|
Feb 2009
9:44pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,147 posts
|
Velociraptor
Neil, yes! Parker does sanction a weekly blast at more than 85%WHR, though it's probably worth getting at least three months of easy running into your legs before trying anything hard, and keeping those hard runs very short at first.
But when all is said and done, running is a hobby for most of us. We have to enjoy it 
(Call me whatever you like. I'm probably too slow to catch you over anything shorter than 20 miles!)
FR, that sounds like a tribute to adaptation rather than to the sub-70%WHR zone
|
|
Feb 2009
9:45pm, 18 Feb 2009
4,864 posts
|
hellen
I'm another one who struggled with the below 70% runs. I got fustrated having to go so slow. Like Girlie, I found that after a marathon I ended up back where I started from so in the end I decided to forget about HR and go by PRE. I found that when I set off on a run which was meant to be easy I enjoyed it much more not looking at HR and my HR ended up being just over 70% for a much better pace. I think that the stress/fustration of keeping HR below 70% was probably increasing my HR.
The other thing, why 70%? I think because it is a nice round number, in reality going over by a few % is prob fine.
Incidently, I do now kind of follow the parker plan but stray a bit and am making improvements, more so than when I was more strict.
|
|
Feb 2009
9:50pm, 18 Feb 2009
82 posts
|
Nellers
V'Rap,
I think you'd catch me in 3 miles at the outside, given that I've not run further than that in at least 14 years!
|
|
Feb 2009
9:59pm, 18 Feb 2009
869 posts
|
Deenzy
With regard to the pace being unbearably slow at 70% When I first started running and came across HR training, I was not one of the ultra patient people like Roo is being at the moment. My pace at less than 70% was north of 12mm which I got pretty hacked off with after about a week, it was also the height of summer which did not help with elevated HR. For the sake of my sanity I raised my WHR to approx 75 and up 80%. The improvement in pace at the same HR came pretty quick even at the supposed elevated WHR.
When I returned to strict sub 70% training in Jan 08 the pace was a much more bearable 10.30 m/m (this was at 70% not below) which quickly came down to below 10 m/m
In December 08 I returned again to strict HR training and this time at 60% WHR which I had never attempted before because I couldnt face running that slowly, the pace was a bearable 9.40 ish which after 2 months is now approx 9.0.
The point I am trying to make in a very convoluted and complicated way is that I dont think you have to be too strict as long as you re-visit and reavaluate at a later date and lower your WHR accordingly
|
|
Feb 2009
10:02pm, 18 Feb 2009
22,833 posts
|
Hendo
Tonight I have done an easy 6.2 taperish miles, 9:11 pace, 64% WHR.
I should really have pushed up to 70%, but I am being chilled this week, so I made it more interesting by concentrating on form, seeing how slow I could run, and then doing aeroplanes around Southsea Castle. I also dressed as a ninja.
Who said HR training was boring>
|
|
Feb 2009
10:03pm, 18 Feb 2009
1,184 posts
|
Peacey
Deenzy - when you say 70% do you mean staying at or below 70% for the entire run or 70% as a overall average for the run?
|
|
Feb 2009
10:03pm, 18 Feb 2009
2,313 posts
|
Fenland Runner
lol Hendo
|
|
Feb 2009
10:09pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,148 posts
|
Velociraptor
It sounds as if you trained to perceived effort, but in a sensible sort of way, Deenzy
That's not easy for a new runner to do. Too often, the emphasis is on running as fast as possible rather than keeping a gentle pace and gradually increasing the length and frequency of runs.
|
|
Feb 2009
10:26pm, 18 Feb 2009
7,911 posts
|
HarryB
6.01 miles tonight which I took really slow in order to concentrate on form, I'm getting a little tenderness in the RH shin and I want to make adjustments to form to try and head it off.
I forgot all about pace but was chuffed to find that for an avg WHR of just 62% I came in at a pace of 10.14mm. I also never crossed the 70% mark at all... I is well chuffed with that.
|
|
Feb 2009
10:36pm, 18 Feb 2009
17,689 posts
|
I think that people have to realise that if they have tried their best and something isn't working then they have to try something else. The 70% isn't a hard and fast rule, it is a guidline and its been discussed to death that some folk can do their runs a bit higher for a while.
Basically run easy to build aerobic endurance. Doesn't really matter how you do it, just don't run hard all the time. Some people have a hard time judging by RPE because they can run hard and it feel easy.
I also think that if you are going to try something you have to give it chance, if it doesn't look like its working then try somethin else...
These things do work for most people or so it seems though.
Some people may be encouraged to run too slowly all the time though which isn't good.
Roo mentioned an 84% 14 mile run feeling easy but she was knackered for a day or two after I think so her body actually thought otherwise. Not sure what we can suggest to people like this where the HR approach doesn't seem to work eiother. Probably pace based traiing? Base the paces on PBs and see how that goes? I think Roo would benefit from this...
|
