Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Monday 7 miles + comments.

Yesterday- I felt pretty good. I think my pains were more from the single XC race rather than mileage. The long run seemed to make my legs feel better. I jogged very lightly for 3 miles/ did elliptical for 2 miles/ aqua-jogged 2 miles. Then lifted weights for just 10:00- mainly core stuff but I like to do light weight (like I can do anything else!) leg lifts to fire the muscles and increase blood flow. Then dry sauna for 20:00 with self massage for my legs.

Kerrie asks: "I find the heart rate stuff interesting as I really know little about it...is the 10 beats below LT for marathon race pace kind of a common knowledge thing? That seems fast...or how do you arrive at those numbers? Why are you doing the majority of your long runs 15 beats or so below that?"

Kerrie- This question has books for answers but I'll try to outline the concepts as I understand them.
The 10 beats below lactate threshold is not common knowledge. The numbers I am using come from lab results that tell me at what HR I produce 2.0 mmol of lactate. This intensity is my aerobic threshold (or AeT- this is close to what Arthur Lydiard called "steady state".. this term has been around for a very long time), or the point at which I am (roughly) utilizing an equal amount of glycogen and fat. The pace at which I reach my AeT is a very trainable aspect. I need to train my body to more readily produce the enzymes that break down fat (lipids) and I do this by spending as much time at my AeT as possible. Athletes that run too hard will actually inhibit their bodies ability to use lipids and will teach their body to favor glycogen.. increasing their chance of "bonking" and limiting their endurance. This is why athletes who complete a proper periodized year need to go back and retouch their base training. My AeT HR is 165 and this is what I plan to race the marathon at. This effort is too high to train at all the time so I drop back to a HR range of 145-155 (this is closer to MAF- or max aerobic function used by Dr. Maffetone) which still stimulates my body to favor fat as fuel and still allows a higher volume of mileage. From what I understand of this concept, my goal over the next few years will be to not increase my running volume but rather increase my volume of time spent at my AeT.

Russ comments: "First off, I really admire your life view and your training ethic. I was a little surprised at you calculating mileage to get to a weekly milestone (ie 4 to get to 100). Seems to be everything you are against".

Russ- Thanks for the good word. I hope too that I surpass my expectations.
I set numerous goals each week- small daily ones and over-all big picture ones. My original goal last week was to run 140 miles. I bagged that in favor of resting. My thoughts on running just 4 miles on Sunday (to get 100) was closer to a coincidence than anything else. A 30:00-50:00 jog is nearly the ideal recovery run. If I was hurting too much to run long I was going to do a recovery run- 4-7 miles.. which would have put me at 100 by default.
BUT- I will be the very first to admit that I am OCD in regards to miles. Read back in my entries and you will see it. 100 is always going to be the "gold" standard for a beginner marathoner on my level. Talk to some "elite" marathoners and their- and soon to be my own- gold standard is the metric 200k- or ~120 miles.. I do like to be more fluid, a little more "zen" with all of this- but sometimes my obsession with "more is better" creeps back in!
Thanks for the reminder!


JP Flores said...

good stuff and well-explained. Very helpful.

quick question with regard to volume increases. First let me preface my question in that I understand that there is a huge difference between pure marathon prep and building running volume within the scope of a triathlon training program.

My question relates to the former....

the rule of thumb I've always heard and read about is limiting weekly volume increases to 10% per week. 40 one week, 44 the next, 48.4 the next, etc etc.


And what has your volume ramp been in getting up to the 120 mark....and what type of weekly running were you doing during your multisport days?

Lucho said...

jp- I have always tried to use the idea of running as much as I can with out getting hurt. My physiology is unique in that I can do those 100+ mile weeks and never feel a twinge. Even while training for Ironman I would run 100 mile weeks in December and January and always felt that ~60 miles was where I made my best gains in a typical Ironman build. The 10% rule should be used if you have a history of injury. For you- with your travel and the lack of cycling availability- I would tell you to plan big run weeks around your travels.. Simply start off by running ~8 miles on Monday, then on Tuesday run until you're tired. That may be 8 miles or 12 miles. The point is to let your body tell you the percentage increase that is realistic. One point to pay attention to though is to start the week at a reasonable level of mileage. Don't run 20 miles on Monday! You ran 40 last week.. so start at 6-8 miles. Go with the flow and don't be afraid to push yourself a little bit! Be fearless!

kerrie said...

hmmmm, interesting....thanks for the explanation, very clear - I also looked at CV's explanation and I think it is all of those terms that are almost the same that really confuse me. I would guess that I do most of my training below 140 and hard days above 170, so maybe I'm not training the right system at all, especially to race half and full ironman. I will have to find my heart rate monitor but I'm pretty sure there is no way that I could sustain 10 beats below my LT for very long....

Lucho said...

You're half Ironman intensity should be ~8-12 beats below threshold. Ironman ~12-20 below.
HR 140 is incredibly non-specific. If you rarely train there how can you race there? And above 170 is simply teaching your body to NOT go long. If you are an ITU pro then fine.. but for Ironman- time above threshold should be VERY limited to a small block of training 6-10 weeks out from Ironman.. and even then, there's quite a bit of research that indicates little need to perform more than 7 workouts above LT for an athlete that has trained correctly. 7 sessions is all you would need to exlpoit your LT in a way that would compliment your Ironman.

kerrie said...

well Mr. "hr-140-is-incredibly-non-specific-but-i-just-did-a-run-at-hr-121" ;), i should clarify that i don't run @ 140 but usually below that on my easy days as i plod along...i think the my old days of running track where we alternated days of hard / easy are fixed in my system. my running at lt simply comes from trying to get a workout in as fast as possible in a limited amount of time..and i also just kind of like that speed...but yeah, probably not conducive to ironman training.

but you've ~almost~ convinced me to get a heart rate monitor.