posted Oct-24-2005 09:25 PM            

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Oct-25-2005 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
I think 2x/day would work very well as long as your body is up to it.
You'll have to listen to any signs that you need additional rest. I'm
not sure why, but I believe it may even be more effective for base
building, perhaps because my best HR performance is after several
consecutive days running and my worst is right after a rest day, oddly
enough.

---

Jesse,

I was interested in your post. I notice the EXACT same issue when I run!! I thought it was only me.! I better running everyday, instead of taking a rest day.

posted Oct-26-2005 07:48 AM            

Two things help me in my goal to supreme fitness....consistency and do as much as I can fit in every day. I try to train 10-15 hours a week, which seems like a lot, but it doesn't feel that way running low HR training. This past weekend I ran 8 hours over three days and I didn't even feel tired on Monday. Yesterday was a forced day off due to the weather here in Mass. at my work, but today I will be out there for my hour run...and will feel the day off.

I remember a quote from another low HR follower/coach, Ernst Van Aaken in his book, The Van Aaken Method. In it he said that he looked at running training much like a pianist once told him. If he missed a day of practice, he noticed it, if he missed two days, his audience noticed it.

Steve
 

posted Oct-29-2005 07:11 PM            

1. The emphasis on fat burning and how the following factors
are critical in the long term and short term to ensure that you
maximize use of fat as an energy source and minimize the
use of carbs (you can't eliminate carbs as an energy source-
they are always important):
a. train at very low heart rates
b. be sure to thoroughly warm up at an easy pace before
a race.
c. don't take in carbs just prior to or at the very beginning
of a race.
following these will both ensure that you train your body to
be a fat-burning machine and that you use fat to the greatest
extent possible in races.

2. The criticality of wearing properly fitting shoes that should
be substantially larger than regular street shoe size, both
to avoid toe problems but also that it allows proper biomechanical
motion of the foot while running.

3. How many, even most, running injuries are caused by
running in the higher heart rate regimes, particularly if
one does not have the running base needed to support
the quantity of hard training.

Now for my latest observations. Recently I've run several
times with a friend of mine who had run several sub-3:05
marathons, but who had been sidelined from marathons and
most aggressive running because of achilles heel problems.
I encouraged him to try Maffetone running for a while to see
where it takes him. Initially he was running in the 11s and
12s (in heat and humidity) and he made some moderate
progress over a period of several weeks. His runs as
of recent have been between about 5 and 10 miles, none
greater than 10. His MAF heart
rate is about few beats less than mine. The weather was
cool and the course was mostly flat. For the first few miles
we were both running at basically the same heart rate, mine
around 10 beats below MAF and his about 5 below. (about
an 8:40 or so pace) After
about 6 or 7 miles or so, my heart rate had drifted by about
3 or 4 beats, but his was now 10 beats higher and the spread
grew in subsequent miles to around 20 beats at the end. My
suspicion was that his hard rate started to drift faster as
we became close to his "long" training distance (another
possibility could be that he was closer to MAF, but I think
this is less likely). If this were true, it would imply that
training at a certain distance on a regular basis builds a
"gas tank" proportional to that distance and each time you
get close to the distance the heart rate begins to drift somewhat
rapidly and you'll either need to slow down at that point or it
won't be long before your body will give out. Nothing surprising
here, but it wasn't just interesting to have a side-by-side
comparison. Since I've pretty much finished up the session
that I wanted to post about (although I'll probably still have
periodic updates if the thread doesn't fade away), I might as
well summarize some of the results over a period of about
5 months. After taking about 3 months off from my knee
injury in February, I started up running in very poor running
fitness. To "run" at right around (just above actually) MAF
heart rate at the begining, I could sustain about 2-3 miles
on the treadmill at 3.7 mph, at which point, my heart rate
would climb and I could no longer run and maintain the
low heart rate. Last week, on the same treadmill I ran as
fast as 7:25 for one mile, 5 beats under MAF, and averaged
7:55/mile over 7 miles. I safely built up to, at times, over
100 miles per week after about 4.5 months of running, and
enabled myself to run 3 marathons, at altitude with massive
long hills (ups and downs), over 3 days, with times comparable
to my previous marathon times. I subsequently ran a 10k
race 4 days after the 3 marathons, at over a 2 minute PR
(43:03). I ran another marathon 3 days later, during which
I PRed in the 10 mile distance (76:50), the 13.1 mile distance
(1:43:50), and the marathon 3:47:45, even at a temperature
of 75 degrees (a temperature I hadn't run in for over a month).
My remaining tests to come will be a 50 mile race toward
the end of November, and, if I'm feeling ok, an "easy course"
marathon the week after. On Tuesday, I have a vo2max
test scheduled, which will be interesting to see as I can
directly compare to the results of the one I had before my
injury (i.e., how might vo2max improve with absolutely no
vo2max workouts and less than 6 months of continuous
running). We'll see.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Oct-30-2005 09:41 AM            

If I understand your findings with your running friend correctly, you are saying that he kinda lost his Maff HR (went higher) as he increased his mileage after a certain point....the later teens, right?? However, if one continues to run long runs and builds base that Maff HR will remain consistent with more long runs, and one will not increase past that Maff as the aerobic base gets stronger, right?? So, basically, the more you run Maff, weekly runs, and one long run per week, your longer runs, as time goes, will get faster, plus you will be able to maintain that Maff HR longer. Whew...I think that's what I took from your results. Did I mess up?

In the meantime, I'm-a-still running, using Maff, and will continue to do so, through the first of the year. If all goes well, I'm looking at trying the Flying Pig Marathon in Ohio.

That would mean I would have to start a training program in January, a 16 week training plan...the marathon is May7th. Do you have any suggestions, or should I just use the ever-so-popular Higdon one????

Most of the runs during that training time would be Maff related as well. I just need a schedule of daily mileage to follow to build up to the 20 miler long runs. Since the training will occur at a time in Illinois when the temps are NOT pleasant, some of my running will be on the treadmill....BUT, I will try and do half to three-quarters outside, as I like to run outside better!!!

So, onward and upward!! Keep the posts coming so I can learn and hope that I may someday be half the runner you are....since we are both Maff fans!!

Oh, and by-the-way, with this comment being totally off the subject, I just came across the MOST AMAZING SOCKS....Balgo, I believe they are called!!!!! So comfy, nice-n-soft, and just a delight to run in!!

Talk to you later.
 

posted Oct-30-2005 10:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boston124:

If I understand your findings with your running friend correctly, you are saying that he kinda lost his Maff HR (went higher) as he increased his mileage after a certain point....the later teens, right?? However, if one continues to run long runs and builds base that Maff HR will remain consistent with more long runs, and one will not increase past that Maff as the aerobic base gets stronger, right?? So, basically, the more you run Maff, weekly runs, and one long run per week, your longer runs, as time goes, will get faster, plus you will be able to maintain that Maff HR longer. Whew...I think that's what I took from your results. Did I mess up?

---

Good job, boston! - that's what I'm postulating, anyway. No real scientific
data to back it up, just a couple of empirical data points. I'm guessing
there's a physiological "knee in the curve" that occurs within a short
distance of the regular long training distance, at which point, the heart
rate starts to climb more rapidly. Would be nice to verify through data
from a lot of guinea pigs!

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Oct-30-2005 12:59 PM            

I wish I was able to know the HR at each mile I run. Do you have a special HR monitor that can measure distance, and log your HR, and save all this info.? OR...do you just know the mile markers for each run you do?

posted Oct-30-2005 02:28 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boston124:
Leitner,

I wish I was able to know the HR at each mile I run. Do you have a special HR monitor that can measure distance, and log your HR, and save all this info.? OR...do you just know the mile markers for each run you do?

---

Without answering for what leitnerj uses, you can indeed buy a HR monitor that logs distance. Examples are the Garmin Forerunner 301, the Polar S625X, and the Polar RS200SD. I'm sure there are others, but all of these will allow you to automatically log each mile, and will record at least your Max HR and Average HR for each mile, as well as for the overall run.
 

posted Oct-30-2005 04:16 PM            

I have yet gone one step further in my training, which I think is the next step when you are interested in competing. Find your maxHR through one of the many different methods and use the zones to fine tune your training. I have an excellent max HR test that I will gladly send to anyone that is interested in it, just email me through the link above. But I think you first need to follow the Maffetone method for 3-6 months efore you can even think of stepping up your training. The low HR method does work...and your times will improve using this form of training. The fine tuning is when you want to shave off a little more of your times.

