Let's see if I understand your question. You are doing a tempo or interval workout plus an MP run every week and want to notch it up a bit by adding a second run some days. Wish suggested adding hill sessions, which really would benefit you, but you are unsure of how to work them in. You know, you don't have to do everything every week, which would be overkill. You are already switching off the tempo and interval runs. Why not do the same with hills and MP runs?
Personally, I think you will gain more from hill sessions than MP runs and should do a few of them for every MP run....like one MP run every 4 weeks and hills the other weeks. MP runs simply train you to become accustomed to and “comfortable” with running at MP and, if they are long enough, might offer some threshold benefit in the late miles….that’s it. OTOH, hills train you to be a stronger runner....period!
I don't think you get max training benefit from "hard" sessions by training to be “comfortable” at any pace, such as MP. I think “hard” workouts should be very challenging, which means getting out of the comfort zone. If you train each of your running systems (AT, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, running economy and strength) to a peak, your optimum MP will be "comfortable" to about 20 miles. Hill repeats contribute to the development of all of the running systems (particurlarly strength, aerobic capacity and anaerobic capacity)....MP runs don't. I think the primary benefit of MP runs is to become familiar with the pace so that you don't overrun the first half on race day. They do not really prepare you to go the distance at that pace. In other words, I think you can get more benefit from other forms of hard running than you can from MP runs. Even without hill sessions, I would prefer both a threshold and interval workout most weeks instead of one of a MP run and one of the others.
Also, since you live in a flat part of the country, Wish's treadmill suggestion is a very good one. In fact, Jack Daniels says that he prefers hills to be run on a 'mill because incline and pace can be precisely controlled. If you don't have access to a treadmill, look for overpasses or parking garages. But, find a way to run hill repeats if you want to gain that additional 10 minutes that Wish mentioned.
I also agree with Wish that a second run a couple of days a week probably won't do much for you....and it just might cost you valuable rest time and detract from the quality of your hard sessions. If you are looking for a way to add mileage to your program and still preserve rest periods, I think it's better to increase the length of the easy runs a mile or two.
An even better way to add both intensity and mileage is to do the hill sessions on a relatively short mileage day and replace one of your easy runs with a medium long run of 2/3-3/4 the length of the previous weekend's long run, which could include some miles at MP.
For what it's worth, here's a schedule I used for several years in the '80s with good results.
Mon - Hard, quality run
Tues - 6 miles easy
Wed - Medium long run of 2/3-3/4 the length of previous weekends long run at easy pace.
Thur - Hard, quality run
Fri - Off
Sat - Long run
Sun - 6 miles easy
Hard, quality runs were tempo runs/cruise intervals, VO2max intervals, or hill repeats. I ran only 2-3 dedicated MP runs during a 14-16 week training cycle, all late in the training cycle, although I did mix in MP running during some long runs, medium long runs and easy runs. I also included weight workouts 2-3 times per week....usually Tuesday before the easy run, Thursday before the hard run and/or Saturday after the long run. My schedule started at about 40 miles per week and peaked at 60-65 as the long and medium long runs increased.
On the 3-5 weeks out of 14-16 that I raced, which I tried to schedule races on weeks that I cut back on the long run, I usually ran my cut-back long run on Sat, raced Sunday (usually 8-10k), and took an off day Mon, then picked up my program as described above. Essentially, the race on Sunday replaced the Monday hard session, the "back-to-back" hard days of a moderately long run Sat and race Sun added strengthening challenge, and the two easy days (Mon-Tues) permitted good recovery. I ran these races as hard as I could, considering that I did not taper for them. These "training races" were usually strong and not far off my PR times.
I can't do that much anymore, but only because I'm no longer a “youngster” of 45-50 years old. I never reached your level of 3-hours. I was a plodder with best times of a 40:58 10k and a couple of 3:22 marathons. But, you are probably younger and a better runner than I was.
Hope there's a thought or two in all of this rambling that might be helpful in your program.
Jim2
Monday, December 18, 2000
Wednesday, August 16, 2000
Abdominal Exercises
Strengthening the abdominal muscle is important for a runner. One function of the abs is to counter the force exerted on the pelvic structure by back muscles in order to stabilize the pelvis structure and maintain an erect posture. Running strengthens back muscles, but not abs. If a runner doesn't exercise his/her abs to strengthen them, an imbalance can develop. Stronger back muscles can overpower the abs and result in a tilted pelvis, or forward hunch, when running. Abs are strengthened by doing situps or ab crunches.
