Run Run Away

Question:

at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile): about 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154 These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to help keep the pace down. half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very hard for about 100m): 191 Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me. Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly flatter than the course on which I ran the times that determine my vdot). Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels ‘E pace’ is 80% max. An observation: it appears that Daniels overestimates % MHR associated with a given % VO2 max. For example, a study mentioned in Noakes found something like 60% VO2 max for a heart rate of about 145 (both group averages), so one would need to go up over 150bpm, probably close to 160bpm to get to 70% (the figure that JD uses as the basis for ‘E’ pace) Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile): about 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154 These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to help keep the pace down. half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very hard for about 100m): 191 Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me.

So figure 160? Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly flatter than the course on which I ran the times that determine my vdot). Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels ‘E pace’ is 80% max.

Where would you put this relative to your LT? Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM and lower for LSD work.  Hard to see it having a huge benefit. Thanks, Lyle

Response:

<snipped pseudo-scientific twaddle Guys, get a life.

Response:

Geez, you two should get a room.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile): about 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154 These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to help keep the pace down. half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very hard for about 100m): 191 Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me. So figure 160?

160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs. Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly flatter than the course on which I ran the times that determine my vdot). Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels ‘E pace’ is 80% max. Where would you put this relative to your LT?

When I’ve done LT workouts before, the 90% figure (about 170bpm) seems about right. LT should be close to Daniels ‘T’ pace. Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM and lower for LSD work.  Hard to see it having a huge benefit.

I’d go so far as to say that it is intolerably boring if not impossible  to run at 140bpm or lower (with a MHR 190). Many people can’t do it, and most of the others simply won’t do it, so the usual reaction from runners when they put a heart rate monitor on and realise that they’re "supposed to" stay under 70% MHR (as opposed to the 80-85% they’ve been doing) is one of frustration. On 70 miles per week, with a 5 mile race pace of 5:40, I need to drop to about 9:15 minutes per mile to get below 140.  So someone who runs that race slower than 7:30 minutes per mile (well over half of the runners at a typical road race) would almost certainly exceed that heart rate at 12 minutes per mile. Below that pace, many have trouble running, and even if they do run slower, their heart rate won’t drop much, because at 12 minutes per mile, they may as well be jogging in place. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me. So figure 160? 160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs.

Oridinary being something else than an E run? but 150-160 seems consistent with many recommendations. I guess I’m wondering why i still see crap like 140 and below for LSD when it would seem to do little (maybe build psychological/some other type of stamina for very long activities). Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM and lower for LSD work.  Hard to see it having a huge benefit. I’d go so far as to say that it is intolerably boring if not impossible  to run at 140bpm or lower (with a MHR 190).

I think this has been my major confusion over those recommendations. Whiel mode may make some of a difference, teh effort level at 140 or below is simply piddly.  Ok, maybe if you did 6 hours.  Hard to see the point from a training effect point of view yet I still occasinoally see it as a recommendation for basic endurance work. For example, this is a common set of commentary on the issue http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm The list 70-80% max giving the least return for the effort, it’s often listed as ‘no-man’s land’ for training (at least for cyclists).  Argued that you can’t spend enough time there to get a training effect but it does cut into recovery.   Many people can’t do it, and most of the others simply won’t do it, so the usual reaction from runners when they put a heart rate monitor on and realise that they’re "supposed to" stay under 70% MHR (as opposed to the 80-85% they’ve been doing) is one of frustration.

I think that was always mine while cycling.  Short of walking my bike, maintaining 140 or below at any non-trivial speed was an effort in pointless spinning around. Lyle

Response:

160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs. Oridinary being something else than an E run?

Nah, ordinary being an ‘E’ run. Generally speaking though, I think I’m pretty much in the 150-160 range for the first 20 minutes of any workout (drift, heat, or the urge to hammer the last few miles may push it slightly above that late in the workout). The jump in effort between 160 and 170 is substantial. I’m not as dogmatic about hitting exact paces as the Daniels book. (I also doubt that Daniels is that dogmatic in person — the book seldom paints a complete picture) For example, a tempo run in practice may end up below ‘T’ pace, because the duration is too long or the terrain is hilly. An ‘E’ run might be a little fast or a little slow depending on how one feels on the day. An ‘R’ workout might be faster than the prescribed ‘R’ pace, especially with the ladder (where the 200m reps will be a tad faster than the 800m reps). An ‘I’ workout will go at whatever pace I can do the reps in, but I try to avoid doing these slower than the prescribed pace. It’s worth noting that with these books, there’s often a difference between the theory and the practice. Authors may not be game to say in public what they do in private — their training may be too unorthodox, or considered too "risky". So they may moderate their views to avoid controversy (or lawsuits). So I don’t think you ever get the whole story when you read these things, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Jack Daniels would direct me to perform workouts that were somewhat different to those outlined in his book were he to coach me in person. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs. Oridinary being something else than an E run? Nah, ordinary being an ‘E’ run. Generally speaking though, I think I’m pretty much in the 150-160 range for the first 20 minutes of any workout (drift, heat, or the urge to hammer the last few miles may push it slightly above that late in the workout). The jump in effort between 160 and 170 is substantial.

FWIw, I find that 165 or so on the bike (stationary) is pretty comfortable, I agree with a substantial icnrease in effort when I get to the high 160’s-170.  I haven’t done a proper measurement in a while but my max steady state HR is probably in the 175 range, maybe a bit higher.   So 165 is about 95% of that.  riding below 150 is effortless, I’m limited by boredom; don’t feel like it’s doing much if anything (unless all I want to do is spin some blood into my quads). I’m not as dogmatic about hitting exact paces as the Daniels book. (I also doubt that Daniels is that dogmatic in person — the book seldom paints a complete picture)

Oh, assuredly.  I think he simply realizes that most people don’t think and need very specific guidelines for such things.  As well, personal experience demonstrates that if you don’t give people exacting recommendations (and often if you do), they will find some way to screw it up completely.  Being more specific and making it sound as if there ie zero leeway is one way to keep your average dumbass from screwing themselves by trying to play around with your recs.  They’ll do it anyhow but at least you can say "Hey, I told you to do it this way, don’t bitch at me because you’re a moron who can’t follow instructions." It’s worth noting that with these books, there’s often a difference between the theory and the practice. Authors may not be game to say in public what they do in private — their training may be too unorthodox, or considered too "risky". So they may moderate their views to avoid controversy (or lawsuits).

Sure. So I don’t think you ever get the whole story when you read these things, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Jack Daniels would direct me to perform workouts that were somewhat different to those outlined in his book were he to coach me in person.

Well, there’s only so much you can do in terms of giving specific recs when you write that kind of a book.  In person, you can always make adjustments based on what you are seeing, what other specifics there are, that sort of thing. It’s part of being a good coach. But it’s impossible to convey in book format, books that just say "This has to be adjusted for the athlete" without giving any recommendations are useless. So I think there is a happy medium between cookie cutter workout books and endless "You have to adjut to teh status of the athlete" books. Daniels covers the principles well enough and then gives some good specifics; I think he finds a happy balance. Lyle

Response:

I think this has been my major confusion over those recommendations. Whiel mode may make some of a difference, teh effort level at 140 or below is simply piddly.  Ok, maybe if you did 6 hours.  Hard to see the point from a training effect point of view yet I still occasinoally see it as a recommendation for basic endurance work For example, this is a common set of commentary on the issue http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm The list 70-80% max giving the least return for the effort, it’s often listed as ‘no-man’s land’ for training (at least for cyclists).  Argued that you can’t spend enough time there to get a training effect but it does cut into recovery.

It makes perfect sense and it works. But perhaps it