I did just this and found that my max HR is approx. 186 (I am 54 year's old and have been running competitively for 30 years). My averages have come out to the following. 60%=134, 70%=147, 75%=153 and 80%=160. Now if I were to follow the Maffetone plan my numbers come out to 131, my Mittleman number to 136...look at my 60% number, 134! Strangely that is about where you should be training when recovering or building a base! Maffetone and Mittleman know what they are talking about.
I went out for a 21 mile run yesterday and I like to train around 70%, which is 147. Most of the time I was running I would look down and see 145. Sometimes peaking a long, steep hill I would see 150, which is still very aerobic. (Two years ago I could not run up hills without going anearobic).

Because I haven't been running long runs on the roads much (mostly jogging and hiking on soft trails in the mountains), my legs actually started to give out before my aerobic, so in the last 5 miles, I was struggling to stay near 145, mostly falling into the mid 130's. My thoughts on this is that my aerobic engine is much stronger than my legs, which gave out before the aerobic did. This tells me that I need to work on leg strength....or just leave well enough alone and in time it will all balance out.
I have a road marathon planned in February (my first in over 10 years) and I feel that this 21 mile run will naturally get faster as my legs get stronger, plus it is giving my aerobic system a great workout as well.

As a note I will add that in the 80's I used ot train around 100 mpw and run marathons sub 2:50. When I went out for a long run (usually 20), I would come home and be wasted all the rest of the day...yesterday I came home and split wood for an hour, played with the grandkids the rest of the day and today my legs feel great. I wish I knew about and beleived in this type of training back then.

------------------
Steve

http://community.webshots.com/user/ultrastevep
 

posted Oct-30-2005 04:53 PM         

My conclusion: different strokes for different folks. A study of older subjects found that 10% responded to training extremely well, 80% responded over a range of average, and 10% were not, in the researchers' words, trainable at all, though I suspect that those people would have improved if the study had lasted longer; I believe it was six weeks.

Nevertheless, there are individual differences, and I believe that while it's generally undeniable that speed = (aerobic base) + (speedwork), individual bodies may respond better to one or the other arrangement of aerobic/speed workouts than to others.

I followed Maffetone's instructions to the letter for six months without experiencing the slightest improvement in my MAF pace. Age may be a factor (I'm 63). What seems to produce maximum health, enjoyment, and speed for me is warming up for a long time, and never running fast unless I can do so with joy and with ease. This is more or less what John Douillard recommends in "Body, Mind, and Sport."

My most joyous, effortless fast running occurred after several months of doing long aerobic training (up to 78% of MHR, usually at 70%) plus weekly threshold runs. Go figure - I hated those threshold runs, which always felt somehow intuitively "wrong." And yet they did "give me speed." I reckon this confirms Maffetone's belief that all forms of speedwork accomplish substantially the same result.

I'm certainly not saying Maffetone is wrong (Mark Allen!). The only conclusion I can reasonably draw from my own experience is that some people's bodies won't get faster at MAF pace, and that the proportion of aerobic running and speedwork may be what actually counts. E.g., Frank Shorter did 7% fast running and otherwise trained at a comfortable aerobic (for him) pace, i.e., 7 mpm and 6 and 5 mpm at the end of his 20-milers. His marathon (aerobic!) pace was 4:57-ish.

I got very little fun of out training for endless months at MAF pace - looking back, I'd have staged it differently, doing maybe four months of Maffetone training, then five weeks of speedwork. I am definitely not in it for race results; I run to find the sweet spot of health and high energy that gives me joy.

------------------
George Beinhorn
Fitness Intuition
 

posted Oct-30-2005 05:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boston124:
Leitner,

I wish I was able to know the HR at each mile I run. Do you have a special HR monitor that can measure distance, and log your HR, and save all this info.? OR...do you just know the mile markers for each run you do?

---

I have a Nike Triax C8 that I bought on ebay for about $100.
It has 50 splits and records the split time, average heart rate
over the split, and average heart rate over the entire run. It works
in the pool as well and I came to find out that the watch is compatible
with even the cheapest strap from a polar heart rate monitor.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Oct-30-2005 05:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
Jesse, Glad you got Slow Burn and will be enjoying it. Although it can be used as a beginner's tool, I think it is a step up a bit from Maffetone, which is what I think all beginning runners should read first and get into that before they venture further.

I have yet gone one step further in my training, which I think is the next step when you are interested in competing. Find your maxHR through one of the many different methods and use the zones to fine tune your training. I have an excellent max HR test that I will gladly send to anyone that is interested in it, just email me through the link above. But I think you first need to follow the Maffetone method for 3-6 months efore you can even think of stepping up your training. The low HR method does work...and your times will improve using this form of training. The fine tuning is when you want to shave off a little more of your times.

I did just this and found that my max HR is approx. 186 (I am 54 year's old and have been running competitively for 30 years). My averages have come out to the following. 60%=134, 70%=147, 75%=153 and 80%=160. Now if I were to follow the Maffetone plan my numbers come out to 131, my Mittleman number to 136...look at my 60% number, 134! Strangely that is about where you should be training when recovering or building a base! Maffetone and Mittleman know what they are talking about.
I went out for a 21 mile run yesterday and I like to train around 70%, which is 147. Most of the time I was running I would look down and see 145. Sometimes peaking a long, steep hill I would see 150, which is still very aerobic. (Two years ago I could not run up hills without going anearobic).

Because I haven't been running long runs on the roads much (mostly jogging and hiking on soft trails in the mountains), my legs actually started to give out before my aerobic, so in the last 5 miles, I was struggling to stay near 145, mostly falling into the mid 130's. My thoughts on this is that my aerobic engine is much stronger than my legs, which gave out before the aerobic did. This tells me that I need to work on leg strength....or just leave well enough alone and in time it will all balance out.
I have a road marathon planned in February (my first in over 10 years) and I feel that this 21 mile run will naturally get faster as my legs get stronger, plus it is giving my aerobic system a great workout as well.

As a note I will add that in the 80's I used ot train around 100 mpw and run marathons sub 2:50. When I went out for a long run (usually 20), I would come home and be wasted all the rest of the day...yesterday I came home and split wood for an hour, played with the grandkids the rest of the day and today my legs feel great. I wish I knew about and beleived in this type of training back then.

---

I fully agree - if you're going to use this approach, Slow Burn is not
the best starting point because he puts a lot of stuff out there on the
different zones up front and if you didn't have the Maffetone background
stuff, you may not understand that you've got to start at the low end.

Incidentally, in the tahoe triple, I really experienced exactly what you
are talking about - where the legs give out before the aerobic system.
Sometimes you can't tell the difference (although it's clear with a
heart rate monitor). I think day 2 and day 3 of that race were the
only examples (at the time) where I would use the heart rate monitor
to make sure I was going fast *enough*. In some cases, I had trouble
keeping my heart rate anywhere close to my typical marathon target
heart rate of the 160s - 170s and it was hard to push to get to even
155. On Wednesday-Friday, I did 10 miles or more each day, then
I did a 20 mile training run yesterday and today and I experienced
the same thing in today's run, except that late in the run, it was
difficult even to maintain myself up at the MAF heart rate. Nonetheless,
after my run today, I hopped on my bike and did a 25 mile ride on
our treacherously hilly triathlon course here (I almost got stuck climbing
a couple of hills, eeking out the last bit of strength left). I would never
have been able to have done this on my old form of training.

I do know my max heart rate very well (it is actually 20 beats different
for short races as compared to races greater than 10 miles) and I
use it to gauge how much I have left in race for real-time racing
strategy. At some point, I will play around with Stu's other zones
to incorporate some higher-end training. For the moment, I'm still
making such good improvement on strictly low zone (other than
races and a few fast-finish runs) that I'll stick with it for a while.
However, I no longer bother slowing down to a putter up the steep
hills, I just let it climb (although now it really doesn't go up much
even on the steep hills).

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Oct-30-2005 05:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runbei:

Nevertheless, there are individual differences, and I believe that while it's generally undeniable that speed = (aerobic base) + (speedwork), individual bodies may respond better to one or the other arrangement of aerobic/speed workouts than to others.

I followed Maffetone's instructions to the letter for six months without experiencing the slightest improvement in my MAF pace. Age may be a factor (I'm 63). What seems to produce maximum health, enjoyment, and speed for me is warming up for a long time, and never running fast unless I can do so with joy and with ease. This is more or less what John Douillard recommends in "Body, Mind, and Sport."

My most joyous, effortless fast running occurred after several months of doing long aerobic training (up to 78% of MHR, usually at 70%) plus weekly threshold runs. Go figure - I hated those threshold runs, which always felt somehow intuitively "wrong." And yet they did "give me speed." I reckon this confirms Maffetone's belief that all forms of speedwork accomplish substantially the same result.

I'm certainly not saying Maffetone is wrong (Mark Allen!). The only conclusion I can reasonably draw from my own experience is that some people's bodies won't get faster at MAF pace, and that the proportion of aerobic running and speedwork may be what actually counts. E.g., Frank Shorter did 7% fast running and otherwise trained at a comfortable aerobic (for him) pace, i.e., 7 mpm and 6 and 5 mpm at the end of his 20-milers. His marathon (aerobic!) pace was 4:57-ish.

I got very little fun of out training for endless months at MAF pace - looking back, I'd have staged it differently, doing maybe four months of Maffetone training, then five weeks of speedwork. I am definitely not in it for race results; I run to find the sweet spot of health and high energy that gives me joy.

---

Thanks for sharing that. I think I've heard very consistent stories
for many people in their upper 50s and later, as well as those in
their early 20s. I believe Maffetone and Mark Allen (maybe just
Mark Allen) caveat the approach for those age groups. There is
absolutely no doubt that there are many approaches for success
and those in the "low heart rate" group are probably the least
popular. However, when they work, they work well, and your
susceptibility to injury is much lower. It's hard to say at what
point speedwork becomes valuable for endurance training (other
than tempo runs), but Mark Allen's opinion is that you bring it
in when you've plateaued on progress at low heart rates.
I do know that when I used to do speed work, I wasn't smart
about it, I overtrained with it, I got slower at long distances,
and I was sore or injured a lot. I do believe that speed work
will be of no value to someone whose short race times do not
project out (using common pace predictors) to the long distance
race times and hence, always burn out early. Once the times
project out, that's evidence enough that the aerobic base is
there and there's no other place for improvement other than
core speed. This Tuesday, perhaps I'll learn something about
the effect of slow training on vo2max.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Oct-30-2005 05:42 PM         

Thanks again

Never Quit

posted Oct-31-2005 08:15 AM            

So, Leitner, is it complicated? I'm used to using one that just shows time, HR, % in zone, and some other stuff I don't even use. It does not, and is not equiped to *register* mileage. How does a watch know the mileage you run??? Is that some new(er) fangled thing? I want to be able to work a newer watch and not get frustrated with it.

Lots of my runs are for time, and then I get in the car and *Clock* the mileage. This is getting to be a nusiance. So, if a new HR watch can do that, I'd get one!! Let me know !!

posted Oct-31-2005 10:43 AM            

So if you want to run for an hour, go 30 minutes down a beautiful country road, turn around and you'll probabaly end up about 2-3 minutes faster in the 2nd half (at least I am because I go out real slow to warm up).

If you are training for a marathon and want to run 3 hours, you really don't need to run further than 3 hours, so don't! You will be a lot more rested not knowing the distance of the run (believe it or not). As human beings we are always wanting to test ourselves...if you run the same distance, you'll want to see how much faster you can run it. I run the same loop every day and follow my HR monitor. I think it's somewhere between 5 and 6 miles and it can take me anywhere from 45-60 minutes to run it, depending on how I feel and where my HR is.

Life is good, make it better and eliminate as much stress as you can.

Steve
 

posted Oct-31-2005 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boston124:

So, Leitner, is it complicated? I'm used to using one that just shows time, HR, % in zone, and some other stuff I don't even use. It does not, and is not equiped to *register* mileage. How does a watch know the mileage you run??? Is that some new(er) fangled thing? I want to be able to work a newer watch and not get frustrated with it.

Lots of my runs are for time, and then I get in the car and *Clock* the mileage. This is getting to be a nusiance. So, if a new HR watch can do that, I'd get one!! Let me know !!

---

The Timex CV 8 is not a distance device, it's just a watch
with a heart rate monitor. I use a forerunner 201 for distance,
which has a GPS receiver in it. They're both easy to use. As
Steve said, it's definitely not essential to measure distance at
all, but given what a science experiment this stuff has been
for me, I track everything and I run on probably 10-15 different
courses in a month.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-01-2005 07:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Never Quit:
Hi: Need some advice...I've been using the Maf program for several months, after coming off a bone bruise. No doubt about it, my aerobic conditiong has improved significantly. I just did a 15K (Tulsa Run) yesterday. My plan was to run at ~ 87% of my HRR. Well, everything was going good, but I was still able to push it to almost 92% and I STILL felt good (So I question the accuracy of my 5 hill repeats to get my max HR). Of course, after doing all that running at my MAF target, I had lots of endurance BUT NO SPEED. Man, it was weird!!!!! At the 12K I told myself "Let's go, you're just too slow!" Well, I just couldn't make my legs go any faster! So, I finished with a 1:17 time, which is 4 minutes SLOWER than my PB for this run. I'm planning on doing the Dallas Marathon on 12/11. Based on the above, and with the short time I have, 5 weeks, can you guys recommend some speedwork so I can improve my marathon time? I run about 55 - 60 miles a week.
Here's an Excel graph of my "MAF tests". The first test was when I came back to running, and as you can see, the last two miles on the last test the times improved! Any ideas why?
All the tests were done on a treadmill to remove as many of the variables as possible.
Also, I want to thank hurryinhoosier for showing me how to embed the spreadsheet.

Thanks again

Never Quit

---

My heart rate will frequently go down after about 5 miles or so,
once I'm fully warmed up. You may be seeing the same thing.
If you want to start adding some speed work, you may want to
follow McMillan's pace charts to add one or two more intense runs a week. You still want to keep
the volume of speed work down to no more than about 5-7% of your
weekly mileage because it will erode the aerobic base you built.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Nov-01-2005 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
I don't think it is necessary to know the distance of a run...run for time, it's a lot easier and you will be less apt to race your workouts.
I basically run for an hour a day M-F, 2 hours on Sat and up to 12 hours on Sunday...I don't know or care to know how far I've run. If I need to know, I can calculate it pretty closely.

So if you want to run for an hour, go 30 minutes down a beautiful country road, turn around and you'll probabaly end up about 2-3 minutes faster in the 2nd half (at least I am because I go out real slow to warm up).

If you are training for a marathon and want to run 3 hours, you really don't need to run further than 3 hours, so don't! You will be a lot more rested not knowing the distance of the run (believe it or not). As human beings we are always wanting to test ourselves...if you run the same distance, you'll want to see how much faster you can run it. I run the same loop every day and follow my HR monitor. I think it's somewhere between 5 and 6 miles and it can take me anywhere from 45-60 minutes to run it, depending on how I feel and where my HR is.

Life is good, make it better and eliminate as much stress as you can.

Steve

---

ULTRASTEVE....

You are no-doubt correct in your approach to running just for time. That's what I have always done. However, the curious side of me wonders, [occassionally] exactly how far I went..... It never became important until I was training for a marathon. However, at-this-time, I am not training for anything, (at least until January), and running for time, is more interesing!!

Lots of people always ask, "How far do you run?" I always get a strange look back when I say I don't know, I just a different length of time each day. These people always reply, "Well if I was running, I would want to know exactly how far I went!" Perhaps, once they did run, mileage wouldn't be the factor, but time-on-your-feet would become more important; and that wonderful *zest* of freshness that carries you through the day that running provides you with!

So, today is a lovely day, here in Illinois, and I WILL just run a lovely loop around the neighborhood and enjoy the fall colors!!

(I'll keep that HRM with a GPS in my mind for Xmas!!)

posted Nov-01-2005 08:34 AM            

Hey, didn't you do that VO2 test? What happened and what does it mean to you and your running?

Boston
 

posted Nov-01-2005 10:04 AM         

Saturday I went out for my long run. I ended up at 22 miles. Most of the run I stayed within my MAF HR, but let it creep up by the end of the run. Since I run in a very hilly area, I walked the two steepest hills. I also did put in a few short walk breaks to help keep the HR down. Sunday I walked for 1hr 30min. I walked to one of the steeper hills and did power walking hill repeats with it. I let my HR get to MAF at the top. My legs felt a bit tired from my long run, but at least I wasn’t sore! Monday I went out for an easy run. I felt great! I got into a very easy nice wonderful pace and looked at my HRM. I was running at 10 beats below my MAF. I think I had a break threw! I tried running up the same hill I had done the hill repeats the night before. I hit the top at just over my MAF and did not walk a step. Of course it being Halloween, there were lots of kids out. A group of young boys passed me going in the opposite direction. The next thing I knew, two of them came running past me. I just had to join in. This old lady passed them up and kept going. I do have a nasty sprint. I did slow back down into my MAF for the way home. Life is good.
Also, I signed up for the Las Vegas Marathon in December. My goals are to just have fun and enjoy the ride. Cathy

 

posted Nov-01-2005 10:32 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
A group of young boys passed me going in the opposite direction. The next thing I knew, two of them came running past me. I just had to join in. This old lady passed them up and kept going. I do have a nasty sprint.

---

Hilarious. I can just see their faces when they realise that they've bitten off more than they can chew and that a lady(!) is faster than them!

posted Nov-01-2005 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boston124:
LEITNER>>>

Hey, didn't you do that VO2 test? What happened and what does it mean to you and your running?

Boston

---

Yes, I did! It was quite interesting. After about 5 months of running
starting with nothing but 2 miles at 17 minutes/mile, no vo2max runs
or other type of speed work, I have improved my vo2max from 54.3
(where it was immediately before my injury) to 62.5 today (ml/kg/min).
About 3 of those points are attributed to the weight I lost since the last
test. An 8 point improvement with absolutely no speed work. Even I,
the ultimate believer that this stuff works, was surprised.
When I talked to the tester, she said that while it's most common to edge
up vo2max by doing a lot of intervals and such, she has seen that long
distance runners that put in a lot of mileage actually build it up faster.
One of the results of the test is the respiratory quotient (RQ), which
indicates the relative use of fat vs glycogen for fuel. She said in my test
she had seen very few people with such high percentage of fat vs
glycogen so late in the test, which is not surprising. It also explained
why I'm no longer getting that 'depleted' feeling at around mile 20 or
22 in the marathon. I'm not running out of glycogen, even at marathon
race pace. The results also indicated that I'm not running near my
capacity in any races. This is probably part of the reason I'm able
to run more so quickly after the marathons I've done. This test was
done a little bit differently from my last one. First, I was able to warm
up with a 15 minute jog before beginning and the first two minutes of the
test were at a walking pace. After that, she slowly upped to the pace
that I thought would be "comfortably challenging," which I selected as 8.5
mph. Then every 30 seconds or so, she would increase the incline by
2%. I ended up peaking out at 12% incline. In my previous test, we
started at 6 mph and increased by .5 mph increments every 2 minutes
and left the incline at 0, until I reached the failure point at 11 mph.
After the test, she gave me a list of training zones, which I'll find
most helpful as I start to incorporate some higher zones in after the
50 mile race in late November. They're computed as a percentage of
anaerobic threshold (mine occurs at HR of 179). The first zone,
recovery is at < 85% AT or 152. (Recall that I've been running below
my original MAF HR of 144). This may not be quite so far off because
by this point, I can probably give myself 5 or 10 beats for the training
volume I've been sustaining for a while. While I don't think it's necessary
for the typical person to have a VO2Max test (unless you're doing a
science experiment or really trying to pinpoint your training), I believe
it is useful for those who really don't believe the "non-personal"
zones they get from a formula and, quite frankly, I don't believe
%HRMax or %HRR are useful either as the training zones based on
those quantities are highly dependent on fitness. %AT takes fitness
fully into account and, in particular, it accounts for how much you have
left before go fully anaerobic, which is probably the most important
thing to consider.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Nov-01-2005).]
 

posted Nov-01-2005 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Hello everybody! I haven’t posted in a while, so I thought I would let you know how I was doing so you wouldn’t think that I dropped off the face of the Earth!

Saturday I went out for my long run. I ended up at 22 miles. Most of the run I stayed within my MAF HR, but let it creep up by the end of the run. Since I run in a very hilly area, I walked the two steepest hills. I also did put in a few short walk breaks to help keep the HR down. Sunday I walked for 1hr 30min. I walked to one of the steeper hills and did power walking hill repeats with it. I let my HR get to MAF at the top. My legs felt a bit tired from my long run, but at least I wasn’t sore! Monday I went out for an easy run. I felt great! I got into a very easy nice wonderful pace and looked at my HRM. I was running at 10 beats below my MAF. I think I had a break threw! I tried running up the same hill I had done the hill repeats the night before. I hit the top at just over my MAF and did not walk a step. Of course it being Halloween, there were lots of kids out. A group of young boys passed me going in the opposite direction. The next thing I knew, two of them came running past me. I just had to join in. This old lady passed them up and kept going. I do have a nasty sprint. I did slow back down into my MAF for the way home. Life is good.
Also, I signed up for the Las Vegas Marathon in December. My goals are to just have fun and enjoy the ride. Cathy

---

Hey Cathy - it is fantastic to see that you've got your distance back
up! So does this mean you'll qualify for lifetime guaranteed entries
into the LV marathon??

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff