Lyle: HR data, episode 1 - Page 2

This has been a fascinating thread.

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xbeFc.153$zn2.93@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> Doug Freese wrote in message ...
:
> Maximum heart rate, lactate threshold heart rate, and the
> best training zones differ for each individual. Everyone
> has a different ability to neutralize lactate and
> metabolize fats and has different ratios of muscle fibers
> (types I, IIa, and IIb) which affects how the body
> performs over different distances. To train based on
> percentages of max HR may roughly work for many people who
> fall in the norm. For others it makes no sense
at
> all, and %s of max HR cannot be seriously considered a
> basis for a
carefully
> designed training program. To train near LT it must be
> determined though lactate meter testing or through
> something like conconi's test.
>
> I believe this discussion started in another thread
> talking about the kenyans and how they train more of the
> time closer to LT than is the case
in
> many western training systems. The theme of some of the
> related articles about the kenyans is that they their main
> base is not many miles of slower running, but an almost
> daily run building up to an effort level just under LT and
> staying there for the remainder of the run. Apparently
> they grow
up
> with this and thus are able to perform at this level all
> the time. The further suggestions are that they have an
> intuitive feel for where their
LT
> is from years of running near that level and that
> westerners don't
normally
> know by feel where their LT is. Thus westerner's need to
> test for LT on a regular basis if they are going to train
> close to LT with any certainty.
>

In order to develop this intuitive feel for LT, what are the
observable symptoms of guessing low and running just a
little too fast? I see vague warnings of increased recovery
time, but can anyone be more specific about what too look
for? I know that training too much and/or too hard for too
long can lead to obvious symptoms such as increased resting
HR and sluggishness and such, but I'm curious if there is a
more immediate symptom: is there a specific type of soreness
that can be described that is related to excessive training
at just over LT?

Dave

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xbeFc.153$zn2.93@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> As a recreational runner and cyclist, I enjoy self-
> coaching and while
this
> won't "perfect" my training I think its better than any
> specific
training
> plan I can get from a book.

This is an accurate mouthful. There are some obvious basics
but the rest of your training has to determined by you and
you alone. I think we are all unique in our training and my
trash could be your treasure. Your uniqueness is marrying
biking and running to do ultras. Reminds me a little of Dot
who is also loves to run yet takes on multisports like
snowshoeing, hiking, skiing etc. when running is not
possible yet exercise is desired.

I think most of your biking is on a road bike. I swap it
in for a Mountain bike - more work and better quality per
time slot.

. -DougF

Tony wrote:

> Maximum heart rate, lactate threshold heart rate, and the
> best training zones differ for each individual.

Perhaps but there are going to be far more commonalities
than there are differences in this regards. Humans are way
more alike than they are different despite constant comments
of "Everybody is different."

Everyone has a different ability to
> neutralize lactate and metabolize fats and has different
> ratios of muscle fibers (types I, IIa, and IIb) which
> affects how the body performs over different distances.

Sure, and that's why you do some type of testing, either
field or lab to determine relatively strengths and
weaknesses. And then develop a training program to
adress them.

So a runner with a high VO2 but weak LT (as %age of VO2)
should work on bringing up LT.

A runner with a low VO2 and a high LT (zs %age) the
converse.

A runner with poor efficiency should work on that with high
speed repetitions.

etc.

To train based on percentages of max HR may roughly
> work for many people who fall in the norm. For others it
> makes no sense at all, and %s of max HR cannot be
> seriously considered a basis for a carefully designed
> training program. To train near LT it must be determined
> though lactate meter testing or through something like
> conconi's test.

Very much true as LT can vary hugely between individuals.
Setting aerobic training rates relative to LT makes more
sense than using generic training zones. Which brings up a
separate issue of getting ann accurate measure of LT but
that's a different discussion.

>
> I believe this discussion started in another thread
> talking about the kenyans and how they train more of the
> time closer to LT than is the case in many western
> training systems. The theme of some of the related
> articles about the kenyans is that they their main base is
> not many miles of slower running, but an almost daily run
> building up to an effort level just under LT and staying
> there for the remainder of the run. Apparently they grow
> up with this and thus are able to perform at this level
> all the time.

and I think that's a big key: on top of whatever may be
genetically going on, they build up to this over many years
of training. Not unlike the experiences of most elite
athletes. A mistake would be for a beginner or even
intermediate runner, without the years of buildup, to jump
into that type of training.

> As a recreational runner and cyclist, I enjoy self-
> coaching and while this won't "perfect" my training I
> think its better than any specific training plan I can get
> from a book.

Except that I think rank beginners need some type of
starting place. Most books give that. Is the advice (by
needs) somewhat generic? Sure, but you do have to start
somewhere. Giving general guidelines that have been tested
(lab and real world) for decades works in the beginning and
even intermediate stages.

As individuals improve and learn their own bodies, they may
become better able to individually tailor their training
for them. Or they can get a competent coach (if such is
their goal).

As well, not everybody enjoys self-coaching. My experience
(as a writer in the field) is that most people don't like
thinking very hard or very much, they want to be given very
specific recommendations, routines and diets. Folks who
spend time on the net/usenet tend to forget that they are
exceptions to the majority in a staggering number of ways;
by definition they are usually looking for more detailed
information to make up their own mind. The average consumer
of the average exercise, running or diet book is not in that
category. Laying out very specific plans for those folks is
a necessity.

My recovery times are high for running, thus I
> don't usually run every day. LT training is most
> definitely the key to improvement of intermediate
> endurance, and has a role in any runner's plan who wants
> to improve. But to know your LT you have to either get a
> feel for it through running intervals and carefully
> analyzing your HR graph afterwards, or you have to test
> for it. Using some % of HR is simply imprecise.

I don't recall anybody suggesting using a %HR to train LT
at.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald wrote:

> gym gravity wrote:
>
>> Hey, Mr. Gene Expression,
>>
>> I saw on the news this morning that a lab is working on a
>> sunscreen that activates DNA repair pathways. The thought
>> is that you apply this lotion the day before sun
>> exposure, get all the repair machinery primed for the UV
>> insult, and get a nice tan with less worry about skin
>> cancer.
>
>
> But will it make me a faster skater?

You will look faster.

On 2004-07-02, dave d <no@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In order to develop this intuitive feel for LT, what are
> the observable symptoms of guessing low and running just a
> little too fast? I see vague

As far as LT is concerned -- if you feel like you could
(barely) keep going at the same pace for another 40 minutes
after a 40 minute run, you are just under LT (probably close
to half marathon pace). If you feel as though you could do
that *comfortably*, you're at an appropriate training pace.

Wouldn't worry about running too slowly. Most people don't
perform training runs too slowly unless they wear a heart
rate monitor.

> is there a specific type of soreness that can be described
> that is related to excessive training at just over LT?

There's an almost immediate soreness -- you're talking
faster than half-marathon pace here, so if you're just over
LT, you'll feel like you're working fairly hard after just
one mile. It's a tempo-run pace. You'll be able to feel the
lactic acid. Your breathing will be heavier, you'll need to
switch to 2-2 breathing.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"dave d" <no@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:UqgFc.10335$c63.8752@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...

> This has been a fascinating thread.

If by 'fascinating' you mean a discourse born of
ignorance and boredom, fueled by half-truths and
misinformation, and served with a dessert of
incomprehensible twaddle, I'd agree.

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-02, dave d <no@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> In order to develop this intuitive feel for LT, what are
>> the observable symptoms of guessing low and running just
>> a little too fast? I see vague
>
>As far as LT is concerned -- if you feel like you could
>(barely) keep going
at
>the same pace for another 40 minutes after a 40 minute run,
>you are just
under
>LT (probably close to half marathon pace). If you feel as
>though you could
do
>that *comfortably*, you're at an appropriate training pace.
>
>Wouldn't worry about running too slowly. Most people don't
>perform training runs too slowly unless they wear a heart
>rate monitor.

Kenyans and middle-distance speedsters aside, for those of
us who like to cycle or trail run for several hours, slow is
good and HRMs can be useful to moderate the pace in the
beginning to save some glycogen for later. Even if you eat
as much as possible, after a few hours you'll run out of
glycogen and wear out your legs if you start too fast. This
being said, I think that once one is comfortable with the
kind of mpw they want to run, they should gradually bring up
their speed. Actually as I get in better and better shape,
especially on the bike, I have to ride harder and harder to
keep the HR up. Seasonally, probably I start at around 18mph
on flats for HR 150 and this goes up to about 21mph for the
same HR. So in the case of cycling the HRM will help you
train harder.

But how many people consistently overtrain out of
compulsion? If you don't actually feel good or noticably
stronger (overcompensation) on some days then you're either
going too hard or doing too many mpw. Also it's not good to
assume everyone is built with the same engine. (To address
something said in another thread).

For example, I have lots of type IIa (fast twitch
aerobic/anaerobic) muscle fibers, but less type 1 (slow
twitch aerobic). Probably I have lots of type IIb also but
for distance running these aren't used. I have to research
this more, but from over 20 years of training on the bike
and running, I think type IIa take alot longer to recover
than type I because they are more versitile but not as
efficient aeobically as type I. Therefore people like me -
and I know this from experience - probably do better running
longer less times per week than the more frequent but
shorter workouts you advocate. Type IIa fibers are good for
1 to 2 hours then they are pretty much degraded in
performance and take a while to recover. For me to build my
ability to do orienteering races (80 to 100 mins on back to
back days) I've found over the years that running a few
times a week longer simply works better than running daily
shorter runs with a long run on the weekend. When I run
daily it wears out my legs even if the runs are short. When
you're telling people they have to start running more
frequently to improve their running that may not be the best
course for everyone. It may be the best thing for slow
twitch types, but it may be counterproductive for fast-
twitch types.

>
>> is there a specific type of soreness that can be
>> described that is
related
>> to excessive training at just over LT?
>
>There's an almost immediate soreness -- you're talking
>faster than half-marathon pace here, so if you're just over
>LT, you'll feel like you're working fairly hard after just
>one mile. It's a tempo-run pace. You'll be
able
>to feel the lactic acid. Your breathing will be heavier,
>you'll need to
switch
>to 2-2 breathing.

If you have a HRM with data recording, why not just do
conconi's test on a track to find out your LT? I'm planning
to do this as a hard day once I feel better - been run down
lately. That's a better way to get a feel for it; first
measure it then note the feeling when running just under it.

- Tony

>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"np426z" <np426z@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cc4cug$8fo$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> "dave d" <no@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:UqgFc.10335$c63.8752@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > This has been a fascinating thread.
>
> If by 'fascinating' you mean a discourse born of
> ignorance and
boredom,
> fueled by half-truths and misinformation, and served with
> a dessert of incomprehensible twaddle, I'd agree.

We humbly await for you to correct those half truths and
save us from our mistakes. I'm sure you will finally post
your online credentials.

Twaddle on Sir Roger.

Your idol,
DougF

On 2004-07-02, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Kenyans and middle-distance speedsters aside, for those of
> us who like to cycle or trail run for several hours, slow
> is good and HRMs can be useful to moderate the pace in the
> beginning to save some glycogen for later. Even if you eat
> as much as possible, after a few hours you'll run out of
> glycogen and wear out your legs if you start too fast.
> This being said, I think that once one is comfortable with
> the kind of mpw they want to run, they should gradually
> bring up their speed.

IMO it's better to add more speed work if one can,
especially LT work.

> For example, I have lots of type IIa (fast twitch
> aerobic/anaerobic) muscle fibers, but less type 1 (slow
> twitch aerobic). Probably I have lots of type IIb also but
> for distance running these aren't used. I have to research
> this more, but from over 20 years of training on the bike
> and running, I think type IIa take alot longer to recover
> than type I because they are more versitile but not as
> efficient aeobically as type I.

What makes you you think that ?

