Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Base training backlash
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
However, because of my age I tend to follow quality rather than quantity. I need every other day to recover from my runs be they speed interval runs, tempo or just plain easy trots.
I think that one very important point is being missed here, and is relevant whatever age you are, what ever programme you are following, and that is this:---
Every runner whould learn to listen to their physical body. By relying too much on HRM to give out information as to what is going on, how fast you can be running on any given day at what speed etc, does not necessarily mean that one is learning to listen as carefully as one can to one's body. This is critical, we are all different as Walkman pointed out, in races one has to make on the spot decisions sometimes to keep up the pace, ease off, drink, not drink etc. In training one has to listen carefully to every muscle used for running otherwise one can miss the early signs of an impending injury.
I had not intended to make this a long posting at all, and had just intended to type "learn to listen to your body and train accordingly".
It has taken me a lot of courage to post this as I felt quite intimidated by the long scientific postings.
I find it faintly ludicrous to read of base builders setting themselves an absolute HR limit (140, say) beyond which they dare not go. There are so many factors which can affect HR as to make absolute limits, if not totally meaningless, certainly at the very least, dubious. You have to take into account the way your body (and mind!) feel(s).
(thought i was weird feeling ok with aHR of 16o)
I still remember from a few years ago a session I had which I intended to be easy (sub 140 HR or thereabouts). I got home to do it having had a cr*p day at work, & on arrival to find out from Mrs S that my son had been in trouble at school.
Got out on my "easy" run & could see while warming up the HR was going thru the roof. Got going, and inside ¼ mile it was above 150.
One of the sessions that convinced me training purely by HR was a waste of time.
I agree with you to a point. People should “learn to listen to your body and train accordingly”.
Unfortunately, most people listen to their body and think “I could be running faster”; “no pain, no gain”; “I’m tired from yesterday, I think I’ll take a couple of days off, then train flat out again”
Where base training is helping, is that it is forcing people to slow down a bit and be able to build their mileage. At the end of the day, I hope they will be able to run without constantly referring to their HRMs, but better that than making the same mistakes year after year.
FWIW, my HRM has been tucked away in a drawer for the last two months, but then I don't have any problems running slowly!
However, studies have been done which show that varied training leads to greater performance improvements, fewer injuries, and reduces the likelihood of over-training compared to monotonous one-pace training. These studies provide evidence backing up the perceived wisdom that you should vary the "stress" (= duration x intensity) of training sessions on a daily basis, i.e. alternate hard and easy days or use a medium-hard-easy pattern. So even if you are base training I think it is a good idea to vary the speed and duration of runs to avoid the problems that these studies highlighted. Also, some days I think it is a good idea to just let yourself run how you feel / do a fartlek session (an unstructured session where you play around with the speed however you want) so that you get an idea of what feels good, what feels too easy, when you are starting to work hard, etc.
I remember reading in an article a year or two back about one of the Kenyan runners (it might have been Paul Tergat) where he was quoted as saying that however bad he felt in the morning, he would always go out and run one easy mile. If he felt a bit better after that he would continue. If he felt worse, he would go straight home and get back into bed. And for most of his training sessions he'd plan to run for a set duration, but speed-wise he would just ran according to how he felt.
HRMs are our slaves, not vice versa. But listening to your body and running with HR limits for a period of time need not be mutually exclusive.
Quote for the day:
"The better the runner, the lower the lactate at which he will train. This is true even all the way to elite athletes. A 4-hour marathon runner might claim to hit marathon pace almost daily. This will not be true of a sub-2.30 guy. He knows that marathon pace is a serious effort, even though his lactate at marathon pace is lower than that of the 4-hour guy."
However, you start your 2nd Para with However,--- as if you are disagreeing with my view over the type of training you are describing. I agree with you about this being the way to train. Variety is the spice of life, it also helps train a successful runner. This is exactly how I train, but as I said before on alternate days because when one is older one needs a recovery day between each run. When training with the variety of different daily schedules, it is important not to make this your bible. One is able to change the weekly programme set out at the begining of the week according to how one feels. And I don't according mean how lazy or unmotivated one feels, that is a different issue. To go by your last para. sums my view up very well.
But the converse of this, that training at a lower lactate will make you a better runner, is not necessarily true... Correlation is not causation.
Another Kenyan runner (again can't remember who) said that he'd never dream of doing a training run as long as 2 hours as this just inflicted far too much leg muscle damage. He said there was no point - he new he could run for 2 hours so what was the point. Perhaps we should ditch that weekly long run...
for some reason you have intimidated me on several threads at different times. I won the problem. You would not have known this because I did not put in an appearance, but felt strongly enough this time to voice my views.
I respect what you believe in and you are certainly passionate about your running. I had been told by other peeps that had met you that you are very nice!
I also have to say that there are many peeps out there sucessfully running with HRM and doing base training and the last thing I want to do is to undermind their confidence in what they are doing.
Everybody to their own way.
It was there to suggest that the previous "There is no point pushing it so hard on one day's run that you are can't train properly the next day" statement shouldn't be interpreted as meaning just train at the same moderate pace every day.
This would have allowed him to run fast over a long distance but without building up lactate since the interval prevents an over-accumulation. Since this is one of the key points of base training then we do in fact have a convenient way of introducing regular faster runs at higher HRs without inducing the negative side-effects of regularly accumulating lactate.
I suppose that you could simply slow down once you start to feel a "burn" in the legs which would fit in with listening to your body but i would suspect it's actually a bit too late by then. A bit like only drinking when you're thirsty - if you do this in a marathon then you've generally left it too late. The HR monitor is just an early warning mechanism/rev limiter, no more.
Probably lots of contradictions in what I've just said - does it make any sense?
How is it possible to tell? Or is it just guess-work?
As is well documented on the base training thread, I found it difficult to stick to in the pure "base for a base" format. Having to walk repeatedly and 'run' so slowly was, for me, ruining my enjoyment of running - which is my primary reason for doing it. But as well as enjoying running, I do want to get better. Running slower so as to build more mileage seems to me to make sense - and having tested out the building miles WITHOUT much slower running over the past week or so I can say that it doesn't suit my body, which got run down and ended up with a virus.
BUT I can't handle weeks and weeks of uninterrupted slow running. While I want to build mileage, I realistically know I won't be able to find time for 60+ miles a week. So I'm aiming at 5-6 days a week, with one of those runs being a shorter, tempo-paced run and the rest being below 70% of WHR. Once I'm comfortable with that AND the extra mileage, I may consider increasing the pace of one of the longer midweek sessions. But slowly, slowly. Really give my body time to adapt before putting too many demands on it.
One question I have though. Everyone talks about raising vLT - how do you find your aerobic threshold?
MikeS is spot on re. Zatopek - he would not have gone over LT at the start of the session otherwise he would not have completed it. The vast number of reps would have made it primarily an aerobic session early on.
Gravy - agree, doesn't make the converse true. Didn't say it, just quoted it.. ;-)
JohnnyJ - agree - I have always recommended the 180 rule as a GUIDE. I prefer that formula as a starting point as it also allows for fitness levels, background, etc.. making it more likely to be CLOSE to the right level.
I am sure there is a desireable "double edge" that allows for use HRM and yet also actively encourages assessing how you feel.
Ceal, I am not as scary as my photo suggests! I am confident in what I believe because I am a learner and have considered much and understand why I believe what I do. But nothing is sacrasanct and to go on learning everything MUST be challengeable. I hope to continue to learn from you and all the others on these boards.