Heart rate
300 watchers
Jun 2017
10:47am, 8 Jun 2017
11,176 posts
|
Chrisull
canute is still blogging on his personal blog site, (well he wrote a tribute to Ed Whitlock at the end of March). The URL is canute1.wordpress.com if you don't know, which Andrew you might not? It really is a wonderful resource of opinions and studies - 10 years worth! There is plenty of stuff on 80/20 (or even 90/10) and the reasons for why canute thinks it the most effective. larkim - the 80/20 rule is obscured by the fact that ANY running for those without a proper aerobic base (so like as much 10 years worth?), will contribute to aerobic fitness. It's often a case of optimal vs sub-optimal training. Both will benefit, but which will benefit you more? I know there was/is a strain of thinking (and was present on fetch) that ANY running outside the aerobic zone would automatically "damage" the HR training/base build up. The MAFF method is one that pretty much says that. However the reasons advanced for why you do no hard running in base building, just don't stack with the science offered on the UKAA Coaching in Running Fitness course on how and why training adaptations take place, or in the literature I studied and didn't match up to my personal anecdotal evidence when I adapted the method for close to 9 weeks. The reasoning given was that running outside the aerobic zone was that cortisol builds up, and any cortisol would somehow override the improvements and adaptations made, some people suggested here that going up a hill once and having your heart rate pop up outside the zone would negate any benefits of that run. However, that was a minority view, and I notice that the sternest and most successful advocates of running easy nearly all the time would have a super hard workout once a week or fortnight. GlennR = "the area does have its place in training" - absolutely I could advance some arguments for it, but that would distract from the 80/20 debate. |
Jun 2017
11:24am, 8 Jun 2017
42 posts
|
Training Log
It was reading about the lab rats on wheels and their mighty mitochondrial adaptions, that took my interest. This thread is a little cracker too letsrun.com
|
Jun 2017
11:31am, 8 Jun 2017
13,731 posts
|
Dvorak
Before looking at that letsrun thread, can you advise if it full of the offensive pea-brained loudmouths who litter so many other threads there? If it is, I might not bother ;-).
|
Jun 2017
11:39am, 8 Jun 2017
28,154 posts
|
GlennR
Whatever is there, it caused my copy of Chrome to crash.
|
Jun 2017
11:49am, 8 Jun 2017
554 posts
|
J2R
Yes, letsrun.com is a bizarre site. There's a very high level of expertise there, with even coaches like Renato Canova posting. But so many of the users come across as adolescent boys with personality disorders, so it's a vexatious process, sifting through all the chaff to get to the wheat.
|
|
Jun 2017
12:06pm, 8 Jun 2017
43 posts
|
Training Log
Ha, no mate it is very clean,wheat heavy infact.
|
|
Jun 2017
12:07pm, 8 Jun 2017
44 posts
|
Training Log
letsrun.com try that one |
Jun 2017
2:45pm, 8 Jun 2017
546 posts
|
Dillthedog57
What is meant by the grey zone? I can understand an area above "aerobic" whtver that is defined as, but what is the upper limit if the grey zone? Is that a tempo pace, or an LT pace? To me, a tempo pace is about an hour race pace, between 10k and half marathon pace, so that wouldn't be in the grey zone. But P&D advocate lots of GA running, which is grey? And even the early part of their long runs pace, for me, is a little over aerobic. So I reckon at least half if a P&D plan is in the grey zone. Similarly the faster road racing plans have lots of GA pace. Given that for a lot of people, P&D is the best and most successful marathon training plans, then the greyness doesn't appear to be a hindrance? For me personally, I prefer a Maff approach, but with a spell of sharpening the pace towards race day. I suffer from too much fast stuff. As said by Chrisull (I think) there are so many different plans and no real consensus of a single magic bullet |
|
Jun 2017
3:02pm, 8 Jun 2017
557 posts
|
J2R
Don't be surprised if this 80%/20% advice doesn't seem to marry with what you've been reading in e.g. P&D. There's lots more about it on the 'Polarized training' thread, if you want to go into it in depth. Fundamentally, though, it turns conventional training ideas on their head by saying you should on the whole avoid lots of tempo-paced training (i.e., around the pace you can sustain for an hour), and spend most of your time below this and a little above. Daniels et al are big on tempo runs, but within PT they're mainly just used as race-pace sharpeners as the big event approaches. Lots of tempo running is avoided as not bringing enough benefits over slower aerobic training to justify its much greater harshness on the system. The ideas behind polarized training came from in-depth studies of what elite athletes actually did for their training, across a range of athletic disciplines (running, skating, rowing, cross-country skiing, cycling and more). So it's not so much theoretical as observational. |
|
Jun 2017
3:08pm, 8 Jun 2017
28,170 posts
|
GlennR
Daniels is quite big on cruise intervals, something of which Canute also approves: k-b-c.com |
Related Threads
-
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023
-
Jack daniels marathon plan help
May 2014
-
Polarized training
Apr 2024
-
Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate
Jan 2021
-
No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease
Jan 2021
-
Resetting Max Heart Rate
Dec 2020
-
Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal
Oct 2020
-
Heart rate zones
Jul 2020
-
Running Heart rate
Jun 2020
-
Heart Rate monitors
Jun 2020