Do the long slow principles hold true for Oly's and Sprints?

---

-----------------------:)
SUPPORT OPERATION REBOUND:
http://www.operationreboundcalifornia.kintera.org/ejs3

Kestrel Syndicate
Macca Fan Club

"Complete a race pace 30minute effort and then take 60-65% of that(70-75%- if you are a top age grouper) and that is about your AeT(the ideal pace for an IM race). My last IM race- I held 145(give or take a few beats either way)"

Would this be the average HR for the 30 min or the max? In my last race I had a max of 186. Based on that my AeT at 65% would be 121. That's significantly lower than the 180 minus age formula and I would probably have to limit myself to just walking briskly. If I was using 65% of my average I might as well stay on the couch.

Am I missing something here?

Don

Julian, I find the science behind all of our toil to be fascinating but also a bit confusing. You guy's seem to have a very good grasp of the science, and as a newcomer who doesn't post often, I enjoy learning from from y'all.

I bought a book when I first got into running (1.5 years ago) called, "HRM training for the compleat idiot", by John L Parker (Once a runner). He really breaks it down to a (idiot) simple level. But I have since become clouded with all the different terms and zones that everyone is so fond of. J. Parker's method is, you need to find out your max HR,then you only need to know two numbers,simple enough. They are your "Recovery Ceiling" 70% of max, and "Threshold Floor" 85% of max. He keeps it simple by instructing readers to Keep ALL easy and long runs BELOW the Recovery Ceiling 70%max and ALL hard runs ABOVE the threshold Floor 85%max. He describes how most will find it impossible to run that slow <70%max but ultimately one will start to run faster and the Slow run will turn into gliding along at a respectable clip. He also adds that the Hard days get harder as you are more aerobically fit. He says it's easy to peg your heart up to 90% max when unfit but as you gain fitness, you have to run harder and harder to get there.When I started running I never had the sensation all of you describe as running TOO slow @ <70% max, it was all I could do to run, at any pace. I do agree that the hard days have gone to a new level of suffering, and I don't quiet break 85% max on my "tempo runs".

My confusion lies with all the terms and training zones. Parker says that your easy(recovery) and long runs should be below 70%max, 70% max on a 18mi run aint no day at the beach, it is still probably faster than most AG's train on their long/easy runs. I start out my runs gradually warming up 55-60% area then build up to a comfortable pace around 60-65% max on my long runs. The same confusion at the other end has me wondering if I'm doing this right. I understand a tempo run is supposed to be just under or @ LT, for me this is approx 85% +/- a beat or two. I know this zone is painful and I am trying to build my endurance in this area. BUT there is a lot of territory between 70-85% max and this brings me to my question. Does one gain any benefit from training in this middle zone? Friel's zones from z1-z5a certainly encompass the middle area. My other question is if you agree that one needs to do all your easy work at or just below 70%. Is it a waste of time to do your long runs at 60% Should I be building up to a 3hr run at 70%? Is this roughly where gordo describes AeT? Because it still isn't easy for me to hold that pace over 2.5hrs. Sorry for the long post. Thanks!!

RB, lots of this info is good stuff. You just have to remember that unless you really know, by lab tests, etc., what your LT threshold is and all that, it's all just a guess.

Something else...the recommended HR's for various race distances don't hold water for everyone, either. My max HR is calculated to be 220-46 or 174. Actually, my max HR is somewhere in the mid 180's. I can race at 165 for over 5 hours...and I'm at 175-180 the first 30+ minutes of the race as I'm thrashing about in the swim.

This doesn't leave me aching from lactic acid the next day, either. Sure, I'm tired, 5+ hours of racing is a hard effort for me. But, the point is, these numbers are all just guidelines. They may describe someone in the middle of a bell curve.

I remember helping conduct an experiment on a bunch of college guys on a treadmill. There was one fellow that couldn't run more than 2-3 minutes if his HR got over 150. BUT, he was outrunning everyone at that low HR. He really screwed up the data points...and they had to throw 6 weeks worth of workouts away because of this anomolous results.

It doesn't have to be so complicated. Maybe, run so easy on days you want to run easy, that you can hold a constant conversation during the run. Run at an effort that you could only talk in short bursts on your tempo days. On hard days...no talking is possible during the hard phases of that day.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Thanks Yaqui, you,julian,tripdx,and desert dude to name a few, have a wealth of knowledge that we new guys can benefit from. I really enjoy reading these training threads. Now if it would only stop storming I could get out and fire up that HRM!!

