Low HR Training

"Anaerobic" Phase HRT (over MAF) Reports & Discussion (Read 6011 times)

jimmyb


    med long

    heart time zone 130-145bpm

    92°F  65% humidity

    50:00

    3.8 miles

    13:09 pace

     

    Heat training continues. The temps are up over the 90's while running the past two days.

    Huge difference from the low 80's in terms of stress

     

    --Jimmy

    Log    PRs

      Did some more Hill Sprints last night.  Although considered anaerobic, it sounds like if they are short enough, they can be done during any phase of training.  It also sounds like they can be done almost anytime.

       

      In previous post, I wrongly referred to these as Hill Repeats.  Now I understand that there is a distinction between Hill Repeats and Hill Sprints and that the purposes of them are completely different.

       

      I also had previously run the Hill Sprints wrong.  I ran them for 30 seconds a piece.  They shoud only be run for about 10 seconds each.  Hill Repeats, on the other hand, can be run at 30 seconds a piece or longer and they benefit you in different ways and they are a little more taxing on your body.

       

      Below is a link to an interesting discussion about Hill Spirints.

       

      http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2674276

       

      I use Hill Sprints now like striders.  I think they have about the same benefit with the advantage that Hill Sprints seem safer injury-wise and they also seem to have other advantages.

       

      I think these fit nicely with my goal of staying more in touch with some faster running (anaerobic) more often.  I have been reading that this is especially important for us runners who are older.

      jimmyb


        LONG RUN

        tm 1%

        83°F  46% humidity

         

        heart time zone 130-145

         

        14:27  106

        12:50  120

        12:01  129

        12:00  132

        12:00  135

        12:00  137

        12:00  138

        12:00  139

        12:00  141

        12:00  142

        00:42  142

         

        2:04:00

        10.06 miles

        12:19 pace

         

        Very surprised by this run today. I kept the temp at 83° today, figuring I'd be able to get some extra time in on my feet, as opposed to 90°+ (in which I have been training and doing a 1-2 hours a day of yardwork to acclimate). I want to get at least one or two runs in between races where I exceed a 10k distance.

         

        The difference in this run in terms of heart rate drift and time on my feet was not only remarkable as opposed to 90°+ runs,, but also to similar runs done in the low 80's or lower the past few months in the heart time zone of 130-145. I never even made it to the top of the zone today, and could have run longer. I didn't want to run much more than two housr today, and to be honest, I didn't think I'd make it past 90 minutes.

         

        All these runs were done on the treadmill (1% incline) with a heart time of 130-145 bpm. I took 30 minutes to gradually warm up to 130 bpm, then held the speed at which I was running (when I was at 30 minutes and 130bpm) for the rest of the run, letting the HR drift where it may.

         

        date 6/10/11 6/8/11 5/31/11 5/11/11 5/8/11 3/20/11
        83° 93° 85°  92°  83° 73°
        humidity 46% 67% 63%  65%  62% 60%
        high average HR in a mile 142 145 145  145  145 145
        time 2:04:00 0:51:00 1:04:00  0:50:00  1:19:00  2:00:00
        miles 10.06 3.69 5.43  3.80  6.48 10.38

         

        It shows promise that the heart time heat training might be doing the trick in terms of handling the heat better, and not over-training in the heat.

         

        --Jimmy

        Log    PRs


        Consistently Slow

          Long run. Low energy. Ran with a 30 something. Did mange an 8:30 at mile 12 downhill.Will do a slight taper for 4 miler on the 18th at Turner field( home of the Braves/ baseball).Last year did  30:09. Goal 29:34. Dream Goal 28:54.

          Pfitzinger  plan calls for rest:

          VO2 max interval -5 days

          Tempo---------------4

          Long run------------4

          Page 29 Advance Marathoning. Balanceing hard workouts and tuneup races.4  miler will be a tune up to gauge where I am and set up paces for training runs.

          May do some 400 meter repeats( designed for short distances and not marathon training.)Planning to run home from race. Need to see how far it will be.

          Will be doing 1200 meter repeats.

           

          Suggests welcome.

          Run until the trail runs out.

          2013***1500 miles

          50 miler

          Race Less Train More

           

          Ana Trason  "Living Her Life"

          "The Marble in The Groove"

           

          unsolicited chatter

          http://bkclay.blogspot.com/

          jimmyb


            Long run. Low energy. Ran with a 30 something. Did mange an 8:30 at mile 12 downhill.Will do a slight taper for 4 miler on the 18th at Turner field( home of the Braves/ baseball).Last year did  30:09. Goal 29:34. Dream Goal 28:54.

            Pfitzinger  plan calls for rest:

            VO2 max interval -5 days

            Tempo---------------4

            Long run------------4

            Page 29 Advance Marathoning. Balanceing hard workouts and tuneup races.4  miler will be a tune up to gauge where I am and set up paces for training runs.

            May do some 400 meter repeats( designed for short distances and not marathon training.)Planning to run home from race. Need to see how far it will be.

            Will be doing 1200 meter repeats.

             

            Suggests welcome.

             

            Hey Ron,

             

            Sounds like a good race. I'll be doing one more 10k race before the Peachtree, same day as your 4 miler.

             

            At this point, you won't gain any more fitness for the 4-miler next Saturday. After all the hard anearobic running of this previous week, my only suggestion is to treat this week as recovery and make sure you get to the race rested and in one piece. The 4-miler alone will be a boatload of anaerobic work for the week.

             

            I've been racing every other week, and try to get one LT tempo on the weekend in between. The rest is mostly aerobic in Maffetonian terms, with some in a zone MAF to MAF +15, which keeps me below the 50/50 fat/sugar ratio. My volume has been pretty low, partially due to the heart time heat training.

             

            Good luck, Ron. Have a great race. I'll send you a message the week before the P'tree to let you know how to spot me  so we can meet up and say hello (I'll be easy to find--i'll be one of the few gray-haired walruses in Wave A).

             

            --JImmy

            Log    PRs


            Consistently Slow

              Hey Ron,

               

              At this point, you won't gain any more fitness for the 4-miler next Saturday. After all the hard anearobic running of this previous week, my only suggestion is to treat this week as recovery and make sure you get to the race rested and in one piece. The 4-miler alone will be a boatload of anaerobic work for the week.

               

              --JImmy

               You are right. I will just do the planned 1200 meter repeats.

              Thanks.

              Run until the trail runs out.

              2013***1500 miles

              50 miler

              Race Less Train More

               

              Ana Trason  "Living Her Life"

              "The Marble in The Groove"

               

              unsolicited chatter

              http://bkclay.blogspot.com/

              jimmyb


                LT tempo run
                heart time zone 170-180 bpm
                92ºF, 74% humidity
                tm 1%

                1.50 miles
                12:00
                8:00 pace
                Second run in a row where I'm showing signs of acclimation progress. My previous 
                LT run two weeks ago in 92° and 62% humidity was:
                1.26 miles
                11:00
                8:43 pace
                  A little better in the same heart time (170-180)
                --Jimmy

                Log    PRs

                  I have a question.. when you do running a bit faster than LT pace/HR, e.g. for jimmyb faster than 8:00 pace or higher than 175bpm, how soon before you feel the acid in your legs? (muscles burning, etc..) do you feel anything at all? how about races? in a 5K? in a 10K?

                  jimmyb


                    I have a question.. when you do running a bit faster than LT pace/HR, e.g. for jimmyb faster than 8:00 pace or higher than 175bpm, how soon before you feel the acid in your legs? (muscles burning, etc..) do you feel anything at all? how about races? in a 5K? in a 10K?

                     

                    Depends on the length or the run or race. I don't feel any burn at all during an LT run, and I shouldn't--the run is just about stimulus and getting faster at LT. I never push past a certain point or time. During a race I usually feel a slight burn at the end when I'm working harder to keep pace in the last mile, and definitely when sprinting the last quarter mile. So, it all depends on the length of the race as to when I feel that definite burning. But it's always near the end. HR is always up over 95% MHR at that point. During an LT run, my HR doesn't go past 90%. In the marathon where i haven't hit the wall, I think there is a burn the last few miles--tough to tell what is what sometimes at that point.

                     

                    --Jimmy

                    Log    PRs

                      Depends on the length or the run or race. I don't feel any burn at all during an LT run, and I shouldn't--the run is just about stimulus and getting faster at LT. I never push past a certain point or time. During a race I usually feel a slight burn at the end when I'm working harder to keep pace in the last mile, and definitely when sprinting the last quarter mile. So, it all depends on the length of the race as to when I feel that definite burning. But it's always near the end. HR is always up over 95% MHR at that point. During an LT run, my HR doesn't go past 90%. In the marathon where i haven't hit the wall, I think there is a burn the last few miles--tough to tell what is what sometimes at that point.

                       

                      --Jimmy

                       

                       

                      thanks, it is very interesting what you said about the marathon. last 10miles? or less than that distance?

                       

                       

                       

                      before the iron deficiency stuff, I would get the burn past 198-200bpm or so(depending on distance but usually pretty consistent in that I would only get it past 198 or higher.) - that's past 94-95% of maxHR so this is close to your experiences I guess.

                       

                      funnily enough, I didn't get it in all of my races. e.g. in the 10K last fall, I maxed out HR at 197 (198-199 only for 1-2 secs or so then back to 197) and no burning feeling at all (and no soreness afterwards).

                       

                      the opposite example would be in the 5K a month before the 10K - I passed 198 halfway and a few minutes after that I got the burning...had to slow down. (yes I went out sooo too fast!)

                       

                      or, there was that summer race, in 90F, where I had HR over 200 for more than a quarter of an hour. and I had no such feeling in the legs. they stayed very "loose" and kept the turnover throughout the whole race. that was a funny disconnect between effort levels.

                       

                      the complete opposite of that experience was an all-out 800-odd meters, after 500-600m into it, my HR passed 201bpm, and not long after that my legs suddenly went into burn mode pretty crazy. this was also last year.

                       

                       

                       

                      anyway, yeah, I agree that it shouldn't be felt when doing LT run. I got rcurious about all this because in the last attempt I had at an LT run, I was feeling brave and was experimenting and went below LT pace (i.e. faster) and then I got that burn feeling pretty fast Sad  then I backed off, and it was fine again.

                       

                      why was I experimenting? well, lately, my HR is all over the place when doing LT pace. very variable, high one week and low another week. I mean, different HR at same pace, and I believe LT pace did not improve between two such different days. so I was guessing this could be a better way than HR to judge when I stepped past LT.

                       

                      I'd like to see my LT HR stabilize but I guess I'll have to wait for that a bit more... and avoid anything that could be too fast. I'm even considering laying off the LT runs for a while. I will have another go at it in a few days, keep the pace better controlled,  and see how the HR goes. if it is still crazy, I'll take that as a sign to wait with the faster stuff until my iron stores are better refilled. it's annoying that it's so variable.

                       

                       

                       

                      btw this is how it went for the last three of them:

                       

                      1. 3.1miles - gradually increasing speed, from around 8 to down to 7:30. and then down to 7:00 pace for the last 500m - last third of the last 500m was a hill so it was back to 7:45 or so on the hill. ---- HR went up fast, and I felt good, I did have to breath in quite some air but no burn in legs. hmm not even in the sub-7 part but maybe it was because it was too short - in any case, HR did go up to 197 or so, at that pace, and a lot of air was needed.

                      2. 3.4miles - again gradually increasing speed, from around 8:20, to 7:30 again. no faster than 7:30. HR up fast, meaning I got past 190 no problem, and legs still felt good.

                      3. 3.7miles - went from 8:20(not included) to 7:30... the HR would not go up though! it just would not pass 188. so then I felt like experimenting and tried to bring HR up to where it was for the previous runs. but that resulted in a 7:00 pace and HR was still not up enough and did not need to breath that hard, and my legs started the burn so I backed off. 7:40 was fine but HR stayed lower than in prev runs however I don't think it means improvement. dunno though. the average pace came out to be better, but I got soreness in right quadriceps afterwards, why only the right one I'm not sure Surprised

                       

                      so, I'm somewhat confused here... last year I never had this sort of experience. from last year's LT runs I know HR should be between 190 and 194 or so (195-197 okay only for the last couple of mins). using this zone was fine back then. but does not always work now.

                       

                      I know I need to monitor more than just HR. have to listen to body cues and pay attention to paces... but still so weird about this varying HR... btw, slower paces(slower than LT) are just fine, no muscle problems there, I already got enough iron in my body for the slower paces Smile

                       

                       

                       

                      PS: as for my training...it's not really very structured. it's slow easy runs (in the 150's) for the most part. and 1-2 times a week these LT runs to have fun. mileage just about 30mpw (max). just trying to get back to normal mileage.. but not rushing that.

                      jimmyb


                        thanks, it is very interesting what you said about the marathon. last 10miles? or less than that distance?

                         

                         

                         

                        before the iron deficiency stuff, I would get the burn past 198-200bpm or so(depending on distance but usually pretty consistent in that I would only get it past 198 or higher.) - that's past 94-95% of maxHR so this is close to your experiences I guess.

                         

                        funnily enough, I didn't get it in all of my races. e.g. in the 10K last fall, I maxed out HR at 197 (198-199 only for 1-2 secs or so then back to 197) and no burning feeling at all (and no soreness afterwards).

                         

                        the opposite example would be in the 5K a month before the 10K - I passed 198 halfway and a few minutes after that I got the burning...had to slow down. (yes I went out sooo too fast!)

                         

                        or, there was that summer race, in 90F, where I had HR over 200 for more than a quarter of an hour. and I had no such feeling in the legs. they stayed very "loose" and kept the turnover throughout the whole race. that was a funny disconnect between effort levels.

                         

                        the complete opposite of that experience was an all-out 800-odd meters, after 500-600m into it, my HR passed 201bpm, and not long after that my legs suddenly went into burn mode pretty crazy. this was also last year.

                         

                         

                         

                        anyway, yeah, I agree that it shouldn't be felt when doing LT run. I got rcurious about all this because in the last attempt I had at an LT run, I was feeling brave and was experimenting and went below LT pace (i.e. faster) and then I got that burn feeling pretty fast Sad  then I backed off, and it was fine again.

                         

                        why was I experimenting? well, lately, my HR is all over the place when doing LT pace. very variable, high one week and low another week. I mean, different HR at same pace, and I believe LT pace did not improve between two such different days. so I was guessing this could be a better way than HR to judge when I stepped past LT.

                         

                        I'd like to see my LT HR stabilize but I guess I'll have to wait for that a bit more... and avoid anything that could be too fast. I'm even considering laying off the LT runs for a while. I will have another go at it in a few days, keep the pace better controlled,  and see how the HR goes. if it is still crazy, I'll take that as a sign to wait with the faster stuff until my iron stores are better refilled. it's annoying that it's so variable.

                         

                         

                         

                        btw this is how it went for the last three of them:

                         

                        1. 3.1miles - gradually increasing speed, from around 8 to down to 7:30. and then down to 7:00 pace for the last 500m - last third of the last 500m was a hill so it was back to 7:45 or so on the hill. ---- HR went up fast, and I felt good, I did have to breath in quite some air but no burn in legs. hmm not even in the sub-7 part but maybe it was because it was too short - in any case, HR did go up to 197 or so, at that pace, and a lot of air was needed.

                        2. 3.4miles - again gradually increasing speed, from around 8:20, to 7:30 again. no faster than 7:30. HR up fast, meaning I got past 190 no problem, and legs still felt good.

                        3. 3.7miles - went from 8:20(not included) to 7:30... the HR would not go up though! it just would not pass 188. so then I felt like experimenting and tried to bring HR up to where it was for the previous runs. but that resulted in a 7:00 pace and HR was still not up enough and did not need to breath that hard, and my legs started the burn so I backed off. 7:40 was fine but HR stayed lower than in prev runs however I don't think it means improvement. dunno though. the average pace came out to be better, but I got soreness in right quadriceps afterwards, why only the right one I'm not sure Surprised

                         

                        so, I'm somewhat confused here... last year I never had this sort of experience. from last year's LT runs I know HR should be between 190 and 194 or so (195-197 okay only for the last couple of mins). using this zone was fine back then. but does not always work now.

                         

                        I know I need to monitor more than just HR. have to listen to body cues and pay attention to paces... but still so weird about this varying HR... btw, slower paces(slower than LT) are just fine, no muscle problems there, I already got enough iron in my body for the slower paces Smile

                         

                         

                         

                        PS: as for my training...it's not really very structured. it's slow easy runs (in the 150's) for the most part. and 1-2 times a week these LT runs to have fun. mileage just about 30mpw (max). just trying to get back to normal mileage.. but not rushing that.

                         

                        Keep it simple. Use a heart rate zone and then do the run with the same HR plan each time. If you want to use Daniel's 88-92%, or my 85-90%,

                        or Pfitzinger's 80-90%, or whatever.--just get your HR up to where it should be and let the pace be what it will be. I don't think you know what your LT really is, or what your pace should be. If you just use a simple HR zone, you can't go wrong. You'll get your stimulus for 20 minutes or so, and be done with it. Hopefully, you'll see an improvement in pace from your first tempo to your last. If you are, then you are doing things right.

                         

                        I never know what my LT pace is supposed to be. I have just always used HR, and the same basic zone with slight variations within the zone. Sometime, my LT pace is 8:00, sometimes 6:50, sometimes 9:00, but the heart rate is always the same. It takes all the guesswork out of things.

                         

                        Clean and simple.

                         

                        If you wish to force a pace, you could just pick up Daniel's Running Formula and use his charts and run 20-40 minutes at T-pace I think it is, and the heck with heart rate. If it goes to 95% or higher, it goes to 95% or higher. That seems to be the philosophy. A risky one for some runners in my opinion. It doesn't take  temperature and humidity into account, nor the state of the body on any given day. Just go run the same pace. But  7:30 pace in 50° is one thing, and 7:30 pace in 65° or  80° or 90° is quite another. 7:30 pace when your energy stores are full, your iron levels are normal, and you are well rested is one thing, 7:30 pace when your stores are near depleted, your iron levels are low, and you are exhausted and stressed from life is another.  The HR zone equalizes things and keeps you at the same effort relative to MHR. This equalization is one of the main reasons MAF tests and MAF running tend to keep you healthier as well.

                         

                        Just keep it simple. Aerobic runs, a tempo once in awhile, recover, and then go race. Cool

                         

                        --Jimmy

                         

                        P.S. On you your marathon question. If the race is going well, the last few miles, there is something like a burn--like I said, there's a lot of tiredness and soreness, so it's all mixed in--my heart rate get's up there. IF I have hit the wall, then it's just sort of numbsville the rest of the way. It's hard to describe, but "death march" will do. I've had two of those.

                        Log    PRs

                          I think you may have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I use a HR zone, I explicitly mentioned what the zone is. I start at the lower end and let it go to higher end and then done.

                           

                           

                          but this "keep it simple" principle i.e. using a HR zone does not work in this case. I only mentioned the paces to show that in two different runs, the same pace was fine, but the same HR was not fine.  this was the point of my post.

                           

                           

                          the HR idea does not "solve everything", two examples are iron deficiency and exhaustion. why? for iron deficiency, I read lactate levels increase/LT HR goes lower in iron deficiency. and for exhaustion, it's pretty obvious that the legs may be too tired to go fast enough to get into the usual LT HR zone. (solution: just don't try to run hard when exhausted! hehe)

                           

                           

                          iron deficiency with increased lactate levels can even mess with MAF test.

