|
Jun 2017
10:30pm, 7 Jun 2017
13,728 posts
|
Dvorak
10-15 minutes. But they'd probably get injured. So in that case make it 25-30, if they are not a DNS.
|
|
Jun 2017
10:39pm, 7 Jun 2017
2,154 posts
|
larkim
Not sure whether to lol or take that seriously!
|
|
Jun 2017
11:29pm, 7 Jun 2017
28,139 posts
|
GlennR
I would say serious, in that there's no point to grey zoning, so why take the risk?
|
|
Jun 2017
11:53pm, 7 Jun 2017
271 posts
|
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss)
Brunski -yes that's the grey no-man's land -too fast for the adaptations gained with aerobic training and not fast enough for the gains in LT training.
80/20 based on mileage (I include cool downs in the 20% as usually your HR remains somewhat elevated)
|
|
Jun 2017
9:50am, 8 Jun 2017
6,024 posts
|
The_Saint
I'm positive this has been answered many times but there are 1876 pages to this thread. The quote from Matt Russ on the right - what empirical evidence exists for his assertion? I am genuinely curious, there is no hidden agenda to my question. One thing though I must mention is that by empirical evidence I don't mean "It is true for X person", I have no argument with that but it doesn't mean that any number of other approaches may work just as well or better for X person.
|
|
Jun 2017
10:09am, 8 Jun 2017
7,476 posts
|
simbil
I'm curious too - in cycling there is 'sweet spot training' where you exercise sub-FTP (towards the top of zone 3). It is thought to increase FTP (in running terms that would be 1-hour race pace) but with shorter recovery times than training at or over FTP so you can do more quality sessions per week.
This would be 'grey zone' according to the usual rules of HR training.
|
|
Jun 2017
10:13am, 8 Jun 2017
2,156 posts
|
larkim
That's why I asked my question. I know this thread is for HR disciples but you only have to look at the range of potential training approaches out there to realise that if a rule like the 80/20 was hard and fast and true for all runners then some plans would automatically have a higher failure rate than others and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to show that this is true. I'd honestly be very surprised for an amateur runner capable of sub 90 on a random training plan if the outcomes of a marathon plan were as much as 15 minutes dependent on the heart rate that they run their miles at (assuming miles are consistent between the two approaches). But happy to see scientific evidence that proves the assertion.
|
|
Jun 2017
10:15am, 8 Jun 2017
28,147 posts
|
GlennR
Canute is good on the science of this and has discussed it a number of times on the Polarised Training thread. I've not seen him around for a while though.
Do note the following part of the quote from Russ though:
"This area does have its place in training; it is just not in base season."
|
|
Jun 2017
10:20am, 8 Jun 2017
507 posts
|
AndrewS
*lurks*
This is really quite interesting.
|
|
Jun 2017
10:45am, 8 Jun 2017
2,157 posts
|
larkim
Just to clarify I think my position would be that I could understand someone training in the grey zone because they don't enjoy the aerobic shuffle, but only on the proviso that they could be confident that at most they'd be throwing away 2-3 minutes of potential goal time for a marathon. But equally they'd be mad to be throwing away 15+ minutes if the evidence was clear that that would be the impact their choices of training pace would have if they continued in the grey area.
|
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023