Low HR Training

12

Help Plese (Read 727 times)

     

    It gets better, Graham. If you look at my MAF tests you will see that this is true. I've knocked 4 minutes off the test in 10 months using these guidelines.

     

     

    I notice that you've also lost 15 pounds, which you'd expect to make you significantly faster all else being equal in any case.

     

    I'm not trying to knock the training method, but it's tricky to to know where the benchmark is when several variables are all moving at the same time.

       

      I notice that you've also lost 15 pounds, which you'd expect to make you significantly faster all else being equal in any case.

       

      I'm not trying to knock the training method, but it's tricky to to know where the benchmark is when several variables are all moving at the same time.

       

       

      I have no idea how much faster minus 15lbs makes a person. I suspect not too much though. maybe 30sec / mile? something like that if I recall right...from reading. I myself never had to lose this much weight Smile

      also, I know that jimmy did build a nice aerobic base in the past (part of it MAF and part of it speedwork, periodically) and just "lost" it when he didn't train much for a while. it may be easier to get back to a base already developed once no matter what training method you use as long as your training load is not too low. so... even if you don't do speed work and just do enough MAF at a high enough volume then it will still probably work out.

      for beginners it might take a longer time, again no matter what training method you use...I mean, it is maybe easier to reopen those capillaries instead of building them from scratch or something like that. maybe I'm totally off physiologically though, this is pretty much just my theory, I don't have any experience here because I'm building mine for the first time in my life. Smile

         

         

        I have no idea how much faster minus 15lbs makes a person. I suspect not too much though. maybe 30sec / mile?

        Noakes reckons 1% weight loss should be 1% performance improvement.

         

        Obviously a rule of thumb like that isn't going to be generally applicable... and I think it's based on the assumption that you have weight you can usefully use - clearly you reach a point where it's not productive to lose weight. So 15 pounds is 8% for someone who's 187 pounds. The starting point was 14:57 - 8% would be 71 seconds so just over a minute per mile.

          Noakes reckons 1% weight loss should be 1% performance improvement.

           

          Obviously a rule of thumb like that isn't going to be generally applicable... and I think it's based on the assumption that you have weight you can usefully use - clearly you reach a point where it's not productive to lose weight. So 15 pounds is 8% for someone who's 187 pounds. The starting point was 14:57 - 8% would be 71 seconds so just over a minute per mile.

           

           

          thanks for the info, I obviously didn't read this part from Noakes yet Smile

           

          though, it clearly isn't just weight loss:

           

          11/1/10
          10:16
          10:44
          11:04
          11:38
          01:28
          45:00
          4.11
          10:57
          172
          tm
          74º 73%
          64º
          8/27/10
          11:01
          11:19
          11:46
          10:54

          45:00 3.90
          11:32
          167
          tm
          80º 44%
          57º

           

          5lbs gain and faster.... training does help, not just weight loss Smile

           

          on other note I never slow this much at MAF. wouldn't know why.

          jimmyb


            Sometimes, you'll improve more than the 1% or the 1-2 seconds per mile. There is the time for less weight, but there is also time improvement from fat loss, as your body can dissipate heat better.

             

            --Jimmy

            Log    PRs

            cjbruin


              I'm just going to throw this out there and risk getting flamed by the hardcore purists.  I actually considered starting a thread about it before I saw this one.

               

              Graham, I think it's likely that you are using more energy trying to stay under your MAF than you would if you just ran at an easy pace.  Your body needs to adapt to running slowly just as it does to running fast.

               

              I learned about LHR in late 2007 when I started training for Ironman Arizona.  It frustrated the crap out of me but it really helped my drop some pounds and stay injury free while slowly chugging out the miles needed to finish a race of that distance.  I went through the same frustrations before the 2009 & 2010 season and worked through them.

               

              A couple of weeks ago I started my base training again and went out for my first LHR run.  I had a certain expectation of what my pace would be based on the fact that my long runs during last season were only 5-10 beats higher than my MAF.  I was surprised to find that I had to slow down to 14:30+/mi in order to stay under my MAF.  It didn't make any sense to me so I went back to some of the articles I previously read about running economy and how it can take more energy to run too slow.  So...I took another approach to get started this season and I'm REALLY glad I did. 

               

              First, I went to the McMillian Running Website and used the "Running Calculator"  I use this tool fairly often during the season as it help you understand your potential and suggests training paces for everything from easy runs through intervals.  It's very similar to Jack Daniels' VDOT charts.  I plugged in the results of a recent race but you can just go out and run any distance at a strong effort (do it so it's challenging but not so hard that you need to throw up) and plug in the results (I recommend doing at least a half mile).  For example, let's say you decide on 2 miles and it takes you 20 minutes.  The chart will tell you that your "Recovery Jog" should be 13:36 - 14:06.  This is still going to be slow for a guy who remembers what it's like to run a 3:30 marathon but it will allow you to maintain some form.

               

              What you are likely to find is that you'll be 5-10 beats higher than your MAF the first time you do it.  Try running at this pace six days per week.  Something like this:

              Mon: 30 min

              Tue:  60 min

              Wed: 30 min

              Thu: 60 min

              Fri: 30 min

              Sat: 90 min

              Sun: Off

               

              After one week you should see that you are getting within a couple of beats of your MAF and within two weeks you should be comfortably in the range.  Worst case, you have to go back to running 18:00/mi two weeks later.  Best case you don't spend the next 3-4 months running slower and less efficiently than necessary.

                interesting. what was your long run pace before you checked MAF pace to be 14:30? I think that if you didn't run at a specific (low) intensity for a while, you need to take a few days to "line up" the pace at that intensity with the other paces. but it doesn't really take more than a few days (at least it didn't for me).

                 

                prior to the LHR training I did use the approach of lowering the HR gradually (when I was a total beginner). that also worked well.

                 

                anyway, I somehow doubt that all the people whose MAF pace is 14+ after a few weeks of LHR training, can only run a 20minute all-out 2 miles.... I was certainly a lot faster than that in the 2-mile or other short distances when my MAF pace was 14 after a few weeks of doing the training. but in my case it could also be that the formula is a bit overconservative. now, if the goal of the formula is to make sure it's a conservative enough pace/intensity, then it does meet its goal. Smile

                 

                PS: I don't think anyone here would start flaming. this forum is not that kind of place. Smile

                jdazzle


                  After one week you should see that you are getting within a couple of beats of your MAF and within two weeks you should be comfortably in the range.  Worst case, you have to go back to running 18:00/mi two weeks later.  Best case you don't spend the next 3-4 months running slower and less efficiently than necessary.

                   

                  Has anyone else tried this out?  I've essentially been off for three weeks now and am considering running at the mcmillan recovery pace for the next two-three weeks to see how this all works out...  i'll keep you posted!

                  cjbruin


                    interesting. what was your long run pace before you checked MAF pace to be 14:30? I think that if you didn't run at a specific (low) intensity for a while, you need to take a few days to "line up" the pace at that intensity with the other paces. but it doesn't really take more than a few days (at least it didn't for me).

                     

                    prior to the LHR training I did use the approach of lowering the HR gradually (when I was a total beginner). that also worked well.

                     

                    anyway, I somehow doubt that all the people whose MAF pace is 14+ after a few weeks of LHR training, can only run a 20minute all-out 2 miles.... I was certainly a lot faster than that in the 2-mile or other short distances when my MAF pace was 14 after a few weeks of doing the training. but in my case it could also be that the formula is a bit overconservative. now, if the goal of the formula is to make sure it's a conservative enough pace/intensity, then it does meet its goal. Smile

                     

                    PS: I don't think anyone here would start flaming. this forum is not that kind of place. Smile

                     

                    I guess "flamed" was not the right word, you're right the people in this forum are extremely nice and helpful.  I was just thinking back to some of the comments from the hard-liners in the past.

                     

                    My long run pace during the season was ~10:40 @ ~145 HR.  I'm 43 (MAF 137) so it just didn't make sense that I would need to run four minutes slower for those 8-10 beats.

                     

                    The numbers I used were just examples.  The McMillian calculator allows you to enter a result for several distances (1 mile, 2000m, 5K, 10K...whatever).  For judging your endurance and pace I think it's better to use the longest distance you feel comfortable with but I also didn't want to suggest that people go out and hammer a 10K to find their paces...so I used 2 miles.

                     

                    Anyway, I'm completely on-board with LHR training to build a base for your season.  I also think it is far superior to the Couch-to-XXXX programs for beginners as it makes you take it easy instead of going way to hard for X minutes and trying to recover by walking. 

                     

                    This method of finding my pace worked for me and certainly saved me a lot of whining.  I guess I think of it somewhat in the same way as easing into intervals.  I wouldn't try to run 4 x 1mi @ 6:30 pace right now so why slow down to 14 min?  Just sayin'.

                     

                    I'll try to participate in this forum more than I have, it's a cool place.

                     

                    Cheers.

                    -CJ

                       

                      I guess "flamed" was not the right word, you're right the people in this forum are extremely nice and helpful.  I was just thinking back to some of the comments from the hard-liners in the past.

                       

                      My long run pace during the season was ~10:40 @ ~145 HR.  I'm 43 (MAF 137) so it just didn't make sense that I would need to run four minutes slower for those 8-10 beats.

                       

                      The numbers I used were just examples.  The McMillian calculator allows you to enter a result for several distances (1 mile, 2000m, 5K, 10K...whatever).  For judging your endurance and pace I think it's better to use the longest distance you feel comfortable with but I also didn't want to suggest that people go out and hammer a 10K to find their paces...so I used 2 miles.

                       

                      Anyway, I'm completely on-board with LHR training to build a base for your season.  I also think it is far superior to the Couch-to-XXXX programs for beginners as it makes you take it easy instead of going way to hard for X minutes and trying to recover by walking. 

                       

                      This method of finding my pace worked for me and certainly saved me a lot of whining.  I guess I think of it somewhat in the same way as easing into intervals.  I wouldn't try to run 4 x 1mi @ 6:30 pace right now so why slow down to 14 min?  Just sayin'.

                       

                      I'll try to participate in this forum more than I have, it's a cool place.

                       

                      Cheers.

                      -CJ

                       

                       

                      yeah, it is pretty weird that it slowed you so much. it's good you found a solution for that Smile

                       

                      about couch to 5K or whatever stuff...the one I used as a beginner, did tell me to run at a conversational easy enough pace. but as I was a beginner I didn't really know what that meant. I actually checked if I could talk while running and I was able to. but that probably wasn't the same thing because I was still running way too hard Smile however this did really work wonders to get to a lot better fitness level in 6 weeks. (yeah, the program was for 6 weeks...maybe a bit aggressive because all the other ones I saw later give you a lot more time to get to the first 5K.)

                      also, most beginners would have to walk if trying to keep at MAF. now, either you have patience to do that or not. I certainly wouldn't have, I always found walking pretty boring and unstimulating even at a 14-15min/mile pace...and that wasn't reaching my MAF HR either... as a note, I might be the exception because my regular easy walk pace is around 15, very easy is 16 (if I'm walking with someone else then it's slower than that and I totally fall "asleep"). 

                      but, if someone is in really bad physical condition or overweight by a lot, then I do think walking can be better in the beginning.

                       

                      also (this is in reference to jdazzle's post too), we can see that trying to find the best LHR intensity, where best means an intensity where you will progress the quickest possible while still a low enough intensity, can be tricky. Smile I know this is exactly the intensity the MAF HR is meant to be, but it can be trickier than that for certain people especially young and old ones.

                      12