                           

                           

                          btw, the weather etc. was the same in all of them (we have a hot but dry-ish summer).

                            You'll have to take up the 80% with Pfitzinger and Douglas, the authors of Advanced Marathoning. The main purpose of that 80-90% is to do a tempo run in that zone to get a stimulus so you will get faster at LT. You could do a tempo run that spanned 20 beats quite easily and get the needed stimulus. You might be surprised when some people actually start to build lactate. That's basically what you are trying to get done in this type of tempo. Although, there is an anaerobic stimulus as well.

                             

                            oh, running a tempo run starting from 80% and gradually going to 90% during it, that would be very very funny in my case. I would have to keep increasing the speed all the time to get the HR go up to 90% and feel very comfortable for most of the time. nothing like a tempo run. I don't doubt that it may work for other people. not for me Smile

                            I always liked daniels stuff more than pfitzinger.

                             

                             

                            I wanted to add something else that's related to both topics: I think running by the HR zones assumes that your HR/lactate/RQ profile did not change from something. the above mentioned iron deficiency is a good example for a factor that has the chance of modifying it. or when you're not 100% back from a race, and you can run a pace at lower HR than usual, but on tired/tight legs - I'm sure the profile is different then too.  so in this case of being after a race, I think I should not try to run in usual HR zone by increasing the speed, even if I intended to run in an easy HR zone, e.g. MAF-5 to MAF. I just let the HR stay low and go at a pace that feels fine for the legs.

                             

                             

                            I find this is the factor (that the profile may change temporarily) that needs to be taken into account. you can see something is different by listening to the body cues and not just HR. using the two together gives me more information than just using one. and if I add pace into this, that gives me even more information.

                             

                             

                            of course under normal circumstances it is enough to just go by HR Smile I'm talking about the other cases.

                            jimmyb


                              I think you may have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I use a HR zone, I explicitly mentioned what the zone is. I start at the lower end and let it go to higher end and then done.

                               

                               

                              but this "keep it simple" principle i.e. using a HR zone does not work in this case. I only mentioned the paces to show that in two different runs, the same pace was fine, but the same HR was not fine.  this was the point of my post.

                               

                               

                              the HR idea does not "solve everything", two examples are iron deficiency and exhaustion. why? for iron deficiency, I read lactate levels increase/LT HR goes lower in iron deficiency. and for exhaustion, it's pretty obvious that the legs may be too tired to go fast enough to get into the usual LT HR zone. (solution: just don't try to run hard when exhausted! hehe)

                               

                               

                              iron deficiency with increased lactate levels can even mess with MAF test.

                               

                               

                              btw, the weather etc. was the same in all of them (we have a hot but dry-ish summer).

                               

                              Please just lay it out simple for me , C.

                              What is the LT heart rate zone you are using?

                              After warm-up, when does the run start, and when does it end?

                              How do you determine the duration of your run?

                              On what expert advice (like a Daniels of Pfitzinger) did you base this HR zone?

                              How often do you do an LT tempo?

                               

                              I reread your post and can't find these things, and it seems so complicated, my brain goes woo-woo Shocked, and I have a hard time understanding it. I might be wrong and unique in my perception, but it seems like you are all over the place and don't have a consistent HR plan. Thus my response to keep it simple. Use a zone, run in it, and be done with it. Progress, plateau, or regress. That's it.

                               

                              When I read 1-3 in your post--barely succeeding in not going woo-woo Shocked,  it looks like you are running by pace and not the same HR zone every time.

                               

                              What do you mean by the same HR was not fine?

                              How can the same pace be fine in two runs, but the HR not be fine?

                              What defines "not fine" in this case?

