mins not 90 but I think that’s long enough. I was working on HR range of 130-140 for UT2. You may say there was some drift after an hour here but (and I may be wrong) I say this was all in my intended UT2 HR range with no drop in pace.
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
1:20:00.0 20,148m 1:59.1 207 1012 20 133
10:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 126
20:00.0 2,528m 1:58.6 209 1020 20 130
30:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 130
40:00.0 2,520m 1:59.0 207 1013 20 133
50:00.0 2,522m 1:58.9 208 1015 20 135
1:00:00.0 2,514m 1:59.3 206 1008 20 139
1:10:00.0 2,516m 1:59.2 206 1010 20 140
1:20:00.0 2,504m 1:59.8 204 1000 20 138

Grin, From the HR drift starting 30 mins in I'd say this is an impressive workout, but not a long/slow UT2 session. It was seeing drift like this that made me back off my UT2 target.

(The heartrate in the table above is the HR seen at the end of the interval, not the average, so could be a little misleading. If the ending HR's are representative then you were above UT2.)

0-30 minutes --> getting to steady state of 130 at 208 watts)
30-40 mins --> + 3 BPM for same wattage
40-50 mins --> + 5
50-60 mins --> + 9
60-70 mins --> + 10
70-80 mins --> + 8

Aside. 20K at sub 2:00 splits as a "Long Slow" workout is just sick.

If you don't know Tony's LT, how can you say he was above UT2?

[Sakly]

If you don't know Tony's LT, how can you say he was above UT2?

He states that HR drift indicates to be above UT2 threshold. So is my understanding.

[nick rockliff]

If you don't know Tony's LT, how can you say he was above UT2?

He states that HR drift indicates to be above UT2 threshold. So is my understanding.

I've been using HR when training since March 2005 and can honestly say I have never done a session where my HR has stayed constant.

[Sakly]

If you don't know Tony's LT, how can you say he was above UT2?

He states that HR drift indicates to be above UT2 threshold. So is my understanding.

I've been using HR when training since March 2005 and can honestly say I have never done a session where my HR has stayed constant.

And this is absolutely fine if this works for you.
I think "real" UT2 sessions are needed by athletes who train several times a day and sum up many hours of training per week to not get fully drained.

[nick rockliff]

He states that HR drift indicates to be above UT2 threshold. So is my understanding.

I've been using HR when training since March 2005 and can honestly say I have never done a session where my HR has stayed constant.

And this is absolutely fine if this works for you.
I think "real" UT2 sessions are needed by athletes who train several times a day and sum up many hours of training per week to not get fully drained.

When I first started using HR zones for training I did a bit of homework first. Then spent time and money by having a full physiological assessment at the sports science department of a local University. This was on a C2 so was sport specific. The assessment included blood lactate profile step test and vo2max.

From this I set my zones which weren't based on a generic % of MHR. They were "real".

At that time I was doing about 11 sessions per week. All sessions were zone 1 (below LT1) and zone 2 (below LT2). Zone 1 sessions were mainly 16k r20 so just under an hour at that time. Twice a day was not unusual.

I can assure you that my HR cap for Zone 1 was nowhere close to 70% of MHR.

Obviously, this is based on my physiology and won't be the same for everybody, so why should a generic 65%-70% of MHR for UT2 be pushed time and time again on everybody?

[Sakly]

I've been using HR when training since March 2005 and can honestly say I have never done a session where my HR has stayed constant.

And this is absolutely fine if this works for you.
I think "real" UT2 sessions are needed by athletes who train several times a day and sum up many hours of training per week to not get fully drained.

When I first started using HR zones for training I did a bit of homework first. Then spent time and money by having a full physiological assessment at the sports science department of a local University. This was on a C2 so was sport specific. The assessment included blood lactate profile step test and vo2max.

From this I set my zones which weren't based on a generic % of MHR. They were "real".

At that time I was doing about 11 sessions per week. All sessions were zone 1 (below LT1) and zone 2 (below LT2). Zone 1 sessions were mainly 16k r20 so just under an hour at that time. Twice a day was not unusual.

I can assure you that my HR cap for Zone 1 was nowhere close to 70% of MHR.

Obviously, this is based on my physiology and won't be the same for everybody, so why should a generic 65%-70% of MHR for UT2 be pushed time and time again on everybody?

The bold marked is best to go for if you want to know exactly, this is sure.
I think Tsnor wanted to point out that it could be helpful to first go for this 70% rule which is generally promoted and then look for the HR drift and use this to fine tune.
I absolutely agree that a general approach is always behind real measured data as we are all physiolocal different.

[Dangerscouse]

Obviously, this is based on my physiology and won't be the same for everybody, so why should a generic 65%-70% of MHR for UT2 be pushed time and time again on everybody?

Fair comment Nick. I'm a massive advocate of seeing what works for each person. Trial and error is a very important part of any sport, but it's a natural consequence of amateur athletes to look for simple guidelines, all too often based on elite athletes I hasten too add.