Re: Some speed progress...

Leafing through rec.running, I read Ignoramus19386's message of 07 Oct
2004:

Quoted message said:

In article P2c9d.3388$Va.2474@trndny08 said:

Ignoramus19386 wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I am concentrating on trying to learn to run at higher speed (after
being a lifelong jogger), and I am making some progress. The benchmark
distance that I usually run in about 14 minutes, I ran today in just
11:24. (this distance is exactly half of my small run). The heart rate
was 144, which is about 77% of MHR. It corresponds to breathing every
6 steps (3 steps in, 3 steps out). Whenever I have more time to run, I
will try to run twice that and include some hills. On weekend, maybe
3x that (which took me 1:35 to run once)

What I would like is to learn, now, to run long distances at
approximately this speed without becoming tired too quickly.

By the way, I am reading Bob Glover's running book right now...

So how's it feel to run at that pace?

It's okay, I guess, but it requires me to actually remember not to
slow down, to be alert. Unlike jogging, which is a pace when Irun
while my mind drifts off. I felt quite good afterwards.

Quoted message said:

It's not a good idea to try to run faster on all your runs, but only
once a week or so at first.

That's what Bob Glover's book say about "tempo runs" also. My own
feeling is that my running speed, 77% MHR and 3-3 breathing, is not
quite as fast as those tempo runs. It is more of a reflection that I
was very slow before. So, I will try to run most of the time at this
speed, and see where it leads.

How did you test your max heart rate? If it's not accurate, you can throw
all these numbers out the window. If you think you know your MHR, then
77% would indeed be a good training effort. Not so easy that it doesn't
work your cardiovascular system and not so hard that you can't sustain
it. A tempo run effort would be slightly higher, in the 85 - 90% MHR
range. You could talk at this effort, but not very easily. Also, your
heart rate is greatly effected by conditions such as heat, wind, hills,
and terrain.

<75% is my easy run effort, although I don't strictly adhere to this. 77%
would fall into my long run effort (73 - 83% MHR).

Recovery: <75% MHR
Long Runs: 73 - 83% MHR
Aerobic: 80 - 84% MHR
Marathon Pace: ~84% Avg MHR (allowing for cardiac drift)
Lactate Threshold: 85 - 90% MHR
VO2 Max: 94 - 98% MHR

Glover's range is pretty wide. Between 70 and 85% of MHR he calls your
"training heart rate." Below 70% MHR does not provide much cardiovascular
conditioning. Above 85% will be too stressful for you to sustain the
effort long enough to provide cardiovascular conditioning.

You can also forget about heart rates and just go by the "talk" test. If
you can talk comfortably but you are running fast enough to perspire,
then you are at ~70% MHR. if you can talk, but not easily, you are at ~
85% MHR. If you are out of breath, straining and unable to talk, you are
over 85%.

Phil M.

--
"If you feel bad at 10 miles, you're in trouble. If you feel bad at 20
miles, you're normal. If you don't feel bad at 26 miles, you're
abnormal." -Rob de Castella

Leafing through rec.running, I read Ignoramus19386's message of 07 Oct
2004:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>By the way, I am reading Bob Glover's running book right now...

Which one? The info I posted is from "The New Competitive Runner's
Handbook."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How did you test your max heart rate? If it's not accurate, you can
throw all these numbers out the window.

Hm, good question. I used formula

MHR = 220-age in years

Performance-based MHR tests are much more accurate. Here's one that I've
done that seems to be the most accurate: Warm up thoroughly. Run three
high-intensity 600-meter repeats up a moderate hill, jogging back down
right away after each one. If you run these 600s all out, your heart rate
should be within two to three beats of maximum by the end of the third
repeat. For you, the hardest part of this test is finding a 600 meter
hill in Illinois. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your heart rate is greatly effected by conditions such as heat,
wind, hills, and terrain.

It was early morning, mostly flat, 50F, no wind.

Those conditions are good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<75% is my easy run effort, although I don't strictly adhere to this.
77%
would fall into my long run effort (73 - 83% MHR).

Recovery: <75% MHR
Long Runs: 73 - 83% MHR
Aerobic: 80 - 84% MHR
Marathon Pace: ~84% Avg MHR (allowing for cardiac drift)
Lactate Threshold: 85 - 90% MHR
VO2 Max: 94 - 98% MHR

Thanks, I will save this info. It seems that 77% is at least in the
vicinity of a "sweet spot" of speed that is sufficient to accomplish
my goal (sub 4 hour marathon), but slow enough to be easily
sustainable with adequate training.

Do your numbers imply that I would not be even close to lactate
threshold at this speed?

If I understand your question, then yes. However, my numbers are not from
Glover's book, they are from Pete Pfitzinger's book. He puts more
emphasis on specific training zones, thereby breaking down Glover's
"training range" into other zones. So in between recovery and threshold
pace are long run pace, aerobic pace, and marathon pace. If you're
training with a marathon in mind, then most of your paces should be at a
base building pace, putting in miles and increasing your weekly mileage
and weekly long run. The pace you're running at now seems to be a good
pace based on MHR. I wouldn't go any faster. Even seasoned marathoners do
a lot of their miles at that pace.

You will be surprised at how much faster you'll get by simply running at
an easy pace. This is especially true for new runners and runners just
starting to increase their weekly mileage. So even if you've been jogging
for the past 20 years, adding more miles and weekly long runs will make
you a faster runner. That's what you should be focusing on more than
doing extensive speed work. If you want to play around with speed work,
then I would not go any faster than a tempo run for 15 - 20 minutes once
every one or two weeks.

Phil M.

--
"If you feel bad at 10 miles, you're in trouble. If you feel bad at 20
miles, you're normal. If you don't feel bad at 26 miles, you're
abnormal." -Rob de Castella

Leafing through rec.running, I read Ignoramus19386's message of 07 Oct
2004:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I understand your question, then yes. However, my numbers are not
from Glover's book, they are from Pete Pfitzinger's book. He puts
more emphasis on specific training zones, thereby breaking down
Glover's "training range" into other zones. So in between recovery
and threshold pace are long run pace, aerobic pace, and marathon
pace. If you're training with a marathon in mind, then most of your
paces should be at a base building pace, putting in miles and
increasing your weekly mileage and weekly long run. The pace you're
running at now seems to be a good pace based on MHR. I wouldn't go
any faster. Even seasoned marathoners do a lot of their miles at
that pace.

I am glad that I find myself in complete agreement with the above.

This would be my training speed and increasing mileage AT THAT SPEED
will be my goal, for now.

Then I think you're on the right track.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You will be surprised at how much faster you'll get by simply
running at an easy pace. This is especially true for new runners and
runners just starting to increase their weekly mileage. So even if
you've been jogging for the past 20 years, adding more miles and
weekly long runs will make you a faster runner. That's what you
should be focusing on more than doing extensive speed work. If you
want to play around with speed work, then I would not go any faster
than a tempo run for 15 - 20 minutes once every one or two weeks.

I think that for now, I won't even bother with trying to run faster,
especially since it is supposed to be hard on LC. 🙂

If you're using a HRM, you will notice over time that your HR for a given
pace will decrease and/or your pace for a given HR will increase.

Phil M.

Ignoramus19386 wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

Recovery: <75% MHR
Long Runs: 73 - 83% MHR
Aerobic: 80 - 84% MHR
Marathon Pace: ~84% Avg MHR (allowing for cardiac drift)
Lactate Threshold: 85 - 90% MHR
VO2 Max: 94 - 98% MHR

Thanks, I will save this info. It seems that 77% is at least in the
vicinity of a "sweet spot" of speed that is sufficient to accomplish
my goal (sub 4 hour marathon), but slow enough to be easily
sustainable with adequate training.

Do your numbers imply that I would not be even close to lactate
threshold at this speed?

Lactate threshold is quite variable both in a given individual and among
individuals. For some individuals, LT can be as high as 95% when they're in
peak form but under 85% in the off-season. In athletes just beginning their
training it can be 80% of MHR or less. For example, my LT is currently is
about 90% MHR, while it's been as high as 94% when I've trained for more
speed at shorter distances. When I started ramping up my running this
Spring, my LT was about 82% of MHR.

LT is much more important than MHR for setting training efforts because your
race pace is directly linked not to MHR, but to LT. For example, it's known
that a marathon can be run at about 96% of LT, a 10k at 100-103% of LT
depending on your time, and a 5k at upwards of 105% of LT. So the
improvement of LT directly affects your potential race pace, as does it
limit your ability to train at a certain level and readily recover. Note
that using a HRM to determine or read LT is imperfect for all the reasons a
HRM is imperfect, but when one is well-rested under similar weather
conditions, HR can be used to as a measurement of LT instead a blood-lactate
testing kit.

- Tony

Ignoramus19386 wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

In article Eoh9d.1200$Ua.343@trndny06 said:

Ignoramus19386 wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

snip<
> Recovery: <75% MHR
> Long Runs: 73 - 83% MHR
> Aerobic: 80 - 84% MHR
> Marathon Pace: ~84% Avg MHR (allowing for cardiac drift)
> Lactate Threshold: 85 - 90% MHR
> VO2 Max: 94 - 98% MHR

Thanks, I will save this info. It seems that 77% is at least in the
vicinity of a "sweet spot" of speed that is sufficient to accomplish
my goal (sub 4 hour marathon), but slow enough to be easily
sustainable with adequate training.

Do your numbers imply that I would not be even close to lactate
threshold at this speed?

Lactate threshold is quite variable both in a given individual and among
individuals. For some individuals, LT can be as high as 95% when they're

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

peak form but under 85% in the off-season. In athletes just beginning

their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

training it can be 80% of MHR or less. For example, my LT is currently is
about 90% MHR, while it's been as high as 94% when I've trained for more
speed at shorter distances. When I started ramping up my running this
Spring, my LT was about 82% of MHR.

Sorry if I am missing something big, or something that Ishould know,
but how do you measure your LT?

The lactate threshold is not a single number, but rather it's an area of
effort where the pace becomes too high for the energy supply system to work
entirely aerobically. Lactic acid starts to accumulate in this area faster
than the body can clear it and as you move higher into this threshold area
you will have to slow down soon.

Honestly I don't know how someone training on low-carb could even reach this
area because fats require oxygen to supply energy. Burning glycogen as fuel
can be either aerobic or anerobic, depending on the pace. In Stu
Mittleman's book he has one day a week to exercise in the "sugar burning
zone", which would correspond to the LT area.

Probably the most practical way for an average person to measure their LTHR
is to do a race as fast as they can (fueled with both fats and sugar) and
scale their average HR from that race to LT (using similar %s to the ones I
gave before). A person can run at close to LT for about an hour, thus for
many a 10 mile race done to the best of one's ability would tell them their
LTHR. For slower runners it would be a 10k. Personally when I haven't done
a short race, I use hard tempo runs or intervals to guestimate my LT, which
isn't as precise as other methods, but with experience one can get a pretty
close estimate where one's LT area is. Using a tempo run of 25 mins is less
hard than race, so you'd multiply by 105 to 110% to get your LT estimate,
depending on your run intensity.

More accurate methods are to find your LT pace and/or HR on a track and a
blood-lactate measuring device using methods laid out in various books
designed to guide you through that, or to use conconi's test on a track to
determine LTHR. It's not as easy to determine as MaxHR but is a better
measure of fitness and what your training zones should be.

Methods for determining LT:
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercisephysiology/a/aa091301a.htm
HR Zones based on LT:
http://www.3-fitness.com/triathlon/zones.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LT is much more important than MHR for setting training efforts because

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

race pace is directly linked not to MHR, but to LT. For example, it's

known

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that a marathon can be run at about 96% of LT, a 10k at 100-103% of LT
depending on your time, and a 5k at upwards of 105% of LT. So the
improvement of LT directly affects your potential race pace, as does it
limit your ability to train at a certain level and readily recover. Note
that using a HRM to determine or read LT is imperfect for all the reasons

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

HRM is imperfect, but when one is well-rested under similar weather
conditions, HR can be used to as a measurement of LT instead a

blood-lactate

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

testing kit.

Well, based on some WAG, I am not in a good enough shape to run a
marathon at 96% of LT, and it also probably is an unpleasant
experience to run so close. It is not my goal. If I can do a sub 4
hour marathon and feel okay afterwards, I will be fine.

Yes, your situation is unique. If you really have no glycogen then you
technically should never be able to run above or even close to the LT area,
even for a sprint distance. In fact your fast-twitch muscles should
scarcely work at all.

- Tony

Ignoramus19386 said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry if I am missing something big, or something that Ishould know,
but how do you measure your LT?

The lactate threshold is not a single number, but rather it's an area of
effort where the pace becomes too high for the energy supply system to work
entirely aerobically. Lactic acid starts to accumulate in this area faster
than the body can clear it and as you move higher into this threshold area
you will have to slow down soon.

Makes sense.

I want to train my fat oxidation system, so, if I never reach LT, too
bad.

You need to improve your LT for optimal marathon performance too. Read the
chapter on "tempo training" in Glover's book.

Quoted message said:

I am also training to do pushups, right now I am up to 52. I no longer
experience muscle pain as I get to the end of the set, just fatigue
(inability to perform). I interpret this as being able to remove LA
from muscles quickly enough, and running out of glycogen.

I doubt it. Are you out of breath when doing pushups in the same way as you
would be after a very hard run ? Oxygen transport is not usually a limiting
factor for pushups.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Honestly I don't know how someone training on low-carb could even reach this
area because fats require oxygen to supply energy. Burning glycogen as fuel
can be either aerobic or anerobic, depending on the pace. In Stu
Mittleman's book he has one day a week to exercise in the "sugar burning
zone", which would correspond to the LT area.

Which is fine with me, I want to run on my "diesel fuel".

To get good at running on your "diesel fuel", you need to run at the fastest
pace at which your body can stay in "diesel mode". That pace has a name -- it's
called your "lactate threshold", or "LT".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

close estimate where one's LT area is. Using a tempo run of 25 mins is less
hard than race, so you'd multiply by 105 to 110% to get your LT estimate,
depending on your run intensity.

What if I am poorly conditioned so that something else limits my
speed?

Besides inadequate nutrition, I'm not sure what else would limit your speed.
If you're doing a cool weather race, heat and hydration shouldn't be limiting
factors.

Quoted message said:

Thanks. I, frankly, am becoming convinced that I cannot reach my LT
and in any case it is not, yet, a practical issue.

Thank you. I got a good laugh out of that.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Snip<
HR Zones based on LT:
http://www.3-fitness.com/triathlon/zones.htm

looking closer at the zones laid out on that site they look bogus to me.
Vo2max zones are always above LT zones. I had another site but can't find
it now...