|
Feb 2009
8:03pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,137 posts
|
Velociraptor
Jeremy, 70%WHR, for me, translated into 10.30-11mm pace on the flat, and often hauled me back to a very slow walking-pace - 18mm or thereabouts - on uphills.
I am not a testosterone-slinging "I-can't run-THAT-slowly" sort of dinosaur, and it's not about running form. Having started my running life as a back-of-the-pack plodder, I'm still a lazy old moo and can run contentedly, comfortably, and with good form at speeds down to 13.5mm pace when I'm running with the kids. And sometimes I do run my easy sessions at 10.30-11mm pace.
In terms of improving my aerobic fitness, though, doing most of my running at a frustratingly slow effort-level was a waste of time. A waste of A LOT of time, at my sort of pace and at 70mpw! I also stopped enjoying running. Easy running is one thing, and very nice. Having to walk on steep hills at first, I could have lived with. Having to walk up EVERY hill, and not even at a normal walking-pace, and with no sign of the situation improving, is something I'd have endured forever if those faster training runs and races were getting faster for the same effort. But they weren't. I was getting slower.
FR, my poor prospects of ever doing a 24-hour BGR have sod-all to do with my heart rate 
Boab, I mean the sort of biological variation that gives us all individual maximum heart rates, or different amounts of the liver enzymes required to break down alcohol, or variable susceptibility to getting COPD from smoking. Although 70%WHR is a nice safe sort of number, and most people won't be using their anaerobic systems much, or even at all, in some people it may just lead to them working at TOO low an intensity to do more than burn off a bit of fat. And why should YOU drink less beer because a couple of sips of wine is enough to render ME unconscious?
|
|
Feb 2009
8:06pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,138 posts
|
Velociraptor
The HR monitor demonstrated to me that I find the noise of traffic in the rain very stressful but hardly turn a hair when a large dog pounces at me during a run
|
|
Feb 2009
8:27pm, 18 Feb 2009
5,800 posts
|
Velo,
I understand what you are saying.
|
|
Feb 2009
8:30pm, 18 Feb 2009
3,878 posts
|
Boab
Ah, vrap, I see and it makes sense. However, I too also only need a few sips of wine, it's my brain that tells me that I need more
|
|
Feb 2009
8:45pm, 18 Feb 2009
1,367 posts
|
Norrin Radd
Heart rate = shite rate
Bad run tonight. Cut 10 miler short to 3.5.
Still under 70% though, but brain all over the place and, dare I say it, form is too.
Will post elsewhere about that.
|
|
Feb 2009
8:54pm, 18 Feb 2009
915 posts
|
paul the builder
I have no intention of trying to convince V'rap about HR training ('cause your mind is made up, and I'm not daft). But for anyone who may be 'wavering' right now, because they don't sem to be making headway - I was in the same boat when I started HR training (Nov 2006). And in fact, I still get the 'wavers' periodically. But - the sciencey stuff makes sense to me, and I like easy running, and I'm a patient chap on the whole, so I stick with it. And after a while, more improvement comes.
You are all grown-up enough to make your own minds up. But I do know that (for at least some people, me included) you have to be patient. You're waiting for some quite deep-down adaptions to occur in your body, in response to quite gentle prodding. Looking back at my numbers, I was doing this for 7 months (yes, 7 months) before my pace at 70% WHR changed by a decent amount....
Nov 2006 - 10:33
Dec 2006 - 10:22
Jan 2007 - 10:11
Feb 2007 - 10:04
Mar/Apr 2007 - 10:11
May 2007 - 10:08
Jun 2007 - 9:45
Jul 2007 - 9:45
Aug 2007 - 9:34
Sept 2007 - 9:25
etc.
Tonight's run was at 8:06 m/m. I still haven't broken the 8:00 m/m average barrier for a run, but ask me again in a couple of months time.
|
|
Feb 2009
9:06pm, 18 Feb 2009
1,183 posts
|
Peacey
Paul - Interesting, thanks for posting.
Do your paces listed represent a average pace for the given run and is the 70% representive of the average WHR% for the run?
|
|
Feb 2009
9:10pm, 18 Feb 2009
79 posts
|
Nellers
I finished reading the Counterpart coach article this lunch time and it made a convincing case so I worked out what my (theoretical) max HR was, worked out my 70% whr rate and did my little trot tonight within it. It is the slowest run I've done since I stopped having to take walk breaks every few minutes!
I was outside 12 minute mile pace, which is mentally not good, and I don't feel tired, which is mentally not good, but I'm running very low mileage compared to you fit bods (ie, so far this year I've run 3 times a week and I've just clocked up my 42nd mile tonight. Stop sniggering at the back!).
My question is this, and I think it relates to Velociraptor's question: Should I just run how I feel until I've built up to a decent mileage and THEN worry about doing the HR thingy at 70% or will I benefit from running this slowly from the get go?
It seems to me that, intuitively, I'd have a greater effect for the short distances I'm running at present, to get my HR up a bit higher and really work, my thinking being that this will cause the cardiovascular changes quicker and mean that in maybe 2 or 3 months I'll be able to maintain a better, more realistic, pace at 70% HR.
What's the consensus on this, assuming that there is one which is certainly not a given after the last few pages.;-)
|
|
Feb 2009
9:13pm, 18 Feb 2009
4,774 posts
|
Pammie
Paul - Cheers for that
|
|
Feb 2009
9:23pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,142 posts
|
Velociraptor
Impressive improvement, PtB
Some of the physiology makes sense to me too, but a great deal of it is theory and extrapolation, and proper research evidence is replaced, in Parker's book at least, by it-worked-for-me anecdotes - the classic hallmark of Bad Science.
It's likely that all of those runners whose stories are presented as evidence of the effectiveness of HRM training would have improved using *any* training method that allowed them to run frequently, consistently, and without injury.
Which is not to say that HRM training is bad. It's not. It's good. Regular, steady, predominantly aerobic running is the foundation on which successful long-distance running is built, and HRM training is a useful tool for this, particularly for people who like analysis and numbers. But 70%WHR is not an absolute, and people who aren't improving, and are having to run at an implausibly slow pace, aren't necessarily "doing it wrong" in some way that they can't fathom.
|
