RunningAHEAD - Topic: progressive runs

1 2 345

progressive runs (Read 941 times)

crb81 view log	posted: 2/23/2008 at 9:34 PM
	No mention of running these runs by HR. That might keep you in your zone. I give up. Uncle. Jeff, My first thought was Clay, you are an idiot. Obviously you were sleep deprived and inebriated when you posted that response. I went back and read all the posts. No where was there mention of a way to do his progression runs by HR. This is a guy running low mileage at slow paces. If he wears a HR monitor it would be a way to do a progression run that would benefit and yet not end up in injury. I know he is doing treadmill runs and I should have considered that. I was speaking from my perspective. I am in S Tx. My morning runs at this time of year can be anywhere from 35-70F. I train by HR. Inertia, I do a LR and a medium/LR every week. They are my two hard workouts weekly. I do tempo, progression or fast finish on them. I do the rest easy. I have been running for 4 years and set all my PR's in the last 4 months. That goes along with an increase in mileage. That has as much if not more to do with the PR's. Good luck with your training.
	crb81 2008 goals sub-20 5k, sub-43 10k, 1:35 half, 3:20 marathon

mikeymike view log	posted: 2/23/2008 at 9:47 PM
	Jeff was trying to get the OP to feel kung fu and you came in with yet another way to think kung fu. That's all. It's not easy being a super hero.

crb81 view log	posted: 2/23/2008 at 10:22 PM
	Jeff was trying to get the OP to feel kung fu and you came in with yet another way to think kung fu. That's all. It's not easy being a super hero Sorry. I just think a guy running 30m/w at 10 m/m pace should think before he feels.
	crb81 2008 goals sub-20 5k, sub-43 10k, 1:35 half, 3:20 marathon

Mr Inertia view log Heck of a Guy	posted: 2/24/2008 at 2:32 AM modified: 2/24/2008 at 2:33 AM
	:

Jeff view log	posted: 2/24/2008 at 10:13 PM modified: 2/24/2008 at 10:13 PM
	Quote from crb81 on 2/23/2008 at 9:34 PM: Jeff, My first thought was Clay, you are an idiot. Obviously you were sleep deprived and inebriated when you posted that response. I went back and read all the posts. No where was there mention of a way to do his progression runs by HR. This is a guy running low mileage at slow paces. If he wears a HR monitor it would be a way to do a progression run that would benefit and yet not end up in injury. I know he is doing treadmill runs and I should have considered that. I was speaking from my perspective. I am in S Tx. My morning runs at this time of year can be anywhere from 35-70F. I train by HR. Sorry, Clay. It was actually me that was sleep-deprived and inebriated. Glad the heart rate training is working for you. In my own defense, (and also because skeletor is whispering in my ear) I'll cite a paragraph from the article I linked to that not only tells the reader that HR can be used to identify the right feelings in progression runs, but also how these feelings are correlated to heart rate: If you can't find your ideal high-end pace by feel, the best available method for keeping effort intensity in the desired range is to use blood lactate data (correlated with heart rate data) to find your safe zone and go with the HR data on workouts until you know exactly what the feeling should be. A somewhat cruder field test involves performing a continuous run with pace increases at predetermined intervals, measuring heart rate at the end of each segment, and plotting a graph of HR vs. pace (or time spent running) to look for the point at which the HR no longer increased in a linear fashion. The popular "Conconi test" is such a protocol. It has a few drawbacks, but can be used in a pinch if you are desperate for numerical data. I also strongly disagree with the implication a few posts down that running by feel is somehow antithetical to thinking. This is exactly the sentiment that got me all hot and bothered in the first place. Running by feel requires thinking about how you feel, and responding to those feelings. I believe that feelings can be just as good or even better at giving feedback on training as heart rate monitors. They also come with the running, free of charge, which is an added benefit.
	a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

Scout7 view log CPT Curmudgeon	posted: 2/25/2008 at 12:19 PM
	And what HR zone should tempo runs be in? And does the OP have a HRM, and his/her zones established properly? It's not that easy.
	Amat victoria curam. Sine labore nihil. Dulcius ex asperis.

JakeKnight view log	posted: 2/25/2008 at 3:21 PM
	Quote from Scout7 on 2/25/2008 at 12:19 PM: And what HR zone should tempo runs be in? And does the OP have a HRM, and his/her zones established properly? It's not that easy. Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 2/22/2008 at 8:38 PM: Isn't this how the scientific method works? This thread confuses me. And makes me giggle. But it also makes me curious about something - something I wonder every time the science versus feel discussion starts: is there, in fact, any science out there on this? In other words, anybody ever try a study with two groups of runners of roughly equal ability, and let one group use all the gadgets - and the other one use none? I'd love to see that study. Say two years. Same basic training programs, same weekly mileage. One group doesn't even get to wear a watch when they run. The other group can have all the gizmos they want, monitoring their heart rate every step of the way. After two years ... what's the result? Those with the gizmos ought to end up significantly better, right? Or .... not? And who's enjoying their running more? Who has less injuries? Who's happier? Who is faster? How do I apply for a grant? I wanna know the answer. I suspect it'd be interesting.
	E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com -----------------------------

Scout7 view log CPT Curmudgeon	posted: 2/25/2008 at 3:32 PM
	The following is mine personal view, and a total and complete threadjack. So deal. A heart rate monitor can be a useful tool for the self-trained runner. I started running in HS, with the XC and track teams. I had the benefit of a coach to prescribe training and paces for me. So I learned how each run felt, and apply that self-knowledge. For someone who has never run in a group, or had a coach, I think that a HRM can be helpful in learning what "easy" is, and what "hard" is. I do think that people take their use too far. I think that people get way to wrapped up in the data, and become "slaves" to the HR numbers. My feeling is that a HRM shows you sensory data in digital format. You should learn how you feel at a give HR, so that you can replicate that effort when you want. The HRM provides a secondary form of information. If you feel good, you feel good, HRM be damned. Pace be damned, too, really. Formulas don't work for most people. It's like BMI; the formula gives you a sort of average idea, but it doesn't apply to individuals all that well. Keep that in mind. The best bet is to apply how you feel to what the numbers are telling you, over a period of days and weeks. In response to your proposed study, I would say that one group won't be any better or worse than the other, as a whole. Because it's not about the numbers. It's about the actual training itself. One thing that we ALL agree on is the foundations: lots of running, most of it easy, some of it hard. Other than that, it's a personal experience.
	Amat victoria curam. Sine labore nihil. Dulcius ex asperis.

JakeKnight view log	posted: 2/25/2008 at 3:40 PM
	Threadjack? Here? Quote from Scout7 on 2/25/2008 at 3:32 PM: In response to your proposed study, I would say that one group won't be any better or worse than the other, as a whole. Hmmm. Wonder if I could get Garmin to pay me not to do the study. That's probably a better plan. I say this as I'm strapping on my heart rate monitor. Because I like irony a lot. FYI: I wore the thing twice and haven't worn it since.
	E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com -----------------------------

Scout7 view log CPT Curmudgeon	posted: 2/25/2008 at 3:42 PM
	Quote from JakeKnight on 2/25/2008 at 3:40 PM: Threadjack? Here? Hmmm. Wonder if I could get Garmin to pay me not to do the study. That's probably a better plan. I say this as I'm strapping on my heart rate monitor. Because I like irony a lot. FYI: I wore the thing twice and haven't worn it since. So, what did you get your HR up to while doing the horizontal tango?
	Amat victoria curam. Sine labore nihil. Dulcius ex asperis.

SurfNRun view log Shake it!	posted: 2/25/2008 at 4:34 PM
	Quote from Scout7 on 2/25/2008 at 3:42 PM: So, what did you get your HR up to while doing the horizontal tango? by not being horizontal ?
	"If I had only two days to live, I would invade a neighboring country, and force my own ideology on them, whether they wanted it or not. "

JakeKnight view log	posted: 2/25/2008 at 11:08 PM
	Quote from Scout7 on 2/25/2008 at 3:42 PM: So, what did you get your HR up to while doing the horizontal tango? If I ever actually get the opportunity, you'll be the first to know. Actually, the second to know. I'll have graphs and charts.
	E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com -----------------------------

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 2/26/2008 at 3:27 PM modified: 2/26/2008 at 4:05 PM
	Quote from spaniel on 2/23/2008 at 2:09 AM: I get your point, but disagree halfway. By this I mean that sustainable effort is time dependent, not distance dependent. Someone who takes 50min cannot sustain the same effort level that I do for 31-33 minutes. They are running at an effort level similar to what I experience during a 10-mile race. So the perceived effort at 10k pace IS different. Scout's mom asked me not to get involved with this thread, so I'll keep it brief. I get what you're saying now, Spaniel. Put another way, if you and a 50-minute 10k runner both decide to do 20-minute tempo runs at your respective 10k paces, for example, you'd be doing almost 2/3 of a race at that pace, where the 50-minute 10k runner is only doing 40% of a race. So I see where you're coming from with regards to differences in perceived effort in that scenario.
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

Scout7 view log CPT Curmudgeon	posted: 2/26/2008 at 4:07 PM
	That's because my mom is smarter than you.
	Amat victoria curam. Sine labore nihil. Dulcius ex asperis.

Len view log	posted: 2/26/2008 at 4:08 PM
	Quote from JakeKnight on 2/25/2008 at 11:08 PM: If I ever actually get the opportunity, you'll be the first to know. Actually, the second to know. I'll have graphs and charts. I wonder if you truly want to reveal the details of that experiment- you know, minutia like elapsed time.

1 2 345

Feedback | Help

© 2005 – 2009 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved.