Ran a 10k in June (8 Viewers)

[Juxtatarot]

Back to bonking, this is kind of stuff I've read before:

What Causes a Bonk?

Perhaps a complete bonk can be described as total glycogen depletion from the muscles and liver. Glycogen is the primary fuel source for endurance athletes. This severe glycogen depletion does not occur during short duration, high intensity efforts, rather it occurs during continuous exercise at some 70- to 85-percent of VO2 max that is sustained for periods of more than about two hours.

When you are forced to stop exercising after completing very high intensity bouts of less than an hour, it is typically not glycogen depletion that is limiting your exercise.

Without going into detail here, shorter, high-intensity efforts use a different combination of energy systems in the body. These energy system waste products ultimately interfere with muscle contractions and force you to stop or slow down. Even though you're forced to stop after a high intensity effort, your body still has plenty of glycogen stores to continue at a slower pace.

http://www.active.com/triathlon/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-dreaded-bonk

 

[BassNBrew]

Back to bonking, this is kind of stuff I've read before:

What Causes a Bonk?

Perhaps a complete bonk can be described as total glycogen depletion from the muscles and liver. Glycogen is the primary fuel source for endurance athletes. This severe glycogen depletion does not occur during short duration, high intensity efforts, rather it occurs during continuous exercise at some 70- to 85-percent of VO2 max that is sustained for periods of more than about two hours.

When you are forced to stop exercising after completing very high intensity bouts of less than an hour, it is typically not glycogen depletion that is limiting your exercise.

Without going into detail here, shorter, high-intensity efforts use a different combination of energy systems in the body. These energy system waste products ultimately interfere with muscle contractions and force you to stop or slow down. Even though you're forced to stop after a high intensity effort, your body still has plenty of glycogen stores to continue at a slower pace.

http://www.active.com/triathlon/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-dreaded-bonk

This is why knowing your lacate threshold is important. Mine was 167 last time I tested. If I'm running at 164-167 then boinking would be an issue. If I'm running at 167-172 I'm dealing with lacate issues and possibly boinking.

 

[2Young2BBald]

Potential surgeon interview #1 this morning. Diagnosis confirmed. Now I just see if the others agree (almost a given), then choose a surgeon and decide if I wanna do Boston first.

Interestingly, the guy today (who I liked and who studied under Phillipon in Colorado) told me two weeks on crutches post-surgery and that I could start running another six weeks after that. If I had surgery in May, I could run a fall marathon. I could live with that. Hell, my running muscles might appreciate the break. #GlassHalfFull

Great attitude. Since I am no where near qualified to give you running advice, let me try and give you some advice I am qualified to give, how to fill the void when injured. When the doc put me on the shelf for a while after a bike wreck, I volunteered on a couple of those weekends. While it was a ##### to not be racing, I enjoyed the experience way more than I expected. Now, I try to volunteer at, at least, one event a year. Getting to body mark at a triathlon had to be my favorite assignment so far.

 

[BassNBrew]

:snip: FUBAR recently just went through this.

I'm glad to have done it, but also glad to be past the pure building phase. Lessons have been learned - namely that I didn't lose much if any top end speed despite running slow; that I added significant mileage without any injuries; and I think I'll be better off in the training phase keeping some runs slower than I had in the past.

You don't know how awesome it is to see someone else figure this out. Congrats!

Can someone briefly explain to me what happened here?

2 years ago I paid a ton of attention to my heart rate, but I guess I never really "analyzed" things. Heading into these summer months I'm trying to build a better base by running/biking mainly in zone 2, which by my estimates is 145ish and below.

Is that the deal here? If so, what is the ultimate goal...like when do you know your base is good enough?

The ultimate goal is to be able to use fat as a fuel (and less carbs) when you race in a zone 3-4 range. You're base will be good enough when you can go hard and can get by with 200-300 cal per hour w/o boinking.

How important do you think this is for distances of half marathon or less? This is where I'm not completely on board with training super slow instead of just at a comfortable pace. People shouldn't bonk during half marathons.

For low intensity running your stores will last up to 90 minutes. For high intensity exercise it could be a little as 20 minutes before they are gone. I'm pretty confident in saying that if you're racing a half marathon at lacate threshold you will boink without replacement or very efficient fat burning. Personally I used to hit a point where a gel at 45-50 minutes would improve performance. Hopefully I've moved beyond that. For most in this thread I'd put the dividing line at the 8k-10k distance where slow training will net big dividends.

Interesting. I must have read too much about marathon bonking and was confused. Thank you.

Usually when you run a marathon you're not running in the upper zone 4 range. If you're in the zone 3 range the glycogen is going to last longer. Add in fuel along the way and the boink is going to come much later in the event. When I did my 100 miler, the first 40 miles were mostly zone 2 and upper zone 1. I didn't come close to boinking.

I think what you were reading is common based on how most people run marathon. Attack a marathon in the zone 4 range and that boink most see at mile 18-20 is suddenly going to appear in the single digit mile markers.

 

[Juxtatarot]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

 

[FUBAR]

Quick question guys. On a lark today, I committed to the MS 150 bike race in Texas. It's 75 miles per day x 2 days. I'm assuming that completing it shouldn't be too much difficulty. I have no illusions of being fast but it doesn't seem like a 75 mile ride should be any harder than a 10-12 mile run. Am I insane?

It is very doable (assuming it is flat, which I don't know), but that first 10 miles on the second day is going to hurt. Or, at least, your ### is going to hurt.

This.

Just using my own rough pace, the 12 mile run will take less than half as long as a 75 mile ride. Get used to the saddle, but if you're trained you'll be fine.

 

[FUBAR]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

That said, I did a 40 minute trail tempo run today.

20 minutes warm-up

40 minutes tempo - 5.3 miles, 7:16, 7:21, 8:30, 7:22, 7:30, 7:06 (pace last .3). The 3rd mile was down, then up a 275' muddy hill - hence the loss of speed. The rest were rolling hills. HR in the 160s throughout, roughly 80-85% of max.

