posted Jan-25-2006 10:38 PM               

1) I have added an anaerobic day to my training as I feel I need to do some speedwork. Used the following method to estimate my LT on Monday:
To conduct your own time trial, on the bike or running, find a flat course with no stoplights and minimal distractions. After a good warm-up, start your monitor and time trial as fast as possible for 20 minutes. This means metering your speed so you can produce the highest average, best effort for the full 20 minutes. (Read: Avoid a fast 5-minute effort then a slow fade.) Collect your heart rate average for the time trial and divide this value by 1.02. For example, if your average heart rate for the 20-minute time trial was 160, then threshold heart rate can be estimated by 160 divided by 1.02 or a value of 157.
The info is in my log but bottom line is my LT was 158. This is what I will target on most days I run tempos or fartleks. One thing I noticed was that I seemed a bit slower than when I trained entirely by running hard every day (pre-MAF). The other thing I noticed was that when I was pushing hard I could NOT drive my HR up over 164. Keep in mind the goal of this time trial was to keep an even yet fast pace for the entire time so perhaps if I were to sprint a mile I would have a better time (better than th 8:15/mile I averaged on this run). So I am pleased that my HR seemed almost capped but am hopeful speedwork will help a bit with the kick. I was only a day or so over a cold so that may have affected my run.

2) As I have posted a bit already I am pleased that my times continue to decrease, especially as I add miles. Previously mentioned that as daily mileage increases that pace seems to increase but gradually decreases again with repetition at the mileage. Today I had my best run at 8.6 miles in the wind with a ~9:15 pace. Am anxious to see how this trend plays out as miles continue to increase.

3) I took roughly a week off two weeks ago. Just decided to give my body a break. I am surprised but pleased that in that time my Aerobic base did not seem to change too much (did not lose much if anything).

So in summary I am pleased with the Aerobic development thus far. I really feel my HR is staying lower, especially with the tempo trial the other night. Will be curious to see how my pace develops as I continue to do speedwork each Monday.

------------------
Me ~~~ My Log ~~~~~~Find a Race

[This message has been edited by hurryinhoosier (edited Jan-25-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-26-2006 04:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:
My contribution to this experiment (started Oct 17 2005)

So in summary I am pleased with the Aerobic development thus far. I really feel my HR is staying lower, especially with the tempo trial the other night. Will be curious to see how my pace develops as I continue to do speedwork each Monday.

---

That sounds like a good plan. I believe that as long as you keep most
of your mileage well into the aerobic regime, you won't set yourself
back at all, since you've been at it for a while.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jan-26-2006 09:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Behnke:
To Tchuck:

I think the reason you don't see deterioration of your times is that the real spiral downward is from the 1/2 marathon to the full 26.2 miles! My times are slower than yours, but this is what I have accomplished with an average of 25-32 mpw:

10K: 48:20
10 miles: 1:27 (very hilly) (Crim-Flint,Mi.)
1/2 mar.: 1:47
Marathon: 4:16 (9:47 pace)

As you can see, the marathon is where I fell off substantially. I ran 9:00 pace thru 20 miles and then my hip flexor locked up, forcing a tough last 6 miles, but I made it. The reason for the fall-off could be several things: lack of aerobic condition, not enough miles, etc. So the answer for myself and possibly you if you want to progress to a full mar. is a lot of long slow running ( ala Maffetone) getting in the range of 50 mpw which is what I am now working towards. When your in good shape which I feel I am and can tell you are as well you really can run a good 1/2 without too much difficulty. When I did the full I was shocked at how much more difficult it really was. Going in I never expected it. For my second I will be much better prepared!

---

Hey Mike,

I totally agree with you that I would be hurtin in a marathong which is why I don't do them. I cannot and am not willing to put in the miles to do a marathon to my liking. I could finish but I wouldn't be happy with my time BUT maybe some day I will do without that mindset of having to do "well". I just like to work harder and all the slow running would not be as fun for me.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-26-2006 10:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hurryinhoosier:
My contribution to this experiment (started Oct 17 2005)

1) I have added an anaerobic day to my training as I feel I need to do some speedwork. Used the following method to estimate my LT on Monday:
To conduct your own time trial, on the bike or running, find a flat course with no stoplights and minimal distractions. After a good warm-up, start your monitor and time trial as fast as possible for 20 minutes. This means metering your speed so you can produce the highest average, best effort for the full 20 minutes. (Read: Avoid a fast 5-minute effort then a slow fade.) Collect your heart rate average for the time trial and divide this value by 1.02. For example, if your average heart rate for the 20-minute time trial was 160, then threshold heart rate can be estimated by 160 divided by 1.02 or a value of 157.

---

Hoosier,

Would a 5K race be just as good for this time trial? I will be running one in around 20:30 in a 2 weeks. Could I use this avg. HR and maybe take off one point from the avg. for that last 100 yd sprint?
Also, I would assume you are warming up a mile or two before this time trial.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-26-2006 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Hoosier,

Would a 5K race be just as good for this time trial? I will be running one in around 20:30 in a 2 weeks. Could I use this avg. HR and maybe take off one point from the avg. for that last 100 yd sprint?
Also, I would assume you are warming up a mile or two before this time trial.

---

5K is fine, but will supposedly overestimate LT. Most fit runners are able to run a 5k over their LT without too much trouble. I think the article above recommends dividing your Avg HR for the 5K by 1.04 to get a better estimate of your LT.

do a google search on 'estimate lactate threshold' which should pull up the article referenced above.

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Jan-26-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-26-2006 09:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Hoosier,

Would a 5K race be just as good for this time trial? I will be running one in around 20:30 in a 2 weeks. Could I use this avg. HR and maybe take off one point from the avg. for that last 100 yd sprint?
Also, I would assume you are warming up a mile or two before this time trial.

---

I think JM already summed it up. Sent you the article as well.
I warm up and down about a mile or so. Good luck

------------------
Me ~~~ My Log ~~~~~~Find a Race

[This message has been edited by hurryinhoosier (edited Jan-26-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 04:32 PM               

One question I have now, since I've been doing all my runs on the flat track, and my pace is getting better, should I begin to do some runs with hills? I did this the other night and found myself walking some, although the total time was at or about what it is on the flat track. It's just a little discoraging to have to walk some again.

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 05:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blakester:
I've been running using Maff for going on 9 weeks this week, although a couple of my weeks mileage was close to nothing due to travel conflicts one week and a horrific stomach virus another week, I''ve finally gotten to the point where all my runs are all run no wog/walk. I've been doing the majority of my runs on the local school track in order to track improvements to speed and pace. Still not where I want to be speed wise but I'm really starting to see some improvements. My runs are no longer in the 16-17 min range, but rather in the 13-14 min range. Reading all the post here has really kept my focus on those nights I couldn't even jog without the my HRM sounding the alarm to slow down.

One question I have now, since I've been doing all my runs on the flat track, and my pace is getting better, should I begin to do some runs with hills? I did this the other night and found myself walking some, although the total time was at or about what it is on the flat track. It's just a little discoraging to have to walk some again.

---

Adding in varying terrain will definite change things, but probably won't hurt. If you're in the 13m/m range then it is very likely you'll have to walk even moderate hills. That being said, it doesn't hurt anything and may have some general benefits. Also, doing all your running on a track, while great for tracking progess, has to be really mind numbing.

I once did 11miles on a track (not even a 400m track either, it was smaller). Run was fine, but mentally I was ready to shoot myself by about 40 laps.

Congrats on the progress.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 05:22 PM               

Well, I have finally recovered from my minor leg injury and went in for a lactate threshold test this morning. If nothing else, I was curious as to the results - especially as the test promised to provide individualized feedback as to recommended training zones.

The results were kind of interesting. I at least found out that my probable HR Max is much higher than what the typical formulas state. While I did not have a formal VO2 Max test (will get that done in a few weeks), I did record numbers in the high 180's at sub max effort levels. The technician stated that she would bet my HR Max will be 200+ where most formulas assume I'd be around 185. Good to know.

My lactate tests show that I hit 2.0 mmol at around 6.6MPH (171 bpm) and I hit 3.0 at around 7.4MPH (181bpm). It looks like my 4.0 reading or LT threshold is at around 185bpm or around 7.8MPH. Not sure if this is good or bad, but the technician advised that my recovery runs should be between 150 and 160 BPM while my MAF is measured at 139. She also stated that my endurance runs should be between 160 and 177 BPM and my tempo runs at between 177 and 185. My LT is anything above 185.

Again, I'm not sure how these relate, but I was told that I have been running way too slow - even for trying to build an aerobic base.

What did suprise me, was how much harder the faster pace felt after a couple of months of MAF training. I did a half marathon in October at a pace of just under 8:25. That pace felt extremely quick to me now on the treadmill after doing most of my MAF running at around 12:00 minute/mile pace. The tech mentioned I may have actually lost some conditioning running at the slower pace. It definately felt like it.

I'm not passing judgement - but it appears that at least for me I may want to go back to more traditional training methods. My MAF/Low HR experiment has lasted around 8 weeks and I seem to be one of the unfortunate ones who has not improved much in regards to pace. The one positive is that low HR training did allow me to ramp up mileage fairly dramatically.

Anyway, good luck to all in their pursuit of happier and more productive running. It seems we all have the same objective but may elect to travel different paths to get there.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 06:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:

I'm not passing judgement - but it appears that at least for me I may want to go back to more traditional training methods. My MAF/Low HR experiment has lasted around 8 weeks and I seem to be one of the unfortunate ones who has not improved much in regards to pace. The one positive is that low HR training did allow me to ramp up mileage fairly dramatically.

Anyway, good luck to all in their pursuit of happier and more productive running. It seems we all have the same objective but may elect to travel different paths to get there.

---

My vo2max test gave my absolute lowest recovery HR as 152 and
I had been running at 139 (which gave me my 30 minute improvement
in marathon time, 2 hour improvement in 50 mile time, 2+ minute
improvement in 10k time, as well as over 8 point improvement in
vo2max). Henceforth, my comment is that it all depends on what your
goals are. The quicker and more pronounced development of your
aerobic system, equating to the eventual fastest times at low heart
rates will come from running at as low a respiratory quotient as
possible. If you don't care about building speed at low heart rates
and you just want to keep things under control, while at the same
time push yourself to as high of a level of effort as possible, you
would want to target a higher heart rate. That would be the target
that most such testing will recommend. In either case, as always,
I'm just giving you the example of me and how it relates to the
information you have received. If the sub-MAF running is painful
for you and you're not making progress, there's no reason to do it.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 06:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sibelius:
My Lactate Threshold Test
...........................
Anyway, good luck to all in their pursuit of happier and more productive running. It seems we all have the same objective but may elect to travel different paths to get there.

---

Interesting data. Did you correlate these results with other traditional zones? I'm not going to argue with a physiologist, but those HRs seem pretty high, even with a max over 200. I'm wondering why they didn't take you to the max, but I guess you'll get that in your VO2max test down the road.

In any case, some of the 'popular' coaches would put your easy runs at around 70%maxHR or somewhere between 140-150, depending on your actual max at 200+. Hadd would have you at 145 for low-end aerobic running.

Did you have your test done as a paid thing or part of a research project like leitnerj?

Keep posting, it will be interesting to see your progress with the new training zones. Good luck.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 06:59 PM               

I think the final straw was comparing my perceived effort at an 8:30 pace now versus 3 months ago. I can't believe I ran 13 miles at that pace - because I'm sure I could not sustain that today - even though I've doubled my weekly mileage.

I do think there is something to low heart rate training - otherwise, folks like yourself and others would not be so passionate about it (and so the results to support it). I guess with me its a question of how long do I continue without seeing any dividends. Since I've only been running in total for about 5 months, I expected that my rate of improvement should be more apparent as my aerobic conditioning is probably ridiculously poor.

Anyway, I appreciate your great advocacy and have enjoyed (and will continue) to read the thread. I will probably just redefine my easy runs about 10 beats above MAF and throw in one "hard" day a week and see if that does anything to me. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't. If it does not, I can always come back into the fold at a later date.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 07:54 PM               

In any case, some of the 'popular' coaches would put your easy runs at around 70%maxHR or somewhere between 140-150, depending on your actual max at 200+. Hadd would have you at 145 for low-end aerobic running.

Did you have your test done as a paid thing or part of a research project like leitnerj?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah - those heart rates seem really high too me too! It will be interesting to see how my HR max turns out. I'm guessing (hoping?) it will be fairly high. I'm kind of relieved in a way as my resting HR compared to most of the folks here (mid 60's) is generally very high and it makes me feel very out of shape! (It's amazing that I am actually mad at my high resting HR)

The training zones from my LT test actually correlate pretty well on a time basis to the Mcmillan calculator paces based on my last half marathon. I always thought that they seemed too aggressive but the LT test confirms that those are in the ballpark.

The place I went to was a well respected private outfit that charged for the service. They actually have more cyclists and tri-athletes that go there than pure runners.

I think the new goal is to find a plan that incorporates a mixture of runs including one harder temp day per week in addition to LSD and easy/recovery runs. Hopefully, a little variety will spice things up.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 08:16 PM            

I am 30, and subtracted an extra 5 points based on the Mark Allen article, so I'm using 145 as MAF and have been targeting 135-140.

My question is regarding the beginning of Maffetone - I know several of you posted that 3.7 mph was all you could run and stay below MAF initially. I can walk about 3.9 and stay at 135 bpm, but if I try to run any, even if I slow down to almost jogging in place, my heartrate climbs to 160 or so. Is it important to be able to run some, or should I just keep walking? I'm logging about 8-10 hours a week, with short workouts of about 45 minutes, and longs of about 2 1/2 hours.

I appreciate any help anyone can give me!

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 09:45 PM               

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jan-27-2006 09:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by scottsaxman:
I've begun exercising more, and am giving the Maffetone method a shot (currently in week 2). I'm not looking to run marathons, just want to develop better aerobic fitness. I have come to the conclusion that I've never been in good aerobic shape. I played football and basketball in high school, and still play basketball fairly regularly, but it's all been sprint and stop. I get winded very quickly if I sustain a run of any speed for very long.

I am 30, and subtracted an extra 5 points based on the Mark Allen article, so I'm using 145 as MAF and have been targeting 135-140.

My question is regarding the beginning of Maffetone - I know several of you posted that 3.7 mph was all you could run and stay below MAF initially. I can walk about 3.9 and stay at 135 bpm, but if I try to run any, even if I slow down to almost jogging in place, my heartrate climbs to 160 or so. Is it important to be able to run some, or should I just keep walking? I'm logging about 8-10 hours a week, with short workouts of about 45 minutes, and longs of about 2 1/2 hours.

I appreciate any help anyone can give me!

---

Are you on the treadmill or outside? If you absolutely can't run at
the low heart rate, try running at a bit higher heart rate for a while
and see if it comes down. I would imagine it would take forever
to get anywhere if you were to only walk. What's the slowest
pace you've found you can run and how fast do you think you
can run the mile. I can run the mile in 5:36, but can still eke out
a wog at slower than 17 min/mile (on the treadmill)!

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jan-28-2006 12:23 AM               

(1) you're not a new runner (you've got a darn high lactate threshold!),
(2) you're conservative in your selection of the MAF heart rate,
(3) you're never letting your heart rate go above MAF, even for
cross-training exercises, and (4) you're not taking in any significant carbs shortly before your run. Given those, I would say you are already aerobically fit or you would have to shoot for a lower MAF heart rate. By the way, did you determine whether or not you have a meniscal tear? Apparently you don't! In either case, post how things go with training at the higher heart rates - it's good information. And, if you get a vo2max test done, please post your RQ at your
training heart rate. good luck!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Jesse:

Actually, almost all the boxes are checked. I am in fact a very new runner. I only started running in September of last year (5 months now) after being pretty sedentary for many (10+) years. I never ran in High School or College either so this running stuff is pretty new to me. I have only run 3 races - a 5 miler, 10K and Half Marathon. I am currently in quasi- training for a July marathon and instinctively know that my fitness is way off here. I've run enough (5 to 6) 18 - 22 milers to know that Mcmillan's projected race paces are in no jeapardy of occuring any time soon with me - at least at the marathon distance.

To be honest, I really don't know too much about how to interpret my LT results. I'll probably need to do some additional reading to see what these numbers mean in regards to my conditioning. I do know that there is absolutely no way I would consider myself even remotely aerobically fit. I feel like I still have my training wheels on. I do have a VO2 test in 2 weeks so I'll post those results when I get them back. I'm kind of worried about this test as I'm sure my capacity is going to show up on the low end of the bell curve.

Finally, you are right in regards to the meniscal issue. I just needed to take some time off and everything worked itself out. While under MAF, I bascially was able to double my weekly mileage. I think my leg was just rebelling a bit from all the extra pounding. I'm also in the Master Age category (41) so I'm sure that may have something to do with it as well.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-28-2006 12:18 PM               

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jan-28-2006 12:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
Are you on the treadmill or outside? If you absolutely can't run at
the low heart rate, try running at a bit higher heart rate for a while
and see if it comes down. I would imagine it would take forever
to get anywhere if you were to only walk. What's the slowest
pace you've found you can run and how fast do you think you
can run the mile. I can run the mile in 5:36, but can still eke out
a wog at slower than 17 min/mile (on the treadmill)!

---

I don't own a treadmill, so I'm outside. It does take a while to get anywhere walking, but I figured it was mostly about the time spent at a particular heart rate, so I just kept going. I can run as slowly as about 4 mph, maybe a little less. I haven't run a mile by itself for a good long time, but the first mile of the last 5K I ran (last fall) was about 7:45.

I have wondered about whether I should just go out and run to get some miles under my feet, and revisit Maffetone in a couple of months, or stick with it and see what happens. I don't claim to be a runner, really, so I worried about the results a "beginning runner" might see.

IP: Logged

posted Jan-28-2006 12:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by scottsaxman:
I don't own a treadmill, so I'm outside. It does take a while to get anywhere walking, but I figured it was mostly about the time spent at a particular heart rate, so I just kept going. I can run as slowly as about 4 mph, maybe a little less. I haven't run a mile by itself for a good long time, but the first mile of the last 5K I ran (last fall) was about 7:45.

I have wondered about whether I should just go out and run to get some miles under my feet, and revisit Maffetone in a couple of months, or stick with it and see what happens. I don't claim to be a runner, really, so I worried about the results a "beginning runner" might see.

---

I look at it this way - if there's any kind of positive at all for you
(more tolerance for mileage, less pain, more enjoyable, whatever),
then it's worth trying for a number of weeks to see where it takes you.
However, if it's causing misery or you find that you're just not running
at all to stay in zone, ditch it for a while, just get some running in, and come back to
it later, if the same appeal is still there. I did spend a lot of my "slow
time" focusing on lightening my step, as if I were running on egg shells,
keeping good posture, and generally anything I could to lessen the
impact of running.

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

IP: Logged

posted Jan-28-2006 08:50 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Jan-28-2006 11:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pig Out:
Imagine that i'm conversing with the dialect and tone of a conceited English upper class--Tha Duke Of Pig Out!!!! For starts Sibelius? How in tha hades do you think your going to convince tha "Boss Duke", that you have bein running for five months and have quite a few 18-22 milers under your belt? Your complaining that Maffy isn't working when you've only been at it two months and only been running three months before this. You definatly have more money than you have brains for to go spend it on a Lactate threshold test when ya been joggin five months lol...ha ha ha....give me a break.....hail at your age a five miler at Maff might kill ya ...hahahhahahhahahha.............Then every body comes on here and act like OCD paitents..wonderin if five beats over maffy or five under would be the way to go....JEZZZZ FOLKS..............GET A LIFE....WHAT THA HECK IS IT GONNA MATTER IF IT'S FIVE DANG HEART BEATS....CALM DOWN AND TAKE A DRINK..... AND FOR all we know The Reverand Jessie may be making all this shup......heck you guys follow this guy like he's Gods right hand man and he might be some sicko that made all his exploits up and just wants somethin to do so he has fun making everybody look up to him like he's a cult leader. If he's legit , then i beg your pardon...if hes a scammer then dammer.........most of you talk like wimps and whine and moan bout how it's so hard running so slow ,,,,waaaaa ughhh waaaaaaa.... well then open it up and run for that lactate threshold baby........yeahhhhhhhh rock on ........oh my will it hurt me if i just run one day fast? will it ruin my base? lol.......maybe i shouldn't eat for a day before i run to make sure i burn fat ...hahahahahahahh PUNKS

---

Not worth responding to, but this sounds like one of the typical obnoxious posters from the letsrun.com forum.....
Should probably go back.....

IP: Logged

posted Jan-29-2006 10:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pig Out:
Imagine that i'm conversing with the dialect and tone of a conceited English upper class--Tha Duke Of Pig Out!!!! For starts Sibelius? How in tha hades do you think your going to convince tha "Boss Duke", that you have bein running for five months and have quite a few 18-22 milers under your belt? Your complaining that Maffy isn't working when you've only been at it two months and only been running three months before this. You definatly have more money than you have brains for to go spend it on a Lactate threshold test when ya been joggin five months lol...ha ha ha....give me a break.....hail at your age a five miler at Maff might kill ya ...hahahhahahhahahha.............Then every body comes on here and act like OCD paitents..wonderin if five beats over maffy or five under would be the way to go....JEZZZZ FOLKS..............GET A LIFE....WHAT THA HECK IS IT GONNA MATTER IF IT'S FIVE DANG HEART BEATS....CALM DOWN AND TAKE A DRINK..... AND FOR all we know The Reverand Jessie may be making all this shup......heck you guys follow this guy like he's Gods right hand man and he might be some sicko that made all his exploits up and just wants somethin to do so he has fun making everybody look up to him like he's a cult leader. If he's legit , then i beg your pardon...if hes a scammer then dammer.........most of you talk like wimps and whine and moan bout how it's so hard running so slow ,,,,waaaaa ughhh waaaaaaa.... well then open it up and run for that lactate threshold baby........yeahhhhhhhh rock on ........oh my will it hurt me if i just run one day fast? will it ruin my base? lol.......maybe i shouldn't eat for a day before i run to make sure i burn fat ...hahahahahahahh PUNKS

---

You poor unhappy person. YOU need to get a life! YOUR the one that just spent all that time typing out such a negative post moaning and whining..... I feel sad for you. I hope your mental health and obvious lack-of self confidence improves. Good Luck to you.....

IP: Logged

posted Jan-29-2006 01:48 PM               

Anyhoo, what a difference a day makes. My experiment
this weekend was to run the same 20 mile course on
Saturday and Sunday. Yesterday, when the alarm went
off, I barely crawled out of bed (and it wasn't even that
early) and dragged myself out for a long run. It was
pretty cold out but I overdressed a bit. Here are my
results:

9:50/135, 11:26/143, 10:32/141, 10:55/140, 10:49/142,
11:24/141, 9:47/139, 10:33/140, 10:18/138, 10:32/137,
10:14/139, 10:24/142, 11:16/142, 10:54/142, 9:56/144,
11:10/144, 11:04/144, 11:01/141, 11:57/143, 11:56/146,
avg pace: 10:48/mi, avg HR of 141

Then, today, I didn't set the alarm, but got up around
the same time (about 5:45 or so) and went out, lighter
in the layers, a bit more eager for a long run (for
whatever reason). Temperature was slightly warmer
today. On the same course, here were today's results:

9:39/131, 10:37/139, 9:36/139, 9:16/139, 10:05/132,
10:27/128, 9:10/139, 9:56/139, 9:36/139, 10:07/140,
10:05/140, 10:04/140, 11:00/141, 10:52/141, 10:03/141,
10:59/142, 10:53/144, 10:44/142, 11:47/144, 11:40/147
avg pace: 10:20/mi, avg HR of 139

(Don't make too much out of what happened from one
mile to the next - this course is loaded with huge hills
and in some cases there will be a stretch of about 2 miles
of 10-17% grade)
So, two consecutive days, vastly different results. Now,
I should say that this correlates with what I saw when
I was in my peak condition, back in Oct/Nov - my
pace improved on my second consecutive 20 miler, and
it further improved on the days where I did 3 in a row.
Today, I made sure that I kept HR as low as possible
on the early hills, whereas yesterday I was not as
careful. Quite a difference, perhaps not too much to make
of it. If only I didn't have to work tomorrow, I'd see what
I would get from the third 20! Alas, the harsh realities of
having to pay the bills seem to put such boundaries on my
science experiment!

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

MyStuff

Low Heart Rate Training FAQ

[This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jan-29-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Jan-29-2006 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
It is pretty amazing that we've had over 1200 posts with
nary a troll. I sure hope this type of post doesn't lessen
the desires of my cult followers. It will have a substantial
effect on my all of the extraneous wealth I've obtained as
a result of this thread! It would have been well worth the
effort to construct such an elaborate and detailed hoax, to
include the times in a few of the relevant race results, as
well as the pics out on the courses! And
then there are the deals I've made with google to make all
of this possible.

.......................

---

It's amazing what you can do with photoshop and a couple well-paid hacker friends.

All hail Jesse! My check is in the mail.

**************************

Interesting to see how day-to-day mental attitude/physiology changes impact a run. Since you gravitate to the LR and seem to improve the longer the warmup, maybe the first 20miler is a warmup for the next one.

In my case, I had the worse run in the last 6 months today. Just a medium long run, but for some reason it felt like forever. Weather was bad and I got a late start so I did the 12miles on the treadmill. I never found my groove and things just felt bad throughout. It was physically easy, but just felt wrong throughout. Probably should have cut it short and wrote it off, but I kept going. I'm hoping this isn't an indicator for what the rest of my week is going to be like.

--jm

IP: Logged