|
Sep 2013
11:08am, 7 Sep 2013
16,723 posts
|
FR
I agree whole heartedly with V'Rap. This is a hobby and should be fun. Some times people improve in spite of their training. What works for the individual is precisely that individual.
Good luck to all  hope everybody achieves their ambitions having fun along the wAy
|
|
Sep 2013
11:38am, 7 Sep 2013
3,904 posts
|
paul the builder
Of course the numbers (70%, 75% etc.) aren't "scientific". Or if they are, then the data behind them is almost certainly sparse, and a bit shaky under challenge. I doubt there's been very much serious research in to it at all. Which puts HR training in pretty much the same position as HIIT, Pose, massage, supplements, and everything else.
I wouldn't recommend that a novice (or near-novice) be wholly guided by HR numbers, and I said as much a page or two ago. At that stage, it's better to keep running than to walk/shuffle. Once you can comfortably keep running for an hour, by all means then see if you enjoy and are suited (mentally, as much as physically) being guided by HR during the run from then on. I am. Lots are. And surely some aren't (be it either mentally or physically). Whatever suits you.
People sometimes misunderstand, and think that HR training is actually some entirely different form of training, and they will be doing very different day-in, day-out running if they use a HRM as their guide. You won't. You'll still do easy running, steady running, and tempo running - you'll just use a HR to define each level, rather than perceived effort, or a pre-determined pace. And once you become experienced, you can learn your own HR levels for each, and move away from the 70, or 75, or 80 or whatever that are rough guides only.
|
|
Sep 2013
11:44am, 7 Sep 2013
5,953 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Really interesting comments on this thread of late.
I tried to say on a different thread about Revs speedwork that I though it was all about regular and consistent training at this stage, and improvements will happen. Dont think I said it very well though and it got lost in amongst the advice on how best to do the speedwork. Getting all technical about training I think should follow once this period is finished - and for me that was maybe 7 years of just running and getting better.
I then got into marathons and started to apply various training techniques before stumbling on HADD about 2 years ago. Ive dabbled in HADD in those 2 years but never fully until May this year when I have followed the training plan to the letter ever since. I have seen some small improvements in pace, but most importantly I can now run at lower HRs than I could. In fact my old perceived effort easy runs were actually nothing like an easy run based on what I now know.
My plan is to give HADD base through until mid December when a marathon specific plan will start and I hopefully start from a much better position than I ever have done. Looking back to what LB and Vrap achieved in their TiT year shows what can be done with the right base, for each individual
My advice to Rev though would be to just run to feel, nothing too hard, nothing too easy and dont get caught up in HR training or intervlas or speedwork for the time being. Just run, run regularly, enjoy it and see the improvements
|
|
Sep 2013
12:00pm, 7 Sep 2013
8,154 posts
|
GlennR
If I may dissent from part of this discussion slightly: I don't think accurate measurement of MHR matters at all, as long as it is measured, rather than worked out from a formula. The worst that can happen is that you will underestimate it, which won't do any harm whatsoever.
If your resting heart rate is (say) 50 it makes zip all difference to your 70% WHR if your max is 182 or 187.
|
|
Sep 2013
12:02pm, 7 Sep 2013
5,954 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Agree Glenn - I use an estimated max as Ive never managed a max test very well so I go with a wee bit more than I have seen at the end of 5Ks.....it is probably a bit out, but iuts ballpark right and based on the HR I see in races and the suggested effort levels attainbale for those distances suggests its close enough to be used as aguide
|
|
Sep 2013
12:49pm, 7 Sep 2013
16,724 posts
|
FR
Glenn, are you suggesting that RHR is more important to get right?
|
|
Sep 2013
12:51pm, 7 Sep 2013
16,725 posts
|
FR
PtB, the quoted text "you'll just use a HR to define each level, rather than perceived effort" sums it up for me.
Perhaps I'm an outlier and the only person that has difficulty with perception? (I totally under-estimated effort, not just within day to day variations but consistently)
|
|
Sep 2013
12:54pm, 7 Sep 2013
16,726 posts
|
FR
Baz, your sentences "My advice to Rev though would be to just run to feel, nothing too hard, nothing too easy and dont get caught up in HR training or intervlas or speedwork for the time being. Just run, run regularly, enjoy it and see the improvements." rings very true in my experience and backed up with a comment from HellsBells today at parkrun.
We were discussing that I'd had two weeks from no running and some wisdom suggests you lose a great deal of 'fitness'.
Yes, my parkrun and 5k time are down on three weeks ago but not by much.
HellsBells suggested that this was due to a consistent base built over many years.
|
|
Sep 2013
12:56pm, 7 Sep 2013
27,044 posts
|
Velociraptor
The estimated MHR thing makes me think of the stramash on the thread a few years ago when someone who may have been JHuffman told someone who may have been RooA that the reason she was struggling with HRM training was that she was doing it all wrong, and then let slip that the MHR he was using for his own calculations was significantly higher than anything he had ever actually recorded
|
|
Sep 2013
12:56pm, 7 Sep 2013
19,012 posts
|
eL Bee!
The RHR test is really difficult......
|