An excellent description of exercises for the abs was posted by another runner on the Merv Competitive Forum in response to questions posed by another Mervite. I saved it for personal reference. The following is that post.
Abdominal Training
12/19/99
I'll try to help you with some of your questions, since I'm certified in this area and teach group abdominals as part of other workouts 3x/week (one is a 15:00 abs class).
Q1: Bending knees or keeping them straight? This depends on the region of the abdominal muscle you wish to strengthen. The abdominal muscle is often thought of as more than one muscle, but there is only one, however, it is possible to work different "regions" of it such as upper, lower, and oblique. If you wish to target the lower portion (below the belly button), your legs can be extended without locked knees (knees should have a slight bend). So during one abdominal session, it would be fine to have both the knees bent during a set and then the legs extended.
Q2: Feet on floor or lifted? This depends on the level of intensity you desire. Feet on the floor give you more balance and support, feet lifted take away support and balance and add intensity. Again during an abdominal session, you could do a set with feet on the floor, a set with feet lifted.
Q3: Hands behind your head, etc.? Hands can be placed in a number of positions that give varying effects. For beginners, hand crossed across the chest provide the least amount of intensity, however, could possibly compromise form and cause neck strain or tension. I'll explain the other variations, but let me give some simple form tips. No matter what position your hands are in, your neck should be an extension of your spine and your chin should be lifted away from your chest during both concentric (positive) and eccentric (negative) phases. You should be able to place a fist or apple under your chin. As you begin the lift, the neck is relatively straight and as you lift the head is an extension of the spine, so your head and back lift in unison. If you keep your chin lifted, you will not be doing "neck-ups" so to speak. And as you lift, you'll exhale then inhale on the lowering phase. Hands can also be placed behind the head which would be sort of an intermediate level position. The fitness industry frowns upon clasping the hands when their behind the head, mostly because they fear this will encourage exercisers to pull on the head more and do "neck-ups" (chin into chest, neck bending). So, they recommend the hands behind the head withOUT hands clasped. In my classes, I don't frown upon people clasping their hands as long as their form isn't compromised and they're lifting properly. Whichever way, the hands behind the head give your neck the most support. Another possibility which adds more intensity is with an extended arm(s). This is referred to as a "long lever" movement. My favorite way to do this is to extend one arm straight over the head, then bend the other arm at the elbow, bringing it behind the head and using the hand of the bent arm to hold at the elbow of the extended arm. You can cradle your head right in this socket you've created, support the neck and have the advantage of long lever intensity all in one.
Q4: Incline or flat floor? Another variation that is based on preference and intensity. An incline bench that is gravity-resisted with your head at the bottom of the board is obviously the most intense but possibly the one that could have the most injury potential. You have to be sure your abs and back are strong enough to endure this and your form is correct, otherwise this is good for potential back strain. I had a back strain about 2 1/2 years ago that was the result of doing abs this way. Once I quit them, after months of wondering why my back was so stiff after every run, I finally figured out why.
A good rule of thumb that applies to many other principles in life are the KISS rule--you know, keep it simple. A lot of people try to get fancy with their workouts when keeping it simple provides the best results. I see this one guy at our gym who likes to hang upside down from the pull up bar with his legs curled over it and lifting (rather, swinging) his torso up and down. When I see him do this, even though he's using lots of momentum, all I can think is "ouch"!
