TacticalBarbell.com

A question out of sheer curiosity gents.... a recent post on the sub got me thinking. Have any of you done your BB block using only the talk-test / no monitor? How did it work out for you? Any of you do both? How did one compare to the other in terms of final results?

Yes I do all the time. I have used a monitor and it was great, but you can get by without one. All you need to do is run slow enough to talk and then drop it down even slower:)

The talk test puts me between 155-170 and I can maintain that as my LSD pace until my legs give out. So I use the talk test and breath through my nose, I then run even slower until I feel like I could nearly walk quicker. That generally puts me in the sweet spot for Base building.

Put on some cruisy music or a podcast and enjoy the sights. Don't worry about how slow you are going because that's a good thing.

If I don't have my heart rate monitor (Watch) with me, the talk test is a great way of gauging your current state in a run.

I use a slightly different method. I open my mouth intermittently throughout the run. If I breathe through my mouth and shrug my shoulders, then I slow it down. I've timed it with an Atlas tracker, and so far, it's been a pretty good indicator if I'm approaching a HR that's too high for LSS.

I've done 'em both ways. I've improved on various markers with both methods. I can't tell you which one gave me better results though. I'd say you're good to go either way. I think the only people that really need to worry about staying strictly in the zone are the very out-of-shape or people that have problems running continuously for more than a few minutes.

Thanks for the replies guys. I know what the talk-test is, my question is more for comparing the results of heart-rate monitor vs talk-test results. Did one method give you better results than the other? I guess that might be hard to tell conclusively though...

TangoZero wrote:I've done 'em both ways. I've improved on various markers with both methods. I can't tell you which one gave me better results though.

Copy that, thanks for the input

StayGrey wrote:Thanks for the replies guys. I know what the talk-test is, my question is more for comparing the results of heart-rate monitor vs talk-test results. Did one method give you better results than the other? I guess that might be hard to tell conclusively though...

Honestly; I would imagine the difference in methodology would not amount to a statistically significant difference. Remember that you're probably going to be seeing differences in maybe 20 - 30 bpm between observations, which would average out throughout the LSS run. Further compound that by averaging the BPM and time differences over many LSS, I doubt there'll be differences worth worrying about.

The talk test is a rough estimation of how hard / easy you should be running without having to worry about your exact heart rate. As I recall, KB prefaced the LSS section with the story of the guy in old runners and tracksuits beating him, while he was decked out in the fancy run wear.

I remember asking a similar question way back on Reddit, and KB said that the exact HR wasn't as big a deal as making sure you weren't panting your head off.

If keeping your HR to the 140 max BPM is something you want to monitor, I think there are advanced chest strap monitors which can do that.

P.S. I rarely use a monitor or talk test when I do my LSS these days. I've noted how I should feel when I'm approaching the edge of what an LSS should feel like, and start level off.

Blackmetalbunny wrote:

StayGrey wrote:Thanks for the replies guys. I know what the talk-test is, my question is more for comparing the results of heart-rate monitor vs talk-test results. Did one method give you better results than the other? I guess that might be hard to tell conclusively though...

Honestly; I would imagine the difference in methodology would not amount to a statistically significant difference.

I agree and this is my experience as well. The idea behind Base is to avoid sprinting, tempo pacing and intervals. I do think there's one instance where adhering strictly to HR intervals is probably a good idea...and that's for people that can't run continuously for more than a few minutes at a time (as per TangoZero). Staying strictly within the zone would probably allow them to maintain the slower movement while simultaneously improving aerobic ability.

Aelian wrote: I agree and this is my experience as well. The idea behind Base is to avoid sprinting, tempo pacing and intervals. I do think there's one instance where adhering strictly to HR intervals is probably a good idea...and that's for people that can't run continuously for more than a few minutes at a time (as per TangoZero). Staying strictly within the zone would probably allow them to maintain the slower movement while simultaneously improving aerobic ability.

Yeah that's kind of where I was going with that...it gives people a chance to use other tools if they can't run non-stop for 30 minutes. Even if you're in terrible shape you should be able to speed-walk/elliptical/cycle at a pace fast enough to get in that 130-150bpm goodness..... T0