> Therefore people like me - and I know this from experience
> - probably do better running longer less times per week
> than the more frequent but shorter workouts you advocate.
> Type IIa fibers are good for 1 to 2 hours then they are
> pretty much degraded in performance and take a while to
> recover. For me to build my ability to do orienteering
> races (80 to 100 mins on back to back days) I've found
> over the years that running a few times a week longer
> simply works better than running daily shorter runs with a
> long run on the weekend. When I run daily it wears out my
> legs even if the runs are short. When you're telling
> people they have to start running more frequently to
> improve their running that may not be the best course for
> everyone.

If you like running the way you run, that's fine -- it may
even be good as far as your goals are concerned. But IMO the
above reasoning about recovery is just silly. Given time,
anyone (anyone who can complete an ultra anyway) can adapt
to running 5 times a week (the key word here is "adapt"!),
and they can usually do this fairly quickly. This training
protocol may not be optimal for competing in ultras or
running orienteering races, or even providing you with
maximal enjoyment -- but it's nonsense to say that it places
onerous demands on recovery.

Provided that one receives adequate rest, and training
intensity is appropriate, you should be fine. You reduce
intensity for longer runs -- so it's plausible short runs
are more taxing per unit distance. Try doing those long runs
at the same pace you perform your short runs, they're
suddenly not so easy on recovery.

Keep in mind that the typical beginner does not have a low
intensity training option. That is, as I argued previously,
many beginners will simply not be able to run at a heart
rate of less than 75% max. Their heart rate will jump above
that even at a painfully slow 12 minute per mile pace. So a
long run at a very low training intensity is *not* an option
for the typical beginner.

> It may be the best thing for slow twitch types, but it may
> be counterproductive for fast-twitch types.

"Fast twitch types", such as sprinters, bodybuilders,
olympic lifters, gymnasts, swimmers, etc train daily. Why ?
Because the skill component of their sport demands frequent
attention. These guys are not only "fast twitch types",
they are performing workouts which heavily utilise fast
twitch muscles.

Even though one could make a good argument that the olympic
lifters would be better off with more recovery time, it
appears that the frequency effects trump this. They are able
to pack in the extra workouts by having days where they
don't go all-out.

What you're saying is not only at odds with my experience,
it's at odds with the way the vast majority of competitive
athletes train.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:K9xFc.15531$4h7.2043987@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> We humbly await for you to correct those half truths and
> save us from our mistakes. I'm sure you will finally post
> your online credentials.

What? And shatter forever your fantasy that you may be
*almost* as bright and sparky as moi? Hell, Doug, even I
don't have the heart for that. I like to leave my victims
with a slight flicker of hope in their rapidly-dimming eyes.

Here's a task for you, should you have a spare moment in
your busy schedule. Within the last 10 weeks I've competed
in an off-road motorcycle endurance event in a hot place.
Details of this event are all over the 'net. Post my name
and finish position and I GUARANTEE I'll post some of my
running race results from oh, say, the last three years.

Golly, I almost forgot to mention, I entered this race under
my mother's maiden name - and she's Italian :-) And if your
musty old brain can work out WHY I entered this race under
her name, I'll even throw in some pics of me in full flow...

Tony wrote:

> But how many people consistently overtrain out of
> compulsion?

Far too many.

> For example, I have lots of type IIa (fast twitch
> aerobic/anaerobic) muscle fibers, but less type 1 (slow
> twitch aerobic). Probably I have lots of type IIb also but
> for distance running these aren't used.

how do you know this?

Therefore people like
> me - and I know this from experience - probably do better
> running longer less times per week than the more frequent
> but shorter workouts you advocate. Type IIa fibers are
> good for 1 to 2 hours then they are pretty much degraded
> in performance and take a while to recover. For me to
> build my ability to do orienteering races (80 to 100 mins
> on back to back days) I've found over the years that
> running a few times a week longer simply works better than
> running daily shorter runs with a long run on the weekend.

What about shorter recovery runs on the in-between days?

> When I run daily it wears out my legs even if the runs
> are short.

What intensity of running?

