1

Interval VS Mileage (Read 1146 times)

    My friend, who is an experienced runner has had me doing intervals for the last couple of weeks. During this same time I have also increased my mileage through a longer run on Sunday. I do a progress check baseline 3 mile easy run on the treadmill and check my heart rate at each mile: These are my results 2.26.08: Mile 1 - 163 Mile 2 - 171 Mile 3 - 181 (max) Average - 164 MPW - 13 3.11.08 Mile 1 - 155 Mile 2 - 161 Mile 3 - 174 (max) Average - 161 MPW - 18 Now for the conflict, I want to continue to see progress, is Interval work necessary for progress? or is the increased Mileage behind the improvement? Thank you in advance for any direction you can provide. John
    Scout7


      Both are. You will see more long-term gains if you increase your mileage, though. Personally, intervals are to be used when preparing for a race, starting 12-6 weeks out.


      SMART Approach

        As Scout says, fast intervals will give you nice short term results but then progress stops. If you are thinking about long term progress this year and next and so on.....then build miles mixing in a bit of faster stuff. If you are staying at same pace during that 3 mile test and your HR is taking off on what you define an Easy Run then your aerobic system needs a whole lot of work. You get this from more miles and more slower miles. I also caution increasing mileage and intensity at same time.

        Run Coach. Recovery Coach. Founder of SMART Approach Training, Coaching & Recovery

        Structured Marathon Adaptive Recovery Training

        Safe Muscle Activation Recovery Technique

        www.smartapproachtraining.com

          Gotcha, that was my initial thought about Intervals. My aerobic system is about as poor as it gets, ex smoker. I have been doing alot of reading on LHR training and wonder if this is the route I should take? Yes the 3 miles where completed on a treadmill at a 13:20 minute pace.
          Teresadfp


          One day at a time

            My aeorbic system is poor, too. I'm not a smoker, but it's just always been horrible. When I started, I couldn't even make it running 90 seconds non-stop! I've found the best thing to do is just RUN A LOT! As slowly as you need to. Over a year and a half, I've run consistently. I'm up to 5 or 6 times a week, and can run 8 miles non-stop now. I think going by how you feel works really well. Good luck - you're doing great! Teresa


            Why is it sideways?

              Gotcha, that was my initial thought about Intervals. My aerobic system is about as poor as it gets, ex smoker. I have been doing alot of reading on LHR training and wonder if this is the route I should take?
              Sounds like this would be a good idea. Run easy. Be patient, consistent, and take a long-term view. Don't sweat the small stuff. Figure out what gets you out the door and feeling good. The most effective training strategy is the one that keeps you heading out the door feeling good about yourself.
              Scout7


                Gotcha, that was my initial thought about Intervals. My aerobic system is about as poor as it gets, ex smoker. I have been doing alot of reading on LHR training and wonder if this is the route I should take? Yes the 3 miles where completed on a treadmill at a 13:20 minute pace.
                I'm not knocking LHR training. It works. The basic foundation is to run the majority of your miles at an easier pace. This works even without using a HRM. You may find the HRM to be useful for monitoring your effort; you may not. Don't feel that you have to use one. You should, however, follow the basic guidelines of it.
                  My friend, who is an experienced runner has had me doing intervals for the last couple of weeks. During this same time I have also increased my mileage through a longer run on Sunday.
                  So this "experienced runner" of yours, how many miles per week does he run? And how many miles of those are done fast intervals?
                    I have been doing alot of reading on LHR training and wonder if this is the route I should take?
                    Just my $.02. LHR can be useful for many people. It may not have positive effects for others if you follow it strictly. At least in Maffetone's writings that I've read, it's one of the few programs that doesn't suggest using the pgm as a guideline. Some folks do suggest some mods, but I've never seen those suggestions in Maff's writings. Hadd's stuff is a little different, but you need to do pace tests, etc, which I was never willing to devote a run to the tm or someplace where I could do a meaningful test. A lot depends on your age and your max hr (or LT hr). For some folks, esp. those in maybe mid-30s, those training zones (LHR and normal HR training) may align fairly closely and they do get benefits. Some have physiological systems where they do benefit even if those zones don't line up. But if you read all the details about adjusting zones, there are certain ages (don't remember details, but something like teens and over 55) where they don't have much data and suggest the pgm may not work. It does work for some, even in those age groups, esp. if it's a change from what they have been doing. (change is frequently good) FWIW, most (not all) of the runners that I've seen it work for (just lurking in threads or raising questions occasionally) have frequently been those that trained relatively hard and needed a break or their regular hr zones corresponded to LHR zones. There are exceptions. For older folks (outisde the suggested age range), like myself, the LHR base training zone is below the lowest level usually suggested for cardio benefits. I had tried it for a bit a couple years ago when we had a lot of ice, so most of my runs were abnormally slow anyway. In my case (late 50s when I tried it), my legs lost strength (Maf says don't do strength work or hills) and I really felt like I lost fitness. In my case, I really needed to improve efficiency / economy. However, when I finally got back to where I was (a good 2-3 months after ice left) and had worked in some good hill runs, pushing the effort, my hr at which I could run dropped about 5-7 bpm. Further volume training, including some higher effort, but mostly below LT (and mostly above LHR max zone), has led to further hr drops and my runs have become much easier and recoveries faster. (Since I run trails most of the time, and snow conditions play a large role in pace, it's hard to get a numerical measure of progress between Oct and May. Hence, "ease" of a run and recovery rates are my primary indicators.) I can now actually run almost normally in the LHR training zones, but not quite. But it's still an effort that's too low to elicit cardio or strength responses. Unless there's yucky snow conditions, I'm walking a rough patch, or needed a really easy recovery run, I don't run at those LHR. That said, it works for many. Keep in mind, the LHR part is mostly for base. Post-base, it becomes like many other pgms, I think. Base is usually built over years, regardless of program used. Most pgms use a wide range of aerobic efforts in base so you get all those cardio benefits that most runners want.
                    "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
                      So this "experienced runner" of yours, how many miles per week does he run? And how many miles of those are done fast intervals?
                      He is not able to run competitvely in 18 years because he was in a car accident when he turned 30, his legs are full of steel, so when he runs it causes him great pain. With that said, the intervals that he has me doing are 400m at about an 8 minute mile pace with a 400 meter recovery. I can only do about 4-5 before I see visions of God. However I am more convinced now than I was when I posted that Intervals are not for me, and that I should be focusing my efforts on increasing my MPW slowly. Some other data about my running, 1. If I continue with my 3 mile test to 6 miles, my heart rate will level off to about 174-178 bpm. 2. The highest I have ever recorded my HR is 205. MHR 3. My HR was 199 at the finish line of a 4 mile race last weekend, my average pace was 11:10. 4. I am 36 Years old and have never ran before July of last year. John
                        Okay, when I posted my last message, I was a bit sarcastic... I see quite often that a good runner, or a former good runner, prescribe a watered-down program from what they have done or doing. It's so much easier and safer and more effective to do intervals and tempo runs and all when you're running 80+ miles a week. In that respect, I think Galloway did a great job helping beginners/slower runners--he was an Olympian, you know. Hal Higdon, on the other hand, I thought, had programs that were too hard for most people. It seems that he had made some adjustment now that it's more manageable. He was a very very good runner as well as a great master's runner. If you're running 80 miles a week and do 5 miles total of quality workouts, you're supported with great deal of easier aerobic running. But if you're doing, say, 20MPW, even 3 miles of quality workouts has much greater proportion. Besides, in most cases, those hard core runners have years of base work under their belt. With your heart rate information, here are a few of my thoughts: The fact you can get it up to 200+ shows great potential of your heart. As you probably know, in general, people say your Max HR is 220-your age (a quick and dirty formula). At 36, you far exceed that. However, the fact that it reaches very close to your life-time max at mere 11-minute-mile pace indicates that you should really work on your stamina first. You see, it's body's ability to utilize oxygen, or retain oxygen, that really matters. Interval type of workout actually works on your breathing (because your body tries to retain more oxygen under higher demand) and your heart workiing over-load. Your heart would have to work over-load simply because your muscles lack the ability to retain oxygen. In the case when your heart is beating more than 160BPM, it most likely not completely contracting--in other words, it tries to pump so fast, that it starts to fill up before it fully contracts; consequently, in relation to the frequency of heart beat, it's not pumpling as much blood through your body anyways; hence, it's putting more undue stress to the heart itself. The advantage of LHR training is it really develops your heart in a much more gradual fashion. Once it's done, you can do as much quality training you want and it's not going to hurt you as much.
                          I found LHR a year-and-a-half ago and it helped me build mileage without injury. A program like Hadd, is premised on the idea that you build a base and then gradually pick up the pace. The "tests" are just markers for feedback. I've never felt stronger than after my first 6 weeks of LHR training. I used Hadd because my max HR is below average and I needed something that was more geared to me. I don't care for the 220-age formula. It's based on an average and, by definition, most people fall outside the average. One size fits all is not a good training philosophy in my opinion. But the basic principles are so sensible that it seems too easy. If your max HR is truly 200, then I'd do most of my running at or below @150 bpm (adjusting for heat and all). Throw in some faster stuff for balance, but in proportion to your "easy running." Incidentally, the way Hadd measured progress was to evaluate speed at a given heart rate. So, for example, using your treadmill test, run 1 mile at 140 bpm, 1 mile at 150 bpm, 1 mile at 160 bpm, and 1 mile at 170 bpm (or whatever). Take 6 weeks of regularly running and then test yourself again. You should see progress at all heart rates, which is nice and tends to incentivize you to keep it up.
                            Thanks guys, everything makes alot more sense to me on the hows and why's. Being an engineer I have a popensity for data and improvement, I guesse that is why I gravitated to a HR Monitor and standardized tests. My last question would be, to keep my heart rate at below 150, I would need to slow down further. With the slower rate, I couldn't possible due 15-20 MPW due to time constraints, how much time on feet would I need to see aerobic improvement? 60 minutes a day is about all I have Mon-Friday, Weekends I can stretch that a little bit. Again thank you all for the great advice. John
                              Others are more knowledgeable, but I would think that 7-8 hours a week would provide substantial benefits. Your log suggests 13 min/mile for "easy." Let's assume you have to slow down to 15 min/mile, that's 28-32 mpw. Keep that up and I'm sure that 15 will become 14 will become 13 will become 12 and so on. The miles are less important (to me) than the time you devote to running. If I were in your shoes, I would keep it easy for say 8 weeks. If you do that, I would bet good money that your pace at any given heart rate will improve substantially. Another observation looking at your log, I don't see any warmup or cooldown around your harder efforts. I don't run a tempo without at least a 15 minute warmup and a 15 minute cooldown.