Lyle: HR data, episode 1 - Page 4

Tony wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>

>>Go out and run a 70 mile week -- in one day. And then
>>you'll understand.
>
> (-;
>
> Well Doug did that last month. Lets ask him lol...
>

For people that run a lot of ultras, like Monica Scholz who
ran 23 100-mi races in 2001 (iirc), including one of our
winter ones, I think their long runs are their races (and
probably little other training). They might take over 24 hr
to complete depending on the course, but they probably get
the 70 within 1 day, but then they're doing more than 70mpw
People like Dean Karnazes (sp?) may run 100 miles to go
somewhere (like a wedding, iirc), and his family drives and
meets him there.

It's just a matter of matching training to goals as to
number and duration of workouts per week or month or
whatever.

But the people that run 300+ mi weeks, do spread that across
6 days or so - averaging about 50 mi/day in Alaska winter on
snow, hauling gear behind them on sled.

Nope, I don't have the same parents as any of these folks
but it's really neat to see what some people can do.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-06, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sub-maximal efforts on consecutive days can wear you out.
>> If you haven't experienced this problem with recovery
>> then it doesn't affect you in the same way. Are you
>> trying to tell me its all in my head?
>
>Not at all. I'm saying that one can adjust a bunch of
>different loading parameters. If someone were soliciting
>advice on how to set up a training program, I would be
>reluctant to recommend that they reduce training load
by
>changing training frequency.
>
>But if a self-coached runner said "I only train 3 times a
>week and it works for me", I wouldn't insist that they
>change (-;
>
>> Yes that's normal I believe, but that means they have 40-
>> 60% type I, and
I
>> haven't had a biopsy done, but I would guess I'm well
>> below 30% type I.
>
>That's not the point -- the point is that even
>runners who are
predominantly
>type II can use very high training frequencies.
>
>The problems with your theory are:
>
>(1) you haven't shown that you're below 30% type II. This
> is an
extraordinary
>claim (that's less type II than most strength athletes).
>Unless you can
bench
>approximately double your body weight, or run a very
>competitive 60m time,
I'd
>find this very surprising.

(Type I) Ok so sprinters have 20-30% type I, middle distance
runners have 40-50% type I, and marathoners and ultra people
have up to 60% type I. I don't know exactly where I fall in
that, but it sure as hell isn't in the 60% range.

>
>(2) the available data suggests that even athletes who are
> predominantly
type
>II (including elite sprinters, who are the extreme) are
>able to maintain
high
>training frequencies. So even if it *is* true that you have
>a lot of type
II
>fibers, and you are unable to handle high training
>frequencies, the same is
not
>true of other athletes with similar muscle composition.

I'm not saying type II people aren't capable; I'm saying a
high frequency of training may not be optimal for them,
particularly if normal running for whatever reason amounts
to a strength workout for them. When you mention the
available data I'm interested. Where have you seen studies
on frequency, duration and intensity comparing different
combinations of those variables?

>
>> that's a good range to shoot for, but for some who enjoy
>> running slightly longer, similar benefits will come also
>> from 3x/week or 4x/week.
>
>Depends on the details of the training plan you're
>following and the level
of
>adaption, but in your case it's probably true.
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

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

> I'm not saying type II people aren't capable; I'm saying a
> high frequency of training may not be optimal for them,

And you make this claim on what basis ?

> particularly if normal running for whatever reason amounts
> to a strength workout for them.

It's not a "strength workout". It's a sub-maximal aerobic
workout. No strength is required, and the muscles are not
contracting with maximal or near-maximal force. It's not
enough for the muscles to contract for it to be a "strength
workout", they have to contract with near-maximal force.

> When you mention the available data I'm interested. Where
> have you seen studies on frequency, duration and intensity
> comparing different combinations of those variables?

I don't know if anyone's studied this more formally. I was
referring to prior observations in this thread. I think
there are a number of real-world, uncontrolled "experiments"
in progress, and I don't believe any of them support your
hypothesis.

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