|
Jun 2015
4:39pm, 11 Jun 2015
75 posts
|
J2R
Out of curiosity, Gobi, what do you feel you are getting out of running at so slow a pace, as opposed to say, with your heart rate at around 55%-60% of WHR? Are you able to get more training in without injury? Or is there some specific benefit from that pace which is lost when you go a little faster? I do sometimes run at that pace, if I'm running with my OH - I did 8 miles on Sunday with my HR between 40 and 45% of WHR - and I'd love to think it was bringing me some magic benefits, because it's certainly a hell of a lot easier than most of the other training I do!
|
|
Jun 2015
10:20pm, 11 Jun 2015
1,489 posts
|
Canute
Gobi, In the context of my comment above ‘too slow’ means ‘at a pace where the benefit to cost ratio is less than would be achieved at a faster aerobic pace’ If training time is limited, the time cost must be included in the estimate of cost.
My own experience suggests that the gains in aerobic capacity per hour of training are greater at 60-65% than at 40%. In fact there is little definitive evidence to prove this.
Furthermore the benefit to cost ratio depends on what you need to develop. If development of the ability to burn fat in preference to glucose is your major goal, it is plausible, though not proven, that 40% WHR might offer the better benefit to cost ratio,
But these are mere statements of opinion based on my experience, so it is interesting to hear the opinions of others.
In my younger days (when HRM’s were not available) most of my aerobic running was in the mid-aerobic zone (typically 6 steps per breathing cycle; probably around 65% WHR)) However in some periods, I also did a lot of recreational walking which I did not count as training. Nonetheless I suspect that this probably did make a useful contribution to my fitness.
Ed Whitlock states that he trains at a glacial pace, though he records neither pace nor HR
I am intrigued to note that much of KinkyS’s training appears to be in the very low aerobic zone, yet she races 5K fast and also has some amazing performance in ultra’s
So the bottom line, is that very low aerobic zone training appears to achieve useful gains for many runners, though my own experience indicates that if training time is limited (and therefore must be included in the estimate of costs) that benefit to cost ratio is more favourable in mid-aerobic zone
|
|
Jun 2015
10:33pm, 11 Jun 2015
5,640 posts
|
100forRNIB
Don't forget to add an athletes experience and mileage on the clock 
|
|
Jun 2015
8:51am, 12 Jun 2015
77 posts
|
J2R
Canute, what you say about benefit to cost ratio in terms of training time is very pertinent to me. Assuming that a reasonably high weekly mileage is still of some importance, as opposed to time spent running - and I appreciate that this is not necessarily a given - then I would find it hard to get the time to do all the running required if I dropped my pace down to 10-11 mins/mile. I still have to work!
Of course, if absolute distance is irrelevant and it's all about time spent on your feet, then this point is moot. But I can't really believe that's the case.
|
|
Jun 2015
6:28pm, 12 Jun 2015
90 posts
|
Spen71
Is 65% working heart rate the same as 75% max for most people? I work away a lot so never get around to take resting heart rate.
|
|
Jun 2015
9:34pm, 12 Jun 2015
1,490 posts
|
Canute
J2R
Energy consumed is more closely related to distance than to time on feet. In my opinion, for most purposes (e.g. aerobic fitness; developing resilience of connective tissues) distance is more closely related to training effect than time on feet.
Spen,
That conversion is accurate to within about 2-3 % across a wide range of max and rest values:
If your max HR is 190 and rest HR = 55, 75% max = 65% WHR
If your max HR is 190 and rest HR = 45, 75% max = 67% WHR,
If your max HR is 160 and rest HR = 55, 75% max = 62% WHR
If your max HR is 160 and rest HR = 45, 75% max = 66% WHR,
|
|
Jun 2015
1:50pm, 14 Jun 2015
92 posts
|
Spen71
Oh the bemch at the moment, hoping it is not hallux limitus , sith a sore toe. How much fitness do people lose over a couple of weeks.
|
|
Jun 2015
12:17am, 15 Jun 2015
1,499 posts
|
Canute
Spen
Sorry to hear you are on the injury bench.
Fitness depends on several different physiological quantities (eg amount aerobic enzymes in mitochondria, capillary density, cardiac stroke volume etc) and these different aspects of fitness are expected to decay at different rates. Furthermore there are differences between individuals.
It should also be noted that at any stage in training, performance is determined not only by fitness, but also be current fatigue, which a makes negative contribution to performance. Therefore, when you stop training after a solid period of training, there is usually an increase in performance during the first week or two. However, fatigue decays more rapidly than fitness, and after a few weeks with no training the effects of any residual fatigue can be ignored.
Overall, the estimation of rate of loss of fitness is complex. It is difficult to draw any clear conclusions from anecdotal reports because of the various different factors involved. Unfortunately, there have been few good scientific studies because athletes rarely agree to stop training for an extended period unless injured, but if injured, regular measurement of performance would be confounded by the presence of the injury.
The best study I know was performed by Hugh Morton and colleagues at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver several decades ago. As a rough guide, fitness decayed by 50% per month. That means that after a month, on average, an athlete would be half way back to being like a complete couch potato, and that is a fairly serious loss. But note that individuals differ.
As for how quickly you might recover that such a loss, estimation is confounded by the need to build up gradually. If you could average 50 miles per week, in a typical polarises program, it would take about 2 months to recover that loss – but in practice it might take longer because of the need to build up gradually.
But if you can do cross training, the loss is likely to be less.
If you are out of action for two weeks, the observed loss of performance might be quite small because the loss of fitness would be offset by recovery from fatigue. Nonetheless, Hugh Morton’s data suggest that the loss of underlying fitness would be around 30%.
|
|
Jun 2015
8:04am, 15 Jun 2015
1,365 posts
|
EarlyRiser
That's a steep fall-off in performance isn't it. Worrying.
Stephen Seiler in an old article on the 'Time Course of Training Adaptations' talked about the time-course of change for the "Big Three" elements of endurance performance - maximal O2 consumption, LT and Efficiency. He considered that efficiency was something that could be improved over many years, LT might plateau after 3 or 4, VO2max in less than a year (with say15-20% gains in first 3-4 months.)
I wonder if this pattern reverses when enforced (or voluntary) time off running? i.e. we retain residual efficiency last of all, having lost most of our VO2max gais in the first few months, and LT somewhere in between.
I've tracked my performance on returning to running as against first time around. Thanks to Fetch logs. I'm a kind of experiment of two. Late starter in late 40s. Abandoned, restarted mid 50s.
In very broad terms I'm recovering performance at a marginally faster rate than I gained it in the first place. After 8 months or so, I'm back to about 70% of my first-time peak.
|
|
Jun 2015
9:51am, 15 Jun 2015
93 posts
|
Spen71
Thanks canute. Thought you might know . That is very worrying for me. I think i am at the top end of fitness as mine seems to drop off sharply. Really annoyed as i track my fitness over time on easy runs at 74% max heart rate. Ie 140 bpm. This was consistency of below 8 min miles.
i think i need to log my training better.
|