                               

                              It seems to me if you ran (eg) 7:30 pace in one run and your HR was 190, and then ran the same pace and your HR was 197 and you were experiencing stress, then 7:30 pace was too fast in the 197 run for whatever reason. If it wasn't the temps, then it was something going on in your body that day, and 7:30 pace was too much. Thus what I am saying about a HR plan equalizing things. In such a case, (e.g) if 190 was your HR llmit, you would have never gotten to 197 and that stressful state, you would have slowed down. Which brings me to this:

                               

                              Where did I write "solve everything" in my post?

                               

                              My point is that if you do the same HR plan for each run, you will be slower when the temps or your the condition of your body dictates so. If you are exhausted, you shouldn't be running a hard run anyway. Take the day off. It's just that some days, the body is not going to run a fast pace at the same HR, for whatever reason. Forcing a particular pace because that is the pace you are supposed to be running according to a calculator or calculation of some kind might be way too much in certain temps and on certain days. I used the word "equalizes" because if you do an LT run according to a HR plan, then your effort in 40° will equal that of one in 80°.

                               

                              If you noticed your MAF tests regressing, you shouldn't be doing LT runs anyway. When your tests regress, something is wrong, and you should go back to base, or rest, get checked, whatever. If you are anemic, then your MAF  HR plan will keep you from overdoing it. If you regressed from 10:00 to 12:00 pace at MAF, then 12:00 is what your body will give up. Forcing a 10:00 might not be wise.

                               

                              That is all I am saying. 

                               

                              I may be completely wrong, alone and unique in my perception about that post of yours, but just letting you know that it really sends my brain on a woo-woo trip. Thus my response: keep it simple. Keep posting, though! The forum is much better with your posts than without them. Good discussion. Cool

                               

                              --Jimmy

                              Log    PRs

                                sorry, I may not be very good at writing, you misunderstood a lot of my post. I'll attempt to answer your questions even though all of it is in the above posts, just possibly in a too unclear form. so let's go one by one Smile

                                 

                                 

                                1. I mean same HR on "bad" day resulted in burning legs and (subjective feeling) less oxygen uptake (less amount of breathing).


                                2. I mean same pace was fine because I did not have burning at 7:30 pace on either "bad" or "good" day. so I was referring to the 7:30s when I meant "same pace". sorry, that one may have been confusing in the original post. anyway, this is what I meant by it.

                                OTOH, I had it (burn) at 7:00 (and I think anything below 7:30 really) on "bad" day, did not have it on "good" day.

                                 

                                3. "not fine" means burning muscles and less amount of breathing.

                                 

                                4. my HR was in 190-194 zone at 7:30 on "good day", my HR was lower than 190 on "bad" day at 7:30 (188).

                                 

                                5. 197 was at 7:00 pace on "good" day.


                                6. HR limit is 194-195 for most of the run, I allow 195-197 for last couple of mins only at the end of run.

                                 

                                7. you didn't write "solve everything", I wrote that. Smile

                                 

                                8. I also said that when exhausted, don't run hard. agreement here. I would never do LT run on such a day and I did not.

                                 

                                9. I did not mean regressing MAF test when I meant "messing up MAF test". I meant the exact opposite! I know this is going to be a big woo-woo, sorry Smile 

                                 

                                let me describe it again. this was back in the spring with iron deficiency. on one day in the spring, I was running at MAF HR and it allowed me a pace of 10:30, which was a better MAF pace than ever before that. note, the HR was controlling the run, not the pace. but in reality, I should have gone slower than that HR, because apparently I had elevated lactate at low HR levels too. my legs told me this after a bit of running at the MAF HR at 10:30. they got the burning. so yes, this HR was not truly MAF HR anymore, because it was not as aerobic as before, but how could I have known that from this improved pace at this HR that was MAF HR until then?

                                 

                                10. MAF pace right now is fine, not regressing. it's better than in winter. so according to that, I'm ok with the LT runs, but I think I need to listen to my legs too, not just to the HR.


                                +1. I'm sorry if it sent your brain on a woo-woo trip. it sent mine on such a woo-woo trip too. but these are my experiences.