Anyway, for obliques, there are many different leg and arm changes you can make from the "simple* position of lying on your back in the traditional crunch position. Here are some examples:
Lying in the supine position, with knees bent, feet on floor, hands behind head bringing one elbow (or the whole extended arm) toward the opposite knee. The elbow or arm does not touch the knee, but rather should be extending toward the *ceiling" in the direction of the knee. You can create position variations to this by bending this same knee and placing the heel of that foot on the other leg. Other leg position variations might be to extend that opposing leg straight up (knee slightly bent), or bend both knees with feet off the floor and doing your oblique twist this way. Here's a way to add some light resistance that might help you feel more in this area. Let's say you are doing oblique twists taking the right elbow towards the left knee. Your right hand is placed behind your head to support the neck, but what you can do is place a light weight (say up to 5#) in the left hand and place the left hand with the weight near the anterior shoulder of the right side. This would give you some added resistance to that right side as you do the twist up. As always, the lifting movement should be slow and controlled. You can do variations of any type of lift such as three counts up, one count down, or vice versa or two counts up, two counts down, etc. Slowing down always creates more resistance that you will feel after a few reps. Lying on the side isn't really the best position as the back is unsupported and you're not really providing the trunk rotation to work the obliques.
To accentuate the lower portion, you can extend the legs rather than bending the knees and even add a long lever arm movement as I described in the first post. Another way, which if done correctly probably isolates lower better is a reverse curl. With this move, you are lying on the back, knees bent, bring the knees and chest toward center simultaneously. During this move, the hips lift off the ground, but the mistake many people make is lifting the hips too far. The hips should only come off the ground 1" or 2" and when your knees are bent, keep the feet at or below knee level. This should keep you from using momentum, you want to accentuate abdominal contraction. If this move is too difficult at first, it can be done by only using the hips and not lifting the chest simultaneously until the abs are strong enough and form is not compromised. Again, this is all done with the chin lifted, no neck ups! And, when you really get advanced, the reverse curl can be done on an incline board with your head at the high end, butt at the low end..., small hip movements to bring the hips toward the chest...again, a very *advanced* move.
Your basic crunch will work the upper area of the abdominals, and again, you can add resistance to the basic crunch by placing one hand behind the head and a light weight (up to 5#) in the opposite hand and place that hand in the center of the chest. You can do alternating sets with the weight by doing count variations as described above and I think you'll be able to feel this.
Hope this helps.
An excellent description of exercises for the abs was posted by another runner on the Merv Competitive Forum in response to questions posed by another Mervite. I saved it for personal reference. The following is that post.
Abdominal Training
12/19/99
I'll try to help you with some of your questions, since I'm certified in this area and teach group abdominals as part of other workouts 3x/week (one is a 15:00 abs class).
Q1: Bending knees or keeping them straight? This depends on the region of the abdominal muscle you wish to strengthen. The abdominal muscle is often thought of as more than one muscle, but there is only one, however, it is possible to work different "regions" of it such as upper, lower, and oblique. If you wish to target the lower portion (below the belly button), your legs can be extended without locked knees (knees should have a slight bend). So during one abdominal session, it would be fine to have both the knees bent during a set and then the legs extended.
Q2: Feet on floor or lifted? This depends on the level of intensity you desire. Feet on the floor give you more balance and support, feet lifted take away support and balance and add intensity. Again during an abdominal session, you could do a set with feet on the floor, a set with feet lifted.
Q3: Hands behind your head, etc.? Hands can be placed in a number of positions that give varying effects. For beginners, hand crossed across the chest provide the least amount of intensity, however, could possibly compromise form and cause neck strain or tension. I'll explain the other variations, but let me give some simple form tips. No matter what position your hands are in, your neck should be an extension of your spine and your chin should be lifted away from your chest during both concentric (positive) and eccentric (negative) phases. You should be able to place a fist or apple under your chin. As you begin the lift, the neck is relatively straight and as you lift the head is an extension of the spine, so your head and back lift in unison. If you keep your chin lifted, you will not be doing "neck-ups" so to speak. And as you lift, you'll exhale then inhale on the lowering phase. Hands can also be placed behind the head which would be sort of an intermediate level position. The fitness industry frowns upon clasping the hands when their behind the head, mostly because they fear this will encourage exercisers to pull on the head more and do "neck-ups" (chin into chest, neck bending). So, they recommend the hands behind the head withOUT hands clasped. In my classes, I don't frown upon people clasping their hands as long as their form isn't compromised and they're lifting properly. Whichever way, the hands behind the head give your neck the most support. Another possibility which adds more intensity is with an extended arm(s). This is referred to as a "long lever" movement. My favorite way to do this is to extend one arm straight over the head, then bend the other arm at the elbow, bringing it behind the head and using the hand of the bent arm to hold at the elbow of the extended arm. You can cradle your head right in this socket you've created, support the neck and have the advantage of long lever intensity all in one.
Q4: Incline or flat floor? Another variation that is based on preference and intensity. An incline bench that is gravity-resisted with your head at the bottom of the board is obviously the most intense but possibly the one that could have the most injury potential. You have to be sure your abs and back are strong enough to endure this and your form is correct, otherwise this is good for potential back strain. I had a back strain about 2 1/2 years ago that was the result of doing abs this way. Once I quit them, after months of wondering why my back was so stiff after every run, I finally figured out why.
A good rule of thumb that applies to many other principles in life are the KISS rule--you know, keep it simple. A lot of people try to get fancy with their workouts when keeping it simple provides the best results. I see this one guy at our gym who likes to hang upside down from the pull up bar with his legs curled over it and lifting (rather, swinging) his torso up and down. When I see him do this, even though he's using lots of momentum, all I can think is "ouch"!
Anyway, for obliques, there are many different leg and arm changes you can make from the "simple* position of lying on your back in the traditional crunch position. Here are some examples:
Lying in the supine position, with knees bent, feet on floor, hands behind head bringing one elbow (or the whole extended arm) toward the opposite knee. The elbow or arm does not touch the knee, but rather should be extending toward the *ceiling" in the direction of the knee. You can create position variations to this by bending this same knee and placing the heel of that foot on the other leg. Other leg position variations might be to extend that opposing leg straight up (knee slightly bent), or bend both knees with feet off the floor and doing your oblique twist this way. Here's a way to add some light resistance that might help you feel more in this area. Let's say you are doing oblique twists taking the right elbow towards the left knee. Your right hand is placed behind your head to support the neck, but what you can do is place a light weight (say up to 5#) in the left hand and place the left hand with the weight near the anterior shoulder of the right side. This would give you some added resistance to that right side as you do the twist up. As always, the lifting movement should be slow and controlled. You can do variations of any type of lift such as three counts up, one count down, or vice versa or two counts up, two counts down, etc. Slowing down always creates more resistance that you will feel after a few reps. Lying on the side isn't really the best position as the back is unsupported and you're not really providing the trunk rotation to work the obliques.
To accentuate the lower portion, you can extend the legs rather than bending the knees and even add a long lever arm movement as I described in the first post. Another way, which if done correctly probably isolates lower better is a reverse curl. With this move, you are lying on the back, knees bent, bring the knees and chest toward center simultaneously. During this move, the hips lift off the ground, but the mistake many people make is lifting the hips too far. The hips should only come off the ground 1" or 2" and when your knees are bent, keep the feet at or below knee level. This should keep you from using momentum, you want to accentuate abdominal contraction. If this move is too difficult at first, it can be done by only using the hips and not lifting the chest simultaneously until the abs are strong enough and form is not compromised. Again, this is all done with the chin lifted, no neck ups! And, when you really get advanced, the reverse curl can be done on an incline board with your head at the high end, butt at the low end..., small hip movements to bring the hips toward the chest...again, a very *advanced* move.
Your basic crunch will work the upper area of the abdominals, and again, you can add resistance to the basic crunch by placing one hand behind the head and a light weight (up to 5#) in the opposite hand and place that hand in the center of the chest. You can do alternating sets with the weight by doing count variations as described above and I think you'll be able to feel this.
Hope this helps.
Saturday, July 22, 2000
Heart Rate Training
We had a good discussion about Junk Miles on this forum a few weeks ago. Afterwards, StephenK posted about using heart rate to guide his training. That got me to wondering: How many of us follow heart rate training? What methods do we use to determine and measure appropriate training HRs? Do we use heart rate to guide our races?
I thought this subject might make a good basis for sharing our thoughts on training and racing from a perspective different than we usually discuss. Who knows what might come out of it? :-) I'll kick it off with a few thoughts and queries. Jump in if you are so inclined.
