|
Jul 2007
1:35pm, 26 Jul 2007
230 posts
|
Bennifer
The way I see this HR stuff is to forget the science stuff because I have no way of proving or disproving the theories involved because I am NOT a scientist. HR training rocks for me for very, very simple reasons - it gives me permission to run at slower speeds over longer distances ensuring that I have enough energy to do the same the next day! I would never have had the energy to increase my mileage over the last couple of months if I wasn't running at such a steady 70% pace. My RHR and 70% have come down since I started this and my pace has improved. This could be due to increased mileage but as I said before - I couldn't have increased the mileage if I wasn't running at a nice steady 70%. I like it.
|
|
Jul 2007
1:40pm, 26 Jul 2007
8,218 posts
|
Hendo
You learn well Jedi.
|
|
Jul 2007
1:41pm, 26 Jul 2007
9,432 posts
|
What it boils down to is do you believe in training easy days and hard days or just flat out all the time?
I believe in the former and use my HRM as an easy way of making sure I'm running easy enough on the easy days...
I think Cat may not believe you need to run easy and hard at all and he believes the only way to progress with running is practice running harder and faster for longer. I believe that to train like that is to risk injury or rather increase teh risk of injury to unacceptable levels, in my opinion that is.
|
|
Jul 2007
1:46pm, 26 Jul 2007
231 posts
|
Bennifer
I haven't quite got the hang of the hard days yet though..... one step at a time eh?
|
|
Jul 2007
1:55pm, 26 Jul 2007
1,863 posts
|
Caterpillar
Sorry ......
(No - really I'm sorry ...)
BUT....
My personal experience is that I make much bigger improvements when I do two hard days back-to-back than when I have recovery days.
And anyway, I don't see why I'd need a heart rate monitor to help me run slowly. All that takes is running slowly.
I really am sorry - I'm digging myself into a rut and accidentally discrediting people who have a valid opinion. I don't mean to argue - I'm actually interested in your opinions and giving you all a platform to explain and justify.
But then again - if it works for you, don't stop.
Hey - what would be the point of a HRM thread where everyone agreed that they were jolly good things?
|
|
Jul 2007
2:15pm, 26 Jul 2007
232 posts
|
Bennifer
Cat, each to their own and all that, no-one will ever force you to use a HR monitor!. You have looked into it, decided it's not for you and that is absolutely your choice. One of the best things about Fetch as a community is that we seem to be able to 'live and let live' (without always having to explain OR justify). There is often stuff on here that I think is a load of crap so I avoid it! Keep doing it your way
|
|
Jul 2007
2:38pm, 26 Jul 2007
1,904 posts
|
Diogenes
Cat, I certainly find the physiological stuff interesting, and I have learnt a lot from your posts. I find the HRM stuff useful as a way of monitoring how hard I am training, and preventing myself from pushing to improve on every training run. I know exactly what you mean about doing two hard sessions together. I found in the past that the only way to run faster in races was to run faster in training. I am doing that in combination with HRM.
I am only a few months into my HR training but my long runs are getting faster on average by being slower at the start and when racing I am able to sustain a higher workrate for longer. I am also recovering better and experiencing less fatigue.
Anyway, back to the my training. I went out for my first hard run since a couple of races in mid-July. I did some intervals today. 1 mile warm up below 70%, 6x160m at an average of 34secs each with about 50 secs jog inbetween then 1.5 miles cool down.
It was good to do a hard session. I should have done another couple of reps. I could have managed 1 but not 2. Slight buttock ache in left cheek was distracting me.
|
|
Jul 2007
3:26pm, 26 Jul 2007
8,226 posts
|
Hendo
Good post A65.
|
|
Jul 2007
3:29pm, 26 Jul 2007
680 posts
|
Badger
I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I've been mixing up hard and easy for a long time, and got faster as a result. Certainly I can now sustain a pace at 70% where 2 years ago it would have been more like 80%, my fastest times at all distances are in the last 6 months, and the last 6 months where the easy has mainly been 70% include one injury where I tried to outrun somebody 15 years younger than me whose 10k pb is 10 mins less than mine (I've beaten him before but he's in better shape now ) So I'm sticking with it for now. But none of the books say anything coherent and properly proved about the physiology! I've got more info from one chat with Cabletow than from the whole of Parker.
A65 I don't think the problem is just science not having all the answers (I'm a scientist and I sure don't ) - it's that the people who know the physiology aren't the ones writing the accessible training books which give you something you can put into practice easily which will get you faster with more stamina without injury. And Parker is that, though I agree wholeheartedly with Caterpillar that you need to be doing a lot of miles before you really show the benefits, and I strongly suspect that you won't get benefits if you're not doing the 85% work as well as all the 70%.
|
|
Jul 2007
3:29pm, 26 Jul 2007
681 posts
|
Badger
(ie - I AGREE WITH A65. Mostly )
|
