Tony said: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
Quoted message said: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
Quoted message said: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.
Quoted message said:
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.
Quoted message said: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
Quoted message said: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
