Re: Newbie HRM training question

What are you going to do with all the money you don't have to spend to
look
cool?
*********
Actually, this fall I begin working on a doctorate...so I won't have
the (read: any) money!

Dan Stumpus said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

1 (recovery)= <139
2 (endurance)= 138-151
3 (intense endurance)= 152-157 [to be avoided at all times]
4 (threshold training) = 158-168

....

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, I intentionally run in zone 3 for about 90 minutes a couple
of times per week, prior to my speed-peaking phase. For me that's about
143-145 average. That is also the general heartbeat range I run my 50k and
50 mile races at.

....

Quoted message said:

This runner runs the long runs in z2 with some forays into z3 (maybe 30-45
minutes of the run if I'm feeling good).

Dan, I'm curious about something since you use z3. I'm familiar with the
"no-man's land" concept (zone 3 above) in so many books - too easy to
get real benefits and increases recovery. But what is the "recovery"
from? (don't laugh too hard 😉)

I've presumed they're assuming that the high heart rate is from running
faster with more impact, and hence need recovery from the impact or is
it truly the cardio or endocrine system that needs recovering (assuming
workout <2 hr range)?

In my case, many of my higher heart rates (usually in z3 or thereabouts,
occasionally nudging into z4 if I'm not careful or if I want a spurt)
are power hiking steep hills (15-30%) or running gentler (10% slopes)
hills. Lower heart rates are from downhills - maybe descending 2000-3000
ft 15-30% slopes. The thing I've found I need to allow the most recovery
from are those downhills with low heartrate. Hence, my seemingly weird
question.

OTOH, I rarely do any higher effort stuff on the flats, but the little
I've done (maybe 15-20 min above LT in the past year, more in the past)
didn't seem to be a big issue for recovery - at least relative to
downhills. This is why I'm wondering what the recovery is from.

I recognize as some of these things get longer (3+ hours), there's lots
of stresses that accumulate in the endocrine system, etc, but I'm
thinking primarily in terms of shorter workouts.

Thanks.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 (recovery)= <139
2 (endurance)= 138-151
3 (intense endurance)= 152-157 [to be avoided at all times]
4 (threshold training) = 158-168

Quoted message said:

Dan, I'm curious about something since you use z3. I'm familiar with the
"no-man's land" concept (zone 3 above) in so many books - too easy to get
real benefits and increases recovery.

First off, I think the notion that 80% max HR (below LT, but quickish)
running is no-mans-land is wrong. Sure, you can't do it every day, but it's
important. Running in this zone is important to nudge your LT upward, by
stimulating mitochondrial growth and vascularization in the slow-twitch
fat-burning fibres.

Read Hadd for a lot more detail on this. I had gotten away from z3 when I
started competing after a 15 year lay-off, and now I'm including it with
good results. I'd noticed that my LT was way lower as a % of my max than it
used to be, but couldn't figure out why, until I read Hadd.

Quoted message said:

But what is the "recovery" from? (don't laugh too hard 😉)

In my case recovery is motivated by 70% fatigue and 30% aches and pains.
I can easily get myself sick (sore throat or bronchitis) by working too
hard, too often.

Quoted message said:

I've presumed they're assuming that the high heart rate is from running
faster with more impact, and hence need recovery from the impact or is it
truly the cardio or endocrine system that needs recovering (assuming
workout <2 hr range)?

Well, my golden rule is that if I run at a pace or distance which isn't
sustainable day in and day out, I do a recovery effort (125-130) the next
day. I'm a little tired the day after, and wary of injuries, although
rerely sore. Interestingly, after doing z3 twice weekly for 6 weeks, I
feel the same fatigue the day after, but am running 20-30 secs/mile faster.
Because I try to maintain my target HR on the downhills (9 miles of my 10.5
mile z3 course is either up or down 5-12% grade), I take a lot of pounding,
and it's good on GP to plod along the day after that.

Quoted message said:

The thing I've found I need to allow the most recovery from are those
downhills with low heartrate. Hence, my seemingly weird question.

I usually ice my knees, achilles, or arches a bit after my strenuous runs,
in addition to taking it easy the next day. (I run every day, except just
before races).

