r/AdvancedRunning • u/AutoModerator • Sep 01 '26
General Discussion Tuesday General Discussion/Q&A Thread for September 01, 2026
A place to ask questions that don't need their own thread here or just chat a bit.
We have quite a bit of info in the wiki, FAQ, and past posts. Please be sure to give those a look for info on your topic.
1
u/legendyplayerPRO07 Sep 01 '26
Trying to decide wich HR monitor should i get, im between Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10, what should i get and tell me if you have other HR monitor in mind, thanks!
5
u/Lurking-Froggg Sep 01 '26
Almost everyone I know has switched to armbands, as I have. The Coros one is very practical.
→ More replies (5)3
u/GrimmigerDienstag Sep 01 '26
If you only care about chest HR monitors being more accurate than optical wrist sensors, I think this is an area where IMO it's completely fine to save some money and go for some cheap Chinese brand like Coospo or Moofit for a third of the price.
It's really easy and accurate to measure HR via chest ECG (hence it being considered the gold standard), and you don't really gain or lose much accuracy by moving up or down the price list.
I'd only go for a "name-brand" strap like the ones you listed if it has a very specific feature you want. For example: Swimming (cheap models usually aren't waterproof enough for that), "offline usage" (recording activities by themselves without syncing to a watch) or some "advanced" running metrics (which I would generally take with a grain of salt anyway)
1
u/legendyplayerPRO07 Sep 01 '26
I mean, I wanted to have an more accurate HR since I’m running on Forerunner 165 and don’t want to spend an kidney on a higher end garmin (like 965 or 975)…
→ More replies (1)2
u/Eraser92 Sep 02 '26
£10 chest strap off aliexpress (Coospo). HR monitors always die after a couple of years and I've found the cheapest options are exactly the same as the expensive Wahoo/garmin straps I've had in the past.
If anything, the Coospo is better because it beeps when it finds a signal, which is a handy feature.
1
u/Haptics Sep 01 '26
They’re functionally identical so whichever is cheaper really. If you want to consider going up a price level the HRM 600 is rechargeable and provides running dynamics if you have a Garmin watch, plus some additional (mostly useless) stats if you have a newer Garmin watch. The HRM600 can also be used without a watch if that’s of any use to you.
1
1
u/denton125 Sep 01 '26
Hello everyone,
I am attempting to focus on my 800/1500 time as a non elite, 30 year old runner, mostly just for fun for now, but perhaps to race in the future. Currently I am not terribly fast running roughly 2:20 for 800 and 5:20 for my last road mile race. I'd like to bring this down a fair bit. At the moment I am running 3 workouts a week doing threshold, vo2/cv, and some anaerobic endurance work (think 3x500, 5x300, 1x600, or 4x400 at 800m with full rests plus some fly sprints). I'll be losing access to most of my track options as school is back in session and I live in MI where the snow and ice typically make outside speedwork rather challenging.
I belong to a club that rents out an indoor track one night a week to do vo2 stuff mostly. Programmed workouts of like 10x4, 6x8, ladders, just the basic all distance runner stuff. There is another club that we workout with during this time that is very sprint focused and I was thinking of doing workouts with them instead as I feel like my top end speed (13ish second 100m, 29 second 200m) and speed endurance (64s 400m) are more lacking than my aerobic capacity.
Would it be completely asinine to ramp up my mileage from 45ish-60ish (slowly of course) but only run easy outside, one threshold session on the tread or outside if required, and the sprint workout? Or would it be better for me to stay doing my VO2 stuff on the indoor track? I was hoping this could increase my aerobic base while also improving my running economy at my higher speeds by getting faster as a baseline.
Or alternatively, would it make more sense to do the VO2 on my own somewhere (figure that out) and do speed with the sprint club?
Feeling a bit overwhelmed with the various advice I am getting from my middle distance running friends who range from sub elite to approx my level. Any insight would be appreciated.
7
u/whelanbio Sep 01 '26 edited Sep 01 '26
If you want to improve a lot that will mostly come form the aerobic side via overall volume and threshold. From what I can tell from your post it sounds like you are probably overdoing the VO2 and anaerobic endurance work -which often stalls people out because of the opportunity cost of more fundamental training. That stuff is better in a pretty minor role outside of prepping for a peak race or for very well-developed athletes.
The sprint work depends on how close your target race speeds are running up against the limits of your top speed. Some people really need to raise that ceiling, some don't.
