question about HR training and purposeful training

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul said:

I have been running since last fall and really want to learn better the
science behind my training regimen. Here is my understanding and I would
like your feeedback:

- You start with a maximum HR

No. You don't know your max HR, and the formulae are only estimates --
ones with large error bars. Nor do you start out with a test to find your
max HR, as this is extremely intense running.

Quoted message said:

- Based on your MAX HR, you have zones and within each zone, different types
of enegy are used as fuel

No. You use all metabolic pathways at all times. What changes,
and it is a continuous change, not a 'zone' change, is the balance
between the different pathways. But even an ultramarathoner is
getting some energy from the same pathway as a 60 meter sprinter mainly
uses, and even the 60 meter sprinter gets some from the fat metabolism
an ultramarathoner mainly uses.

Quoted message said:

- Endurance athletes train their bodies to use fat as the primary fuel
source for most of their event sice fat is the most efficient fuel source

No. It is a very inefficient source in terms of rate of metabolism.
What it is, is plentiful. You don't have enough glycogen on hand to
finish long races, so have to burn fat for fuel. Depending on the
distance/duration and runner, it may still not be the main fuel in
terms of energy. Most people have about 20 miles worth of on-hand
glycogen. In racing a marathon, then, they need to get 1/4th of
their energy from fat. As it's a slow path, and they're racing,
they want to burn all 20 miles worth of glycogen (just not before
hitting the finish line).

[trim]
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Paul said:

I have been running since last fall and really want to learn better the
science behind my training regimen. Here is my understanding and I would
like your feeedback:

- You start with a maximum HR

Yes, the hard part is estimating it. There are a number of ways to test it
though.

Quoted message said:

- Based on your MAX HR, you have zones and within each zone, different types
of enegy are used as fuel

Sort of. Endurance athletes usually don't think so much in terms of "zones"
though. That's mostly gym bunny stuff. For runners, the intensities are
appropximately:

90-100%: interval work
90%: tempo runs
75% or less: endurance runs

Quoted message said:

- Endurance athletes train their bodies to use fat as the primary fuel
source for most of their event sice fat is the most efficient fuel source

All sources are "efficient" in some sense. Fat is more abundant though -- you
have more calories in fat on you than you do glycogen.

Quoted message said:

- You start by having a good training base with lots of very slow long runs
to build more capillaries

Depends what is meant by "very slow". About 75% is about right. This does
build capillaries, also it's way to build endurance without too much injury
risk.

Quoted message said:

- With some continued base training, you increase your anaerobic threshold
by adding speed work

Yes, and also VO2 max.

Quoted message said:

- Speed work helps to push your anaerobic threshold to a higher HR so you
can stay in your aerobic fat-buring zone longer, thereby being more
efficient

That's sort of true, but not quite the point. During a race (at least
marathon and shorter), you are well and truly outside the "fat burning zone".
You'd like to be able to avoid high blood lactate levels, and also get as much
energy from fat reserves as possible, but most energy will come from glycogen.

Quoted message said:

I'd love to hear your feedback and web page and book recommnedations.

Noakes, Lore of running has a comprehensive overview of the science.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

obviously, I have a lot to learn

thanks for the feedback

Paul said:

I have been running since last fall and really want to learn better the
science behind my training regimen. Here is my understanding and I would
like your feeedback:

Just to give you a 3rd perspective.

Quoted message said:

- You start with a maximum HR

You don't need to know your max HR, even if you're using a hrm for training.

Quoted message said:

- Based on your MAX HR, you have zones and within each zone, different types
of enegy are used as fuel

Some programs use max HR, but some use LT or VO2max. Some use max and
resting hr to estimate heart rate reserve (hrr). Since most programs
have bulk of training at aerobic levels, and some workouts at or above
LT or VO2max, there's really no need to know your max HR. You can
estimate your effort by talk test - being able to converse in complete
sentences means you're aerobic (low-end, depending on how you label
things), talking in fragments means you're getting near LT.