Quoted message said:

OTOH, I rarely do any higher effort stuff on the flats, but the little
I've done (maybe 15-20 min above LT in the past year, more in the past)
didn't seem to be a big issue for recovery - at least relative to
downhills. This is why I'm wondering what the recovery is from.

I'm more tired the next day from this:

2 mi w/u, 11 min hard uphill, 6 min jog, 3 x 3 min hard, 5 mi easy.

Than from this:

1.5 mi w/u, 10.5 mi moderate, 1700' of climb, 147 avg HR, in 1:24.

Somehow short spurts of high intensity take more out of me than a quickish
10 miler.

-- Dan

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>1 (recovery)= <139
>2 (endurance)= 138-151
>3 (intense endurance)= 152-157 [to be avoided at all times]
>4 (threshold training) = 158-168

Quoted message said:

Dan, I'm curious about something since you use z3. I'm familiar with the
"no-man's land" concept (zone 3 above) in so many books - too easy to

get

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

real benefits and increases recovery.

First off, I think the notion that 80% max HR (below LT, but quickish)
running is no-mans-land is wrong. Sure, you can't do it every day, but

it's

Quoted message said:

important. Running in this zone is important to nudge your LT upward, by
stimulating mitochondrial growth and vascularization in the slow-twitch
fat-burning fibres.

I don't recall Hadd suggesting what would be zone 3 in this thread. He had
his subject doing long stints at about HR 160 for a max of 193, which is
83%, and would seem to fall in the lower end of zone 4. Then he had him
edging it up into the mid 160's and higher later as he got fitter.

It's also hard to say what how the above zones correspond to max HR when
they're designed around LT. To me that's the problem with them. LT moves
around depending on where you're at in your training.

Quoted message said:

Read Hadd for a lot more detail on this. I had gotten away from z3 when I
started competing after a 15 year lay-off, and now I'm including it with
good results. I'd noticed that my LT was way lower as a % of my max than

it

Quoted message said:

used to be, but couldn't figure out why, until I read Hadd.

Are you sure it's not slightly higher in the LT zone? I too have done a
good deal of running in what looks like lower zone 4 here 84% to 87% mostly,
with great results. For me, my "junk zone" is the region from 75% to about
84%-85%, where things start getting effective, though as you get fitter this
might need to be slightly higher. I also find I'm far better rested for
quality sessions if I keep my other efforts <70%.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

snipped<

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>1 (recovery)= <139
>>2 (endurance)= 138-151
>>3 (intense endurance)= 152-157 [to be avoided at all times]
>>4 (threshold training) = 158-168

Quoted message said:

I don't recall Hadd suggesting what would be zone 3 in this thread. He had
his subject doing long stints at about HR 160 for a max of 193, which is
83%, and would seem to fall in the lower end of zone 4.

That guy's 83% was 10 beats below where it starts to become hard (170), and
he stated that he could maybe do a 5k at 180 (which is slightly above LT for
an experienced racer -- it hurts like hell almost the whole way to run a 5k
well). So his LT was probably in the low 170's at the start, and 160 was
probably 12 below his lt.

Threshold training (zone 4) is LT, isn't it? That's the way I was taking
it. All this is a long way of stating that zone 3, about 80% max hr and 10+
below LT is the area where Hadd says the important endurance conditioning is
done. He also had the guy doing a lot of work in 150-155 range too. This
is above easy endurance (145 for the subject) and below estimated LT of 17x.
Hadd's main point is that moving up to the hard stuff (LT+) before a lot of
solid training at 80% leaves you running below your potential. Harder is
not better.

Yes, as conditioning improves, you can run at a higher rate comfortably, and
you can also run at a higher pace at a given heartrate, so it's a moving
target.

Quoted message said:

Are you sure it's not slightly higher in the LT zone? I too have done a
good deal of running in what looks like lower zone 4 here 84% to 87%
mostly,
with great results.

Running daily as I do, I cannot do a lot of running in the 84 to 87% range
(that's 155 to 160 for me, and is definitely LT, not pleasant, territory).
I ran my mountain 1/2 M at a bit over 160, and an 8.4 mile race at 165, for
example. Just notching down to 144-148 is *much* more pleasant, but still
quick. Doesn't feel like junk, by any means. And my easy runs are now 20
sec/mile faster than they were before doing this z3 stuff. This improvement
did not occur when I was doing LT runs and speedwork. I was basically
leaving a hole in the z3 area, as apparently many of us do.

I've got a big race in a few weeks (50k with 8k' of climb), and that will
tell the tale. My best finish there is top 11% (and I'm a couple years
older (~2% slower by the charts) now). If I place well, that will vindicate
this style of training.

For me, my "junk zone" is the region from 75% to about

Quoted message said:

84%-85%, where things start getting effective, though as you get fitter
this
might need to be slightly higher.

Have you actually worked up a base with the 80% stuff as the harder days,
say for 10 weeks or so, as Hadd suggests, and then gone on to the LT and
speedwork after that?

That's what I'm doing, and am just getting into speedwork about 5 wks prior
to my race.

-- Dan

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>1 (recovery)= <139
>>>2 (endurance)= 138-151
>>>3 (intense endurance)= 152-157 [to be avoided at all times]
>>>4 (threshold training) = 158-168

Quoted message said:

I don't recall Hadd suggesting what would be zone 3 in this thread. He

had

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

his subject doing long stints at about HR 160 for a max of 193, which is
83%, and would seem to fall in the lower end of zone 4.

That guy's 83% was 10 beats below where it starts to become hard (170),

and

Quoted message said:

he stated that he could maybe do a 5k at 180 (which is slightly above LT

for

Quoted message said:

an experienced racer -- it hurts like hell almost the whole way to run a

5k

Quoted message said:

well). So his LT was probably in the low 170's at the start, and 160 was
probably 12 below his lt.

Yes, I recall that in the beginning Hadd worked backwards from where his LT
would be in race shape, and set his "quality" workouts at a low enough HR
(160), where it would be below LT without testing.

Quoted message said:

Threshold training (zone 4) is LT, isn't it? That's the way I was taking
it. All this is a long way of stating that zone 3, about 80% max hr and

10+

Quoted message said:

below LT is the area where Hadd says the important endurance conditioning

is

Quoted message said:

done. He also had the guy doing a lot of work in 150-155 range too. This
is above easy endurance (145 for the subject) and below estimated LT of

17x.

Quoted message said:

Hadd's main point is that moving up to the hard stuff (LT+) before a lot

of

Quoted message said:

solid training at 80% leaves you running below your potential. Harder is
not better.

Zone 4 is sub LT threshold training, and Hadd set Joe's workouts at the
lower end of that zone in my reading of it, though Joe's LT was a rough
estimate without testing. I'll have to go back and read Hadd again. I don't
recall work in the 150-155 range. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you,
It's a question of whether the Hadd work was in upper zone 3 or lower zone
4, I believe.

That's hard to tell because Joe's LT was unknown at the time. His race-fit
LT was very high, becasue Hadd said "I was able to tell him that based on
this HRmax his best marathon HR would be 175-177", which would mean when in
race condition his LT would probably be over 180. In this case, his LT based
zones might put 160 into zone 3. But at the time he was starting, his LT was
probably much lower, putting it where? Hard to say.

Quoted message said:

Yes, as conditioning improves, you can run at a higher rate comfortably,

and

Quoted message said:

you can also run at a higher pace at a given heartrate, so it's a moving
target.

Quoted message said:

Are you sure it's not slightly higher in the LT zone? I too have done a
good deal of running in what looks like lower zone 4 here 84% to 87%
mostly,
with great results.

Running daily as I do, I cannot do a lot of running in the 84 to 87% range
(that's 155 to 160 for me, and is definitely LT, not pleasant, territory).
I ran my mountain 1/2 M at a bit over 160, and an 8.4 mile race at 165,

for

Quoted message said:

example. Just notching down to 144-148 is *much* more pleasant, but still
quick. Doesn't feel like junk, by any means. And my easy runs are now 20
sec/mile faster than they were before doing this z3 stuff. This

improvement

Quoted message said:

did not occur when I was doing LT runs and speedwork. I was basically
leaving a hole in the z3 area, as apparently many of us do.

My max is about 190, and my marathon and 50k HRs last year were 162 and 159
respectively. So for me (with a max just a bit lower than Hadd's Joe) 160 is
84%, and is quite doable for longer training sessions, but because of my
limited mileage I usually limited it to 20 mins a week until my final month
of training before tapering, where I injected up to 45 mins at 160-165 in my
long runs. I worked up to doing some of my tempo sessions at 165-170, and
would estimate my LT was at about 175 at the time.

