12345

# Slow Down (Read 1907 times)

Bear_Poop Clearly 220 minus age is not accurate for you. Based on you already achieving a 177 it seems that the alternative formula 205 minus half age would be closer to the mark for you - ie 179 max. I'm going to have to guesstimate your resting heart rate for the purposes of this post (lets say 50) but you can get that figure and calculate your own zones quite easily by taking a reading before you get up in the morning. Max = 179 Rest = 50 Max minus Rest = 129 (this figure is your Range) Your easy runs should be done under 70% effort (typically 65%-70%) so - Range x .65 + Rest (129 x .65 + 50) = 134 Range x .70 + Rest (129 x .70 + 50) = 140 As one of your immediate goals is to lose weight then running 134-140 bpm is the best "fat-burning" zone for you and is giving you a good (fully aerobic) workout. This level of effort will also help you to increase your mileage should you wish to do so. When you have become comfortable with this pace and/or you have seen improvements in your cardiovascular efficiency (this may take weeks or even months) then you should include some faster work - typically once or twice a week starting slowly with just the odd mile or two introduced into your normal "easy" runs. According to Parker in Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot (on which I am basing my text) these faster runs should be at a base of 80% - so these runs should be maintained over the 80% threshold - 129 x .80 + 50 = 153 Modified to add - I'm not suggesting you need to lose weight - I just looked in your profile and saw it as a goal. Modified to also add - what Scout7 said but with figures. Forum Its obvious from this thread there are as many reasons for people to run as there are formulae to help them do it. At the end of the day it is entirely up to the individual how they go about it whether it just be solely for fun or to achieve certain goals. We should never become entrenched in just one view. It is interesting to see the various methods of training and if one does not work for you (or you don't enjoy it) then there is always another to try out. With the internet and forums such as this we can all now share our views and experiences. Thats great!!

2013

3000 miles

Sub 19:00 for 5K  05-03-13 Clee Prom 5K - 19:00:66 that was bloody close!

Sub-40:00 for 10K 17-03-13 Gainsborough 10K - 39:43

Sub 88:00 for HM

Hi again. I don't use a heart rate monitor. I'm grouchy like JK when it comes to technology and running. So, I'm interrupting this conversation to address the initial topic of slow running. Sorry. I thought Ed Whitlock's training would provide a different way of framing the discussion. If you don't know about Ed, here's a video clip of him: http://www.citynews.ca/news/features_689.aspx . Last year he ran 2:52 for the marathon as a 74 year old. Some think it's the greatest marathon performance of all time. Recently he broke the world record for the 1500m in his age group (75-79), running 5:31 (~5:57 for the mile). Ed says he does all of his training at a "glacial pace" (his words). BUT--he runs 2-3 hours a day and says that he is "pretty tired" after his workouts. He doesn't figure the pace of his runs, but he reckons around 9 min per mile. He also races a fair amount, and uses races for speedwork. He is a case study in Long Slow Distance--with an emphasis on the Long... He's also a life-long runner and ran a 2:30 marathon way back in 1979. Does this info change the discussion?
Scout7

CPT Curmudgeon

I don't know that it necessarily changes the discussion. The reason being is that there's always an exception to the general guidelines. Of course, the flipside to that is that the general guidelines are fundamentally wrong when used for the individual anyway, and should be used as nothing more than starting points for personal experimentation. Look at someone like Salazar. I don't think he ever ran more than like 16-17 miles at one shot. Yet he still ran well over 100 miles a week in training, and ran blistering marathon paces. If you read about any of the really good runners, a good number of them struggled at first because they had issues in terms of how they were training. Eventually, they found a training method that clicked for them, and they become some of the greats. To me, that's the best thing you can take away from studying running history, and the methods used by other runners. You start to pick up more than just base building is important, or that you should be doing this type of speed work, blah blah blah. You start to discover that really, at the heart of the matter, it's all about learning more about yourself. You learn what works; you learn what doesn't; you learn how your body recovers; you learn what sorts of things work in terms of nutrition. You start to look at what others have done, and discover that really, they were learning more about themselves, and what they were ultimately capable of, and how to achieve that. If you try it and it works, great. If it doesn't, you've still learned something.
... that there's always an exception to the general guidelines. ...Of course, the flipside to that is that the general guidelines are fundamentally wrong when used for the individual anyway, and should be used as nothing more than starting points for personal experimentation.
Stop that. I'm running out of space for tattoos.
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------

Scout7

CPT Curmudgeon

Stop that. I'm running out of space for tattoos.
Oh, the snide comments that could possibly be offered up.......
Oh, the snide comments that could possibly be offered up.......
No, no. I'm saving *that* space for Jeff's dissertation. As long as he keeps it under 200 pages.
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------

Scout7

CPT Curmudgeon

No, no. I'm saving *that* space for Jeff's dissertation. As long as he keeps it under 200 pages.
Not sure if I'm honored, or offended, or what..... At least I keep my soliloquies and diatribes (relatively) short.
va

...I thought Ed Whitlock's training would provide a different way of framing the discussion....
An very interesting guy: "Whitlock does all of his training in a cemetery. He covers a one-third-of-a-mile loop on a paved path. He doesn't count laps, stopping when his watch indicates three hours. He said he will not run the roads because drivers "aim" at him. Besides, Whitlock prefers running in circles. "You don't have to face the wind for very long," he said." http://www.theharrier.com/marcbloomrunning/worldclassrunners/whitlock.php
Wow.
Sidebar: Ed Whitlock's Best Performances Since Turning 70 Event Time Site Year His Age 5,000 meters 18:22 Toronto 2004 73 10,000 meters 37:33 Toronto 2004 73 15,000 meters 58:55 Utica, NY 2003 72 Marathon 2:54:49 Toronto 2004 73
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------

dillydoodles

Ed is a local hero. We saw him run last fall at the Toronto Waterfront Marathon. His time (at age 75) was 3:08. He's often on the local news because he's just so amazing and he seems like a really nice guy. One of the quotes that I've read about him is... Ed admits he often has to force himself out the door for his daily three-hour runs through Evergreen Cemetery near his Milton, Ontario home, a location he prefers because of its safer and quieter than city streets. "It’s a bit of a bore, a bit of a chore," Whitlock says, with a laugh. "I don’t suffer from runners’ highs. They don’t exist for me." Ed's 'long slow run' pace of 9:00 min/mile is my 100m strider pace, and I'm 20 years younger than him, LOL! Now THAT is slow! ~ Arlene
I'm saving *that* space for Jeff's dissertation. As long as he keeps it under 200 pages.
Don't worry. It's not that long.
I don't know that it necessarily changes the discussion. The reason being is that there's always an exception to the general guidelines. Of course, the flipside to that is that the general guidelines are fundamentally wrong when used for the individual anyway, and should be used as nothing more than starting points for personal experimentation. Look at someone like Salazar. I don't think he ever ran more than like 16-17 miles at one shot. Yet he still ran well over 100 miles a week in training, and ran blistering marathon paces. If you read about any of the really good runners, a good number of them struggled at first because they had issues in terms of how they were training. Eventually, they found a training method that clicked for them, and they become some of the greats. To me, that's the best thing you can take away from studying running history, and the methods used by other runners. You start to pick up more than just base building is important, or that you should be doing this type of speed work, blah blah blah. You start to discover that really, at the heart of the matter, it's all about learning more about yourself. You learn what works; you learn what doesn't; you learn how your body recovers; you learn what sorts of things work in terms of nutrition. You start to look at what others have done, and discover that really, they were learning more about themselves, and what they were ultimately capable of, and how to achieve that. If you try it and it works, great. If it doesn't, you've still learned something.
Learn about self! One size doen't fit all, you milage may vary. I learned that when diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. I can eat foods that others can't and others can that I can't! You would think that at just short of 53 years I'd have hat down pat! Chris UK Your guesses are just about right as to RHR. And I DO need to burn off more weight. I seem stuck right now. But I used to weigh in at 285 so it still good! I guess I just want improvement fast and clean

To paraphrase an old poster: Today is the first day of the rest of your training. It doesn’t matter where you started or how far you’ve come. Today is the day. Your training didn’t start 6 weeks ago. Your training started the last time you hit the road. John “the Penguin” Bingham Life is not tried, it is merely survived if you're standing outside the fire

Scout7

CPT Curmudgeon

Don't worry. It's not that long.
I'm assuming you mean your dissertation. But I wasn't 100%.
I'm assuming you mean your dissertation. But I wasn't 100%.
To be a philosopher is to traffic in ambiguity.
Scout7

CPT Curmudgeon

To be a philosopher is to traffic in ambiguity.
Even as a pragmatist / realist? Sorry, most of my philosophical studies revolved around political thought. The joys of a Poli Sci degree.....
12345