Most energy sources are used at all intensities of training, but the
proportion of them varies. Fats are usually a primary source at lower
intensities - along with carbs - while carbs are the primary source at
higher intensities, usually.

The physiological responses are really a gradient and don't magically
change 1 bpm higher or lower than some zone. It is true that near LT
region, some changes happen much more rapidly than below. "Zones" are
used to simplify discussion, but sometimes are taken too literally.
They're fuzzy and vary among individuals and conditions.

Quoted message said:

- Endurance athletes train their bodies to use fat as the primary fuel
source for most of their event sice fat is the most efficient fuel source

It's easier to burn carbs than fat, but there's far more fat than carbs
in your body.

Quoted message said:

- You start by having a good training base with lots of very slow long runs
to build more capillaries

I would define "very slow". Long, slow runs build capillaries,
mitochondria, and a bunch of other things. Read Martin and Coe for more
details. "Very slow" can be slow enough that you don't reap any cardio
benefits and may lose strength and power.

Quoted message said:

- With some continued base training, you increase your anaerobic threshold
by adding speed work

Depends what you mean by speed work. For some, speed work is running vs
walking, for some it's high-end aerobic (below LT), and for others it's
above VO2max. Some would have the effect you suggest, but others wouldn't.

Quoted message said:

- Speed work helps to push your anaerobic threshold to a higher HR so you
can stay in your aerobic fat-buring zone longer, thereby being more
efficient

Does that sum it up?

What about lactate shuttle? Strength and power, like from hills?
Agility? Hot/cold acclimation? Hydration, electrolytes, fuel? Types of
muscles and their recruitments? Cardio is only one aspect of endurance
training.

Quoted message said:

I'd love to hear your feedback and web page and book recommnedations.

I like Martin and Coe's Better Training for Distance Runners for
descriptions of benefits of training in various "zones" or sections of
the gradient. Noakes is also good.

I like these descriptors for various efforts. (% of effort column is %
of hrr): http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf

Kevin Beck's Run Strong has some treatments of strength issues.

Lydiard's Running to the Top. (or maybe some of his other books. That's
just the one I've read.)

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0966.htm
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0147.htm

One of the simplest ways to train is to just go run so you can talk. Run
trails over hill and dale and much of what is discussed is automatically
taken care of.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

thanks Dot - that's great info and links. I have read Bumpa's book on
periodization and have browsed Daniels Running Formula(great book). I read
some of the articles and bookmarked the others.

For some reason, I just not quite satisfied just going for a run, I want to
understand the science behind it and the science of how to improve. Quite
candidly, I have received a mixed message on some of my other postings so I
need to go to an authoritative source, like the ones you link to.

Many thanks!

Paul said:

thanks Dot - that's great info and links. I have read Bumpa's book on
periodization and have browsed Daniels Running Formula(great book). I read
some of the articles and bookmarked the others.

For some reason, I just not quite satisfied just going for a run, I want to
understand the science behind it and the science of how to improve.

You can do both. I read a lot and want to understand the science, but
enjoy the running over hill and dale. This is one of the reasons I like
parts of Lydiard base. Some days the body says easy, some days it says
"let's go". And some days it gets pushed a little (or at least used)
even if it's not quite optimum for whatever.

Granted, I don't worry about the stuff above LT, but I could, if it were
consistent with my goals. I can insert drills at will and know what
system is being trained. Does it make much physiological difference if
the work part of an interval was 62 sec vs 59 sec?

My physiological body doesn't know the training wasn't done on a track
with precisely timed laps and distances. (My brain and the adventure
side of me *does* know - and they're happy.) It does know that it
trained at x intensity for y duration and pushed up or down (or whatever
strength parameter you want to choose) for z minutes or feet or
whatever. I can easily download that from my hrm to track volume and
training load. (at least I can when the batteries aren't weak) And play
with numbers all day long. Yes, there's potentially a short-term
difference in maybe getting 25 min of sub-LT work in rather than planned
40 min, but I've also had it go the other direction.

But I don't need that level of detail when I'm actually running. I'm not
one that cares about training at 8min/mi (or 16min/mi is closer to my
pace) since that's a biomechanical property and not an effort goal.
Learn to run by feel and you don't need to look at that hrm to know when
you're at a high effort vs low effort. In fact, the hrm has a delay when
you're doing harder workouts, so unless you aim to back off at a lower
hr on a hill, you may blast right through a zone and find oneself
gasping for air unable to move forward. (not as much a problem on flats,
but do that on 30% slope or when bounding up a set of 90 steps - or
maybe that's a fcn of me being old and slow). I learned quickly how to
adjust efforts without taking my eyes off the trail and things that were
waiting to trip me.

Yes, some people need the precision of the track or other tool for their
mental needs. But many people can follow schedules blindly or do all
kinds of detailed drills and never understand the science. And some do
both.

Just saying that understanding the science and actually doing a highly
structured program are two different things - either can be done without
the other or both can be done.

Quoted message said:

Quite
candidly, I have received a mixed message on some of my other postings so I
need to go to an authoritative source, like the ones you link to.

I saw your post over in r.s.t also, which gave you a 4th opinion.

What you'll find is that while there's some underlying science to some
of this stuff, running is a biological system - it's fuzzy and
probabilistic, rather than deterministic. Everyone is unique. And
different people will respond differently to different kinds of
training. The studies you see report "averages". For some people, that
treatment worked. For others it didn't. Your question is "will it work
for you"? Unless you were one of the actual subjects, you don't know.

Some people do well on low hr (aka Maffetone) training. Others lose
fitness on it and need more intensity. Some need more strength and power
more so than cardio.

Every runner will give you a different opinion as will every author. And
some authors change their approach over time as they learn more.

Running is a great experiment of one, and we're always learning.

Have fun!

Dot
always a beginner

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Paul said:

thanks Dot - that's great info and links. I have read Bumpa's book on
periodization and have browsed Daniels Running Formula(great book). I read

I am reading Bumpa's book, but I must say I don't like it. He was an
olympic rower, but it seems to me that his field is strength training
more than endurance.

Quoted message said:

some of the articles and bookmarked the others.

For some reason, I just not quite satisfied just going for a run, I want to
understand the science behind it and the science of how to improve. Quite

For a starter, a nice website:
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/exphys.htm

If you are serious, find a good exercise physiology book. I recommend
McArdle, Katch, Katch: Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition and
Human Performance. Sixth Ed. 2006.

Leo - just a lurker

"Paul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

thanks Dot - that's great info and links. I have read Bumpa's book on
periodization and have browsed Daniels Running Formula(great book). I
read some of the articles and bookmarked the others.

For some reason, I just not quite satisfied just going for a run, I want
to understand the science behind it and the science of how to improve.
Quite candidly, I have received a mixed message on some of my other
postings so I need to go to an authoritative source, like the ones you
link to.

Many thanks!

Though of course the science doesn't depend on this, you didn't say what
your running experience is or what your goals are. How you apply the
interpretations of the science depends on your goals. While the basics apply
to everyone, the exact intensity levels of training and duration of runs and
the mix thereof, in addition to overall training volume - all depends upon
what the individual's goals are and what their current state of overall
health and specific running fitness is at any given time. This is why there
will always be an art to applying the science of training.

You either find the right coach, follow a training plan for a specific
event, or learn to coach yourself for your own goals (not easy). In any
case, learning to listen to your body is a process, and is necessary for
effective training. Some examples of sophisticated heart rate monitoring
training examples are out there, like Lance Armstrong in the early 2000's
(he may have moved to power meter training later like others), but I'm sure
that his coach Chris Carmichael set the heart rates to train Lance based on
Lance's unique case, and used it as a feedback tool just as much as it was
used to set exact training levels. In other words it was probably more art
than science.

-Tony

Dot, Leo and Tony - thanks you for your replies. I have much to learn and I
appreciate the links and insights.