Quoted message said:

I've got a big race in a few weeks (50k with 8k' of climb), and that will
tell the tale. My best finish there is top 11% (and I'm a couple years
older (~2% slower by the charts) now). If I place well, that will

vindicate

Quoted message said:

this style of training.

For me, my "junk zone" is the region from 75% to about

Quoted message said:

84%-85%, where things start getting effective, though as you get fitter
this
might need to be slightly higher.

Have you actually worked up a base with the 80% stuff as the harder days,
say for 10 weeks or so, as Hadd suggests, and then gone on to the LT and
speedwork after that?

No, and there's a good deal to learn from the Hadd articles I think, but
it's hard to apply it to my cross-training low mileage situation. The
general ideas I got from Hadd are:

1) Develop as much base as possible isolating slow-twich endurance muscles
first, which might be best done at <=70% max HR (he used 70% of V02max which
is a bit different). This slow training alone, according to Hadd, will yeild
far better endurance results than running faster for medium long runs, as he
stated in his personal example. For me this meant doing all my running
except quality at this easy pace.

2) You can do very effective tempo work at a pace farther below LT than is
usually thought effective, and do more of it, yeilding great results. For
Joe, this was the quality 160 HR runs. For me this meant not worrying about
where my LT was, but just do enough quality at an effort level
conservatively below LT. This meant for me starting at just under 160, and
moving into the mid 160's and higher later as I got fitter.

These two guidelines are what I took from Hadd and have found very effective
for me this year.
(I'll have to go back and read it again to see the 150-155 work, as that
didn't stand out to me in the initial readings).

Quoted message said:

That's what I'm doing, and am just getting into speedwork about 5 wks

prior

Quoted message said:

to my race.

Good luck, it will be interesting to see how it works out for you.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>1 (recovery)= <139
>2 (endurance)= 138-151
>3 (intense endurance)= 152-157 [to be avoided at all times]
>4 (threshold training) = 158-168

Quoted message said:

Dan, I'm curious about something since you use z3. I'm familiar with the
"no-man's land" concept (zone 3 above) in so many books - too easy to get
real benefits and increases recovery.

First off, I think the notion that 80% max HR (below LT, but quickish)
running is no-mans-land is wrong. Sure, you can't do it every day, but it's
important. Running in this zone is important to nudge your LT upward, by
stimulating mitochondrial growth and vascularization in the slow-twitch
fat-burning fibres.

That's my thinking also.

Quoted message said:

Read Hadd for a lot more detail on this.

Let me review this. It's been a while (year or so) since I read the
whole thing and found some of it confusing because of his use of bpm and
paces - both of which are fairly meaningless unless in context. Based on
your discussion with Tony, I need to go re-read that. I was
volunteering at a 50/100 this weekend, and need to get some sleep before
trying anything that requires thought 😉

<I'll respond to rest later also>

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Dan Stumpus said:

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>1 (recovery)= <139
>2 (endurance)= 138-151
>3 (intense endurance)= 152-157 [to be avoided at all times]
>4 (threshold training) = 158-168

Quoted message said:

Dan, I'm curious about something since you use z3. I'm familiar with the
"no-man's land" concept (zone 3 above) in so many books - too easy to get
real benefits and increases recovery.

First off, I think the notion that 80% max HR (below LT, but quickish)
running is no-mans-land is wrong. Sure, you can't do it every day, but it's
important. Running in this zone is important to nudge your LT upward, by
stimulating mitochondrial growth and vascularization in the slow-twitch
fat-burning fibres.

Isn't z3 stimulating some of the fast twitch fibers? and the lower hr
(z1, z2) stimulating the slow twitch? or am I messed up in my
interpretation?

Quoted message said:

Read Hadd for a lot more detail on this.

