|
Nov 2018
6:42pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,538 posts
|
J2R
GlennR, your point there is the key one, just in case anyone is overthinking this. Doing all your runs easy won't make you a fast runner. But doing all your runs hard will break you, and even if it doesn't and you somehow get away with it, you will probably be less fit than if you allowed your body to recover more between hard sessions.
|
|
Nov 2018
8:54pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,200 posts
|
Brunski
For me heart rate monitoring is really useful for laying a base, and the bigger a base you lay (similar to building a house) the higher you can build. It's also useful for regulating effort on recovery and (dare o say it) filler mileage. You're not going to run all of your mileage at the best pace you can manage on that day or you'll burn out and erode your aerobic systems.
I'm a big believer that you should have a training goal and work through stages to reach it. Most training plans will do this for you to an extent but the HRM and knowing your zones can help you to make things work better for you and avoid burning out.
Polarised training can do this, I like the 80/20 idea as you can specifically train for the goal whilst ensuring you also build/maintain the aerobic engine.
|
|
Nov 2018
9:09pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,201 posts
|
Brunski
When I say you're not going to run all your mileage at the best pace you can on that day I guess that is rubbish, but if you end up running all your mileage at your best pace that is likely to be at or around threshold and you'll pretty soon end up not being able to run on consequative days, thus less mileage than you could by balancing effort more and/or running the majority of that mileage at a lower intensity.
|
|
Nov 2018
9:29pm, 15 Nov 2018
6,048 posts
|
larkim
I wonder how this translates into cycling? We often hear about cyclists riding themselves into fitness over the big three week grand total but you don't see marathon runners optimising themselves in that same way.
Or is that a trite comparison?
|
|
Nov 2018
9:33pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,229 posts
|
DavidFenlandRunner
I've slowed down my training runs by 90-120 seconds per mile BUT my 5k pace is almost unchanged....... 
|
|
Nov 2018
9:57pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,203 posts
|
Brunski
Larks, I'd suggest someone taking on Le Tour de France has trained like buggers to optimise fitness for when the race starts. They'll go in sufficiently rested but also optimally trained to complete the duration of their race. The best riders will save their efforts for key stages or parts of stages, and are protected from a lot of the legwork by their team.
I guess if they had to do the tour again a week after they'd ridden it they'd be unable to get near matching their performance despite maybe being fitter (due to fatigue)... Which if anything backs up the idea of adequate rest/easy mileage.
I've read a but in super-compensation which I guess is why your peak mileage/efforts occur before the taper (maybe 3 weeks before a marathon).
|
|
Nov 2018
9:59pm, 15 Nov 2018
1,204 posts
|
Brunski
*bit on, rather than but in - bloody autocorrect
|
|
Nov 2018
9:46am, 16 Nov 2018
2,908 posts
|
steve45
When I run at a deliberately slow pace based on HR I invariably stop "running" as such and my form goes out the window! I recall I got repeated injuries when I tried to run slowly and at a pace that didn't allow my body to flow. Obviously there is "slow" and "slow enough". I have also found that my breathing settles nicely after about forty five minutes and seems to have little bearing on my HR.
Dave F raises an important point : train smart but race hard.
As for chest straps, I notice when watching the Tour that nearly all riders have a chest strap on--presumably to measure HR. If it's good enough for them I wonder why the issues raised concerning chest straps are worth thinking about.
|
|
Nov 2018
11:27am, 16 Nov 2018
1,539 posts
|
J2R
I have to say that I never have any reason to suspect there's anything wrong with the heart rate information my chest strap is giving me. It may all be complete nonsense, but if so, it's consistent enough nonsense not to arouse suspicion.
|
|
Nov 2018
11:59am, 16 Nov 2018
16,942 posts
|
Dvorak
The thing about form breaking down is very valid. You can train yourself to run well slowly (or at the least, without form so bad as to make it uncomfortable or worse), but asking someone already fairly slow to slow down to sometimes around walking pace is a poor idea (and apart from the form issues, it can be extremely dispiriting).
My specific thought is that unless your starting point is being able to run comfortably (classic grey zone ) at faster than 6:15 km (10 min/mile) then classic sub 70%WHR hr training is highly unlikely to be for you (Maffetone, even less.) It's still a good idea to keep most running easy and to keep an eye on hr figures, but just running more (and enjoying it!) will have greater benefits overall than hr-based training. If, with easy running, the hr is still going a bit high, some form of run/walk programme would be of considerably more benefit.
I think this is likely to be the case for Geordiegirl, who asked about it a few pages back.
Regarding chest strap accuracy: The first two hr watches I had seemed pretty good (as long as I had a decent strap contact) The first was from Lidl, the second Sigma Sports. However, the Sigma belt was not so good, so I still used the Lidl one. Unfortunately neither had downloads, so I just had basic numbers and whatever I observed running. Subsequent hrs and belts have been inconsistent at best.
|
