Sunday, April 6, 2008

Conconi Test, Karvonen Formula and a little extra sleep

Been fighting something off the last couple days. Not feeling sick but picked up a cough that I can't shake. Schedule called for 18 miles today but based on the results of a couple HR tests that I ran last week I'm feeling that mileage might be the problem. If thats the case then more miles are for sure NOT the solution. The body said 'sleep' and today I was wise to listen.

I guess technically it's not the miles that might be the trouble but rather the intensity that I have been running them. I haven't had a chance to chart the data from the Conconi test but the results did show an obvious plateau for me at 157 BPM. Brian's data was less conclusive. There were two flat spots on his curve, one at approx 150 and another near 160. I have the raw data at work so my apologies for not being more accurate with the report at this time. Anyways, one of the arguments against the validity of the Conconi test is that not all people show an obvious deflection which is what we see with the data from Brian and I.

The point is that whatever the knocks against the test FOR SOME PEOPLE, it yielded a nice flat spot for me. And I have been training above this line for basically the last 20 weeks.

I also calculated my 70-80% heart rate targets using my resting heart rate, max rate and the Karvonen formula and came up with a range of 149-160 BPM.
Last week's long run shows me with an average heart rate of 157 BPM over 16 miles BUT only because the first 5 miles I was well below average. Average heart rate for the first five miles was 147 which means that I ran well above average for the last 11: average BPM 163.

If Conconi test shows anerobic threshold at 157 BPM, which not coincidentally is EXACTLY 85% of my measured max heart rate of 185, then the only thing I can conclude is that I have been running too fast too soon.

What this means for my training from here on out, I can't say except that it won't be more of the same.


jameson said...

get on that chart...slacker!

what do you think about MAF?

FatDad said...

JW-Funny timing, I was about to post a comment on Lucho's blog about MAF to get some clarification on that from him.
Dude, I'm just a lowly financial planner: I know how to read graphs, not make them! And here I went easy on you for ANOTHER missed turn...

Lucho said...

Hey- You asked..
"Am I correct that the MAF test is run 3-5 miles AT threshold HR while other 'LSD' training runs are under?"

I try to simplify all of the numbers for my athletes and tell them something like this:
Use MAF to start.. (180-age) and run within 10 beats below this number as long as you can in order to teach your body to burn fat as fuel and also to build the structure (bones, ligaments, tendons, etc..) so you can handle harder training.
Then progress to AeT which will fall ~6-10% below your LT PACE per mile (from the Conconi test).. this intensity corresponds to your marathon pace. Getting blood work done in a lab is best as this will allow you to determine your AeT HR. One recommendation also is to avoid coming within 15 beats of LT early on. In the last 8 weeks you should be focusing almost entirely on running at goal pace.. rarely (or never) more than than 3% faster! Running faster only teaches your metabolism to favor glycogen as fuel.. bad thing!
A workout you should try is 6-8 X 1 mile in 7:05 pace on 400 in 1:50 after each as recovery.. slightly faster than goal pace on the intervals then only slightly slower on the recoveries.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.