10 minutes cool down (5 walking)

 

[Juxtatarot]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

What does RQ stand for?

If 85% is tempo, that's a very slow tempo. But I agree the vast majority of people shouldn't be doing long slow runs that high.

 

[FUBAR]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

What does RQ stand for?

If 85% is tempo, that's a very slow tempo. But I agree the vast majority of people shouldn't be doing long slow runs that high.

Really? Pretty much everything I've read, from Daniels, McMillan, etc. put the goal rate around 85%

RQ: Respiratory quotient (RQ) or respiratory coefficient is a measurement of the ratio between oxygen (O2) an organism intakes and carbon dioxide (CO2) the organism eliminates, expressed with the formula “RQ=CO2 eliminated/O2 absorbed.”

This ratio reveals what the body is using for energy. On the cellular level, respiration is used to generate new energy for cells by taking nutrients which the organism has consumed and generating a series of reactions to derive energy from those nutrients so that the cell can operate. This also produces waste materials which must be eliminated. One common method for cells to derive energy is aerobic respiration, in which oxygen is used as a catalyst for this process; humans, for example, respire aerobically and rely on oxygen for cell function

In an organism which is using fats for energy, the respiratory quotient is around 0.7. Burning proteins for energy generates a respiratory quotient of 0.9, while carbohydrate consumption generates a perfect 1.0.

In layman's terms, it has to do with what you're using for fuel.

 

[gruecd]

Wait. No comments on my yoga pants gif? Everyone catch the ####??? (NTTAWWT)

 

[Juxtatarot]

Just looking at my books at home:

Peter Pfitzinger says long runs should be between 74-84% of maximum heart rate

Jack Daniels says 65-79% (but he's including warm up and recoveries)

Greg McMillian says about 75%

 

[Juxtatarot]

Wait. No comments on my yoga pants gif? Everyone catch the ####??? (NTTAWWT)

You're hot.

 

[Sand]

Wait. No comments on my yoga pants gif? Everyone catch the ####??? (NTTAWWT)

Stop ogling my wife.

 

[BassNBrew]

Just looking at my books at home:

Peter Pfitzinger says long runs should be between 74-84% of maximum heart rate

Jack Daniels says 65-79% (but he's including warm up and recoveries)

Greg McMillian says about 75%

I haven't read much Pfitz, but the snipnets presented on this board haven't represented him well in having an understanding of hr training. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he means long runs with 74% being the typical training pace and the 84% being his portion of the long run done at marathon pace. Something along the lines of 18 miles w/ 10 at marathon pace.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Just looking at my books at home:

Peter Pfitzinger says long runs should be between 74-84% of maximum heart rate

Jack Daniels says 65-79% (but he's including warm up and recoveries)

Greg McMillian says about 75%

I haven't read much Pfitz, but the snipnets presented on this board haven't represented him well in having an understanding of hr training. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he means long runs with 74% being the typical training pace and the 84% being his portion of the long run done at marathon pace. Something along the lines of 18 miles w/ 10 at marathon pace.

Marathon pace is listed at 79-88%. He does mention the upper ranges are more for the elites.

 

[SFBayDuck]

Wait. No comments on my yoga pants gif? Everyone catch the ####??? (NTTAWWT)

Sorry, I was, uhhh, busy. I love me some yoga pants, especially with a booty like that.

 

[SFBayDuck]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

What does RQ stand for?

If 85% is tempo, that's a very slow tempo. But I agree the vast majority of people shouldn't be doing long slow runs that high.

Really? Pretty much everything I've read, from Daniels, McMillan, etc. put the goal rate around 85%

RQ: Respiratory quotient (RQ) or respiratory coefficient is a measurement of the ratio between oxygen (O2) an organism intakes and carbon dioxide (CO2) the organism eliminates, expressed with the formula “RQ=CO2 eliminated/O2 absorbed.”

This ratio reveals what the body is using for energy. On the cellular level, respiration is used to generate new energy for cells by taking nutrients which the organism has consumed and generating a series of reactions to derive energy from those nutrients so that the cell can operate. This also produces waste materials which must be eliminated. One common method for cells to derive energy is aerobic respiration, in which oxygen is used as a catalyst for this process; humans, for example, respire aerobically and rely on oxygen for cell function

In an organism which is using fats for energy, the respiratory quotient is around 0.7. Burning proteins for energy generates a respiratory quotient of 0.9, while carbohydrate consumption generates a perfect 1.0.

In layman's terms, it has to do with what you're using for fuel.

Have you had your RQ tested, or are you just using MAF?

I've been planning to get mine tested for awhile now, and hoping they can give me my other zones at the same time. I strictly have used MAF to date as I haven't really tested for LT or mHR. Of course traditionally I haven't done a lot of training above MAF, but I have started to dip my toes in those waters and should probably figure out the appropriate HR at which to be doing hill repeats or tempo runs.

 

[BassNBrew]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

 

[Juxtatarot]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

What does RQ stand for?

If 85% is tempo, that's a very slow tempo. But I agree the vast majority of people shouldn't be doing long slow runs that high.

Really? Pretty much everything I've read, from Daniels, McMillan, etc. put the goal rate around 85%

RQ: Respiratory quotient (RQ) or respiratory coefficient is a measurement of the ratio between oxygen (O2) an organism intakes and carbon dioxide (CO2) the organism eliminates, expressed with the formula “RQ=CO2 eliminated/O2 absorbed.”

This ratio reveals what the body is using for energy. On the cellular level, respiration is used to generate new energy for cells by taking nutrients which the organism has consumed and generating a series of reactions to derive energy from those nutrients so that the cell can operate. This also produces waste materials which must be eliminated. One common method for cells to derive energy is aerobic respiration, in which oxygen is used as a catalyst for this process; humans, for example, respire aerobically and rely on oxygen for cell function

In an organism which is using fats for energy, the respiratory quotient is around 0.7. Burning proteins for energy generates a respiratory quotient of 0.9, while carbohydrate consumption generates a perfect 1.0.

