Maintaining low HR whilst runnig

Hey all, (nice forum Alex)

Im training under AP at the moment and he has got me back into the slow runs trying to maintain a low HR (50-80%). My HR has always been high when running and even when im really trying i find it hard too stay under the 75%. After speaking with Al he suggested i go 4wks of driving to a dead flat road where i have total control. So for the last 2 wks i have done just that and im finding it helpful. Just wondering if you guys have got anymore tips, hints.

Cheers


My bad about the username. Changed now. SORRY

seems to me like a good way to make a fun activity as boring as hell.

things like running econemy take a long time to develop. a hell of a lot longer than 4 weeks. consistent running kms over months will get you more efficient no matter what hr you run at. for example if you run 2 hours at your "high" hr and get through it fine then thats cool for you. if in fact the given hr is too high you will be ruined at the end of the session or injured and you will learn from that. if you need to go easier, run slower

I am the same. I like to limit my aerobic runs to 150BPM. I find that high cadence, at least 90RPM, focusing on high turn over and quick foot strike help to lower my HR when running.

After a while off running i find i venture very high into e2 without much effort, so when i crack 150, i slow down and walk till it hits 130, then get going again. It takes time, but eventually you train the body to run for days at that HR.

andrew b wrote:seems to me like a good way to make a fun activity as boring as hell.

things like running econemy take a long time to develop. a hell of a lot longer than 4 weeks. consistent running kms over months will get you more efficient no matter what hr you run at. for example if you run 2 hours at your "high" hr and get through it fine then thats cool for you. if in fact the given hr is too high you will be ruined at the end of the session or injured and you will learn from that. if you need to go easier, run slower

I see just the opposite from what I have experienced when you start training with a low HR you'll find you'll be much less fatigued and tired and you'll be able to start backing up a lot more frequently. I apply a similar principle to the guys I coach, initially they complain at how slow and easy it feels, but within a short period of time they increase their volume and the training frequency they are doing and what ends up happening is that they become much more economical and efficient at their goal race paces.

I've got a stack of guys that have been able to move their zone 1 run pace from 5:30min/k down to 4:30min/k, just check of triathlog for the results.

The reason behind this sort of approach is that you are constantly reinforcing good running form by not finishing off your runs with fatigue. This then allows you to run more often and consequently you are reinforcing good running form over and over again.

It's a great off season protocol to follow.


fluro

Nathan C wrote:I am the same. I like to limit my aerobic runs to 150BPM. I find that high cadence, at least 90RPM, focusing on high turn over and quick foot strike help to lower my HR when running.

After a while off running i find i venture very high into e2 without much effort, so when i crack 150, i slow down and walk till it hits 130, then get going again. It takes time, but eventually you train the body to run for days at that HR.

G'day Nathan,

I got to ask, when you do crack 150bpm, why are you slowing down, IF, you are handling the session? Do you think cracking 150bpm is preventing you from running more?

Just curious to know and understand your reasoning for putting caps on your efforts.

Fluro

Paul F wrote:

andrew b wrote:seems to me like a good way to make a fun activity as boring as hell.

things like running econemy take a long time to develop. a hell of a lot longer than 4 weeks. consistent running kms over months will get you more efficient no matter what hr you run at. for example if you run 2 hours at your "high" hr and get through it fine then thats cool for you. if in fact the given hr is too high you will be ruined at the end of the session or injured and you will learn from that. if you need to go easier, run slower

I see just the opposite from what I have experienced when you start training with a low HR you'll find you'll be much less fatigued and tired and you'll be able to start backing up a lot more frequently. I apply a similar principle to the guys I coach, initially they complain at how slow and easy it feels, but within a short period of time they increase their volume and the training frequency they are doing and what ends up happening is that they become much more economical and efficient at their goal race paces.

I've got a stack of guys that have been able to move their zone 1 run pace from 5:30min/k down to 4:30min/k, just check of triathlog for the results.

The reason behind this sort of approach is that you are constantly reinforcing good running form by not finishing off your runs with fatigue. This then allows you to run more often and consequently you are reinforcing good running form over and over again.

It's a great off season protocol to follow.
fluro

Just got back from a 1hr 30min run. Had an average HR of 71% (143). Thats the lowest i have had over that distance run ever.

Have to agree with you paul on the fatigue thing. I dont feel as if i have dont much at all. I do find it hard for the first 25min to just go slow but i am starting to realise the beneifits over the later part of the run. Maintaing a pace at ease over the whole run is a different feeling to what im used to.

Just on the "cadence" thing running. I have also been trying the shorter fast paces to increase cadence but i find that my HR increases. I think my problem is that i cant get the breathing correct. When i jog i find a nice rythm with my breathing. As soon as i increase the cadence i just start breathing faster and the HR goes through the roof.

Im guessing practice makes perfect here too?????

Scott

andrew b wrote:seems to me like a good way to make a fun activity as boring as hell.

things like running econemy take a long time to develop. a hell of a lot longer than 4 weeks. consistent running kms over months will get you more efficient no matter what hr you run at. for example if you run 2 hours at your "high" hr and get through it fine then thats cool for you. if in fact the given hr is too high you will be ruined at the end of the session or injured and you will learn from that. if you need to go easier, run slower

I agree with above...to a point!! Yes, running economy takes a long time to develop, and is something you never stop working on. Even when your economy plateaus, you still need to keep doing the same basic training. It's somewhat of an essenatial skill to know how to run easily, since it accounts for 80-90% of your running time.

Deeks is famously quotes as saying that running is 99% boredom, and 1% excitment. You can't avoid boredom unless you live somewhere with limitless different trails / paths / etc. That's jsut how it is.

And running is primarily a case of risk management. Your primary aim is to do as much hard training as possible...but we all know that's high risk and not sustainable. So pulling back from that position, you lower the risk by interspersing easy runs, to mediate the risks. It's a fine balance.

To use an analogy...think of hard training as Pacman, who chews you up and breaks you down. Then you've got Bob the Builder who gets to work during rest / easy sessions to repair and build you up again. You need to make sure Pacman nevers get too far ahead of Bob the Builder, otherwise Pacman will go wild and destroy you. It's all risk management, and learning that is idividual and takes time.

About 8 months ago Paul F introduced me to low HR running and whilst the first few months were frustrating the results have been worth it. It was something completely foreign to me and the constant monitoring of HR and slowing down pee-ed me off at first. I kept thinking I am fittier than this. Stick with it and results will come.

From Cam "running economy takes a long time to develop, and is something you never stop working on. Even when your economy plateaus, you still need to keep doing the same basic training. It's somewhat of an essenatial skill to know how to run easily, since it accounts for 80-90% of your running time."

Hi Scott, In this day everyone wants something to happen now. Triathletes are some of the worst for it. Keep practicing, it will take time.

I find the mindset can easily effect the HR on these slow runs, relax your shoulders and your mind, dont check the HR monitor too often, dont panic when it goes over for a bit with a little incline or something it will come back down.
Looking forward to one of these runs on the weekend - it has been a while.

Paul F wrote:

G'day Nathan,

I got to ask, when you do crack 150bpm, why are you slowing down, IF, you are handling the session? Do you think cracking 150bpm is preventing you from running more?

Just curious to know and understand your reasoning for putting caps on your efforts.

Fluro

hey Fluro I have my zones tested regularly with my coach, hence every few months I have a new set of zones to work to. Now when I head out for my long run its supposed to be aerobic. I probably should have worded it better, but when I break out of the aerobic zone, I am not doing the prescribed session anymore. Generally its late in the session when im fatigued or just running beyond my ability. So i slow, let the HR drop back into the correct zone and carry on.

I'm interested to hear counter thoughts though.

Hi Nathan, Do you find the zones change much between tests? Do you test power also? And what do you notice? I'm pretty much the same with my max aerobic being 152, it goes up alittle more when I'm IM fit. Even then I still cap the sessions at 150 anyway as it meets the requirements of the session. What your doing sounds right on the money to me, Edit: I don't walk I just back off a little to get under the 150 again. Why do you walk to get it down to 130??? Who is your coach?

hahaha well at the min i am so far from run fit that i need to walk or it does not go down!! i find 130 gives me a few mins of running before it peaks. generally when i get run fit i find that, like you i can back it off to get the HR down, but at present, backing off means walking! fark i am fat!!

Edit: i train with HERT.
www.hert.com.au for those interested.

For perspective what is "not run fit" in terms of pace? I'm still interested to hear your answers to the other questions.

The HR cap thing can be good but it can also work against you. I'm moving more away HR training and power based training, which I used both for a number of years. The advantages of having these tools is that they are great for calibrating your RPE. Once your RPE is calibrated I feel you should use that as your primary indicator of effort.

So now I run my long runs according to how I feel, and there are times within a run I'll start pushing the pace without knowing what my HR is doing, it may exceed 150bpm, it may not, but I'm responding to what I think my body is handling at the time, not according to a HR, or pace I should be holding. Bare in mind this is all based around the time I have allocated to do a long run. I should add I no longer say I'm heading out for a 2hr run. It could end up being 1:45 or 2:15, so it becomes a training window , once again it's based on my RPE tellling how I have been able to handle and execute that run. My RPE doesn't turn off once the run is finished either. Next week long run will also be based on how well I was able to recover and how much the previous long run impacted on my other sessions.

At the end of the day the intensity will fall in line with your race goals, IF, you structuree your training with the solo purpose of meeting the demands of the event. If you training is not meeting the demands of the event, especially with your key sessions, then that is when you'll start seeing inappropriate training intensities creep into a training plan.

For example, If I want an honest assessment of how hard I need to ride at my next IM which will be in Malaysia, I'll make sure

1. I'll ride it at a time of the day that will match the temperature in Malaysia

2. I'll ride it over a course that has the same profile as Malaysia

3. I'll ride 180km at goal race effort

By the end of that session I'll have all the feedback I need. My brain will be able to make the most accurate assessment.

The exact same principle should be applied to your swimming and running, but obviously adjustments will be made to allow for the risk of injuries occuring especially with the run.

From an N = 1 perspective, for the past 4 months I have been applying this sort of strategy coming from being heavily reliant on training with a HR monitor, pace and a power meter, yet I'm handling more training then I ever had, I feel my intensities have naturally moved in line with my race goal intensities, which gets confirmed regularly with key sessions.

Just be weary of placing caps on your sessions(more important on easy days), especially your key sessions, because you have those days when your body is telling you it is on fire, and when it is, let it fire.


fluro

[quote="Nathan C"]

Paul F wrote:

I probably should have worded it better, but when I break out of the aerobic zone, I am not doing the prescribed session anymore. Generally its late in the session when im fatigued or just running beyond my ability. So i slow, let the HR drop back into the correct zone and carry on.
I'm interested to hear counter thoughts though.

G'day Nathan,

The bit I highlighted above seems to be the opposite what you want to be occurring in a race. You don't want to be slowing down, you want to be speeding up. So running they way you are is conditioning your body and MIND to do the opposite of how you are expecting it to race.

If your doing Port for example, you may need to condition yourself to run out of your aerobic zone to get through those hills, then be able to settle back into your aerobic zone and be able to hold pace without slowing down.

A successful long run strategy is to managed fatigue at a pace that is going to resemble the effort you expect to run at in the race. Now if your pace is too fast in trainng to elicit enough fatigue then restructure your week to carry some faitgue into that long run. That will then teach you to run at a pace that is matching your race paces and is addressing fatigue. If that still doesn't work then run longer, if that doesn't work then run more often. Find a system for meeting the demands of an IM, don't focus on just putting in an overload for the sake of getting fitter (that's okay to do in the off season).

Just to reiterate, it's really important for IM athletes to align their training paces with their goal race paces in order to structure the right amount of overload.

fluro

[quote="Paul F"]

Nathan C wrote:

Paul F wrote:

I probably should have worded it better, but when I break out of the aerobic zone, I am not doing the prescribed session anymore. Generally its late in the session when im fatigued or just running beyond my ability. So i slow, let the HR drop back into the correct zone and carry on.
I'm interested to hear counter thoughts though.

G'day Nathan,

The bit I highlighted above seems to be the opposite what you want to be occurring in a race. You don't want to be slowing down, you want to be speeding up. So running they way you are is conditioning your body and MIND to do the opposite of how you are expecting it to race.

If your doing Port for example, you may need to condition yourself to run out of your aerobic zone to get through those hills, then be able to settle back into your aerobic zone and be able to hold pace without slowing down.

A successful long run strategy is to managed fatigue at a pace that is going to resemble the effort you expect to run at in the race. Now if your pace is too fast in trainng to elicit enough fatigue then restructure your week to carry some faitgue into that long run. That will then teach you to run at a pace that is matching your race paces and is addressing fatigue. If that still doesn't work then run longer, if that doesn't work then run more often. Find a system for meeting the demands of an IM, don't focus on just putting in an overload for the sake of getting fitter (that's okay to do in the off season).

Just to reiterate, it's really important for IM athletes to align their training paces with their goal race paces in order to structure the right amount of overload.

fluro

During certain parts of a program this could be a way to train, but its not THE way to train. What about if at this point in time they are developing his aerobic capacity and efficiency before getting more specific as he develops through the season/seasons? I would suggest that for almost all the athletes out there there Z2 (which is basically where he is training) or slower is their race pace in an IM marathon albeit on the day the HR is often higher by about 1 zone (for the same pace) until the fatigue sets in. most then struggle to hold this level let alone get faster

Glenn C wrote:For perspective what is "not run fit" in terms of pace? I'm still interested to hear your answers to the other questions.

Run fit is 4:30min/km aerobic pace. current is 5:30min/km

Now at this stage, i am building the engine, so its all LSD work, no quality no goal pace, just getting fit.
Do you find the zones change much between tests?

Yeah heaps. My job means i could go from riding 400-500km weeks, to sitting in the bush for a month watching bad people do naughty things. Hence a month of sitting around is not great for the fitness, laying still for long peroids of time means you loose that muscle bulk. Not like you can go for a quick jog through the target area.........

Do you test power also?
Yes....

And what do you notice?
Depending on the state of activity there is a large variation between max HR, and power produced.

During certain parts of a program this could be a way to train, but its not THE way to train. What about if at this point in time they are developing his aerobic capacity and efficiency before getting more specific as he develops through the season/seasons?
I agree aerobic capacity, efficiency and economy should be a focal point outside of your IM specific preps. I would then focus on developing your Threshold paces (10km run, 40km ride, 1000-1500m swim). By lifting your threshold you are opening up a big window to allow you to lift your IM efforts even further. People who are Threshold fit coming into an IM specific prep have a greater potential to race at a higher level, i.e upper zone 2 as opposed to lower zone 2.
So when trying to lift your threshold, the key to those sessions is freshness so that you can reach and hold your threshold efforts. You would spread these sessions out within a given 1-2 week training block as much as possible. Unlike, IM specific training, the goal then is to block multiple sessions together to enhance your economy and efficiency while managing fatigue, developing your fat metabolism, minimizing glycogen depletion, controlling body temperature, managing mental arousal of fatigue. Some of these IM specific limiters don’t even come into the equation when you’re doing threshold specific training.

I would suggest that for almost all the athletes out there there Z2 (which is basically where he is training) or slower is their race pace in an IM marathon albeit on the day the HR is often higher by about 1 zone (for the same pace) until the fatigue sets in. most then struggle to hold this level let alone get faster
Zone 2 pace is way faster than IM specific paces. It is very easy to get your average age grouper to get their zone 1 run pace down to 5:00min/k but it is very difficult to get your average age grouper to run a 3:30 IM run. This anomaly has been around for 15-20 years and is getting worse. Back in 1998 a 3;30 IM run was a FOP, now in 2009 a 3:30 IM run is still a FOP run. Nothing has changed despite all the advances in technology and training principles.
I personally think, as I said on slowtwitch this is a result of IM training principles, being developing for main stream athletes that are time constrained, working and have a family, that basically overtime have moved away from the specific demands of an IM event.
For example, I use your long run if you don’t mind. I can remember you developed your long run up to 2hr and you were holding 4:00min/k. For me, that leans more towards a HIM specific long run, and would I be wrong in saying your pace for that long run is closer to your HIM race paces rather than your IM race paces.
As the article I sent you states states the negative impact of running faster than race paces is

“Technically maladaptive if race intensity motor pattern were very different?”

But also you’re not able to recruit enough muscle fibres that are the ones that you’ll be calling on in the second ½ of the marathon. What I believe happens when you limit your long run is that you are overcompensating and developing the same muscles fibres and that being used for most of you runs. Athletes need to learn to recruit muscles fibres that are not readily being trained in shorter sessions, they are ones that only become activated in longer sessions, once those initial muscle fibres that are very well conditioned have become fatigued.

“Premature fatigue and inadequate stimulus of low threshold motor units?”

I think the majority of IM programs out there are HIM training for an IM, because of the caps that are being placed on key sessions.

I’m being a lab rat on myself leading up to Malaysia in 11 weeks, so maybe I should post my training on here to see how it goes and the direction I’m moving in??

Fluro

Hi Paul, That 4 min/k pace was only for one run and at the back end of it. My top of Z2 pace (on a good day) was closer to 4.12-4.15. which if both the run and bike are executed properly are well within the ability. I was basically doing what your are talking about in your first para above. So I disagree that it is more like HIM training. My HIM race pace is under 4.00min/k so if I were to be training for a HIM I would want to be running slightly quicker than 4.00/k not slower if I were to be trying to address the speed element. For the most part the run pace is a result rather than an input for my long training runs with a focus to run in Z2 which just happens to be around 4.10-15 when fit. Now when you talk about lifting those thresholds by letting it run into Z3 would mean my runs would be under 4.00min/k and this would in your opinion indicate I was training for a half?

I would also disagree that 3.30 is a FOP runner. And also to look at the run in isolation doesn't tell the whole picture. The fastest Agers are now riding 4.45-5.00s which is significantly faster than years ago and this has a significant impact on the IM mara. Not to mention some of their swim times (Bulldog)! It would be more accurate to to asses IM finish times for the group you are looking at (FOP) and they are significantly faster than in days gone by. I'm sure if these guys and girls were to ride and swim as slow as the FOP guys of the past they would be running ALOT quicker.

G’day Glenn,
I agree that 4:12-15min/k is well within your capabilities in a race. That’s a sub 3hr IM run which would put you in the top 1% of all age group athletes.


“For the most part the run pace is a result rather than an input for my long training runs with a focus to run in Z2 which just happens to be around 4.10-15 when fit”


This is the great point and the key to IM success. There is no need to focus on IM speed (result) it will naturally progress by specifically addressing the ability to hold your economy and efficiency in testing conditions(BT sessions). There is a difference between getting fit and getting IM race fit. Getting fit will see you getting faster and stronger (endurance based protocol) whereas becoming IM fit (Stamina based protocol) is about testing that stamina to make it bullet proof.


Outside of an IM prep, definitely focus on improving how fast you can run at a given level of effort, once you begin your IM preps focus on how long you can hold that given level of effort. The long becomes the key part of the equation.


Now when you talk about lifting those thresholds by letting it run into Z3 would mean my runs would be under 4.00min/k and this would in your opinion indicate I was training for a half?

What I mean by Threshold pace is your zone 5a effort (10km pace), I view zone 3 as more tempo efforts that are used to pull your zone 2 pace closer (higher % of FT). In an IM run you can run up to 80% of your FT pace. In the off season if you focus on a threshold protocol you’ll be raising your threshold paces and as a result when you start your IM specific preps you’ll probably only be at 70% of FT fit. That then becomes your 10% window where you use your IM specific preps to become 80% of FT pace fit. However, developing the ability to run at 80% of FT paces in a IM run is very difficult to achieve (Elites do).


