Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Heart rate monitor training
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
I may be wrong, but that has worked for me.
I managed 2hours 7 which isn't great for me but I've not been running for a few years. Overall it felt quite comfortable. This is a real confidence boost because I was worried about it being quite hard.
By the way my %ages are not of MHR - they are as per RHR plus WHR. I'm planning to do the novice 12 week training schedule next.
I've got the Canterbury Half at the end of May, I think I'll do as both you and Fell Liker suggest and go for about 80% until the last 3 miles, then see how I feel. I'm treating it as an experiment so I'm not going to get too hung up on time.
Thanks,
Dex.
Hmm, doesn't seem right.
What could I have done wrong? Not hard enough? By the top of the hill on the 5th rep I was shot to bits and gasping for air. Is it possible to hit max HR on a 'normal' run?
I had the same experience as you, the Hill Intervals didn't really work for me as I only reached a MaxHR of 177bpm, when I knew I had seen higher. On one of my club sessions at the track where we were doing 1200m intervals 400m recovery x 6 sets, I reached a MaxHR 182bpm.
So the "flat" fast intervals worked better for me then the Hill Intervals. I would say if you've seen 186 and you sure its not a "spike" due to some other interference, then use that number until you see something higer. If you download your activities into TC, its got a Max HR per activity, it might be as simple to look back and see how you did on previous activties.
Dex.
Dex,
Parker recommends:
1st mara - 70% of WHR (not max!)for first 20 miles
Other mara - 75%
HM 80-85%
Keep going Hendo, keep going....
Mine is 8:20 and 7.58, so my 70% pace is a full 3 minutes slower than my 10k pace!
The alternative is to use the slower speeds as a chance to boost mileage - in which case you won't be able to go any faster... ;-)
10M @ 65% approx 7:45 pace - it does come...
Last night I had 8.55min/mile, Tuesday night was 9.08min/mile but Monday which was a lot cooler here was 8.39min/mile pace.
I read, Ptizingers, Serious Road running book (forgive the spelling, and the title, I don't have it in front of me)and he said to expect HR to increase when it heats up, due to the blood having to go from the muscles to the surface of the skin to aid cooling the body.
Dex.
Did 15M yesterday just under 7mm pace at avHR 71%max. Nothing that special, but very rewarding when you've endured the "death march" runs for long enough.
I did 6 laps jogging as a warm up at the track the other day. Lap 5 was 8:50 pace - avHR was 92! Seeing that kinda stuff is fun! (Was running with my kids).
Some are more suited to this slower stuff than others. But stick with it. Those who find it hardest are probably the FT guys - they're the ones who'll progress the quickest later on with this foundation.
Mrs Pants is more FT than ST. She has struggled with this for a couple of years. She patiently did miles and miles slower than 12mm pace. Just recently got almost 10min off her 10M PB (over 90min to 82/3min) and looks like there is much more to come. Really starting to see the fruit now. And I expect when she starts speed work this July she'll really reap the benefits of her patience.
Me? I'm ST. Find the slow and long stuff easy and adapt well, but struggle with the faster stuff. Horses. Courses.
Not sure if I'm FT or ST to be honest. I guess by the fact that I'm not very quick and have relatively short, muscular legs I'm more likely to be ST?
No?
Oh okay then.
My max HR is 183. My pace for sub135 (75%) runs in January was arond 10.30 min/mile. Yesterday, I ran 8.38 min/mile for this HR (actual av HR was 133). So, improvements will come if you can put up with the slow running at the start.
I also do some higher HR work. 145-150 & 150-155. These help to push LT up.
In addition - and as Hadd predicts in his article - my racing times have improved significantly, even though I almost never train at racing HRs.
So - stick with it guys....
I suspect I'm more ST then FT.
Dex.
Re. ST/FT - muscle biopsy is the only way to know for sure, but you can tell easily enough. ST guys will tend to longer events, higher mileage and slower pace. FT guys are the ones you have to drag to a HR training kicking and screaming... ;-) Seriously, it's a normal distribution, you'll work out where you lie on it in due course.
David - those higher HRs will be raising AeT NOT (directly) AnT/LT.
Hendo - I have very short, muscular legs too - I'm VERY ST. Appearance means little.
AnT is Anaerobic Threshold which is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with LT = Lactate Threshold.
AnT/LT is better known and understood. It is, in practice, the pace you can hold for 1hr (with a tiger behind you!) - so 10M pace for faster runners or maybe 10K pace for slower ones (and HM pace for Tergat et al).
What it actually is in theory is the pace at which, if you continue at the same pace, your blood lactate will continue to rise. Just by maintaining pace HR and lactate shoot up once you hit LT!
AeT is less well understood, but actually more important for marathon runners as it is, for all intents and purposes, the same as MP (Marathon Pace, before you ask!)
I think (though I may be wrong) it is the point where you hit maximal fat burning - if not it's near as damn it! So at lower HRs you burn less glycogen (and thus a higher % of fat), but as you get faster although %fat use decreases the amount of actual fat burnt still increases. This is because gylocgen use is increasing at a faster rate, lowering the %.
The key differences with regard to training to raise these thresholds is that AnT/LT is raised simply by training near to it. You can train just below it ("tempo runs"), at it (mile reps, perhaps) or slightly above it (400m reps or similar). Anyhting that "embarrasses" you aerobic system by strecthing it to its limits will provoke the right training/adaptation response.
The difference with AeT (as I understand it) is that you must train at it or just below it to raise it. Train above it actually suppresses it.
The reason for this (again, as I understand it) is that what you are doing with AeT/MP sessions is training the FTa fibres (FTb fibres are the "sprinting" ones - FTa fibres are more adaptable) to behave more like ST fibres. With your lower HR training your St fibres are able to burn fat well. What you want is to be able to use the FT fibres for the same job when the STs get depleted.
If you train just above AeT those FT fibres will be employed for sure, but you are teaching them to burn glycogen, not fat. Hence the suppressing of AeT (max fat burning, remember).
By training just below, you start to use the FT fibres but in a way that encourages them to burn fat.
This is a tightrope walk to be sure. Hadd uses cardiac drift to mointor this. If you are doing, for example, 3 x 5K reps at 85%MHR and the laps get slower (or the laps are equal but the HR rises), then that is an indication that you are burning more glycogen.
By starting out at 80-82%MHR and building slowly ONLY when you are consistently seeing no drift you can be sure you are training those pesky FTa fibres to burn fat - one at a time! Quite literally! You will use more and more FT fibres the faster you go - in the same sequence each time. So you'll teach the first ones to burn fat. Then go faster and teach the next lot to do the same and so on.
Training this way it is possible to get AeT as high as 88-89%MHR - where most runners have their AnT.
Training AeT is the foundation for good running. Do that first. Then when you get it up to 88% then you can work on AnT to "raise the ceiling" for future AeT improvements.
Very interesting post above. Reminds me that I really need to go back and re-read the Hadd article. I remember reading some of the details from your post in a thread in runnersworld.com in which Hadd posted...and gave more details about the importance of training new muscle fibres that weren't normally recruited.
I am currently reading the David Martin and Peter Coe book, which is quite hard going but very informative.
Hope you will find a way to continue to let those of us who are interetsted know how your training is going. Feel free to email me.
JF....before Paris I was doing around 60 mpw...before last November I was doing around 75mpw...plan for Dublin is to get back to around 60mpw and then follow P&D schedule up to max of 100mpw....although, Pant's post is making me wonder whether I hould just tick to simple Hadd....doh!! decisions....