Most of the training gurus tend to agree that training and development of running "systems" should be focused around heart rate (HR.) They almost all define training levels in terms of % maximum heart rate (HRmax.) However, most also recognize that it isn't possible or palatable for many runners to use a heart rate monitor (HRM) regularly, but we all run with a watch. So, they define running paces that should result in approximate HRs which are appropriate for desired training benefits. "Gurus" might vary slightly in their recommended HR for specific training purposes, but they are all in the same ballpark. Primarily, they all agree that:
1) The largest percentage of training mileage should be "easy", which is defined as 60-80% of maximum heart rate (HRmax), which is approximately equivalent to 1-2 minutes/mile slower than 10k race pace.
2) Threshold training (tempo runs and cruise intervals) should be done at 80-90% of HRmax or 10-20 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace.
3) Aerobic capacity training (VO2max intervals) is best done at 95-100% of HRmax, which occurs at 3-5k race pace.
4) Anaerobic capacity training (repetitions) at 100% HRmax and faster than 3-5k race pace.
5) MP runs at 80-85% HRmax or about 40-50 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace.
These HR guidelines are absolute and constant, regardless of conditions. However, problems can arise in trying to follow the pacing guidelines when running conditions change.
Unless you use a HRM, it's easier and more convenient for most of us to simply use our most recent race paces to guide our training than it is to monitor our HR's. However, race pace can vary with several variables, such as terrain, weather, where we are in our training cycle, how rested we are, how much stress we are under, etc. We might have run a 10k race on a hilly course under great weather conditions at an average pace of 8:00/mile, and be faced with doing a tempo run 3 weeks later over flat terrain, under hot, humid conditions, after being up half the night before with a sick kid, and under the stress of a crisis at work. So, what is "tempo pace" on that day? It should be 10-20 sec/mile slower than what our 10k pace would be under the same conditions. Thus, for an optimum training run, it becomes necessary to adjust training pace. Possessing the ability to read your body and "know" what each training pace should feel like is a tremendous help, but it takes a lot of experience to develop that skill. Using the watch becomes a SWAG, at best, in less than ideal conditions. But, short of a HRM, it's the best guidance many of us have. Thus, it's what many of us wind up resorting to....and we then feel either happy or disappointed at the end of the workout, depending on how we performed against the unwavering clock.
HR training is another way to go. For instance, AT level is a constant.....85-90% HRmax.....although actual AT running pace will vary with conditions. It might be 7:30 pace one day and 7:45 another. The same with easy and aerobic capacity runs. Even the pace of MP runs should be adjusted for varying conditions.....at least until the last couple of MP runs before a marathon, which are important to "program" a specific pace into your mind and muscles. Anaerobic capacity (running economy) training is the exception. These short, fast intervals are run at a specific pace and 100% HRmax.
So, do you use HR training? I don't, per se. But, neither am I a slave to the watch. I pace my runs based on how they feel. I have learned how each of my training paces should feel. And, I can tell what my HR is within a few beats/minute without using a monitor. I do run, including speedwork, on treadmills that have HR measuring ability fairly frequently.....at least, every time I go to the gym and sometimes at home. I check my HR occasionally on the 'mills as verification of my "built-in" monitor. I do expect my HRs to fall within the recommended ranges and they usually do.
HR training is all based on HRmax. So, how do you determine your max? Do you use the 220-age formula? 214-eight tenths of age? 205-half your age formula? Or do you measure it? I have always used 220-age. Finally, I measured it for the first time on 8/12/98 using Jack Daniels' treadmill test. I was 59 years old at the time, so the 220-age formula yielded 161, the 214-.8xage formula yielded 167 and the 205-half age formula yielded 175. It measured 163 on the treadmill test. Although mine measured close to the "most popular" 220-age formula, I have heard tales of significant deviations from that formula. And, the spread between "cookbook" methods demonstrates the value of measuring it.
Now that you know your HRmax, how do you determine your appropriate HR training ranges? Do you simply multiply your HRmax by the appropriate percentage? Or do you use the Karvonen formula of (HRmax-HRrest)x%effort+HRrest? I use the Karvonen method. I find that straight % of HRmax yields moderately easy training levels.....and I'm not looking for "moderately easy" for optimum improvement rate. Although, those who are injury-prone might want to opt for the more conservative approach, which will still yield training benefit.
The Karvonen method yields significantly different training guidelines for easy, AT and MP runs. For instance, my resting HR (HRrest) this morning was 44. (OK, so I'm not in top condition. When I am, my HRrest is 36-40.) Thus, assuming my HRmax has dropped to 161 since I last measured it almost two years ago, my AT (90% level) using the "straight" calculation (90%xHRmax) is 145. However, the Karvonen method yields 149....that's a detectable difference in AT pace. The AT workout I ran on a treadmill last week (a 2x2 mile cruise interval session) was at a HR of 148. And I find that the faster pace of the Karvonen method is generally closer to 10-15 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace, which is appropriate for AT training. The difference in the two methods is even more significant with my "easy" training level of 75% where straight calculation yields 121 bpm and the Karvonen method yields 132 bpm.....a big difference. The slower "standard" method leaves me feeling like I'm jogging.
OK. Enough of my rambling. How about you? Are you addicted to HR training? Do you not think about it? What are your thoughts/opinions?
Jim2
I thought this subject might make a good basis for sharing our thoughts on training and racing from a perspective different than we usually discuss. Who knows what might come out of it? :-) I'll kick it off with a few thoughts and queries. Jump in if you are so inclined.
Most of the training gurus tend to agree that training and development of running "systems" should be focused around heart rate (HR.) They almost all define training levels in terms of % maximum heart rate (HRmax.) However, most also recognize that it isn't possible or palatable for many runners to use a heart rate monitor (HRM) regularly, but we all run with a watch. So, they define running paces that should result in approximate HRs which are appropriate for desired training benefits. "Gurus" might vary slightly in their recommended HR for specific training purposes, but they are all in the same ballpark. Primarily, they all agree that:
1) The largest percentage of training mileage should be "easy", which is defined as 60-80% of maximum heart rate (HRmax), which is approximately equivalent to 1-2 minutes/mile slower than 10k race pace.
2) Threshold training (tempo runs and cruise intervals) should be done at 80-90% of HRmax or 10-20 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace.
3) Aerobic capacity training (VO2max intervals) is best done at 95-100% of HRmax, which occurs at 3-5k race pace.
4) Anaerobic capacity training (repetitions) at 100% HRmax and faster than 3-5k race pace.
5) MP runs at 80-85% HRmax or about 40-50 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace.
These HR guidelines are absolute and constant, regardless of conditions. However, problems can arise in trying to follow the pacing guidelines when running conditions change.
Unless you use a HRM, it's easier and more convenient for most of us to simply use our most recent race paces to guide our training than it is to monitor our HR's. However, race pace can vary with several variables, such as terrain, weather, where we are in our training cycle, how rested we are, how much stress we are under, etc. We might have run a 10k race on a hilly course under great weather conditions at an average pace of 8:00/mile, and be faced with doing a tempo run 3 weeks later over flat terrain, under hot, humid conditions, after being up half the night before with a sick kid, and under the stress of a crisis at work. So, what is "tempo pace" on that day? It should be 10-20 sec/mile slower than what our 10k pace would be under the same conditions. Thus, for an optimum training run, it becomes necessary to adjust training pace. Possessing the ability to read your body and "know" what each training pace should feel like is a tremendous help, but it takes a lot of experience to develop that skill. Using the watch becomes a SWAG, at best, in less than ideal conditions. But, short of a HRM, it's the best guidance many of us have. Thus, it's what many of us wind up resorting to....and we then feel either happy or disappointed at the end of the workout, depending on how we performed against the unwavering clock.
HR training is another way to go. For instance, AT level is a constant.....85-90% HRmax.....although actual AT running pace will vary with conditions. It might be 7:30 pace one day and 7:45 another. The same with easy and aerobic capacity runs. Even the pace of MP runs should be adjusted for varying conditions.....at least until the last couple of MP runs before a marathon, which are important to "program" a specific pace into your mind and muscles. Anaerobic capacity (running economy) training is the exception. These short, fast intervals are run at a specific pace and 100% HRmax.
So, do you use HR training? I don't, per se. But, neither am I a slave to the watch. I pace my runs based on how they feel. I have learned how each of my training paces should feel. And, I can tell what my HR is within a few beats/minute without using a monitor. I do run, including speedwork, on treadmills that have HR measuring ability fairly frequently.....at least, every time I go to the gym and sometimes at home. I check my HR occasionally on the 'mills as verification of my "built-in" monitor. I do expect my HRs to fall within the recommended ranges and they usually do.
HR training is all based on HRmax. So, how do you determine your max? Do you use the 220-age formula? 214-eight tenths of age? 205-half your age formula? Or do you measure it? I have always used 220-age. Finally, I measured it for the first time on 8/12/98 using Jack Daniels' treadmill test. I was 59 years old at the time, so the 220-age formula yielded 161, the 214-.8xage formula yielded 167 and the 205-half age formula yielded 175. It measured 163 on the treadmill test. Although mine measured close to the "most popular" 220-age formula, I have heard tales of significant deviations from that formula. And, the spread between "cookbook" methods demonstrates the value of measuring it.
Now that you know your HRmax, how do you determine your appropriate HR training ranges? Do you simply multiply your HRmax by the appropriate percentage? Or do you use the Karvonen formula of (HRmax-HRrest)x%effort+HRrest? I use the Karvonen method. I find that straight % of HRmax yields moderately easy training levels.....and I'm not looking for "moderately easy" for optimum improvement rate. Although, those who are injury-prone might want to opt for the more conservative approach, which will still yield training benefit.
The Karvonen method yields significantly different training guidelines for easy, AT and MP runs. For instance, my resting HR (HRrest) this morning was 44. (OK, so I'm not in top condition. When I am, my HRrest is 36-40.) Thus, assuming my HRmax has dropped to 161 since I last measured it almost two years ago, my AT (90% level) using the "straight" calculation (90%xHRmax) is 145. However, the Karvonen method yields 149....that's a detectable difference in AT pace. The AT workout I ran on a treadmill last week (a 2x2 mile cruise interval session) was at a HR of 148. And I find that the faster pace of the Karvonen method is generally closer to 10-15 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace, which is appropriate for AT training. The difference in the two methods is even more significant with my "easy" training level of 75% where straight calculation yields 121 bpm and the Karvonen method yields 132 bpm.....a big difference. The slower "standard" method leaves me feeling like I'm jogging.
OK. Enough of my rambling. How about you? Are you addicted to HR training? Do you not think about it? What are your thoughts/opinions?
Jim2
Thursday, June 8, 2000
Junk Miles
A few weeks ago, we had a bit of a spirited discussion on this forum about low vs. high mileage. In the course of that thread, a couple of people mentioned "junk miles" in a context that I didn't consider to be junk miles. That got me to wondering. What does the term mean to different people? At the risk of stirring up some spirits again, :) let me throw out a few thoughts. I would be interested in how others view the subject.
Some people consider runs that aren't "hard" training....that is, the short, easy runs we do that are commonly called "maintenance runs"....to be junk miles, and that they should be minimized. Without using the term "junk miles," Galloway recommended such, in his low mileage article in the June issue of RW. I found it interesting that in the same issue, Joe Henderson said in his column that he finds the term "junk miles" applied to these easy runs to be "particularly distasteful." He said he prefers to think of them as "recovery" or "active rest."
In his book, "The Competitive Runner's Handbook," Bob Glover refers to junk miles as those that aren't of "reasonable quality." That's a broad term. But he goes on to define some rough parameters. Running less than 2-3 miles at a time, such as running a mile from home to the gym, for example. And miles run outside of your training heart range of 60-100% of maximum heart rate. The only reference he makes to quantity detracting from "reasonable quality" is mileage crammed in at the end of the week, like Sunday night, just to reach a weekly mileage goal.
In his book, "Daniels' Running Formula," Jack Daniels defines what he calls "quality-junk" as running at an intensity that falls between "easy", "threshold", "interval" and "repetition" paces. In other words, hard runs that provide training benefit (quality), but aren't at an optimum pace to train one of the body's running systems (endurance, lactate threshold, aerobic capacity or running economy) most efficiently (junk.) Marathon Pace (MP) runs fall into this category. Since MP runs are simply for body and mind to become familiar with the pace and don't really "train" anything, Daniels only recommends only three MP runs in an entire 24-week marathon training program. Glover includes two MP runs in the last few weeks of a 16-week program. Any more than that are "quality-junk."