I believe you're referring to the classic 'tweener' workout when you're hangin' in there around 80% of MHR.

Intense enough to screw up your recovery and/or prevent you from attaining the volume you're shooting for with your long runs at low intensity... AND not intense enough to provide the VO2max and threshold enhancement a workout at higher intensity provides.

Daniels does a nice job of addressing the subject of 'zones to avoid' in his book.

I agree... that seems way to low for me. I could see 65% of max HR as AeT, but not 65% of lactate threshold (which is essentially what ESTS was saying with avg. HR over a 30min race). Was there a typo in there somewhere?

For me while running, the 180-age gives 150bpm, which is ~75% of my max HR (205). This is a pretty easy conversational pace, and one I do pretty much all my base endurance work. With the formula above, I would have to work out at about 110bpm, which would be walking.

---

_______________________________________________

To answer the question, yes it would be beneficial to train at various levels below the max. There are 4 other zones below the max and each one has its place. Usually low and just below the threshold are the best places to train. One is very easy and the other is quite hard. One is to recover and the other is to train.

JC, I know these "tweener" workouts are supposed to be a no-no. However, I believe Andrew Coggin, or is it Coggan, no, Coggin looks right, would say that lots of these 80-85% workouts are just what the doctor ordered. Why? Because in order to race at 80-85% HR, you need to train there. If you have racing adaptations that need to occur at the levels at which you race, why not train these adaptations by staying in this race intensity? If I'm mistating Dr. Coggin's position, please forgive me. It may be much more complicated than that, but, I may have summed it up nicely. Look up his stuff, if you're interested. I tend to train this way, but, I try other methods from time to time as I feel the need, or as I get "stale" or lose enjoyment with a training style.

I don't know that there really is a "correct" method. Actually, I think there are many methods that work for people with different physiologies (sounds eerily familiar to the religious threads!)...moreover, I think that most of these methods can work for any one individual...although some methods may work better than others at different times in an individual's development. And, there may be a preferential order in which to follow to achieve the best results...such as the well known base building followed by higher intensity stuff. It just depends. "Depends on what" is the real question.

If I were to start training a previously successful college athlete to do triathlons, I'd do something different whether the person had been a sprinter, a miler, a swimmer, a football player, or a tennis player. I'd do something different if they had been out of school last year, 5 years ago, or 20 years ago. I'd do something different depending upon whether they had become inactive, somewhat active, or kept up their fitness to a very high level. I'd do something different depending upon whether they wanted to complete a sprint, race a sprint, race a half, or finish a half. Honestly, I don't know if I could help someone to race a full ironman, because I've never done that, but, I could help them finish one...there's a big difference between racing an Ironman and finishing one. You get the idea...

Unless you are pushing for one of the top positions in your age group or overall, my biggest advice would be to enjoy it all. If you aren't enjoying your training, you're not doing it right. HR monitors can help you enjoy it, if you like that sort of information. So can a new bike, or a faster bike. If you can afford it, and you enjoy it, it's an option. That doesn't mean a person wanting to get to the top has to have a HR monitor and a new bike...if they have the genetics, they can get there without either HR monitor or new bike (as long as the bike is at least Decent!).

The successful triathlete likes to train and balances it well with his real life. Successful is different to each individual. Balance is different to each individual. I love to spend time with my children, I have to spend some time at work, and I like to do well in Triathlons. I use many different techinques of training (some that use HR monitoring, some that don't) and rarely train over 150 points (one point for each 100yd swimming, each mile biking, each 1/4 mile running) in a week...piddly by most serious triathlete's standards, but, I was fortunate enough to discover a training method/tool that works for me, and blessed with pretty good genes, so I hit the podium every once in a while. My wife doesn't get ticked off at my training, I get my work done, and my daughter thinks I'm King Daddy...doesn't get much better than this.

If you know your ultimate goal, your training methods should be adjusted accordingly.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

The only problem I have with HR rate training is that, while it is better than nothing, it just does not have a whole lot of grounding in either good science (by "good" I mean done by the best people, and peer-reviewed) or high-level elite training and coaching. It is always "approximate". {edit: By saying it is "not grounded in good science" I mean that its proponents often fail to apply it in a way that accurately reflects the science behind it. This failure is fatal to the application, IMO.} Since authors of training books and online programs need to have some way of communicating effort to athletes, they use HR. Again, it's better than nothing.

On the other hand, power (bike) and pace (run) don't lie, and are always telling you exactly what you are doing and what kind of adaptations you are inciting.

Your heart rate level does not trigger training adaptations -- your work rate and work duration do. So, I think it is better to measure those two things in training. HR just tags along for the ride.

Julian wrote: Your heart rate level does not trigger training adaptations -- your work rate and work duration do.

See, there you go again, saying in 15 words what I didn't say very well in 1000. Way to go, Julian!

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I'm not arguing with you b/c you likely have much more experience that I, but I wanted to bring up a couple of points and see what you thought of them.

The thing about HR training is that it eliminates another variable. In other words one day I might run 3 miles in 30:00 and it is pretty easy, the next time I might run it in 27:15 and have it be a near max effort. The next time I may run it in 28:30 and feel as if I am getting slower or being over-trained, etc. In actuality, my effort was different all 3 times. (time and effort ... 2 variables)

But, if my avr HR is always the same, and my times go from 33:00 to 29:45 to 29:00 ... then it's obvious that the fitness has improved. (time .. 1 variable)

With "pace" only, doesn't seem like you can evaluate the other variables, even is using something measure intensity ... like the PE scale (general and interpretive) or a HR #. If I have 2 times 27:00 @ 170HR and 28:00 at 160HR ... how do I know which one is better (i.e. progress)?

I think HR training is good for [1] measuring progress, and [2] ensuring that training stays at "training pace"

Is this making any sense?

---------------------------------

Another thing about Dr. maf's training ... it is not year-round slow training. You train at a low HR until your progress at that HR plateau's, then you train at another level (speed work as you guys call it).

Rather than try to work aerobically and anaerobically simultaneously, you do one or the other (2 different energy systems). We see the same thing in strength training. You're either trying to gain mass, or trying to lose fat. To try and do both at the same time is often counterproductive, except for the raw newbie.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

No, no, no. Your HR is a wildly imprecise variable for any short-term comparisons. Your pace is what counts.

"If I have 2 times 27:00 @ 170HR and 28:00 at 160HR ... how do I know which one is better (i.e. progress)? "


The 28:00 was slower. Pretty simple. If you were reasonable fresh for each run, the 28:00 induced a different training adaptation than the 27:00 run. Stop focusing on results -- that is for race day. Focus on inducing training adaptations. Your pace determines these.

You should read Daniels' Running Formula. Find your 10k pace (by entering a 10k or two). Run the paces in his tables for your various types of workouts. Only break out the HR monitor for your long runs to make sure you stay slow. That's only once a week.

Slow (or low HR) running is not a training paradigm -- it is a recovery paradigm. If your volume is so huge or intense that you are breaking down, throw on the HR monitor and slow down for a few days.

This is the lesson from Mark Allen's famous tale about finally solving the Ironman distance. The slow running didn't make him fast -- the slow running allowed him to recover and raise his volume to another level.

Then, put it back in the drawer and run on pace. Choose paces from Daniels. For the bike, choose power from Coggan.

I don't really agree with this approach Julian. Yes, I use my HRM to slow me down. But you overlook that somedays you are just dragging. The HRM picks this up and you find you need to slow down even more. Leaving the HRM in the draw throughs away information that would give you feedback during the workout. Why throw away free information?

The HRM also helps me pick up on changes in conditions. Here in Florida, that means heat. The heat affects my HR heavily after about three miles. If I just go on pace, I will quickly find that my easy 9:00 pace after a few miles on a hot day turns into a gut busting pace after the heat does its thing. The HRM picks this up quickly. Training on pace won't.

I don't see why you want to throw away this free information. I do see why you don't want to be a slave to the HRM though.

Pacing in Florida,

.. it seems that both ajfrank and julian are on the same page, but perhaps emphasizing different paragraphs.

Julian makes good points... HR is not an element that (in and of itself) tells you a lot... It's the "rate" (as Julian described it) that determines it's value... In short, HR and effort are defining elements but without effort place in it's proper context - recovery or improvement, it says very little.

Incremental gain of effort at the expense of recovery time is a poor option. Incremental gain of speed without loss of effort is the best results and this results are best noted through determining effort. And, AJFrank said it correctly... why eliminate instant feedback of effort. A common mistake I have noted is insufficient volume for the intensity level I am training... and, most of my errors were a result of miscalculation of effort since effort is constantly changing because of ... aging, environmental changes, injury, lack of proper rest/sleep, poor training schedule, diet changes, etc... lots' of things make determining effort difficult to keep track. The HRM is the best device I know that quantifiably accounts for those changes. Experience (i.e., pacing for example) is the second best device (IMHO)... but, ironically it's the HRM that provides the best definition of experience and it's comparisons.

FWIW Joe Moya

Oh, but the Powertap picks it up too. A week ago Saturday, I went out to the TT course to do my 2x 20s. I had done a very tough hilly run on Thursday, and my legs were still tired. By the first 10 minutes of my ride, my power just wasn't getting up to 230, where can I usually do these 2x 20s. It was a struggle to get over 210, even though I could tell I wasn't breathing hard.

So, I packed it in for the day after 10 minutes. Yes, HR surely would have told me a similar story, but it's not the best way to get the data, IMO.

I've similar experiences running with pace. Some days, 9's just feel too hard, and I know I'm not ready for a long run at that pace. So, I'll slow down a little and hold it to an hour.

Very much agree. I think the proponents of LSD running end up causing athletes to think that LSD is good, in and of itself. It's only good if done in volume. An age group triathlete with a couple years experience that trains 8 hours a week is wasting a lot of those hours doing very much LSD work. With only 8 hours of training (and maybe only 6 on bike+run), there is plenty of time to recover, and plenty of time to fit in tempo workouts.

I am frustrated by much of the HR-training press because it is invariably used to tell people to slow down and train all the time at very low effort levels. Nothing wrong with HR-measured training, but we still need to combine volume, duration and effort into an upward-sloping improvement curve.

In my sample size of one, I ran with terrific consistency and volume from Jan to July last year, almost all of it LSD. I then ran a life-worst half marathon. I added in hard tempo runs (after some experimentation, I settled on 2x 20 runs as the best workout for me), and ran a 5-minute PR half mary last weekend on a very hilly course (the day after my bailed bike workout).

I've been doing regular bike training a grand total of 3-1/2 weeks after a year off the bike. I hit the 2x 20s right from the git-go, and set a bike split PR (22.1 mph) yesterday -- in a duathlon no less -- after a full week of hard training with no rest day.

So, I would simply encourage the people using a HR monitor to not let it become an anchor that drags you down. Since I ditched mine, I've made some improvement -- mainly because I'm working harder when I go out to train. On recovery or easy days, I use the HR monitor to make sure I keep it easy. On the other days, I just get to work, and the hell with my HR.

You don't describe the power meter as picking up that you are dragging. You are describing Relative Perceived Exertion as picking it up. RPE is a really good tool too. Sometimes I am dragging and yet my HR stays low. Then my only reliable tool is RPE.

RPE ios probably the best tool of all, but I think I tune my perception by using my HRM most of the time. Sometimes they don't allign, but this is rare. When it happens, it is usually time to pack it in that day, and probably for the next day or two as well.

It is silly to throw away valuable information by leaving the HRM behind. Use it, but keep it in perspective.

I don't believe the HRM is less useful for intensity training... no more less useful than for determining recovery training. IMHO, it simply quantifies my intensity training sessions. In essense, I don't use the HRM for telling me to "slow down" or "go faster" when I'm doing more intense training. For that, I use perceived effort (as you do). However, I do find it useful to see how my perceived effort matches my HR.

So, I don't believe the HR is less useful for more intense training.... However, it should be used differently (and more sparingly). It seems you use it as a limiting/inhibiting factor (when appropriate - i.e., recovery phase) but don't use it for it's comparitive uses when I think it would be potentially useful as well (this is specially true with novices).

The HRM can be used for two reasons - ...1) for recovery/base building as a good indicator of training in proper aerobic range. 2) ...and, for correct association of perceived effort and actual effort during aerobic threshold training. It can be used both ways when used properly. The HRM is both a (for lack of a better word) "restrictive" tool and a good reference point to determine effort expended (specially when training at higher intensities).

FWIW Joe Moya

I had the same experience with heart rate training. I kept my heart rate in the "aerobic zone" , and ran lots of slow miles. My times got worst and I never had the magic break-out others in this thread described. I did some research and found the method used by Billat and have steadily been improving. It's very simple, base your training pace around the distance you can cover in six minutes. This is vVO2max or velocity at VO2max. Google Veronique Billat to learn more about her method and how it works.
For cycling I also you Andy Coggan's power levels to base my training on. The 2x20's will make you very strong and are very specific to timetrialing and triathlons.

For the guys that HR training didn't work for:

1. Did you have a "test" (such as the MAF test) that allowed you every 2-3 weeks or so to make sure you were progressing at the same HR at the same distance (i.e. 4miles @ 150 HR). Progressing obviously meaning less time.

2. When progress stalled did you switch to something else and then switch back?

All I have to base my tri training on is strength training, which entails some muscular endurance. When strength goes up so does endurance and vice versa. So, to get faster at a slower heart rate will mean you get faster at a higher heart rate and vice versa. The quantity of improvement is individual.

As I see it, the body adapts to change, but as that stimulus becomes more routine (over time) the adaptation will be less. So, it seems to me that the best thing to do is alternate periods of training, either by Friel's periodization (actually periodization was started by Tudor Bompa), or by Maf's alternating scheme, etc.

It's been said that everything works ... when applied at the right time. I wouldn't expect one thing to work forever. The body is just too get at adapting to whatever allows it to use the least amount of energy.

So, for those that HR training failed, did you alternate periods of low and high HR training or just do LSD's all the time?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Did long, slow distance ever make someone who was never fast at shorter distances fast?

It seems that those who swear by LSD or 'aerobic zone' training are those with a history of a lot of high intensity training at pretty decent speed. The only thing 'magic' about 'aerobic zone' training was that it allowed them to attain the necessary training volume required to maintain their speed for longer distances.

good point. Or it allowed those athletes that were over-training to recover.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I guess I've been making two different points on this thread. (1) "HR Training" is often misapplied to mean "low effort training" which, when done in insufficiently massive volume, is pointless; and (2) the only point of measuring HR during training is to gauge effort. Even its advocates will admit that. All of the ranges and whatnot are merely an attempt to define appropriate training intensity ranges.

As for item (1), yes I made that mistake once and won't get fooled again. The literature surrounding our sport is overly saturated with advice to back off and don't push it and take it easy and go slow and everything will come to you the easy way. It won't. It's hard, and you've got to train either very hard or very "a lot" if you want to realize your potential.

As for (2): Since the only point of measuring HR is to gauge effort, I think it is sensible to ask whether there is a better way of gauging effort. In fact, there is! It's called pace when running and power when cycling. Even Friel gives a very clear warning in his TTB:

"...[T]he problem is now that heart rate-based training has become so pervasive that athletes too often believe that heart rate is the determining factor in how they train and race. Too many have become slaves to their heart rate monitors, and other skills for measuring intensity are fading....Relying on it to the exclusion of all other measures of intensity can be as detrimental to your training as not having any gauge of effort at all." (Friel, pg. 49)

The original post in this thread asked about staying in something called "the aerobic training zone." I initially responded that the "aerobic training zone" is far, far wider than many triathletes realize.

The thread has sort of changed to a debate on the usefulness of a HR monitor. I think its not as useful as its been made out to be.

I can do a tempo run by running my HR up to 172 and holding there. Or, I can do it by running at 7:15 pace. The 172 might be low that day, or too high. Who knows? It drifts around. The 7:15 is the real thing. I'll know to move up to 7:05 pace when I can finish my 2x 20 minute run session with a solid 7:05 on the second 20 minutes. My improvement markers are in the pace, not the HR. As my pace on the 2x 20s improves, I will pick up the pace accordingly at all other distances and efforts. The 2x 20 is my "anchor point" that serves as a reference to all workouts.

This change away from using "LT Heart Rate" or "max Heart Rate" as a reference point is important, and I believe everyone would benefit from the change.

Julian, When you were making your comments in this thread I had thought of the same TTB quote, where Friel says "back in the day", athletes would just say "I ran at a 7:00 pace" instead of using a HRM.

The HRM keeps me within myself. I don't have the experience (yet) to rely solely on the PE scale nor am I familiar enough with the "mile markers" on my routes to use pace as my only indicator. It's easier on my bike b/c roads tend to intersect every mile, so I can always check the time lapsed since the last mile and do a quick calculation in my mind. Same thing with the swim, I can always check my time per 200y or 500y and see if I am staying "in the zone" or the "pace". Coincidently, my pace and my HR tend to give me the same overall feedback ... I'm training at my desired pace.

I don't see where going long and slow all the time can always lead to faster times. I can see where an athlete would always need to introduce a new stress (longer distance or faster pace) to keep getting improvement. I'm sensing the same message in your posts, if I am reading those correctly.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --