|
Sep 2013
12:56pm, 7 Sep 2013
8,155 posts
|
GlennR
FR, it depends on your approach. Obviously if your a follower of Hadd RHR is irrelevant, but my point about the insignificance of max HR still holds.
If you're following a Parker type WHR approach then every beat extra on your resting rage goes directly into into the BPM you use for your session, so it's more important.
Fortunately getting your RHR right requires a lot less effort. 
|
|
Sep 2013
12:58pm, 7 Sep 2013
27,045 posts
|
Velociraptor
FR, I'd suggest taking two weeks off running constitutes a bloody good taper
|
|
Sep 2013
12:58pm, 7 Sep 2013
16,727 posts
|
FR
lol V'Rap You're right, as usual
|
|
Sep 2013
12:59pm, 7 Sep 2013
27,046 posts
|
Velociraptor
(And I need you to predict a time I should go for at the Great Cumbrian Run four weeks hence )
|
|
Sep 2013
1:05pm, 7 Sep 2013
8,156 posts
|
GlennR
While I'm using my crutches to get on my high horse, can I mention (again) that HR training has little relevance if you're taking lots of rest days. Doing:
Rest day/Tempo/Rest Day/Intervals/Rest Day/Rest Day/LSR
is perfectly acceptable. It's when you fill in the rest days with extra mileage that you have to do easy pace sessions.
|
|
Sep 2013
1:09pm, 7 Sep 2013
5,955 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Vrap, I rememeber that MHR stramash.
For the record my estimations have a bit of thought behind them. I regularly see 181/182 at the end of 5ks. Any max test has produced no higher than mid to low 170s. I use 189 as my max which is the highest I have seen plus a little bit extra. Ive probably added a few beats more than others, but based on what I see I think its about right. My 70% max runs for example are coming in around 9:15mm now (have been up close to 10mm at times) while my 5k PB is around 6mm. If I was using a lowe max HR I would be running at much slower paces.
However what I am seeing is that now 4-5 months in I can get my HR on recoveries easily below 70% which I use as 131 bpm. Todayt I averaged 128 and was well under the target HR. When I started this back in may I would probably have been unable to hot 131 and would have been around 133/4...its the consistent trainin that has helped me get there
|
|
Sep 2013
1:11pm, 7 Sep 2013
16,729 posts
|
FR
Glenn, interesting, FWIW, I'd strongly advise against that sort of training. As the LSR could be significant in not only time but also miles run I remain unconvinced of the benefits of this plan. My advice would be regular consistent running, concentrating on volume.
So maybe (for debate); recovery run/general/tempo/general/rest day/parkrun/LSR
|
|
Sep 2013
1:17pm, 7 Sep 2013
5,956 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I am currently doing:
Rest, Sub LT, recovery double, general, Sub LT, Recovery, Long run.
On the HADD thread its suggested to get the most benefit I should be considering adding some more recovery/general milles in there - but currently I feel I benefit from the rest day and I dont want to add mileage too fast, so will be gradually building up - albeit I am at mid 60s per week already so not much scope for more unless I have more doubles.
Interestingly these last 2 weeks I have been doing runs before work due to other commitments and by the evening my body (or is it my mind) has been telling me its ready for another easy plod.
|
|
Sep 2013
1:19pm, 7 Sep 2013
2,188 posts
|
rosehip
FR- if family stuff would allow LSR to regularly be Sunday than the plan I'd like to stick to would be
recovery or swim/general/medium-general/tempo(run with club who are faster than me)/rest/general or parkrun/LSR
|
|
Sep 2013
1:21pm, 7 Sep 2013
2,189 posts
|
rosehip
-- and I'm not ever going to get to HADD mileage - so is HR relevant at all ?
|
