Lyle: HR data, episode 1

at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130
at 9 min/mile (after a full mile): about 143
at 8min/mile (after a mile): about 151
at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154

These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to
help keep the pace down.

half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very hard
for about 100m): 191

Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart
rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn't be more
than about 195.

Daniels 'E' pace is about 7:15 for me. Training surface was
a nice fast rubberized track, some slight inclines but
pretty flat overall (certainly flatter than the course on
which I ran the times that determine my vdot).

Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels 'E pace' is
> 80% max.

An observation: it appears that Daniels overestimates % MHR
associated with a given % VO2 max. For example, a study
mentioned in Noakes found something like 60% VO2 max for a
heart rate of about 145 (both group averages), so one would
need to go up over 150bpm, probably close to 160bpm to get
to 70% (the figure that JD uses as the basis for 'E' pace)

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

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after
> a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile): about
> 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154
>
> These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to
> help keep the pace down.
>
> half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very
> hard for about 100m): 191
>
> Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart
> rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn't be
> more than about 195.
>
> Daniels 'E' pace is about 7:15 for me.

So figure 160?

> Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some
> slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly
> flatter than the course on which I ran the times that
> determine my vdot).
>
> Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels 'E pace' is >
> 80% max.

Where would you put this relative to your LT?

Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM and
lower for LSD work. Hard to see it having a huge benefit.

Thanks, Lyle

Geez, you two should get a room.

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message
news:10e77sn2eriqk32@corp.supernews.com...
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

<snipped pseudo-scientific twaddle>

Guys, get a life.

On 2004-07-01, Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after
>> a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile):
>> about 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154
>>
>> These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company
>> to help keep the pace down.
>>
>> half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very
>> hard for about 100m): 191
>>
>> Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart
>> rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn't be
>> more than about 195.
>>
>> Daniels 'E' pace is about 7:15 for me.
>
> So figure 160?

160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that's about as
fast as I run on ordinary training runs.

>> Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some
>> slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly
>> flatter than the course on which I ran the times that
>> determine my vdot).
>>
>> Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels 'E pace' is
>> > 80% max.
>
> Where would you put this relative to your LT?

When I've done LT workouts before, the 90% figure
(about 170bpm) seems about right. LT should be close to
Daniels 'T' pace.

> Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM
> and lower for LSD work. Hard to see it having a huge
> benefit.

I'd go so far as to say that it is intolerably boring if not
impossible to run at 140bpm or lower (with a MHR >190). Many
people can't do it, and most of the others simply won't do
it, so the usual reaction from runners when they put a heart
rate monitor on and realise that they're "supposed to" stay
under 70% MHR (as opposed to the 80-85% they've been doing)
is one of frustration.

On 70 miles per week, with a 5 mile race pace of 5:40, I
need to drop to about
9:15 minutes per mile to get below 140. So someone who runs
that race slower than 7:30 minutes per mile (well over
half of the runners at a typical road race) would almost
certainly exceed that heart rate at 12 minutes per mile.
Below that pace, many have trouble running, and even if
they do run slower, their heart rate won't drop much,
because at 12 minutes per mile, they may as well be
jogging in place.

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

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> On 2004-07-01, Lyle McDonald
> <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

>>>Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart
>>>rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn't be
>>>more than about 195.
>>>
>>>Daniels 'E' pace is about 7:15 for me.
>>
>>So figure 160?
>
>
> 160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that's about as
> fast as I run on ordinary training runs.

Oridinary being something else than an E run? but 150-160
seems consistent with many recommendations. I guess I'm
wondering why i still see crap like 140 and below for LSD
when it would seem to do little (maybe build
psychological/some other type of stamina for very long
activities).

>>Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM
>>and lower for LSD work. Hard to see it having a huge
>>benefit.
>
>
> I'd go so far as to say that it is intolerably boring
> if not impossible to run at 140bpm or lower (with a
> MHR >190).

I think this has been my major confusion over those
recommendations. Whiel mode may make some of a difference,
teh effort level at 140 or below is simply piddly. Ok, maybe
if you did 6 hours. Hard to see the point from a training
effect point of view yet I still occasinoally see it as a
recommendation for basic endurance work.

For example, this is a common set of commentary on the issue

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm

The list 70-80% max giving the least return for the effort,
it's often listed as 'no-man's land' for training (at least
for cyclists). Argued that you can't spend enough time there
to get a training effect but it does cut into recovery.

Many people can't do it, and most of
> the others simply won't do it, so the usual reaction from
> runners when they put a heart rate monitor on and realise
> that they're "supposed to" stay under 70% MHR (as opposed
> to the 80-85% they've been doing) is one of frustration.
>

I think that was always mine while cycling. Short of walking
my bike, maintaining 140 or below at any non-trivial speed
was an effort in pointless spinning around.

Lyle

On 2004-07-01, Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:

>> 160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that's about
>> as fast as I run on ordinary training runs.
>
> Oridinary being something else than an E run?

Nah, ordinary being an 'E' run.

Generally speaking though, I think I'm pretty much in the
150-160 range for the first 20 minutes of any workout
(drift, heat, or the urge to hammer the last few miles may
push it slightly above that late in the workout). The jump
in effort between 160 and 170 is substantial.

I'm not as dogmatic about hitting exact paces as the Daniels
book. (I also doubt that Daniels is that dogmatic in person
-- the book seldom paints a complete picture) For example, a
tempo run in practice may end up below 'T' pace, because the
duration is too long or the terrain is hilly. An 'E' run
might be a little fast or a little slow depending on how one
feels on the day. An 'R' workout might be faster than the
prescribed 'R' pace, especially with the ladder (where the
200m reps will be a tad faster than the 800m reps). An 'I'
workout will go at whatever pace I can do the reps in, but I
try to avoid doing these slower than the prescribed pace.

It's worth noting that with these books, there's often a
difference between the theory and the practice. Authors may
not be game to say in public what they do in private --
their training may be too unorthodox, or considered too
"risky". So they may moderate their views to avoid
controversy (or lawsuits). So I don't think you ever get the
whole story when you read these things, and it wouldn't
surprise me in the least if Jack Daniels would direct me to
perform workouts that were somewhat different to those
outlined in his book were he to coach me in person.

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

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message news:<10e8fakcpv8c754@corp.supernews.com>...

> I think this has been my major confusion over those
> recommendations. Whiel mode may make some of a difference,
> teh effort level at 140 or below is simply piddly. Ok,
> maybe if you did 6 hours. Hard to see the point from a
> training effect point of view yet I still occasinoally see
> it as a recommendation for basic endurance work For
> example, this is a common set of commentary on the issue
> http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm The list 70-80%
> max giving the least return for the effort, it's often
> listed as 'no-man's land' for training (at least for
> cyclists). Argued that you can't spend enough time there
> to get a training effect but it does cut into recovery.

It makes perfect sense and it works.

But perhaps it´s worth remembering that cross-country skiing
is a different sport (where, among other things, one can and
must do twice the volume a runner does) and that the chaps
who´ve trained in this manner for years don´t have to "walk"
to be below 70%.

FWIW I cannot really brag about my 5M pace, but I would
out- run any N.Y. poster in this newsgroup at 70% HRmax:-)
Which quite probably is a side-effect of not being an all-
year runner.

Anders

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> On 2004-07-01, Lyle McDonald
> <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that's about
>>>as fast as I run on ordinary training runs.
>>
>>Oridinary being something else than an E run?
>
>
> Nah, ordinary being an 'E' run.
>
> Generally speaking though, I think I'm pretty much in the
> 150-160 range for the first 20 minutes of any workout
> (drift, heat, or the urge to hammer the last few miles may
> push it slightly above that late in the workout). The jump
> in effort between 160 and 170 is substantial.

FWIw, I find that 165 or so on the bike (stationary) is
pretty comfortable, I agree with a substantial icnrease in
effort when I get to the high 160's-170. I haven't done a
proper measurement in a while but my max steady state HR is
probably in the 175 range, maybe a bit higher. So 165 is
about 95% of that. riding below 150 is effortless, I'm
limited by boredom; don't feel like it's doing much if
anything (unless all I want to do is spin some blood into
my quads).

>
> I'm not as dogmatic about hitting exact paces as the
> Daniels book. (I also doubt that Daniels is that dogmatic
> in person -- the book seldom paints a complete picture)

Oh, assuredly. I think he simply realizes that most people
don't think and need very specific guidelines for such
things. As well, personal experience demonstrates that if
you don't give people exacting recommendations (and often if
you do), they will find some way to screw it up completely.
Being more specific and making it sound as if there ie zero
leeway is one way to keep your average dumbass from screwing
themselves by trying to play around with your recs. They'll
do it anyhow but at least you can say "Hey, I told you to do
it this way, don't ***** at me because you're a moron who
can't follow instructions."

> It's worth noting that with these books, there's often a
> difference between the theory and the practice. Authors
> may not be game to say in public what they do in private
> -- their training may be too unorthodox, or considered too
> "risky". So they may moderate their views to avoid
> controversy (or lawsuits).

Sure.

> So I don't think you ever get the whole story when you
> read these things, and it wouldn't surprise me in the
> least if Jack Daniels would direct me to perform workouts
> that were somewhat different to those outlined in his book
> were he to coach me in person.

>
Well, there's only so much you can do in terms of giving
specific recs when you write that kind of a book. In person,
you can always make adjustments based on what you are
seeing, what other specifics there are, that sort of thing.
It's part of being a good coach.

But it's impossible to convey in book format, books that
just say "This has to be adjusted for the athlete" without
giving any recommendations are useless.

So I think there is a happy medium between cookie cutter
workout books and endless "You have to adjut to teh status
of the athlete" books. Daniels covers the principles well
enough and then gives some good specifics; I think he finds
a happy balance.

Lyle

"Anders Lustig" <touho3@excite.com> wrote in message
news:e621e2ab.0407012321.77b55dbd@posting.google.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:-)
> Which quite probably is a side-effect of not being an all-
> year runner.

Hmmm, why N.Y. he asks? Ok I'll nibble. A few years ago I
took a stress test and while running my ass off at what
seemed to be a 45 incline breathing through every orifice I
had, I could not get my HR above 151. So how fast can you
run at a HR of 106? I do run all year but my mileage on
average runs(pun intended) from 35 to 60 miles a week.

-DougF

Anders Lustig wrote:
> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:<10e8fakcpv8c754@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>
>>I think this has been my major confusion over those
>>recommendations. Whiel mode may make some of a difference,
>>teh effort level at 140 or below is simply piddly. Ok,
>>maybe if you did 6 hours. Hard to see the point from a
>>training effect point of view yet I still occasinoally see
>>it as a recommendation for basic endurance work For
>>example, this is a common set of commentary on the issue
>>http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm The list 70-80%
>>max giving the least return for the effort, it's often
>>listed as 'no-man's land' for training (at least for
>>cyclists). Argued that you can't spend enough time there
>>to get a training effect but it does cut into recovery.
>
>
> It makes perfect sense and it works.

What does 'It' refer to in this sentence?

> But perhaps it´s worth remembering that cross-country
> skiing is a different sport (where, among other things,
> one can and must do twice the volume a runner does) and
> that the chaps who´ve trained in this manner for years
> don´t have to "walk" to be below 70%.

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.

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).

Lyle

Doug Freese wrote in message ...
>
>"Anders Lustig" <touho3@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:e621e2ab.0407012321.77b55dbd@posting.google.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:-
>> ) Which quite probably is a side-effect of not being an
>> all-year runner.
>
>Hmmm, why N.Y. he asks? Ok I'll nibble. A few years ago I
>took a stress test and while running my ass off at what
>seemed to be a 45 incline breathing through every orifice I
>had, I could not get my HR above 151. So how fast can you
>run at a HR of 106? I do run all year but my mileage on
>average runs(pun intended) from 35 to 60 miles a week.
>
>-DougF
>

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.

There are too many factors to consider to compare any two
individual's training efforts based on HR, even if they have
a similar max HR. If they have similar physiologies their
effort zones might be similar, but that's not very useful.
The message I take from learning a little about how the
kenyan's train is that over a long period of time, perhaps
needing to start in youth, individuals with good long
distance running genetics can train their bodies to be much
more efficient at effort levels close to LT than was
previously thought.

For someone like me this probably means very little. For
most recreational athletes, the basic training principle of
exercise / recovery / overcompensation is still the most
important concept, and getting the timing right on that
cycle for different aspects of training is difficult because
many different systems are being trained at once and they
each have a different recovery time. For example, with
running the musculo-skeletal system is stressed and must
recover, the basic energy supply system must recover, the
lactate system must recover, and for very long runs, the
endocrine and other systems must recover. For kenyans there
is probably very little overcompensation (improvement)
available after so many years of going hard, and what little
there is requires less difference in their daily training
than for recreational runners.

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. 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.

- Tony

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.

Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Anders Lustig wrote:

>> But perhaps it´s worth remembering that cross-country
>> skiing is a different sport (where, among other things,
>> one can and must do twice the volume a runner does) and
>> that the chaps who´ve trained in this manner for years
>> don´t have to "walk" to be below 70%.
>
>
> 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.

thought of something in this regards: the addition of upper
body work skews the normal HR/VO2 relationship, you get a
disproportionate increase in VO2 relative to HR when you
add the arms.

Perhaps the lower HR still puts X-country skiiers in an
effective VO2 range for this reason. Their 140 BPM or lower
may be 'equal' to a higher BPM for runners or cyclists in
terms of oxygen uptake.

I'm sure someone has measured this, I'll have a crack
at medline.

Lyle

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?

Lyle