Novice athlete should not follow a off season threshold training protocol, because their primary limiter is developing the endurance to just cover the distance, but that is not your limiter in this situation. This would really only apply to people who are capable of running under 3:30, why because they have the ability to run much closer to FT effort, and therefore FT paces needs to be addressed in training to allow IM paces to keep developing.


I would also disagree that 3.30 is a FOP runner. And also to look at the run in isolation doesn't tell the whole picture. The fastest Agers are now riding 4.45-5.00s which is significantly faster than years ago and this has a significant impact on the IM mara. Not to mention some of their swim times (Bulldog)! It would be more accurate to to asses IM finish times for the group you are looking at (FOP) and they are significantly faster than in days gone by. I'm sure if these guys and girls were to ride and swim as slow as the FOP guys of the past they would be running ALOT quicker.



This was brought up on Slowtwitch and a guy did a study on Hawaii showing age group times overall had not improved for 10-15years. It also concluded that age group time came down pretty quick 15-20years ago, but then there was a significant levelling off. You would think with improved training principles and more so the introduction of power meters, running times would have really jumped. But they honestly haven’t. Lakerfan was adamant that power meters have contributed to run times getting quicker, but this guy, proved it with results to show that run times have in fact gotten slightly slower. This really makes me question the effectiveness of power meters and HR monitors.
Back to your long run. At 2hrs you running around 66% of the time you expect to be on your feet in a race. I think this is just too short, as there are significant impacts of the body that occur beyond the 2hr mark, that can’t be replicated effectively with shorter harder sessions. As you know we only hold 2000cals as glycogen in our bodies, so to be effectively addressing our depleted glycogens stores we need longer runs that force ourselves to consume and replace calories at race pace in race conditions. Also, blood shunting is gradually redirecting blood from the digestive tract to the working muscles and skin as we become fatigued and over heat(big at Hawaii). We need to train ourselves to then learn how to digest when we only have 3-4% of our blood at our digestive system as opposed to 20-25% when we first start training. Short sessions do not bring these two significant factors in to play. I think we all can digest calories effectively up to 2hrs, but when we start moving beyond that we need to learn how to digest when our digestive system are under stress. To me this is how we direct meet the demand of an IM event, as opposed to do shorter, harder sessions to compensate. Short and harder sessions are good for other things but not good for what I consider to be the most important ingredient for success in an IM.........digestion.


Need a break

fluro

Paul, I was referring to your earlier post about drifting into Z3 not the threshold work that you are speaking of. I probably wasn't clear enough there.

2.30 hours was the longest run, that run had been dropped back to 2hours to account for the added effort of running the back end in Z3. I appear to have handled the volume of that build well. And have already thought about ways to correct some of the shortfalls for my next IM build. You may say why not do more, sometimes, no most times its best to put a great session/build up in the bank and observe how you respond to it over that week and year. Make changes carefully and after much reflection to move forward. The shoot from the hip (I feel really good today) approach leads to making poor decisions based on fear or ego. For 90% of the peoplpe 90% of the time they should be calculated in the planning and execution of sessions as most are not able to predict how they will respond in the short term let alone mid - longer term from their training. Thats why peoplpe get injured. Thats why so many turn up to IM fried or injured or both.

Good points above.

To give you an example of what I mean by meeting the demands of the event. I moved my second medium to long run today to 1pm instead of 5.30am. The reason being Mayalsia is going to be HOT, very hot. I also did the run today the day after my long hard ride (up to 4hrs now). So I'm carrying some faitgue from that.

I weighed myself before the run, 79.9kg and off I went on my 2hr run in 35 degrees (maybe hotter it was supposed to get to 39 degrees).
I drank 3 litres of water (camelback), 1 can of coke, 1 can of V and a handful of mixed lollies. I pushed the pace slightly over IM effort to test my fitness and hydration. When I finished the run I thought for sure I nailed my hydration as I felt great even towards the end of the run. However, I weighed myself and I was 78.6kg. So even after consuming well over 3 litres of fluids I still lost 1.3kg of fluids. Not good.

I would have never have discovered this shortfall if I had of kept my run early in the morning in much cooler conditions. This to me is IM specific training, that is demanding on the body and it should be more about developing all the systems (digestive, cardiovasular, body temp, etc).

That's the sort of bigger picture assessments I'm making in order to prepare myself for what the course is going to demand of me on the day.

If people stick to a well designed basic week that doesn't involve chopping and changing sessions around, and if people learn to rest when they are tired and are prepared to modify their session to fit in line with how their bodies are accepting the sessions then they shouldn't get injured.

As you would know I don't put people of 4 weeks blocks of training (3 weeks of build with 1 week of recovery),because I feel we can handle a lot more than that. I work on 6-8 week blocks. When you work on longer blocks of training people are then able to make more realistic assessments of what they can handle. The shorter 3-4 weeks tend to put people in a position of training too hard, that doesn't match their recovery stratgies on a day to day basis.



In terms of being fried and overdoing it I think that is quite hard to get to from a training point of view, purely because we are so time limited. Our bodies can take quite a lot of punishment, where we fall a apart comes down to poor nutrtional practices, poorly planned out basic weeks, and lack of sleep,etc. It's these things that we all have full control over, but quite easily get neglected thus resulting in injuries.

We can handle the training we just can't seem to handle preparing ourselves for the training.

It might seem like I'm suggesting we shoot from the hip but underneath those "training windows" where you can make the decision to go longer or shorter, harder or easy are carefully planned out basic weeks, that promote long term consistency, in an environment that will challenge you.

I think people over structurise their actual sessions without paying enough attention to the day to day changes their bodies are subject to according to the lives they live (work, stress, family, weather, poor nutrition).
The fixed structure which should not vary too much lies in the basic week, 6-8 week block of work that has been planned.


fluro

Glenn C wrote:Paul, I was referring to your earlier post about drifting into Z3 not the threshold work that you are speaking of. I probably wasn't clear enough there.

2.30 hours was the longest run, that run had been dropped back to 2hours to account for the added effort of running the back end in Z3. I appear to have handled the volume of that build well. And have already thought about ways to correct some of the shortfalls for my next IM build. You may say why not do more, sometimes, no most times its best to put a great session/build up in the bank and observe how you respond to it over that week and year. Make changes carefully and after much reflection to move forward. The shoot from the hip (I feel really good today) approach leads to making poor decisions based on fear or ego. For 90% of the peoplpe 90% of the time they should be calculated in the planning and execution of sessions as most are not able to predict how they will respond in the short term let alone mid - longer term from their training. Thats why peoplpe get injured. Thats why so many turn up to IM fried or injured or both.

G'day Glenn,

Here is something that brett Sutton wrote today.

my point is when your out running and feeling great and the horses ,or legs if you prefer want you
to let them off the bit for a real gallop
ole doc says stuff the program let them horse have their head .
thats the key to improvement when its there take it .
when its not again stuff the program DONT FORCE IT
this is the best advise i can give
dont become a slave to either your written program or
your hr monitor (Brett Sutton)

Like a said, our day to day well being is dependent on so many variables, we do need to adjust our training overload according to those variables on a daily basis. Locking into training sessions, HR caps, paces, distances, etc doesn't allow for those days that makes us feel on fire and likewise those days when we feel tired. We need to learn how to pay attention more to how we are feeling in order to make the micro changes to our sessions, should a situations arise. I think this leads to long term improvements on a consistent basis.

Fluro

Not talking the same speeds/experience as Paul/Glenn but I noticed on my event yesterday I started out around 155/156 bpm and around 10km I was around 163/164, at around the same RPE.
I didn't look at the heart rate much after that, I knew I was hurting anyway.
Average with walks & pit stops was 158, which is 3-4 bpm above what my long training runs have been at.