Hi Ken,

In answer to your question: personally, I felt like I had nothing to recover from in week 4, nor in week 8. The workouts to date have all been very easy for me. I could have gone longer and harder for all of them. I am already in good shape; I'm not trying to go "couch to Ironman."

The training program is based on a build-3, recover-1 periodization schedule. This periodization starts with week 1. As the training builds up over time, then the importance of the recovery week will increase. If I had to guess, I imagine that Fink includes recovery weeks at the beginning of the program for three reasons:

1. To get people used to the idea of periodization
2. To get bodies used to the idea of periodization (whether or not the minds inside their bodies think they need it)
3. To allow people that actually need a break to get it

Please do not confuse a "recovery" week with an "off" week. I don't get a week off every four weeks. I get slightly less volume of the same workouts.

As other people have mentioned, when I get to weeks 16, 20, and 24, at which points the training will have ramped up drastically, I probably really will need a recovery week. The concept of build-recover build-recover seems very well established, based on the extensive reading that I have done.

I originally wrote the phrase you quoted without "every 4th week is reduced for recovery" inserted, but as it stood it was technically incorrect. Had I simply written "increasing in duration every week", I thought somebody might mention that I should be thinking about recovery as well. Recovery is definitely part of my plan, but it wasn't the point of the original post.

The point of my original post, as has been addressed by many other respondees (thank you all for your comments) was to evaluate the soundness of this training philsophy (i.e., HRM training at aerobic rates), not necessarily this particular training plan.

From you original response and subsequent comments, I gather that you do not think that this form of training is useful. Is this correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth; I want to understand your views. If you have an alternative view, please share it with us. Spend a few minutes writing something that will lend credence to your opinions.

I'm sure that you have some useful advice that you could share. I look forward to reading your comments.

Mike Mullins

Congrats on the use of the word "eschew" that was a fine first attempt! :D
Anyway, I used to use a HRM for all my running and a lot of my biking. After a while it just got to be annoying and I knew where my HR was without even looking at it. I stopped using one about 2 or 3 years ago and I have improved a lot faster without it than with it. LSD running is what made me a long slow distance runner. I can run a 30 miler at a 10 minute pace with no problem, but it was hell to ever find any pace improvements. I gave up on LSD last year entirely and have been setting PRs after PRs at every distance from 5k to 20 miles.

I think the whole idea behind my current training schedule is that if my target race run pace is 8-8:15 for HIM then I should spend a lot of time running around that pace, and not much slower. I should be running most of my shorter runs much faster (I did a 7 miler at 7:18 pace last night) and do a 5k with 2 mile repeats at 6:20 and 6:40 (downhill and uphill) in the middle. I alternate fast days like last night with a lot of time in the 10-15 mile range at 8:15-8:45 but nothing over 9 minute pace anymore. I used to do LSD at 10:00 pace but have since determined that not only is it a total waste of time, but it was actually contributing to injuries as I was no longer running smoothly and efficiently that slow.

On the bike I found that doing 20 mile recovery rides at ~20mph riding speed (18mph average) on flatlands was a great way to recover from runs or long fast rides. I do that a lot on my 4th recovery week in the rotation.

Regarding your 5k time, I have almost become convinced that some people just can't go any faster for anything but very short distances. It all comes down to how much power you can produce vs how much you weigh. If you dropped 20lb (most of us can't) I bet you could run a 5k maybe as much as 10% faster. There's a reason the fast marathoners all weigh 115lb.

---

---

If you're going to train using heart rates and zones, you need to be sure that you have the right heart rates for each zone. How did you find your heart rates for each zone?

Why is that unlikely? Some of the stuff that's coming out of that IP address is totally misplaced. This thread included.

I am in week 16 of the same plan for LP. When I was beginning - I felt really slow and crappy, but the "build" weeks have gotten rid of the sluggishness for the most part. I started doing the "competitive" plan, and figured if it got to be too much I would switch to intermediate. So far it has been OK - the swims are challenging for me - but thats cause I suck at swimming so I NEVER get them done in an hour.

But to answer your question, this is the first time I have gone by HR - and I really like it. Last year I have a feeling all my workouts and racing were in Z3 - my 5k pace was 8:00, and my marathon pace was 8:40. Allready I have noticed a difference in how fast my Z4 efforts are (especially running). Just got done with a hellish hour bike with 5 x 5 min Z4 with 3 min spins between. Ouch. Its gotta make you faster right?

I don't notice a difference in the recovery weeks, cause the difference between a 14 and 15 hour week doesnt do too much for me. Ooops, I guess I can't really answer your question, cause I am not fast, and I have never trained "fast." We'll see how it goes at LP, it'll be my first, so I have nothing to compare it to - but looking at the program, I don't see how I couldn't be prepared with sooo many long bricks.

I'm training for IMC and have just moved from Base to Build. I stayed in base building starting in Oct (Oct to end of March), tossed in there I did the Honolulu Marathon and a lot Sport conditioning classes (really focused on my core and flexiblity)

Doing the long easy bikes and runs killed me mentally at first, but... It has totally paid off. Now, my fast mid day long runs are at 10 bpm less than last season and I'm faster, my sprint repeats and hill repeat days are easier and faster now.

My biking is way better. I did my baseline bike fitness test a couple of weeks ago. Last August before IMC was doing 240watts at Lactate thresold and 170bpm heart rate, now I'm 350watts, at 160 bpm heart rate at threshold. From Oct to end of March I did about one long easy bike a week (4+ hours) and two to three 1 hour bike sessions mid week (each of those sessions had a purpose, recovery, power, technique...). I did ride some of the local CycloCross races too.

My swimming is better too, I'm a head of my swimming fitness compared to this time last year too.

I'd say stick with it just make sure each work out is a quality one.

I'm having fun with my work outs now, I did an hour spin class tonight, tossed on the running shoes and hit the treadmill for 1:30 right afterwards (today is my long mid week tempo run). No way could I do that this time last year, no friggin way.

I think this guy hit the nail on the head... i.e. - If I were to use the 220-age formula and based my zones on that, I train at a much slower pace then I am this year. (I did that last year)... However, I've finished HIM @ 5:17 with an AVG HR of 167, which would be above 91% MHR, according to 220 - Age determination factor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't think the 220-age formula even comes close to working for me.

Thanks triguy! That was the kind of information that I was really looking for. I appreciate your comments, and I'm glad to hear that you are setting lots of PRs.

Continued success,

mm

"HR Training: Wasting my time?"

I don't think that is wasting time. For the inexperienced, and for the newbie it will give them some rough guidlines as to what going slow, moderate and fast means. It will put some numbers to it. I say this because the general population has no idea of what even slow to moderate intensity physical activity is. I recall getting people in to do Vo2 max tests in university. We would often need to a establish a base-line in the general population before testing athletes. People would come in. We would get them hooked up on the bike or the trad-mill and then get them going. Then all of a sudden I would look over at them and they would have stopped. I would ask why, and their typical answer was that they had started to sweat!!

For the experienced athlete, my feeling is that an HRM is an even rougher guidline. Helpful, but not essential and if you become a slave to it in training and racing, you may not be reaching your absolute best performance. I never used one when I was training and racing seriously and came close to breaking 9:00 for IM a few times. Late in my career, I won a HRM for winning a local running road race. I was interested in checking it out and doing some experimentation and playing around with it. I trained with one for about a month and low and behold, ALL of my key workouts and paces that I had been training at for years matched up almost perfectly with the respective heart-rate zones for that intensity.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog