Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Want to run fast? Just run more [Zaphod] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The bike vs. run miles is a good question. Last year I rode twice a week with a very fast 25 miles on Wednesday and pretty hard 50 miles on Saturday. I was not slow, but my run and ride were very disparate in terms of competitiveness.

This year early on I really made an effort to ride more and I have made steady improvement on last year’s times in the same races.

The one kink in this was that I started using PowerCranks in July and that really cut my miles, almost in half. What I found was that I maintained my performance level with less riding. Since I was obviously trying to go faster then I need to ride a similar amount to before but do it using the cranks.

Again using my friend as a basis for a good percentage, I would say your run to bike miles should be about 1 to 2 based off of time, i.e. if you run 40 miles and that takes you about five and a half hours, then you should probably spend about 11 hours in the saddle. I don’t always do this, but when I do, my ride and run performance tends to hit a similar placing percentile at races.
Quote Reply
Re: More suggestions [Chubby Hubby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I bought a heart rate monitor last year and used it fairly frequently. However, since I went cheap, it died on me and have not used it much this year.

By now I now how hard I run to get to certain heart rates, so here is the answer to your questions:

80 percent max heart rate for me is about 154 bpm and this equates to about 7-7:10 per mile. That is my max aerobic rate and the rate I run when I feel good and run by feel only.

On the bike my “feel good” rate is hard to peg because there are so many hills around here that I am going up and down too much to get a good idea.

At the above heart rate and pace, an eight mile run takes between 56 minutes and one hour. Thus, 56 miles of running is about seven hours at my max aerobic rate.

My AT rate is between 165-175 bpm or between 85 and 90 percent max heart rate. If I use a heart rate monitor I try to bump as close as I can to the upper limit without going over since that is where I spend all my time in Olympic and Half-IM distance racing.



The only reason I use miles as a basis for logging info is because we all have to run the same distance, regardless of how fast we are, so miles are miles whether you run them at six, seven, eight, nine or more minutes per mile. The Africans who run obscenely fast run their easy days at 6 min per mile and run 100 miles a week that way (thus 600 minutes), but I can run the same 600 minutes and only cover 85 miles. I won’t get the same benefit unless I run the whole hundred miles, regardless of how long it takes me.
Quote Reply
Re: More suggestions [cdwalton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The only reason I use miles as a basis for logging info is because we all have to run the same distance, regardless of how fast we are, so miles are miles whether you run them at six, seven, eight, nine or more minutes per mile. The Africans who run obscenely fast run their easy days at 6 min per mile and run 100 miles a week that way (thus 600 minutes), but I can run the same 600 minutes and only cover 85 miles. I won’t get the same benefit unless I run the whole hundred miles, regardless of how long it takes me.


I am not sure I totally agree with this. I understand that in a race we have to all run the same distance. So when training for a marathon, it's common practice to have your long training runs in the 18-20 mile range. But that is mostly to get the runner acclimated to the mental aspect of the 26 mile race. That's different than what we are talking about here. I think most people talk miles out of convenience. I have been diligent over the last few years concentrating on time at heartrate during my workouts. SERIOUS Training for Endurance Athletes, Friel and others always seem to refer to time for a workout, not distance - 45 minutes in the pool (not so many yards), 2.5 hours on the bike (not 50 miles), and a 60 minute tempo run. All these are not related to pace.

Maybe it's me, but I do all my workouts based on time and only use distance as a check for increased fitness levels. Did I run farther at 155 bpm average than I did two months ago?

As for having to run the same distance to get the same benefit ... Let me pose this question. I run my base building miles at 10:00 pace (I have always been a slow runner, but indulge me here for a moment). Say I go out for a 6 mile overdistance run and it takes me 60 minutes. You do the same run at the same %Max heartrate and it takes you 43 minutes. I would say that I got more benefit than you - not the same benefit. On the other hand, my training volume would be way higher than yours doing the same mileage.

I would be interested in what the coaches here think on this issue. Are your athlete's training plans built on time or distance? And if you say distance, is it distance because you know your client's pace so well, which would imply that it really is based on time? I am really interested in this, mostly because I am one of the few folks in our local group that will run for 1/2 my time, turn around and then run back. All my training is done on time at HR level. Thanks for your input.

Steve
Last edited by: Chubby Hubby: Sep 29, 03 16:51
Quote Reply

Prev Next