Lyle

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> Keep in mind that the typical beginner does not have a low
> intensity training option. That is, as I argued
> previously, many beginners will simply not be able to run
> at a heart rate of less than 75% max. Their heart rate
> will jump above that even at a painfully slow 12 minute
> per mile pace. So a long run at a very low training
> intensity is *not* an option for the typical beginner.

True but the beginner is unlikely to ahve the tolerance for
a long run in the first place. Fatigue will set in too
quickly. I would suspect that, by the time they have built
up to a longish run, they will have gotten sufficent CV
fitness to run (jog might be a better word) at a more
appropriate pace.

>
>
>>It may be the best thing for slow twitch types, but it may
>>be counterproductive for fast-twitch types.
>
>
> "Fast twitch types", such as sprinters,
> bodybuilders, olympic lifters, gymnasts, swimmers,
> etc train daily. Why ?

Well, bodybuilders almost always alternate muscle groups. At
the very least, one day between bodyparts.

Sprinters typically only run maximally 2-3 times per week,
workouts in between are lower intensity tempo running.

OL's are weird, I suspect it's a combo of the low reps (1-3
reps/set) and general lack of an eccentric component that
lets them do it. They also build up to that over years and
years of training.

sWimmers have no impact forces and I suspect the horrible
inefficiency of humans as swimmers is impacting on this.

Not saying you're wrong, in principle, but those aren't
perfect examples.

And I don't agree with the OP either, FWIW.

Lyle

On 2004-07-04, Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>
>> Keep in mind that the typical beginner does not have a
>> low intensity training option. That is, as I argued
>> previously, many beginners will simply not be able to run
>> at a heart rate of less than 75% max. Their heart rate
>> will jump above that even at a painfully slow 12 minute
>> per mile pace. So a long run at a very low training
>> intensity is *not* an option for the typical beginner.
>
> True but the beginner is unlikely to ahve the tolerance
> for a long run in the first place. Fatigue will set in too
> quickly.

I agree. That's why they will need to focus on several short
runs at first.

>> "Fast twitch types", such as sprinters,
>> bodybuilders, olympic lifters, gymnasts, swimmers,
>> etc train daily. Why ?
>
> Well, bodybuilders almost always alternate muscle groups.
> At the very least, one day between bodyparts.
>
> Sprinters typically only run maximally 2-3 times per week,
> workouts in between are lower intensity tempo running.

Yes, exactly. But the 5-a-week running schedule that I
advocate also includes (in fact, consists entirely of) sub-
maximal workouts. I put forth this example, as a counter to
Tony's claim that "fast twitch types" can't train every day.
This example demonstrates that they can do precisely this,
by judicious application of the "hard-easy" principle.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<GabFc.42657$a92.16302@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

> > FWIW I cannot really brag about my 5M pace, but I
> > would out- run any N.Y. poster in this newsgroup at
> > 70% HRmax:-)

> Hmmm, why N.Y. he asks? Ok I'll nibble.(...)

Sorry, I didn't intend it as troll for you - I meant N.Y.C.
and I plain forgot there is a N.Y....

Anders

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message news:<10eas13ronlpb1f@corp.supernews.com>...

> > It makes perfect sense and it works.

> What does 'It' refer to in this sentence?

Probably "the Norwegian training theory" and "the Norwegian
training practise", respectively.

> Fair enough. Still, seems hard to see how they are getting
> much if any adaptation (outside of practicing what is a
> very unusual movement pattern) of many hours at such a low
> intensity.

Those hours are usually interspersed with short bouts at a
higher intensity, whether natural intervals such as up-
hills or "technical intervals". Although the percentage of
volume (and the sheer volume in itself) ata low intensity
is high, there is no room for long, dumb, "merely fat-
burning" workouts.

> Might be like swimming in this regards: the rather unusual
> biomechanics of the sport (in addition to involving the
> relatively less used upper body msucles) require a ton of
> overdistance work (relative to the comopetition event).

I cannot think of the biomechanics as unusual, but certainly
XC skiing differs from cycling or running in that the
technical aspect requires constantly a lot of work.

Anders