In layman's terms, it has to do with what you're using for fuel.

Daniels has tempos at 88-92% in my book. McMillian 85-90%. Pfitz 82-91%. So, you're right, that in generally within their ranges. Just on the low end.

 

[BassNBrew]

Just looking at my books at home:

Peter Pfitzinger says long runs should be between 74-84% of maximum heart rate

Jack Daniels says 65-79% (but he's including warm up and recoveries)

Greg McMillian says about 75%

I haven't read much Pfitz, but the snipnets presented on this board haven't represented him well in having an understanding of hr training. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he means long runs with 74% being the typical training pace and the 84% being his portion of the long run done at marathon pace. Something along the lines of 18 miles w/ 10 at marathon pace.

Marathon pace is listed at 79-88%. He does mention the upper ranges are more for the elites.

I think the point you bring up is exactly why his ranges are pretty much useless. 79% to 88% doesn't seem like that much on paper IMO, but it's really the novice marathon runner like me to an elite. Basically his 74% to 84% range covers novices to elites. The 74% probably should be as low 67% for slow novices like me.

 

[FUBAR]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

What does RQ stand for?

If 85% is tempo, that's a very slow tempo. But I agree the vast majority of people shouldn't be doing long slow runs that high.

Really? Pretty much everything I've read, from Daniels, McMillan, etc. put the goal rate around 85%

RQ: Respiratory quotient (RQ) or respiratory coefficient is a measurement of the ratio between oxygen (O2) an organism intakes and carbon dioxide (CO2) the organism eliminates, expressed with the formula “RQ=CO2 eliminated/O2 absorbed.”

This ratio reveals what the body is using for energy. On the cellular level, respiration is used to generate new energy for cells by taking nutrients which the organism has consumed and generating a series of reactions to derive energy from those nutrients so that the cell can operate. This also produces waste materials which must be eliminated. One common method for cells to derive energy is aerobic respiration, in which oxygen is used as a catalyst for this process; humans, for example, respire aerobically and rely on oxygen for cell function

In an organism which is using fats for energy, the respiratory quotient is around 0.7. Burning proteins for energy generates a respiratory quotient of 0.9, while carbohydrate consumption generates a perfect 1.0.

In layman's terms, it has to do with what you're using for fuel.

Have you had your RQ tested, or are you just using MAF?

I've been planning to get mine tested for awhile now, and hoping they can give me my other zones at the same time. I strictly have used MAF to date as I haven't really tested for LT or mHR. Of course traditionally I haven't done a lot of training above MAF, but I have started to dip my toes in those waters and should probably figure out the appropriate HR at which to be doing hill repeats or tempo runs.

Haven't had it tested and frankly, I didn't know what it was until a couple months ago.

I did have my VO2 max tested a few years ago as part of a study, but I'm not sure how to utilize that score in training.

mHR is easy to test. Why not do it?

 

[Juxtatarot]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

 

[ChiefD]

12" of snow today put a halt to the running. At least I got to shovel 4 times today to burn some calories. The rest of the week does not look good. Crap.

 

[FUBAR]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

What does RQ stand for?

If 85% is tempo, that's a very slow tempo. But I agree the vast majority of people shouldn't be doing long slow runs that high.

Really? Pretty much everything I've read, from Daniels, McMillan, etc. put the goal rate around 85%

RQ: Respiratory quotient (RQ) or respiratory coefficient is a measurement of the ratio between oxygen (O2) an organism intakes and carbon dioxide (CO2) the organism eliminates, expressed with the formula “RQ=CO2 eliminated/O2 absorbed.”

This ratio reveals what the body is using for energy. On the cellular level, respiration is used to generate new energy for cells by taking nutrients which the organism has consumed and generating a series of reactions to derive energy from those nutrients so that the cell can operate. This also produces waste materials which must be eliminated. One common method for cells to derive energy is aerobic respiration, in which oxygen is used as a catalyst for this process; humans, for example, respire aerobically and rely on oxygen for cell function

In an organism which is using fats for energy, the respiratory quotient is around 0.7. Burning proteins for energy generates a respiratory quotient of 0.9, while carbohydrate consumption generates a perfect 1.0.

In layman's terms, it has to do with what you're using for fuel.

Daniels has tempos at 88-92% in my book. McMillian 85-90%. Pfitz 82-91%. So, you're right, that in generally within their ranges. Just on the low end.

Maybe I've just put myself on the low end, as I'm not a sub 3 hour marathoner or elite Ironman (yet...)

 

[BassNBrew]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

It has to do with RQ. we burn more glycogen as our HR increases, and less fat. at 70%, you're training your body to rely more on fat.

There's no way I'm running a LONG distance at 85%, that's a tempo run.

What does RQ stand for?

If 85% is tempo, that's a very slow tempo. But I agree the vast majority of people shouldn't be doing long slow runs that high.

Really? Pretty much everything I've read, from Daniels, McMillan, etc. put the goal rate around 85%

RQ: Respiratory quotient (RQ) or respiratory coefficient is a measurement of the ratio between oxygen (O2) an organism intakes and carbon dioxide (CO2) the organism eliminates, expressed with the formula “RQ=CO2 eliminated/O2 absorbed.”

This ratio reveals what the body is using for energy. On the cellular level, respiration is used to generate new energy for cells by taking nutrients which the organism has consumed and generating a series of reactions to derive energy from those nutrients so that the cell can operate. This also produces waste materials which must be eliminated. One common method for cells to derive energy is aerobic respiration, in which oxygen is used as a catalyst for this process; humans, for example, respire aerobically and rely on oxygen for cell function

In an organism which is using fats for energy, the respiratory quotient is around 0.7. Burning proteins for energy generates a respiratory quotient of 0.9, while carbohydrate consumption generates a perfect 1.0.

In layman's terms, it has to do with what you're using for fuel.

Daniels has tempos at 88-92% in my book. McMillian 85-90%. Pfitz 82-91%. So, you're right, that in generally within their ranges. Just on the low end.

This is another example where definition of the terms and the talent of the individual makes a difference. I'm in bike class with a pro two weeks ago. He has us doing 5 mins at tempo and I'm cranking out more watts than he is 260 to 250. To me tempo is my hard hour pace, to him it's his 4-5 hour comfortable pace. We then hit the meat of the workout with this first interval at hour pace less 50 watts. He's now riding at 300 watts and I'm actually doing an easier 230 watts.

 

[BassNBrew]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

I can only assume that they are skewed towards a well trained or decent base out look on things.

I can only tell you that I train at the low end of the range most of the time and felt stronger at mile 20 than mile 10 of my first marathon (day 3 of three days of events), posted faster mile times at mile 36-finish of my 40 miler than I did anytime in that training cycle, and set my marathon and 50 mile prs during a 100 mile event.

 

[bentley]

I got in another 11 today. Feeling very good about the HM in two weeks. I saw someone a couple pages back talking about 25 miles a week being light so now that has me worried I might not have trained hard enough. My current routine has been 3 days a week at 4-5 miles and then a long run on Sunday. 24 miles this week.

I think I maxed out around 30 miles/week before running a HM last year. Still ran 1:50.40. You should easily beat that. Whats your goal?

Goal is to break 1:50. If I maintain my current 11 mile pace over the whole thing I should end up just over 1:48.

 

[Juxtatarot]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

I can only assume that they are skewed towards a well trained or decent base out look on things.

I can only tell you that I train at the low end of the range most of the time and felt stronger at mile 20 than mile 10 of my first marathon (day 3 of three days of events), posted faster mile times at mile 36-finish of my 40 miler than I did anytime in that training cycle, and set my marathon and 50 mile prs during a 100 mile event.

Understandable. I guess I feel strongly about this because I had marathon breakthroughs in 2012 and I believe that increasing my intensity on long runs was a big factor in this.

 

[FUBAR]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the bodys capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your bodys ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

I can only assume that they are skewed towards a well trained or decent base out look on things.

I can only tell you that I train at the low end of the range most of the time and felt stronger at mile 20 than mile 10 of my first marathon (day 3 of three days of events), posted faster mile times at mile 36-finish of my 40 miler than I did anytime in that training cycle, and set my marathon and 50 mile prs during a 100 mile event.

Understandable. I guess I feel strongly about this because I had marathon breakthroughs in 2012 and I believe that increasing my intensity on long runs was a big factor in this.

Makes sense and there are different ways to train and people will respond differently.

Only a year ago, I pushed my training too hard during a marathon train up and got injured, so I'm a bit reluctant to overdo it. That was the only time I've been injured in the last decade.

 

[tri-man 47]

Wait. No comments on my yoga pants gif? Everyone catch the ####??? (NTTAWWT)

I think we're all still burning some glycogen over that young lady.

 

[tri-man 47]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

Great discussion. I was disappointed this past fall that I wasn't all that close to my predicted marathon time, based on HM projections (e.g., HM x 2 + 10 minutes). Projection was about 3:15-3:20, and I ran 3:33. I believe a primary reason for that is that I wasn't patient enough with many of my runs ...I let the pace creep too high and I did not fully develop my fat burning capacity. Too many runs were in a training no-man's-land.

 

[Ned]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

I can only assume that they are skewed towards a well trained or decent base out look on things.

I can only tell you that I train at the low end of the range most of the time and felt stronger at mile 20 than mile 10 of my first marathon (day 3 of three days of events), posted faster mile times at mile 36-finish of my 40 miler than I did anytime in that training cycle, and set my marathon and 50 mile prs during a 100 mile event.

Understandable. I guess I feel strongly about this because I had marathon breakthroughs in 2012 and I believe that increasing my intensity on long runs was a big factor in this.

You can't take the suggested HR ranges in a vacuum; you have to remember the context of how they're telling you to run. Here's the excerpt from Pfitz's book on the long run:

The first few miles of your long runs can be done slowly, but by 5 miles into your long run, your pace should be no more than 20% slower than your marathon pace. Gradually increase your pace until you're running approximately 10% slower than marathon pace during the last 5 miles of your long runs. In terms of hear rate, run the first few miles at the low end of the recommended intensity range, and gradually increase your effort until you reach the high end of the range during the last 5 miles.

 

[koby925]

Whoa Steve, you continue to impress. Great race and nice writeup.

Thanks to all for the congratulatory remarks. I am getting 5-6 mile runs in here and there when I can sneak off and often (like today I hope) pushing one or both of the "older" sisters along in the stroller. Certainly not optimal training but I think it's good to get just enough in so I don't lose the base I started building end of 2013.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I got in another 11 today. Feeling very good about the HM in two weeks. I saw someone a couple pages back talking about 25 miles a week being light so now that has me worried I might not have trained hard enough. My current routine has been 3 days a week at 4-5 miles and then a long run on Sunday. 24 miles this week.

I think I maxed out around 30 miles/week before running a HM last year. Still ran 1:50.40. You should easily beat that. Whats your goal?

Goal is to break 1:50. If I maintain my current 11 mile pace over the whole thing I should end up just over 1:48.

You've got 1:50 in the bag IMO. You might want to pick a slightly more challenging time for your "A" goal, with 1:50 as a fallback.

 

[Ned]

I got in another 11 today. Feeling very good about the HM in two weeks. I saw someone a couple pages back talking about 25 miles a week being light so now that has me worried I might not have trained hard enough. My current routine has been 3 days a week at 4-5 miles and then a long run on Sunday. 24 miles this week.

I think I maxed out around 30 miles/week before running a HM last year. Still ran 1:50.40. You should easily beat that. Whats your goal?

Goal is to break 1:50. If I maintain my current 11 mile pace over the whole thing I should end up just over 1:48.

You've got 1:50 in the bag IMO. You might want to pick a slightly more challenging time for your "A" goal, with 1:50 as a fallback.

No kidding. If you're banging out 11mi training runs at 8:30s, you should demolish 1:50.

 

[sho nuff]

Bronchitis sucks...

that is all

 

[SteveC702]

I got in another 11 today. Feeling very good about the HM in two weeks. I saw someone a couple pages back talking about 25 miles a week being light so now that has me worried I might not have trained hard enough. My current routine has been 3 days a week at 4-5 miles and then a long run on Sunday. 24 miles this week.

I think I maxed out around 30 miles/week before running a HM last year. Still ran 1:50.40. You should easily beat that. Whats your goal?

Goal is to break 1:50. If I maintain my current 11 mile pace over the whole thing I should end up just over 1:48.

You've got 1:50 in the bag IMO. You might want to pick a slightly more challenging time for your "A" goal, with 1:50 as a fallback.

No kidding. If you're banging out 11mi training runs at 8:30s, you should demolish 1:50.

+1 for this. Although if you really want to play it safe go out at the pace til you hit halfway and if you feel good (which you should) pick it up then. You might leave a few minutes out on the course, but you'll finish strong while passing people and will be more excited about getting out there to do another one.

 

[gruecd]

Bronchitis sucks...

that is all

Trade ya...

 

[gruecd]

Potential surgeon interview #1 this morning. Diagnosis confirmed. Now I just see if the others agree (almost a given), then choose a surgeon and decide if I wanna do Boston first.

Interestingly, the guy today (who I liked and who studied under Phillipon in Colorado) told me two weeks on crutches post-surgery and that I could start running another six weeks after that. If I had surgery in May, I could run a fall marathon. I could live with that. Hell, my running muscles might appreciate the break. #GlassHalfFull

Great attitude. Since I am no where near qualified to give you running advice, let me try and give you some advice I am qualified to give, how to fill the void when injured. When the doc put me on the shelf for a while after a bike wreck, I volunteered on a couple of those weekends. While it was a ##### to not be racing, I enjoyed the experience way more than I expected. Now, I try to volunteer at, at least, one event a year. Getting to body mark at a triathlon had to be my favorite assignment so far.

Thanks, 2Young. Yeah, I may have mentioned it before, but I actually took over as president of my local running club this year, so I'll probably use a lot of the downtime focusing on some projects related to that.

Workout-wise, today will be Day 5 of my 28-day yoga challenge. I like the mental discipline that it's instilling. As far as running goes, I'm literally 50/50 on Boston right now....

 

[Juxtatarot]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

I can only assume that they are skewed towards a well trained or decent base out look on things.

I can only tell you that I train at the low end of the range most of the time and felt stronger at mile 20 than mile 10 of my first marathon (day 3 of three days of events), posted faster mile times at mile 36-finish of my 40 miler than I did anytime in that training cycle, and set my marathon and 50 mile prs during a 100 mile event.

Understandable. I guess I feel strongly about this because I had marathon breakthroughs in 2012 and I believe that increasing my intensity on long runs was a big factor in this.

You can't take the suggested HR ranges in a vacuum; you have to remember the context of how they're telling you to run. Here's the excerpt from Pfitz's book on the long run:

The first few miles of your long runs can be done slowly, but by 5 miles into your long run, your pace should be no more than 20% slower than your marathon pace. Gradually increase your pace until you're running approximately 10% slower than marathon pace during the last 5 miles of your long runs. In terms of hear rate, run the first few miles at the low end of the recommended intensity range, and gradually increase your effort until you reach the high end of the range during the last 5 miles.

This adds to my point. He is clearly not telling runners to maintain heart rate below 70% max for the entire long run.

 

[SteveC702]

Great discussion. I was disappointed this past fall that I wasn't all that close to my predicted marathon time, based on HM projections (e.g., HM x 2 + 10 minutes). Projection was about 3:15-3:20, and I ran 3:33. I believe a primary reason for that is that I wasn't patient enough with many of my runs ...I let the pace creep too high and I did not fully develop my fat burning capacity. Too many runs were in a training no-man's-land.

I saw this come up in another forum as well and did an analysis to debunk this rule. I have been convinced for years that this only applies to the truely elite or truely sub-elite that are extremely slow-twitched, or just people who sandbagged their HMs.

I also came up with a simple but slightly more realistic conversation ratio - just divide your full-marathon by half-marathon. (or multiply your HM by 2.15-2.20, see results below)

Group 1: The fastest marathoners ever:

Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 / 2:03:59 (2.104)

Geoff Mutai - 58:58 / 2:03:02*/2:04:15 (2.086 / 2.107, *Boston 2012, not WR eligible)

Patrick Makau - 58:52 / 2:03:38 (2.100)

Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 / 2:03:23 (2.092)

Group 2: The fastest American marathoners currently:

Meb keflezighi - 61:00 / 2:09:08 (2.117) Never really ran a fast course or time trial type race at his prime.

Dathan Ritzenhein - 60:00 / 2:07:47 (2.130)

Ryan Hall - 59:43 / 2:04:53*/2:06:17 (2.091 / 2.115)

Abdi Abdirahman - 61:07 / 2:08:56 (2.110)

Group 3: A bunch of 2:20-2:40 friends/rivals:

1) 65:45 / 2:21:30 (2.152)

2) 68:57 / 2:29:54 (2.174)

3) 69:01 / 2:27:30 (2.138)

4) 70:54 / 2:31:00 (2.130)

5) 71:30 / 2:31:00 (2.111)

6) 75:30 / 2:44 (2.172)

7) 78:30 / 2:48:30 (2.146)

Group 4: A few samples from this thread:

1) Juxt - 86 / 3:06 (2.16)

2) Gruecd -87:01 / 2:59:48 (2.07) *Sandbagged the half for sure*

3) Ned - 92:53 / 3:31:20 (2.38) *Marathon was a bad day*

4) Tri - 91:32 / 3:33:29 (2.33)

5) Worrie - 1:42 / 4:02 (2.37)

I think a few things I am seeing is that the ratio is impacted a lot by overall training mileage, and whether you were destined to be a marathoner in the first place. I do believe that most people with sufficient training and optimal pacing can get their ratio down to the 2.15-2.25 range. (unfortunately that converts to about 13.5-22.5 min for the average 90-min half guy). I think most of you have BQs in the 3:15-3:20 range, so you should be able to get there within another marathon-specific cycle or two.. (talking mainly about Ned/Tri).

 

[Ned]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

I can only assume that they are skewed towards a well trained or decent base out look on things.

I can only tell you that I train at the low end of the range most of the time and felt stronger at mile 20 than mile 10 of my first marathon (day 3 of three days of events), posted faster mile times at mile 36-finish of my 40 miler than I did anytime in that training cycle, and set my marathon and 50 mile prs during a 100 mile event.

Understandable. I guess I feel strongly about this because I had marathon breakthroughs in 2012 and I believe that increasing my intensity on long runs was a big factor in this.

You can't take the suggested HR ranges in a vacuum; you have to remember the context of how they're telling you to run. Here's the excerpt from Pfitz's book on the long run:

The first few miles of your long runs can be done slowly, but by 5 miles into your long run, your pace should be no more than 20% slower than your marathon pace. Gradually increase your pace until you're running approximately 10% slower than marathon pace during the last 5 miles of your long runs. In terms of hear rate, run the first few miles at the low end of the recommended intensity range, and gradually increase your effort until you reach the high end of the range during the last 5 miles.

This adds to my point. He is clearly not telling runners to maintain heart rate below 70% max for the entire long run.

BnB also isn't training to race a marathon. He's training to survive a 100mi run. Aside from his example, I don't think I've seen anyone tout that all of your long runs should be below 70%.

This is what I've come to use for the past 2ish years that has produced PRs from 5K thru the marathon:

Recovery = <70%

Long Run = <75%

General Aerobic = <80% (junk runs - I rarely run here much now)

Marathon Pace = <86%

Lactate Threshold = <91%

VO2max = >91%

 

[Ned]

Great discussion. I was disappointed this past fall that I wasn't all that close to my predicted marathon time, based on HM projections (e.g., HM x 2 + 10 minutes). Projection was about 3:15-3:20, and I ran 3:33. I believe a primary reason for that is that I wasn't patient enough with many of my runs ...I let the pace creep too high and I did not fully develop my fat burning capacity. Too many runs were in a training no-man's-land.

I saw this come up in another forum as well and did an analysis to debunk this rule. I have been convinced for years that this only applies to the truely elite or truely sub-elite that are extremely slow-twitched, or just people who sandbagged their HMs.

I also came up with a simple but slightly more realistic conversation ratio - just divide your full-marathon by half-marathon. (or multiply your HM by 2.15-2.20, see results below)

Group 1: The fastest marathoners ever:

Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 / 2:03:59 (2.104)

Geoff Mutai - 58:58 / 2:03:02*/2:04:15 (2.086 / 2.107, *Boston 2012, not WR eligible)

Patrick Makau - 58:52 / 2:03:38 (2.100)

Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 / 2:03:23 (2.092)

Group 2: The fastest American marathoners currently:

Meb keflezighi - 61:00 / 2:09:08 (2.117) Never really ran a fast course or time trial type race at his prime.

Dathan Ritzenhein - 60:00 / 2:07:47 (2.130)

Ryan Hall - 59:43 / 2:04:53*/2:06:17 (2.091 / 2.115)

Abdi Abdirahman - 61:07 / 2:08:56 (2.110)

Group 3: A bunch of 2:20-2:40 friends/rivals:

1) 65:45 / 2:21:30 (2.152)

2) 68:57 / 2:29:54 (2.174)

3) 69:01 / 2:27:30 (2.138)

4) 70:54 / 2:31:00 (2.130)

5) 71:30 / 2:31:00 (2.111)

6) 75:30 / 2:44 (2.172)

7) 78:30 / 2:48:30 (2.146)

Group 4: A few samples from this thread:

1) Juxt - 86 / 3:06 (2.16)

2) Gruecd -87:01 / 2:59:48 (2.07) *Sandbagged the half for sure*

3) Ned - 92:53 / 3:31:20 (2.38) *Marathon was a bad day*

4) Tri - 91:32 / 3:33:29 (2.33)

5) Worrie - 1:42 / 4:02 (2.37)

I think a few things I am seeing is that the ratio is impacted a lot by overall training mileage, and whether you were destined to be a marathoner in the first place. I do believe that most people with sufficient training and optimal pacing can get their ratio down to the 2.15-2.25 range. (unfortunately that converts to about 13.5-22.5 min for the average 90-min half guy). I think most of you have BQs in the 3:15-3:20 range, so you should be able to get there within another marathon-specific cycle or two.. (talking mainly about Ned/Tri).

That's an interesting formula. When I ran Philly this year, I felt as if I was capable of a low 3:2x. Using the 2.2 factor, that spits out a 3:22.

 

[Juxtatarot]

All this goes back to my original question. And I'm asking this because I'm sincerely curious. I'm not trying to be difficult. We all have read the advantages of running slow. Cutting and pasting:

Why do long slow distance runs?

The LSD run has many benefits. First, it helps to adapt your joints and muscles to give them the endurance for long runs. Second, it improves your cardiovascular system, strengthens the heart and increases the blood supply in the muscles; it therefore enhances the body’s capacity to deliver oxygen to your muscles. Third, it enhances your body’s ability to burn fat as a source of energy. Fourth, it teaches your body to store more energy as glycogen in your muscles. And finally, long slow runs teach the body to run efficiently, minimising the energy expenditure needed to move you along. Even if you are not training for a marathon, the long slow distance run is a key element in your overall fitness programme.

There seems to be differing opinions however about what heart rates you should usually run these long, slow runs at -- usually I've seen about 70 to 75% of max HR but I've even seen as high as 85%. My question is why should we train at 70% if our body feels comfortable at 75%? What are we not getting at 75%? I thought, perhaps (I don't know) it might be better for glycogen storage and fat burning training which, although important, aren't as critical for shorter distances.

Here's an example from an actual metobolic test I took a few years ago.

Max hr 185.

Aerobic base 127 hr (68.6%) - AB is the maximun rate at which you burn fat.. In this test I burned 7.2 KCal/min fat of a total 14.9 KCal/min.

Anaerobic Threshold 167 (90.3%) - I burned 30.2 Kcal/min but only 0.5 KCal/min fat. So while I doubled the calories burned, the fat calories burned were about zero.

At 142 or mid zone 2 (77%) - 20.4 Kcal/min with 5.8 Kcal/min being fat..

So to answer your question, while I felt comfortable training at 77% or 142 hr, I was burning 5.8 cal of fat but when I slowed down to an almost silly pace of 127 hr, I burned 7.2 cal of fat.

For whatever reason, running at 127 teaches my body to use fat as a fuel source. I didn't re-test after doing slow base work, but the theory was that if I had done so, that 0.5 KCal/min fat at 167 hr would have increased. Matter of fact, the %fat burned should have increased across all zones.

My specific example isn't going to apply to everyone due to fitness and base, but it's a real world example of why 70% is better than 75%.

Why do you think the authors are generally giving higher ranges? I do agree with your point that everyone's different. That's something we all need to remember. It's also important for runners to experiment a little and try to figure out what works best for them.

I can only assume that they are skewed towards a well trained or decent base out look on things.

I can only tell you that I train at the low end of the range most of the time and felt stronger at mile 20 than mile 10 of my first marathon (day 3 of three days of events), posted faster mile times at mile 36-finish of my 40 miler than I did anytime in that training cycle, and set my marathon and 50 mile prs during a 100 mile event.

Understandable. I guess I feel strongly about this because I had marathon breakthroughs in 2012 and I believe that increasing my intensity on long runs was a big factor in this.

You can't take the suggested HR ranges in a vacuum; you have to remember the context of how they're telling you to run. Here's the excerpt from Pfitz's book on the long run:

The first few miles of your long runs can be done slowly, but by 5 miles into your long run, your pace should be no more than 20% slower than your marathon pace. Gradually increase your pace until you're running approximately 10% slower than marathon pace during the last 5 miles of your long runs. In terms of hear rate, run the first few miles at the low end of the recommended intensity range, and gradually increase your effort until you reach the high end of the range during the last 5 miles.

This adds to my point. He is clearly not telling runners to maintain heart rate below 70% max for the entire long run.

BnB also isn't training to race a marathon. He's training to survive a 100mi run. Aside from his example, I don't think I've seen anyone tout that all of your long runs should be below 70%.

This is what I've come to use for the past 2ish years that has produced PRs from 5K thru the marathon:

Recovery = <70%

Long Run = <75%

General Aerobic = <80% (junk runs - I rarely run here much now)

Marathon Pace = <86%

Lactate Threshold = <91%

VO2max = >91%

Right, I think it makes sense that someone training for an ultra or an Ironman should train at lower levels due to the severe endurance demands of those races. I think this is different for people training for shorter races such as half marathons. Marathons? I'm not sure.

My original questions were prompted by advice given in discussing Chief's half marathon training. We are giving him a WAG HR Max of 190 but he was advised to keep his heart rate 138 or below (I think, from memory) during long runs and easy runs. He found this frustratingly slow. I think he's fine targeting in the low 140s --particularly during the later stages of runs when his heart rate will drift higher.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Great discussion. I was disappointed this past fall that I wasn't all that close to my predicted marathon time, based on HM projections (e.g., HM x 2 + 10 minutes). Projection was about 3:15-3:20, and I ran 3:33. I believe a primary reason for that is that I wasn't patient enough with many of my runs ...I let the pace creep too high and I did not fully develop my fat burning capacity. Too many runs were in a training no-man's-land.

No Man's Land is something I've wanted to discuss here too. I know it's defined as the pace range too fast to get much of the long, slow endurance benefits but too slow to get the benefits of a tempo run. In McMillan's book (which I recently read and loved), he defined this as between 2:30:00 and 3:30:00 race pace. For me, that's probably between 6:50 and 7:20 or so. Also, he mentioned that's it's a bang-for-the-buck thing. It's not that you aren't benefiting from running in No Man's Land, just that you're better off running faster or slower.

 

[tri-man 47]

Great discussion. I was disappointed this past fall that I wasn't all that close to my predicted marathon time, based on HM projections (e.g., HM x 2 + 10 minutes). Projection was about 3:15-3:20, and I ran 3:33. I believe a primary reason for that is that I wasn't patient enough with many of my runs ...I let the pace creep too high and I did not fully develop my fat burning capacity. Too many runs were in a training no-man's-land.

I saw this come up in another forum as well and did an analysis to debunk this rule. I have been convinced for years that this only applies to the truely elite or truely sub-elite that are extremely slow-twitched, or just people who sandbagged their HMs.

I also came up with a simple but slightly more realistic conversation ratio - just divide your full-marathon by half-marathon. (or multiply your HM by 2.15-2.20, see results below)

Group 1: The fastest marathoners ever:

Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 / 2:03:59 (2.104)

Geoff Mutai - 58:58 / 2:03:02*/2:04:15 (2.086 / 2.107, *Boston 2012, not WR eligible)

Patrick Makau - 58:52 / 2:03:38 (2.100)

Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 / 2:03:23 (2.092)

Group 2: The fastest American marathoners currently:

Meb keflezighi - 61:00 / 2:09:08 (2.117) Never really ran a fast course or time trial type race at his prime.

Dathan Ritzenhein - 60:00 / 2:07:47 (2.130)

Ryan Hall - 59:43 / 2:04:53*/2:06:17 (2.091 / 2.115)

Abdi Abdirahman - 61:07 / 2:08:56 (2.110)

Group 3: A bunch of 2:20-2:40 friends/rivals:

1) 65:45 / 2:21:30 (2.152)

2) 68:57 / 2:29:54 (2.174)

3) 69:01 / 2:27:30 (2.138)

4) 70:54 / 2:31:00 (2.130)

5) 71:30 / 2:31:00 (2.111)

6) 75:30 / 2:44 (2.172)

7) 78:30 / 2:48:30 (2.146)

Group 4: A few samples from this thread:

1) Juxt - 86 / 3:06 (2.16)

2) Gruecd -87:01 / 2:59:48 (2.07) *Sandbagged the half for sure*

3) Ned - 92:53 / 3:31:20 (2.38) *Marathon was a bad day*

4) Tri - 91:32 / 3:33:29 (2.33)

5) Worrie - 1:42 / 4:02 (2.37)

I think a few things I am seeing is that the ratio is impacted a lot by overall training mileage, and whether you were destined to be a marathoner in the first place. I do believe that most people with sufficient training and optimal pacing can get their ratio down to the 2.15-2.25 range. (unfortunately that converts to about 13.5-22.5 min for the average 90-min half guy). I think most of you have BQs in the 3:15-3:20 range, so you should be able to get there within another marathon-specific cycle or two.. (talking mainly about Ned/Tri).

That's an interesting formula. When I ran Philly this year, I felt as if I was capable of a low 3:2x. Using the 2.2 factor, that spits out a 3:22.

Very interesting ...2.2 or 2.3 seems to define a good range of possibilities. Thanks, Steve! Oh, and you have fast friends.

(And recall my BQ requirement is 3:40, so I'm qualified for 2015 with a BQ-6.)

 

[Ned]

Right, I think it makes sense that someone training for an ultra or an Ironman should train at lower levels due to the severe endurance demands of those races. I think this is different for people training for shorter races such as half marathons. Marathons? I'm not sure.

My original questions were prompted by advice given in discussing Chief's half marathon training. We are giving him a WAG HR Max of 190 but he was advised to keep his heart rate 138 or below (I think, from memory) during long runs and easy runs. He found this frustratingly slow. I think he's fine targeting in the low 140s --particularly during the later stages of runs when his heart rate will drift higher.

He's a new-ish runner who (from what it sounds) has rarely run in this range before. I suggested he simply target for <140 until he can nail down a better mHR. 190 may be a high WAG, so 140 was just a safe bet.

Of course its going to be frustratingly slow; which is why I called out FUBAR's experience. He felt the same way when he started and now look at his posts.

A 190 HR using the ranges I train with would be:

Recovery <133

Long Run <143

GA < 152 (no man's land)

MP < 162

Tempo < 172

VO2max >172

 

[sho nuff]

Bronchitis sucks...

that is all

Trade ya...

No thanks.

Ill take my sore ankle, sinus crap, and this that will go away soon.

But I will still whine like a little girl about it.

 

[tri-man 47]

Great discussion. I was disappointed this past fall that I wasn't all that close to my predicted marathon time, based on HM projections (e.g., HM x 2 + 10 minutes). Projection was about 3:15-3:20, and I ran 3:33. I believe a primary reason for that is that I wasn't patient enough with many of my runs ...I let the pace creep too high and I did not fully develop my fat burning capacity. Too many runs were in a training no-man's-land.

No Man's Land is something I've wanted to discuss here too. I know it's defined as the pace range too fast to get much of the long, slow endurance benefits but too slow to get the benefits of a tempo run. In McMillan's book (which I recently read and loved), he defined this as between 2:30:00 and 3:30:00 race pace. For me, that's probably between 6:50 and 7:20 or so. Also, he mentioned that's it's a bang-for-the-buck thing. It's not that you aren't benefiting from running in No Man's Land, just that you're better off running faster or slower.

I came across this from a RW article:

[SIZE=medium]Why Non-Marathoners Still Need Long Runs[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]What are the physiological changes long runs produce that are beneficial to someone who is racing for a short period of time? According to Running Times[/SIZE] columnist and coach, Greg McMillan, there are three key physiological adaptations that occur in the body during a long run: enzymatic, capillary and musculoskeletal. When you run long, you increase enzymes in your muscle cells and grow capillaries, which are the small vessels that surround the cells. These important changes allow more oxygen to be delivered to working muscles. You also strengthen your muscles, tendons and ligaments. "These adaptations help you in shorter races like the 5K because it's still primarily an aerobic activity," McMillan says. "The more oxygen that you can deliver to the working muscles, the better your performance will be. And the stronger your muscles, tendons, bones and ligaments become, the more you are capable to conduct better race-specific training like

intervals."

---

I relate to that concept of developing capillaries. I think of the blood vessels as a highway system for delivering oxygen: The more extensive the highway network, the more oxygen can be delivered. In my thinking, when we run too fast, we tax the system enough that it relies on the existing 'highway' ...it's too busy to build new roads. But with the long, slow runs, the system can more comfortably extend the network for future use. The point is having an awareness that good stuff is happening internally during those long, slow runs, even though we don't feel like we're making any effort.

 

[FUBAR]

BnB also isn't training to race a marathon. He's training to survive a 100mi run. Aside from his example, I don't think I've seen anyone tout that all of your long runs should be below 70%.

This is what I've come to use for the past 2ish years that has produced PRs from 5K thru the marathon:

Recovery = <70%

Long Run = <75%

General Aerobic = <80% (junk runs - I rarely run here much now)

Marathon Pace = <86%

Lactate Threshold = <91%

VO2max = >91%

Right, I think it makes sense that someone training for an ultra or an Ironman should train at lower levels due to the severe endurance demands of those races. I think this is different for people training for shorter races such as half marathons. Marathons? I'm not sure.

My original questions were prompted by advice given in discussing Chief's half marathon training. We are giving him a WAG HR Max of 190 but he was advised to keep his heart rate 138 or below (I think, from memory) during long runs and easy runs. He found this frustratingly slow. I think he's fine targeting in the low 140s --particularly during the later stages of runs when his heart rate will drift higher.

With the low heart rate, we're not talking about Chief's 16 week plan or whatever. We're simply discussing what Mafetone states for his plan. Which is a good way to build your aerobic base.