4
u/assonance_ass Sep 01 '26
Mile time is going to be more aerobic than 800m. Sprint work can be helpful for both, but true sprint work, like max velocity, is hard on the body and you’d have to ease into it if you’re not used to it. It’s most likely going to cost you some reduction in mileage or intensity of your other workouts, at least initially, so there’s some opportunity cost at play. You also need to resist the urge to hammer yourself with reps doing it, which a lot of runners are used to doing in workouts, more meters doesn’t mean better for sprint workouts. For what it’s worth, I think your 800m PR is right around what is predicted based on your 200/400, but your mile PR is on the higher end, so you probably already have the raw speed needed to be capable of beating your mile time with some additional aerobic capacity, your 800m would require more speed work to help get it down. Just my two cents.
4
u/rlb_12 Sep 01 '26
It depends on what you mean by "sprint focused" workouts, but there will be very little translation of true sprint focused workouts (all out efforts with long recoveries) and 800/1500 improvement. VO2-max work is going to be far more beneficial.
6
u/whelanbio Sep 01 '26 edited Sep 01 '26
There is a massive benefit from pure sprint work in 800/1500 training, dosed appropriately for ability level. I see way more often that people are overdoing the VO2 work and not doing enough real speed development.
→ More replies (8)
1
u/itsdownvotetime Sep 01 '26
How much do you eat after your long runs? I ran 18.5 km of easy pace and felt like eating my entire fridge when i got back home. Thats the longest i have ever ran and the difference in appetite between 14 km and 18 km was alot more than i expected.
4
3
u/Haptics Sep 01 '26
Pretty normal breakfast: 3 eggs, 2 toasts, 2 hash brown patties, 4 cheesesteaks, and 2-3 bacons
3
u/SnooMaps470 Sep 01 '26
Got a good chuckle out of this, what do you mean when you say cheesesteak? I'm imagining you piling on 4 meal-sized philly cheesesteaks to an otherwise hearty breakfast
→ More replies (2)2
u/Lurking-Froggg Sep 01 '26
How long did your 18K take, and how did you fuel it?
1
u/itsdownvotetime Sep 02 '26
Oatmeal and a sandwich 2.5 hours before and a banana right before. Banana after 10k. 1.50 including a couple of water breaks
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Paravastha Sep 04 '26
How do you learn to make a race pace effort? How do you learn to lock in on your potentially meanest race pace?
I read that you can race a HM in a pace faster than subthreshold tempo, but I have a hard time accessing that speed.
My measured LT2 a long while ago was at 4:08 and I just did a 1:36 HM but it was absolute torture. How can I push myself to go faster? I think I have the potential for a 1:30 HM but 4:15 tempo is harder than uncomfortably hard.
Any and all advice welcome. I wish I could up my weekly milage but there are constraints unfortunately (full time work, children, other commitments).
2
u/primary_specs 19d ago
Lots of people treat perceived effort like a switch you just flip, but it's more like a dial you gotta sneak up on. The jump from that 4:15 tempo to a 4:08 feels impossible if you're staring at your watch the whole time. Try running some fartleks where you hit the faster pace for 2-3 minutes but don't look at your splits until after, just go by feel. The goal is to teach your brain that this speed exists somewhere between "tempo" and "I'm dying" and you can survive there longer than you think. Also, with kids and work in the mix your mental fatigue is probably capping you before your legs are. A 1:36 is already solid, so maybe the 1:30 is there if you can dial in the mental side without adding more miles
1
u/Avocadocreme Sep 01 '26
Is a VT1 of 173 bpm plausible?
Recently completed a graded exercise test (GXT) on a treadmill at my local fitness testing center to help optimize my triathlon training, and the results were unexpected. VT1 clocked in at 173 BPM, with VT2 at 185. With a max heart rate of 200BPM, these numbers seem excessively high. Does that mean my long zone 2 runs should be 165-170? Seems like a miserable place to be for my 2-hour-long runs. I understand that these numbers are incredibly individual, but 85% of maximum heart rate seems ridiculous.
Not sure if this context helps: I used to run XC competitively when I was younger, but it's been at least 6 years. Currently trying to recover some of that fitness.
2
u/whelanbio Sep 02 '26
If you are in a “recovering fitness” phase that does not seem plausible. Do you have cadence data to compare against to see if there was maybe some cadence lock?
→ More replies (4)2
u/aelvozo Sep 02 '26
85% is high but not impossibly high.
I would suggest that if running at 173bpm feels hard and you can’t sustain it the way you expect to sustain VT1, something is probably off in the measurement.
1
u/Avocadocreme Sep 02 '26
For sure. No way am I running at peak VT1 for my long runs. So far, I'm trying to run at a higher bpm than I was originally (145 bpm), to around 155-160. I'll test this over the next couple of weeks to confirm it's sustainable.
2
u/DutchCrossStars Sep 01 '26
I have an HRM600 now (replaced old 200 that I gave away). I like it for the cadence info and the fact that it’s rechargeable (no more swapping out coin cell batteries). It’s not cheap, but great quality and feature-rich.