About 2 years ago I went running on a treadmill and had my ear pricked every 3 minutes.
What I learned there was that my base could be a lot better and that the shape I was in at that time did not offer a good breeding ground to do a sub 3:30 marathon.
I proved the advice wrong (barely), yet I feel I could not have achieved it without the test itself.
Running on heart rate is golden for me, it gives me a sense of security and supports me on a day-to-day basis.
About 2 months ago I went for an update, this time “in the field” (on a track is more correct).
The general idea was the same: run at a specific intensity, pause, prick some blood, put down the timings and go running at a somewhat heavier intensity.
Difference was at treadmill they crank up the speed, here I needed to watch my heart rate constantly.
So I managed 6 times 2k and shortly after that I had to push it all out over 600m to find my max HR.
For the number minded people: a comparison. My take on these numbers are underneath.
|168 @ 14.2km/h
|168 @ 15.15km/h
|182 @ 16.8km/h
|183 @ unknown (didn’t press my Garmin button properly)
* The 2 tests were with a different firm, the second one opts to only give speeds at intensity levels as HR can fluctuate too much in their opinion.
So after 2 years it turned out that:
- The last year or so I did my long runs too slow
- My speed really picked up
- I have consistent zones once above my threshold.
- There is still room for improvement on my total capacity, which means I should be able to get even faster.
Good times coming 🙂
Any of you ever did some test like this?
Did you think it upped your trainings?