I like both Glover's and Daniels' definitions of junk miles. However, neither really addresses a third consideration.....total effort as measured by run lengths, total mileage and frequency of running/racing. As I said in my posts in the low/high mileage thread, I think that, to optimize training, it's best to run as many miles as practical, consistent with other of life's demands, without inviting injury or compromising the quality of "hard" sessions. As long as a runner does that and stays within the guidelines that Glover and Daniels set out in their "junk" definitions, then I don't think s/he has "junk miles" in his/her training program. If either injury or quality of hard training becomes a problem and there is no other explanation, such as a bio-mechanical problem causing an injury or illness, stress or lack of rest affecting quality, then the runner has some "junk" in the program, i.e., is overtraining, and should reduce mileage....usually from easy, maintenance days, although too much hard stuff can also constitute "quality-junk."
Finally, I don't think junk miles means the same thing to all runners....some can tolerate more mileage or intensity than others, for example. Nor does junk miles mean the same to a given runner under all conditions. For instance, it means something different in a marathon program than in, say, a 5k or a 1500m program. A marathon program should include higher mileage and longer runs than one for a 5k, whereas a 5k program requires a different mix of speedwork than marathon training. Junk miles for one can be quality for the other. In my opinion, a program contains junk miles if the mix of quantity and quality is wrong for the training objective.
What do you think? What does "junk miles" mean to you? How do you avoid them?
Jim2
Some people consider runs that aren't "hard" training....that is, the short, easy runs we do that are commonly called "maintenance runs"....to be junk miles, and that they should be minimized. Without using the term "junk miles," Galloway recommended such, in his low mileage article in the June issue of RW. I found it interesting that in the same issue, Joe Henderson said in his column that he finds the term "junk miles" applied to these easy runs to be "particularly distasteful." He said he prefers to think of them as "recovery" or "active rest."
In his book, "The Competitive Runner's Handbook," Bob Glover refers to junk miles as those that aren't of "reasonable quality." That's a broad term. But he goes on to define some rough parameters. Running less than 2-3 miles at a time, such as running a mile from home to the gym, for example. And miles run outside of your training heart range of 60-100% of maximum heart rate. The only reference he makes to quantity detracting from "reasonable quality" is mileage crammed in at the end of the week, like Sunday night, just to reach a weekly mileage goal.
In his book, "Daniels' Running Formula," Jack Daniels defines what he calls "quality-junk" as running at an intensity that falls between "easy", "threshold", "interval" and "repetition" paces. In other words, hard runs that provide training benefit (quality), but aren't at an optimum pace to train one of the body's running systems (endurance, lactate threshold, aerobic capacity or running economy) most efficiently (junk.) Marathon Pace (MP) runs fall into this category. Since MP runs are simply for body and mind to become familiar with the pace and don't really "train" anything, Daniels only recommends only three MP runs in an entire 24-week marathon training program. Glover includes two MP runs in the last few weeks of a 16-week program. Any more than that are "quality-junk."
I like both Glover's and Daniels' definitions of junk miles. However, neither really addresses a third consideration.....total effort as measured by run lengths, total mileage and frequency of running/racing. As I said in my posts in the low/high mileage thread, I think that, to optimize training, it's best to run as many miles as practical, consistent with other of life's demands, without inviting injury or compromising the quality of "hard" sessions. As long as a runner does that and stays within the guidelines that Glover and Daniels set out in their "junk" definitions, then I don't think s/he has "junk miles" in his/her training program. If either injury or quality of hard training becomes a problem and there is no other explanation, such as a bio-mechanical problem causing an injury or illness, stress or lack of rest affecting quality, then the runner has some "junk" in the program, i.e., is overtraining, and should reduce mileage....usually from easy, maintenance days, although too much hard stuff can also constitute "quality-junk."
Finally, I don't think junk miles means the same thing to all runners....some can tolerate more mileage or intensity than others, for example. Nor does junk miles mean the same to a given runner under all conditions. For instance, it means something different in a marathon program than in, say, a 5k or a 1500m program. A marathon program should include higher mileage and longer runs than one for a 5k, whereas a 5k program requires a different mix of speedwork than marathon training. Junk miles for one can be quality for the other. In my opinion, a program contains junk miles if the mix of quantity and quality is wrong for the training objective.
What do you think? What does "junk miles" mean to you? How do you avoid them?
Jim2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)