Sep 2015
8:42pm, 8 Sep 2015
152 posts
|
J2R
I've never done a formal HRmax test myself, but go on a figure derived from what I've seen in the final sprint of a 5K a couple of times, which is the highest figure my HRM has recorded. I've added a 'guesstimated' 4 beats to this to give the figure I work from. It may be a beat or so out but I doubt it's much more than that.
|
Sep 2015
12:21pm, 19 Sep 2015
1,699 posts
|
Canute
Yesterday I managed to jog 500 m without any pain in my knee. This is the best evidence yet that I am at last on the mend since my accident 7 weeks ago. During the past 7 weeks I have done as much elliptical training as my knee could cope with, and some cycling, but as expected, my aerobic fitness has deteriorated. During an elliptical submaximal test this morning, high HR indicated about a 10% loss in aerobic capacity over the 7 weeks.
With regard to the issue of HR max, in recent weeks as I have lost fitness I have been finding it relatively easy to push HR to HR max, and HR max itself has been steadily increasing – almost certainly due to loss of cardiac stroke volume, such that HR has to be higher to achieve a given amount of cardiac work. This morning, during three minutes at effort level 17-18/20, and breathing rate 85/min (confirming I was definitely well above lactate threshold) my HR rose to 157 – the highest I have observed since my early 60’s A week ago my maximum HR was 156, confirmed by no further increase despite a substantial increase in power output. Today I did not trying pushing myself to the limit, but I suspect HR 157 was already the plateau level.
The bad news is that I am probably at my lowest level of fitness for almost 10 years. The good news is that I am on the mend, and hope I can recommence running. The intriguing observation is yet more evidence that HR max is not a fixed entity
|
Oct 2015
1:53pm, 7 Oct 2015
167 posts
|
J2R
I've been thinking about getting a little more 'scientific' with the high intensity component of my polarized training. As was reported here http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/are-8-minute-intervals-uniquely-effective, Stephen Seiler and his Norwegian colleagues conducted an experiment in 2013 which led to the conclusion (surprising, to them) that 8 minute intervals at 90% HRmax, with 2 minute recoveries, seemed to be particularly effective, more so than shorter intervals at higher intensity or longer ones at lower intensity. Some kind of sweet spot, if you like.
So, I was about to incorporate these into my training, when I came across this, from the following year, from some of the same Norwegian guys that Seiler works with: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259556129_Short_intervals_induce_superior_training_adaptations_compared_with_long_intervals_in_cyclists__An_effort-matched_approach. This seems to suggest that short intervals of 30 seconds with 15 second recoveries are the way to go instead.
Does this supersede the earlier study, do you think, because of superior methodology (looked at over a much longer period, for example)? Also, what allowances, if any, have to be made for the fact that both these studies look at cycling rather than running? I'd be interested to hear from the experts.
|
Oct 2015
2:15pm, 7 Oct 2015
5,741 posts
|
Rosehip
effective in achieving what measured outcome J2R?
|
Oct 2015
3:44pm, 7 Oct 2015
2,083 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
J2r there is no such thing as the optimal interval session. There are no magic sessions.
Do them both. And others. Mix it up and have fun.
|
Oct 2015
4:11pm, 7 Oct 2015
168 posts
|
J2R
NN - Of course there are no magic sessions. But some are undoubtedly going to be more effective than others. That's what these guys are trying to determine. Do you dispute their findings, and if so, what aspect of their methodology are you questioning?
Rosehip - Measured outcome? Raised VO2max, improved time to exhaustion, ideally.
|
Oct 2015
5:01pm, 7 Oct 2015
5,744 posts
|
Rosehip
Wonders how personal some of these study results are?
When that Mosley chap did the tv prog about short intense intervals being "better" there was a disclaimer that it depended on the way you respond to exercise. I think he said that some people were "fast responders" whatever the type of exercise and some responded more than others to either long and slow or short and sharp iworkouts. If there is this difference it must be quite difficult to recruit for tests and analyse results.
Last time I thought about this I had decided that I could do the short and sharp stuff on an exercise bike, reducing injury risk but apparently gaining fitness and would do longer tempo type intervals running on the road as they would add the "head training" effect that running "fast" wouldn't kill me. However, I hated working out on the bike indoors when it was hot over the summer so gave up on those after a couple of weeks. Thank you for reminding me of this - I shall add high intensity short interval sessions on the bike to my winter plan
|
Oct 2015
5:50pm, 7 Oct 2015
2,086 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
They are looking for something that doesn't exist.
Doing anything does something.
Your response depends on so many factors genetics, training history, diet, motivation, etc etc
You don't need science to tell you how to train there is a tonne of practical trial and error experience with real people over many years. What you need is a good coach.
'training today is the same as it was before.' All that changes is the understanding about why.
No one understands quantum mechanics but you can still make it work for you.
|
Oct 2015
6:08pm, 7 Oct 2015
169 posts
|
J2R
You're clearly a sceptic, NN, but I'm a firm believer in the notion that well-conducted science can add to our body of knowledge about what works, along with what has been learned by experience over the years. It's not either-or.
|
Oct 2015
6:53pm, 7 Oct 2015
2,087 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
My point is that the well conducted science into what works has already been done to a large extent. Just cause it's not been published in a journal or peer reviewed or done by by someone trying to get or has got a doctorate doesn't mean it's not scientific.
Where 'science' comes in is to explain why what we know works works.
My intent, which was well meaning, was to scientifically find out what works for you by practical experimental evidence. The most exciting science I'd hope you'd agree.
I'd suggest looking at the wide body of scientific studies on this topic by persons such as pirie, gerschler (a doctor!), igloi, schul, canova, magness, colm, Daniels (another Dr ), horwill, coe and canute.
All in all my own scientific study tends me to think a plan involving a variety of sessions with increasing specificity to your chosen event, alongside sensible progression to increase training stimulus would work pretty well.
So, how do you intend to progress?
|