Here's my interpretation of Hadd, assuming VO2max is about 94% max HR
(don't remember where I found that number; also not sure that hr numbers
can be simply multiplied):

Mitochondria improved in
Fast twitch white fibers >=80% VO2max; >=75% max HR
Fast twitch red fibers 85% VO2max; 80% max HR
Slow twitch 50-70% VO2max; 47-66% max HR
(based on rat study)

Recommendations at end (I used the HRmax 183 paragraph):
Easy running: <=74% HRmax (but this seems high based on rat study)
Initial LT HR: 79-82%
Best possible marathon HR: 91%

Then move LT hr up but
"only move it up (only by 5bpm each time) when your pace vs HR is steady
and you are able to run 10 miles at the particular HR without loss of
pace or rise in HR."

IOW, Hadd used bulk of the base mileage at 74% max hr, I think. Then
started moving LT runs up.

What's puzzling to me in this, is that he takes initial LT HR as 79-82%
whereas I thought most untrained, but not sedentary, people had upper
end of LT approaching 90%, and trained runners would have LT higher than
90%. I'm guessing this is a conservative estimate to be sure to be below
LT with these runs. I'm wondering if these are equivalent to the
"aerobic speed" of Benson, below LT - looks like z3 to me since z4
sounds like it may include some LT.

IOW, it looks like Hadd has the bulk of training below 74% with the
"hard" runs being harder but below LT.

Quoted message said:

I had gotten away from z3 when I
started competing after a 15 year lay-off, and now I'm including it with
good results. I'd noticed that my LT was way lower as a % of my max than it
used to be, but couldn't figure out why, until I read Hadd.

Quoted message said:

But what is the "recovery" from? (don't laugh too hard 😉)

In my case recovery is motivated by 70% fatigue and 30% aches and pains.
I can easily get myself sick (sore throat or bronchitis) by working too
hard, too often.

got it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've presumed they're assuming that the high heart rate is from running
faster with more impact, and hence need recovery from the impact or is it
truly the cardio or endocrine system that needs recovering (assuming
workout <2 hr range)?

Well, my golden rule is that if I run at a pace or distance which isn't
sustainable day in and day out, I do a recovery effort (125-130) the next
day. I'm a little tired the day after, and wary of injuries, although
rerely sore. Interestingly, after doing z3 twice weekly for 6 weeks, I
feel the same fatigue the day after, but am running 20-30 secs/mile faster.
Because I try to maintain my target HR on the downhills (9 miles of my 10.5
mile z3 course is either up or down 5-12% grade), I take a lot of pounding,
and it's good on GP to plod along the day after that.

Ouch. Most of mine are steep enough that I can't maintain hr.

Quoted message said:

....

Quoted message said:

I'm more tired the next day from this:

2 mi w/u, 11 min hard uphill, 6 min jog, 3 x 3 min hard, 5 mi easy.

Than from this:

1.5 mi w/u, 10.5 mi moderate, 1700' of climb, 147 avg HR, in 1:24.

Somehow short spurts of high intensity take more out of me than a quickish
10 miler.

ok, that makes sense, and is consistent with what I was thinking.

Thanks for your comments.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First off, I think the notion that 80% max HR (below LT, but quickish)
running is no-mans-land is wrong. Sure, you can't do it every day, but
it's important. Running in this zone is important to nudge your LT
upward, by stimulating mitochondrial growth and vascularization in the
slow-twitch fat-burning fibres.

Isn't z3 stimulating some of the fast twitch fibers? and the lower hr (z1,
z2) stimulating the slow twitch? or am I messed up in my interpretation?

Well, I don't think we know, since rat studies may not be transferrable to
humans.
For me the key is that the "hole" in my training zone (from 72-82% hrMax)
needs to be exercised, and it seems to work, whether it gets the ST or FTw
or both.

Quoted message said:

Here's my interpretation of Hadd, assuming VO2max is about 94% max HR
(don't remember where I found that number; also not sure that hr numbers
can be simply multiplied):

Quoted message said:

Recommendations at end (I used the HRmax 183 paragraph):
Easy running: <=74% HRmax (but this seems high based on rat study)
Initial LT HR: 79-82%
Best possible marathon HR: 91%

Then move LT hr up but
"only move it up (only by 5bpm each time) when your pace vs HR is steady
and you are able to run 10 miles at the particular HR without loss of pace
or rise in HR."

