qTrader said:Sam wrote in message ...
Quoted message said:Screw the HRM, if you cannot talk during the run you are
going too fast.
I think what Sam's saying is that people get too hung up on
hrm numbers while running - esp. in this case where the OP
was having trouble going long when his hr was over 90%. Duh
😉 Using basics, like being able to carry on a conversation,
is a very effective training technique - until the person
learns the effects of various training efforts, how they
relate to hr, and understand the goal of each run.
Quoted message said:
Actually HRMs are great to keep you out of the middle
range between the aerobic and lactate threshold (LT) area.
I know that some training programs (Daniels and others
although Daniels does have MP in there) advocate keeping
you out of these perceived "no-man's lands" where the
effort is greater than needed for benefits of zone below
and not enough for benefits above, and there's an assumed
increase in recovery time. Hence they suggest staying out.
Others may have some portion of training targeted in that
range - "aerobic speed" of Benson and it looks like
Pfitzinger's uses it also (I don't have it, but Phil M's
comment in other subthread suggests it's there). I just got
a copy of Martin and Coe (Sam keeps mentioning it)
yesterday, and I notice a really nice table (one of the
best I've seen) on p. 192 with 4 zones of physiological
adaptations, their hr zones, and jargon describing the
sessions. There's no break in between the endurance and
stamina "zones" at about 80% (Karvonen HRR).
Many of these changes with hr are gradients, with gradual
changes, although there are some around LT where there are
some abrupt changes - but none of them are off/on type
things where below that zone, something's not happening;
above that zone it is. I'm not sure how you are using
aerobic and LT, since some programs refer to an aerobic
zone that goes all the way up to LT (or just below it). In
that zone between "easy" (around 60%-75% using Karvonen
forumula, 73-83% max hr; easy to talk in complete
sentences) and "LT" [85% (76-87%) Karv., 90% max; talking
is in phrases, at best), my understanding is that the
aerobic adaptations (capillaries, mitochondria, blood
volume, heart, etc) are still going on - and probably at a
higher rate than at a lower effort level. The CV system has
to pump the oxygen there to maintain the effort so it needs
to develop more volume. I think some of this still goes on
above LT (up to about 90% hrr, according to table in Martin
and Coe), but not sure about how much higher. Sam may be
able to clarify this.
I learned effort via hrm tied to breathing / conversational
effort, but now I run almost exclusively via perceived
effort aka breathing, talking, etc, although I do wear a
hrm and log the results that way. I can run or xc ski or
snowshoe or mt bike without it at desired effort just fine.
When I'm collapsed over my bike gasping for air because I
was determined to get up a hill without dismounting, I
don't need a hrm to tell me I'm well above 90%, usually
above 95%, max hr 🙂
Conversational effort works quite well, once you realize how
the ability to talk degrades gradually with effort level. To
me, "conversational effort" or difficulty in breathing
emphasizes the transitional nature of the efforts and the
physiological adaptations, etc. With hrm, people tend to get
hung up on exact numbers - their LT is at 155bpm (number
from thin air), for example - and below that they say they
are aerobic, above that they say they are anaerobic. It's
transitional. As one gets close to LT, your ability to talk
in complete, comprehensible sentences will degrade as only
phrases then words are blurted out. You won't be at a
conversational effort near a true VT/LT (using VT as
surrogate for LT, recognizing they may not be the same, esp.
in trained runners). So conversational effort or other body
signals does work at least as well as hrm. It's just harder
to log, which is why I use a hrm 😉 Being an experiment of
one and an experimental scientist (*not* a modeler), I gotta
have my numbers 😉
Quoted message said:To train your LT you Train at or above your LT with
intervals or tempo or fartlek, and you will get faster
with improved endurance. During your other training, the
effort level should be enough below the LT level that it
does not stress your system as much but gives the base
aerobic benefit. This system got my in the best shape of
my life and I still use it. for me it means avoiding the
heart rate range of 150 to 165 during the bulk of my
training. When doing efforts, I go at 165 to 175, and when
doing my base training I go at 135 to 150....
I might do "aerobic" speed or hills for strength or snowshoe
running in fresh snow in the zone you avoid. I'd be walking
a whole lot more if I didn't train my hills in that zone
(unless on long run). But I treat it like "speed" work - no
more than once a week when running 3 days/wk. Just a small
part of volume, usually.
BTW, I agree whole heartedly with your earlier comment about
the running and walking to increase duration of runs. Since
much of my training is still in Alaska winter on snow-
covered, sometimes hilly, trails, not necessarily hard-
packed, I get a much better workout by inserting walk
breaks, esp. on the steep hills or poor footing areas. As
footing gets better in the spring, I reduce the amount of
walking. Reality has convinced me that the likelihood of
running continuously on hilly trails for several hours (even
1.5-2 hr) may be an unrealistic goal by the time one
considers hills, unstable footing, reading map or trail
signs, getting someone else unlost, waiting for moose cow
and calf to move off the trail, etc. (I won't mention the
scenery or stopping to take pictures.)
Dot
--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
