Low HR Training

12

A Case Study (Read 2587 times)

GMoney


    That Lyle McDonald piece is a very interesting one, but damn it's wordy.  It's also performance-oriented and not health-oriented (not that that's a bad thing, I'm just sayin'....)   If you find yourself with limited time to train it provides you with a much food for thought on how it might be done.  Note this interesting quote from "Summing Up Part 2"

    In an interesting new book by Chris Carmichael called The Time Crunched Cyclist, he describes that over years of coaching, he found that the traditional methods (revolving around easy aerobic, tempo and threshold work) work for cyclists so long as they can put in 10-12 hours/week of training.  That’s about half what you’d see on average with elites (where 20-25 weeks would be average and more wouldn’t be unheard of) but this is for citizen racers with lives.  He also notes that once folks got to the point that they can only put in about 8 hours a week, even those traditional methods fail.  The volume simply becomes too low for the lower intensity methods to be effective. 

    Further down, McDonald discusses running:

    [T]he 10-12 hour basic requirement for cycling (as described by Carmichael) is only about 5-6 hours for running in the first place.  The 8 hour cutoff Carmichael mentions for cycling is only about 4 hours for running (even a marathon can be finished with maybe 4-5 hours/week of running if you’re smart about it).  Running doesn’t have the basic time requirements of most other endurance sports."

    That 10 hour cut off sounds really reasonable to me for your mix of easy and more than easy running.  If you're going more than 10-12 hours a week, you're in the "Miles Build Champions" land and probably should keep the pace and HR down low.  If you don't even have 5-6 hours per week you could try the Carmichael compromise "nothing but high intensity interval training (with one long ride [or run] a week)" but, as McDonald notes, that compromise training won't be sustainable for the long term.

     

    We're getting kind of far afield from good ole' Jane here though.  Her case study makes it all sound so easy...

    gregw


      Thanks for the summary, GMoney.  Getting this back to Jane, I'd like to know how she trained!

       

      I think of Maffetone as emphasizing recovery.  Still though, I think more is more and less is less.  Low HR let me do more volume, which I think accounts for a lot of my improvement.  *IF* you're getting adequate recover (and that's a big if), I'd think adding some intensity to the same volume would improve race times.  Maybe we should normalize training by kcals/week?

       

      GMoney


         

        I've become a total believer that it is duration and intensity that has  to be monitored. Miles are secondary. One person's 20 miler is another person's 14 miler at equal  intensities and duration. Same training effect.

         

        This quote from Jimmy sums it up perfectly, IMO.  I think the key to progress is finding your personal optimal training load.  If you're in a MAF base phase (or any form of training where you're running at the same relative effort level each workout) then intensity should be roughly constant, and duration (minutes or miles) becomes the measure of volume.  If you're training at variable intensities it's more tricky but not that hard.  You could normalize it at kcal/week or - how about this one - heart beats per week (average HR * minutes).

         

        Still, the basic rules don't change that much.  Build a base first, then balance the hard/fast work with adequate easy/recovery.  If you're improving stay the course.  If you're not back off.

           

           

          This quote from Jimmy sums it up perfectly, IMO.  I think the key to progress is finding your personal optimal training load.  If you're in a MAF base phase (or any form of training where you're running at the same relative effort level each workout) then intensity should be roughly constant, and duration (minutes or miles) becomes the measure of volume.  If you're training at variable intensities it's more tricky but not that hard.  You could normalize it at kcal/week or - how about this one - heart beats per week (average HR * minutes).

           

          Still, the basic rules don't change that much.  Build a base first, then balance the hard/fast work with adequate easy/recovery.  If you're improving stay the course.  If you're not back off.

           

          so at around 113lbs, how much kcal should I be burning? Smile or how many HR beats if my max is around 206?

           

          I can't determine my optimal training load on MAF yet.....

           

          I know its around 23-26mpw or around 4-5 hours at MAF+10. (or it was in january, anyway. it may be a little more now. don't know without testing.)

           

          but so far I couldn't determine the limits at/below MAF yet... :S

           

          how would I know if my load in exclusive MAF training is too low? any signs of that? (signs for load too high I can guess myself, hehe).

          BeeRunB



             

            how would I know if my load in exclusive MAF training is too low? any signs of that?

             

             

            No progress, or a regression, in your MAF tests. Pretty much the same as when you do too much.

             

            It all depends from where you are starting, from what training load you came, and in what state of body. You have to experiment. An experienced runner who ran ten hours a week with speedwork and races, but was feeling tired and had nagging minor injuries (bordering or in over-training) might not see any progress until his or her body is rested and healed, whether the load is one hour per week or twelve, pure MAF base work or not. A month or two of rest might be what the doctor ordered before embarking on any training strategy. A person might be a complete beginner, and it might take a few months of a slow, smart build in duration to see significant movement. A person might be feeling healthy, be running 12 hours a week with races, and enter a base period at the same amount of duration and need to increase a few hours, or not.

             

            Past experience and self-knowledge comes into play. Mark Allen knew he could take two months off and get to a pretty high volume in his initial 12-week MAF base period. He didn't need to start out way below his norm and re-experiment, hoping to find his optimal training load. Personally, in the past, it was the same for me, though I've found myself in new circumstances the past year and am experimenting to find my optimum load.

             

             

            Experiment. Fall on your MAFace, pick yourself up, get moving, rest, collect data, and eventually you have workable parameters (until they don't work any more).

             

             

            How your body feels is always the first consideration.

             

            --Jimmy

             

            gregw


               

              so at around 113lbs, how much kcal should I be burning? Smile or how many HR beats if my max is around 206?


               

               

              Ack!  What Jimmy said.  It's determined by how much time you have and how your body responds.  How you feel and how your MAF tests progress are two indicators (with the first, I will heretically say, being the best).

               

              A local runner has a short description of marathon training that includes the following:

              At the end of the lengthening period, your mileage should be as much as it can be.  Of course, you must balance your running time with everything else important in your life.  You must balance the five F's:

              • Fitness (your workouts)
              • Fortune (your work)
              • Family & friends,
              • and Faith (your spiritual life)

               

              The point from the Lyle McDonald article that I thought was interesting was that training designed for a professional runner, who is limited only by what his body will take, is different for someone who has time constraints.

               

              I would say run easy, adding time (miles) as long as you recover and have the time.  Once you're reached the maximum time commitment your priorities allow and you're no longer progressing in your MAF tests, then add something else.  At that point you won't have enough time to add miles, so intensity or some supplemental training will be the tools available.

               

              Sorry if I confused things!

                thanks for your great posts. Smile

                 

                I wondered if there were any subjective feelings for undertraining.

                 

                I do also wonder whether my load is too low. I don't feel that running at/below MAF adds any stress for me. sure I love that feeling! but maybe it just means I'm not doing enough time/mileage... maybe I should feel the load a little, just a little? Smile (I don't want overtraining either!)

                 

                maybe a stupid thing to worry about? Smile

                 

                my MAF pace improved fast in the 1st week but that I attribute to just having to get used to a lower zone. I have experience in getting used to lower HR zones and it always went that way.

                 

                then it improved some more in the next 2 weeks.

                 

                since then no change, dunno if I just need to wait 6 weeks to see a change again.

                runnerclay


                Consistently Slow

                  NEW STUDY SAYS THAT WOMEN'S MAX HEART-RATE IS LOWER THAN MEN'S

                  Dr. Phil Maffetone on website. Interesting part on finding HR. Maybe somethings I originally missed.

                  Run until the trail runs out.

                   SCHEDULE 2016--

                   The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

                  unsolicited chatter

                  http://bkclay.blogspot.com/

                    NEW STUDY SAYS THAT WOMEN'S MAX HEART-RATE IS LOWER THAN MEN'S

                    Dr. Phil Maffetone on website. Interesting part on finding HR. Maybe somethings I originally missed.

                     

                     

                    ah, so mine is not 208 just because I'm female, good :P

                    12