|
Feb 2009
10:48am, 19 Feb 2009
2,321 posts
|
Fenland Runner
Quality post SlowBoy 
|
|
Feb 2009
10:48am, 19 Feb 2009
3,880 posts
|
Boab
Slowboy, I think V'rap answered your question regarding numbers a few pages back.
As far as grey zones are concerned: this is only one method of training. Hadd, as opposed to parker, does not talk of any grey zone and in fact works all HR zones from about 60% to 80% of WHR for building an aerobic base.
I've seen some massive improvements over the last six months by working in the grey zone. Also, just to add fuel to the grey zone fire, I've been physiologically tested twice in the last year and my LT is INSIDE this grey zone.
|
|
Feb 2009
10:50am, 19 Feb 2009
7,732 posts
|
eL Bee!
Mr Slow - the bottom line with e 'sledgehammer' approach of the 'Parker Method' is basically to structure training so that people don't always train at one pace - that is too hard to build and aerobic base - and too easy to do anything about LT and the the like.
So to make the Easy Runs, Easy and the Hard Runs, well.... hard!
The 70% and 85% numbers are easy to remember and calculate - they are bringing the principle to it's lowest common denominator.
They are also calculated and 'safe' averages.
Like any self-help book - it HAS to cater for the majority. And for huge swathes of people it does just that.
But also like any generic tool - it can't cater for those who fall outwith the accepted norms.
And the more anecdotal evidence I get of people who have to run ridiculously slowly to achieve the numbers, the more sceptical I become about it's One Size Fits All claims.
As I have previously posted - I believe there is a principle of diminishing returns with it in the bit of the population that have to run VERY slowly to achieve the 'goals'.
|
|
Feb 2009
10:50am, 19 Feb 2009
4,778 posts
|
Pammie
Re my link you'll need to go to page 1
|
|
Feb 2009
10:51am, 19 Feb 2009
1,211 posts
|
for me regardless of HR, effort requires three subdivisions, 1, aerobic easy breathing,2. deeper breathing, lasts about 12 mins, and 3, flat out effort no idea what breathing is like , simple and straight forward works for most runners regardless of inner abilities
|
|
Feb 2009
10:51am, 19 Feb 2009
7,733 posts
|
eL Bee!
Boab ""..my LT is INSIDE this grey zone.."" Exactly
|
|
Feb 2009
10:57am, 19 Feb 2009
4,187 posts
|
Boingy
Very good post indeed Slowboy. For me there is no point running at a pace where you are just not enjoying it, that's not what it's all about. Yes HR based running is good, and yes 70% and 85% WHR are good guides, but as you say it's just shades of grey. I'm lucky in that a pace that I enjoy running at falls below 70%, so obeys all the 'rules' of Parker. There are many people though who run to a pace schedule such as the acclaimed P&D book (as I will be doing this year), or to their own set of rules, which don't strictly adhere to Parker, and do very well off it indeed. V-Rap is a very good example of this. I'm a great fan of base training and of the Parker approach, but I won't let its 'rules' spoil my enjoyment of running.
|
|
Feb 2009
11:00am, 19 Feb 2009
17,709 posts
|
The Parker method is one way of doing it. To be honest I can't understand why people get fixated on numbers and think they are hard and fast rules. I always saw them as guidelines. That doesn't mean to ignore them completely but to use well, as guidlines.
I imagine any training method (as I have posted and discussed to complete exasperation now) is the result of someone imparting the knowledge accrued from actually training many people so it is a sample, an average, a cross section so not everyone will fit into it.
There is no swithc off point between aerobic and anaerobic conditioning no and Parker's method for one is designed to make quite a band between the two so people are more likely to see noticeable results in aerobic or anaerobic conditioning (my understanding)
I really don't know why peopel seem to get so het up about these things and get hung up on absolutes.
I think I understand where articles are coming from when I read them and attempt to put them into practice. Maybe I completely misunderstand and then relay flawed knowledge based on my flawed experince?
Bottom line is, if something doesn't seem to work and it makes your running less enjoyable then don't do it, do something else.
Train, read, learn and see what works for you.
I think I need to shut up cos I just seem to confuse people rather than help.
Sorry...
|
|
Feb 2009
11:04am, 19 Feb 2009
3,881 posts
|
Boab
Makes sense to me Ian
|
|
Feb 2009
11:05am, 19 Feb 2009
3,523 posts
|
Slowboy
lol, please don't feel you have to apologise Ian.
I also don't know quite why people get so het up - but I can see that some people do. I think it's a mental thing more than anything else - once you've got a number, it can start out as a guideline and end up being a stick to beat yourself with.
I think I agree with you completely - the numbers are guidelines. And FWIW I don't think you are giving flawed advice, at all.
As with all things - try some stuff, see what works for you specifically, then make changes as appropriate.
|
