RunningAHEAD - Topic: sub 20 min 5k (page 2)

Ed4

Barefoot and happy

posted: 8/30/2007 at 5:07 PM

Quote from Eddy on 8/30/2007 at 4:38 PM:

One question, how do I really determine my heart rate zones? I mean at the moment I am going to want to find my easy hr zone, but what I now perceive as easy may not necessarily be easy according to my hr.

The most widely regarded formula I could find gives you your MAF (max aerobic function) heart rate. It's also called the 180 formula. See here: http://www.rrca.org/resources/articles/slowdown.html So according to that, my MAF is 154. So in low HR training, you always stay at or below that number. I decided to be conservative and so I actually target 145 in my runs, which gives me room for the inevitable spikes on stairs and such.

Curious about running barefoot? Visit the ~~new~~ barefoot running group.

Ed4

Barefoot and happy

posted: 8/30/2007 at 5:28 PM

Quote from Jeff on 8/30/2007 at 4:19 PM:

How have your race times changed during this time? Have you seen similar improvement in them? What sort of race are you aiming for?

I haven't raced during low heart rate training, since that's supposedly counter-productive. Ultimately, I want to run a sub 3 hour marathon.

Also, could you describe your running before switching to HR training? How long had you been running? Have you done anything else besides running with a low heart rate (e.g. more miles, more frequent quality sessions, greater daily consistency,...)?

This spring, I did a high-intensity marathon program. Many tempo runs, and relatively fast long runs. Back in the winter I was steadily building mileage (at a pace I thought was "easy"). In the previous fall and summer I probably averaged 20 miles a week, with quite a lot of variation, including lots of hills to prepare for the Mt Washington Road Race. Before that was a long period with only occassional running, though I never really stopped completely. I am definitely more consistent now, with higher mileage. In that past I'd start to get injured and burned out if I increased to 40 miles per week. But at low intensity, it's easy, and I'm ready to build up toward 50 and maybe beyond.

Curious about running barefoot? Visit the ~~new~~ barefoot running group.

Eddy

Slow-smooth-fast

posted: 8/30/2007 at 5:47 PM
modified: 8/30/2007 at 5:58 PM

Quote from Ed4 on 8/30/2007 at 5:07 PM:

The most widely regarded formula I could find gives you your MAF (max aerobic function) heart rate. It's also called the 180 formula. See here: http://www.rrca.org/resources/articles/slowdown.html So according to that, my MAF is 154. So in low HR training, you always stay at or below that number. I decided to be conservative and so I actually target 145 in my runs, which gives me room for the inevitable spikes on stairs and such.

Amazing stuff ed. I have just looked at the article, and I am dying to go out and try it.The only thing which concerns me is that in this period it would mean that all my workouts were at maximum aerobic hr, and that in turn means i would have to knock the track sessions on the head, the hill running, the fell running, the racing, the vo2 max training. All seems expensive? One more thing ED, WHEN i conduct the test, and see what my current max aerobic is, lets say like yours - near to 11 minutes, how on earth do you run at that pace. A current fast walk for me is 14 minutes mile.Does it not feel so slow and forced that it is actually harder to maintain an almost unnatural rhythm, and do you actually walk up some hills if it means that you will stay inside of your hr, or do you run at them and then slow at top to get a sort of average overall? DO you always stay below it?

"I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

Jeff

Why is it sideways?

posted: 8/30/2007 at 6:06 PM
modified: 8/30/2007 at 6:10 PM

Quote from Ed4 on 8/30/2007 at 5:28 PM:

I am definitely more consistent now, with higher mileage. In that past I'd start to get injured and burned out if I increased to 40 miles per week. But at low intensity, it's easy, and I'm ready to build up toward 50 and maybe beyond.

Nice. I'm sure you'll do great at your next race. The following is mainly a bunch of geeking out about trivial matters. Read at your own risk. Is it the heart rate monitor or the mileage and consistency? You make a point here that I think Hadd emphasizes and that the Maffetone article skims over a bit. The reason to run at a low(er) HR is to be able to get more miles in. The steady volume of mileage works at the molecular and muscular level to increase capillaries and mitochondria, making you a more efficient and stronger runner. And you are able to run more volume because you are running it at an easier pace. The HRM is a messenger. The mileage is doing the work. Maffetone makes too sharp a distinction between aerobic and anaerobic running for my taste, and therefore overemphasizes the dangers of anaerobic running. New and better science shows that fat burning happens to the same degree in "anaerobic running," as it continues after the exercise is over (this makes sense because the runner is still using his aerobic system at anaerobic paces; this source of energy is only supplemented by anaerobic work). The danger of anaerobic running is simply that it increases the risk of injury and burnout. Our bodies can only handle so much intensity. Running a large volume of easy miles is a tried and true method of improvement. HR monitors are a useful tool to reach that tried and true method. But in order to maximize your potential as a runner, you'll also have to figure out how to blend the right amount of intensity (tempos, intervals, hills) into the mix. You can only get faster by slowing down IF slowing down allows you to a) run more miles and/or b) do more intensity on your hard days. To emphasize my point, in the thread that the Hadd excerpt is taken from on Letsrun, Hadd himself says he hardly ever uses a HRM; he runs by feel.

s.crissman

posted: 8/30/2007 at 9:42 PM

Quote from Eddy on 8/30/2007 at 5:47 PM:

Amazing stuff ed. I have just looked at the article, and I am dying to go out and try it.The only thing which concerns me is that in this period it would mean that all my workouts were at maximum aerobic hr, and that in turn means i would have to knock the track sessions on the head, the hill running, the fell running, the racing, the vo2 max training. All seems expensive?

Eddy, Considering how you have progressed, and given your success thus far, you might want to not jump into the new method until some point in the future. If you are like me, it is fun to get out and do the intervals, hill running, and such in the summer and fall, when the weather supports it. When the weather changes, and you are forced indoors or have to run over uncertain terrain at best, running more slowly is more natural. That is why I am planning to make the switch in training at the end of my season here. You may want to consider doing similar, if giving up those current training runs right now sounds distasteful to you. After all, if you are enjoying them there is no reason not to continue, especially since you are still seeing remarkable amounts of improvement with your current plan. If you find that you plateau and need to mix it up, that's fine, just don't feel like because you've learned of a new training method you have to begin using it immediately. Think it through and determine when it would make sense to begin the new form of training based on your goals, schedule, resources, energy, etc, and then follow that path. Just something to think about. By the way, Ed4, I agree, this is an amazing post, and gives me high hopes for the winter months.

Ed4

Barefoot and happy

posted: 8/30/2007 at 9:52 PM

Quote from Eddy on 8/30/2007 at 5:47 PM:

how on earth do you run at that pace. A current fast walk for me is 14 minutes mile.Does it not feel so slow and forced that it is actually harder to maintain an almost unnatural rhythm, and do you actually walk up some hills if it means that you will stay inside of your hr, or do you run at them and then slow at top to get a sort of average overall? DO you always stay below it?

It didn't feel forced to me. I actually think it helped me improve my form, because it's more comfortable if you have a smooth quick step. But depending on your form it might be challenging. I do stay in zone on hills, which sometimes requires slowing down a lot. At least it did at first -- now I find it much easier to go uphill without shooting out of zone. Stairs and very steep hills are still tough, and I let my HR go up about 10 beats. But because I picked a low one to begin with, I stay below MAF pretty much 100% of the time. Conversely, on downhills I really fly to keep the HR high enough. This gives a nice variety of pace. Jeff, I think you're absolutely right. There's nothing magic about a HR monitor. But it helped me learn not to overtrain, so now I'm running more miles, more comfortably, which makes me faster. At this point I'm curious to see how fast I can get just by building a bigger base of easy miles.

Curious about running barefoot? Visit the ~~new~~ barefoot running group.

Chenille

posted: 8/30/2007 at 11:11 PM

Quote from Jeff on 8/30/2007 at 6:06 PM:

Is it the heart rate monitor or the mileage and consistency? You make a point here that I think Hadd emphasizes and that the Maffetone article skims over a bit. The reason to run at a low(er) HR is to be able to get more miles in. The steady volume of mileage works at the molecular and muscular level to increase capillaries and mitochondria, making you a more efficient and stronger runner. And you are able to run more volume because you are running it at an easier pace. The HRM is a messenger. The mileage is doing the work.

Very well put, Jeff. I've never thought of it that way before and it makes a lot of sense. Question: I've always thought it was specifically long runs, 90 min + that had the bigger effect on increase in the number of mitochondria?

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the number of moments that take our breath away...(unkown)

• Go With The Flow
• Thyroid Support Group

Eddy

Slow-smooth-fast

posted: 8/31/2007 at 2:56 AM
modified: 8/31/2007 at 3:04 AM

Quote from Ed4 on 8/30/2007 at 9:52 PM:

At this point I'm curious to see how fast I can get just by building a bigger base of easy miles.

I googled MAF, and it said that eventually you will plateau and it will become anaerobic, so please keep us updated on this thread ED4 of your progress, keep posting them graphs. Excelllent resource for us all, and motivator.

Quote from Chenille on 8/30/2007 at 11:11 PM:

Very well put, Jeff. I've never thought of it that way before and it makes a lot of sense. Question: I've always thought it was specifically long runs, 90 min + that had the bigger effect on increase in the number of mitochondria?

This is probably the case, but the operative word here is 'bigger'. I would say it is more about the pace of the run which has the effect on the mitochondria.

"I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

Chenille

posted: 8/31/2007 at 4:14 AM

article on mitochondrial research by peak performance

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the number of moments that take our breath away...(unkown)

• Go With The Flow
• Thyroid Support Group

Jeff

Why is it sideways?

posted: 8/31/2007 at 9:11 AM
modified: 8/31/2007 at 9:23 AM

Quote from Chenille on 8/30/2007 at 11:11 PM:

Question: I've always thought it was specifically long runs, 90 min + that had the bigger effect on increase in the number of mitochondria?

I don't know the answer to this. I do know that in training there's more than one way to skin a cat. Long runs are great, but one side effect of asking questions about the effects of specific workouts (like the long run or a set of intervals) is that we tend to tune in more to the effects of a single run on training. We always want to know: what will this single run or workout do for me? The answer, for any single run, is: not much. That answer is probably true for any single week of training. What does the work is the global training load--the accumulation of work at a variety of paces over a period of months and years. This is the perspective that the best coaches and athletes take. By the way, this is a great thread that touches on some of these questions. Pay particular attention to Renato Canova's posts on pg. 7 and 8. He's coached world champion athletes. Jack Daniels also posts as jtupper.

Eddy

Slow-smooth-fast

posted: 8/31/2007 at 9:18 AM

Quote from Jeff on 8/31/2007 at 9:11 AM:

I don't know the answer to this. I do know that in training there's more than one way to skin a cat. Long runs are great, but one side effect of asking questions about the effects of specific workouts (like the long run or a set of intervals) is that we tend to tune in more to the effects of a single run on training. We always want to know: what will this single run or workout do for me? The answer, for any single run, is: not much. That answer is probably true for any single week of training. What does the work is the global training load--the accumulation of work at a variety of paces over a period of months and years. This is the perspective that the best coaches and athletes take.

Very valid point, well put, and once again totally enjoying the info I am getting here. Anyone else feel free to chip in.

"I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

mikeymike

posted: 8/31/2007 at 9:27 AM

Runs of 90+ minutes probably do have more effect on mitochondria growth than runs under 90 minutes. So what? Worrying about that alone ignores many other important facts: - There is a lot more going on in training besides mitochondria growth. - Runs under 90 minutes still stimulate mitochondria (whatever the f**k that is) growth, just to a lesser degree. - Most of us can only handle so many 90+ runs per week, especically if we're doing parts of those runs balls to the wall. - Scientists with white lab coats are sucky coaches. There's a reason for this.

Runners run

Jeff

Why is it sideways?

posted: 8/31/2007 at 9:58 AM

Let me explain. Mikey's in the throes of marathon training. He's got a job, 4 kids, and he's running 80 miles this week. You'll have to forgive him. He's still right, just not as nice about it.

mikeymike

posted: 8/31/2007 at 10:12 AM

And let me hereby anoint Jeff my spokesperson. He says what I'm trying to say, only better and without my tendency to rile and offend. Smile

Runners run

Eddy

Slow-smooth-fast

posted: 8/31/2007 at 1:53 PM

Following advice from this thread, I am going to make sure that my easy runs are run at MAF, so I have just got back from my first run. 0.5 mile warm uo and down and 4 mile at MAF, which I am taking as 150bpm. Here are my findings: mile 1 - 8:39 mile 2 - 8:51 mile3 - 9:11 mile 4 - 9:32 I could not believe how easy it is to push up the heart rate. It became a little difficult to run at around 150bpm as as i went on, my pace had to slow down. This was strange, as after mile 1 I felt warmed up, yet this meant that my HR was elevated more. Anyhow I am going to keep a log of this, love it. Comments please, especially ED4. cheers.

"I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

sub 20 min 5k (Read 2539 times)