My medium runs in the formerly unexercised zones started out at 142hr, and
are now 147hr at the same moderate effort. (I get up to 170 for brief
periods during this run, without trying)

Quoted message said:

What's puzzling to me in this, is that he takes initial LT HR as 79-82%
whereas I thought most untrained, but not sedentary, people had upper end
of LT approaching 90%, and trained runners would have LT higher than 90%.

I agree with you. Lance Armstrong's max hr is 201 and his LT is 178-182. I
don't consider the 79-82% range to be LT, in that it is not unpleasant, and
I can run it for 3+ hours if I need to, but it is quickish.

Without ever being blood-tested for LT, I would think that is where it
starts to be unpleasant, and where you could only run a couple of (rather
painful) miles at that pace.

For me that is in the 170 range. I can maintain 160+ for over an hour in a
race, so that would have to be below LT for me. The 145-150 ish sweet-spot
where I'm doing 20-30 mpw of my training now is well below the estimated LT
of 170. It corresponds to the 160 hr of Hadd's elite runner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because I try to maintain my target HR on the downhills (9 miles of my
10.5 mile z3 course is either up or down 5-12% grade), I take a lot of
pounding, and it's good on GP to plod along the day after that.

Ouch. Most of mine are steep enough that I can't maintain hr.

I find that as I get in shape I can run a good HR on some steeper downhills,
it's one of the adaptations I get when training hard.

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First off, I think the notion that 80% max HR (below LT, but quickish)
running is no-mans-land is wrong. Sure, you can't do it every day, but
it's important. Running in this zone is important to nudge your LT
upward, by stimulating mitochondrial growth and vascularization in the
slow-twitch fat-burning fibres.

Isn't z3 stimulating some of the fast twitch fibers? and the lower hr (z1,
z2) stimulating the slow twitch? or am I messed up in my interpretation?

Well, I don't think we know, since rat studies may not be transferrable to
humans.

I agree. That's why I've been reluctant to place too much emphasis on
the details. But I think that study was in 1982 so there may be
something since then. Looks like a lot of work with rats.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/4/844

I went back and glanced (didn't re-digest) at a few (not all) of the
other hr training articles / books I have. I think those were focusing
mostly on the overall cardio benefits of different zones, whereas Hadd
applied the rat study to the various kinds of muscle fibers. And that
could be some of the different emphasis. I'm going to re-read some of
that stuff since I probably haven't read it in several years and have a
better framework for understanding and applying it now.

Quoted message said:

For me the key is that the "hole" in my training zone (from 72-82% hrMax)
needs to be exercised, and it seems to work, whether it gets the ST or FTw
or both.

ok, thanks. My "easy" runs are generally around 77-81% max HR (creep up
to 85% up hills, if I'm not careful). This summer I've noticed I can
still run down to about 75% - if I concentrate on going slowly - and use
that for "recovery" runs. Not sure if that's because at that effort in
winter I have to put more clothes on to stay warm and hence avoid it and
haven't done that much summer running 😉.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's puzzling to me in this, is that he takes initial LT HR as 79-82%
whereas I thought most untrained, but not sedentary, people had upper end
of LT approaching 90%, and trained runners would have LT higher than 90%.

I agree with you. Lance Armstrong's max hr is 201 and his LT is 178-182. I
don't consider the 79-82% range to be LT, in that it is not unpleasant, and
I can run it for 3+ hours if I need to, but it is quickish.

Right, and 79-82% is around my "Easy" zone. What I'm wondering is if the
"initial" LT hr is set low enough to be well under starting LT hr.
Through training, it works out that LT becomes something well above 91%,
so a person can hold 91% for marathon. As you say, LT should be
maintainable for 1 hr.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because I try to maintain my target HR on the downhills (9 miles of my
10.5 mile z3 course is either up or down 5-12% grade), I take a lot of
pounding, and it's good on GP to plod along the day after that.

Ouch. Most of mine are steep enough that I can't maintain hr.

I find that as I get in shape I can run a good HR on some steeper downhills,
it's one of the adaptations I get when training hard.

Right, but your hills aren't 20-30%, though, are they? I've noticed
definite improvement in my body's ability to withstand some of these
downhills over the last couple years. I'm also looking for some long,
gentle hills (say, 5-7% - or 10% on dirt) as they'll better mimic the
trail for my long-term goal - and the downs are easier on the body.

Thanks for your comments.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope