Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Diagnostic lab results. 8 miles.

HR 150 puts me roughly at 1.47 mmol of lactate...
HR 166 puts me at 1.9 mmol of lactate...
This indicates to me that I need to be running at ~152-166 HR range from here on in order to stimulate my (true) aerobic threshold. My goal will be to get faster at 2.0 mmol of lactate. Increased economy, lower body weight and increased endurance will move me towards this.
I will stick to HR 153-160 for a bit though- not sure if I can run that hard for the mileage I want. Of course when I think about that statement I would have to agree with myself that I am incorrect in the strategy for my training. It makes more sense to run at the appropriate intensity simply for as much as I can.. forget hitting a certain mileage. We'll see how tomorrow morning's run goes- 12 miles at HR 150-160.

12 comments:

Matt said...

From reading your blog, I'd say you never seem to get that high. I know, never say never . . .

jameson said...

what paces do these HR zones correlate to for you?

Lucho said...

Matt- I'm always high ;) or wish I was. You're correct that I rarely run with my HR up there and it will be an adjustment.

Jameson- On the treadmill I was at 6:02 pace at HR 150 and ~5:42 pace at HR 166. It is intimidating to think of having to try and run <6:00 pace for 100+ miles a week.. and even Lydiard spoke of the difficulty in maintaining "steady state" for that much time. Steady state and the 2.0mmol of lactate are synonymous.

kerrie said...

do you check your gmail?????
nice pic - hard to tell what you are doing in it but if you are puking, it'll be even better.

i know how you feel about the pace/mile thing, i am feeling that way with my HR at 145 however if things go my way, i may attempt close to a 2hr run tomorrow just to see what happens with my new garmin 305!!!!!!!!!!!! i bought it from this guy who gave me a really good deal on it, i think it might be stolen.

so...if the hr is unattainable for the distance/time, do you keep your hr down or do you cut distance?

Wende said...

What are you doing in that pic? Throwing up or looking at something?

Lucho said...

Wende- I was gagging.. The caption with the picture will read "Why do you run? Strength, endurance, self-esteem.... role model for my kids".

jason said...

So does that mean your target race pace will be @ 166 HR? And do you have a feel for what your max HR is?

Lucho said...

Jason- I do have a target HR of 166 for the marathon which is why my goal is to improve my pace at this HR/ effort. This HR also has relevance to my LT. Of course I am too early in my training to really be able to say all of this definitively. It may change over the course of this year. Basically my goal will be to raise my LT pace per mile, then raise my ability to hold a higher percentage of my LT. In general- a well trained athlete can hold ~93-96% of LT pace for a marathon. So... raise LT then you can (possibly) run faster for the marathon. I believe that my problem in my past few marathons is that my LT Pace per mile was not fast enough.
I don't have a feel for my max HR for running. I have seen HR 196 on the bike during a group ride. Max HR is somewhat irrelevant because it is a marker that does not change with fitness. It is the same no matter what shape I'm in so using it to determine training zones is counterintuitive to me. I prefer to use a marker or data point that is relevant to my current fitness and is MUCH easier to test.. that's lactate threshold. Using a percentage of LT means you are using HR zones that are based on your current fitness.

GZ said...

I feel like the slow kid in class ... and that is probably true on several fronts.

Before I get to the question I have - cool pix. I once tried to get my son (when he was three) to eat broc ... I said, "JZ, when I eat this, I pretend I am a giant eating trees." He looked at me and replied, "Dad, I am a giant eating bread."

Anyway ... at the risk of dragging out the MAF conversation again and coming across as a naysayer (I am not entirely) ... it seems to me that MAF training develops your aerobic system, as measured by your ability to maintain increasingly faster paces at a low HR (180-age+5). But it seems from this post that development of your ability to run at a high percentage of LT is the key to marathon success. Could you describe how the two are related? It would seem that development via MAF drives your VO2 ... and the jury seems to be out if VO2 is an appropriate predictor of marathon performance (in fact, your reference to % of LT seems to be the more preferred of the two).

Dense in the head,
GZ

Lucho said...

GZ- MAF is, as I have always contended, simply a starting point. I see the main benefit of MAF for any athlete is that it teaches your metabolism to favor fat as fuel. If you run too hard your body will learn to use glycogen and will then always favor glycogen even when running slow.. and if that happens in a marathon you will be walking. Once you teach your body to use fat as fuel then you can run at increasingly harder efforts and it will still utilize fats effectively. You have a very weak aerobic system (as evidenced by your MAF tests) which is why MAF applies very directly to you as an individual. LT intervals, Vo2, tempo.. none of those apply to you yet- but if you were patient they would eventually apply to you. The reason that I am doing something differently is that I have already spent 10 YEARS doing this. You seem to want to emulate other peoples training protocols while fighting what is obviously right for you. Your aerobic tests show where you are the weakest.. MAF addresses this weakness specifically. The concept of aerobic endurance is not only proven many times over on many different levels but it also so simple that people can't wrap their brains around it. Americans lag behind the rest of the world because we want the quick fix of intensity instead of the patient approach that the Africans take the time to follow. Yes the Africans train very hard... BUT ONLY AFTER YEARS OF aerobic development... let me repeat that... only after years of aerobic running do they crank up the intensity! You are years away from being at that point. You seem to want to simply skip some steps in development. That doesn't make any sense. Why not just put your son in to college tomorrow and just skip the whole grade and high schools!? That would be easier wouldn't it?

GZ said...

First, I want to state, I appreciate you entertaining my feedback and providing some in return. Thanks.

Second, I have been running since I was 13. Haven't I been developing my aerobic system in some regard then for 25 years?

Third, my son today is probably more ready for college now then he will be when he is eighteen but that is probably because of the pragmatic approach a seven year old has on life versus the nutcases we are when we are eighteen.

Fourth, I agree that my aerobic system, when considered in the MAF model is weak. I feel I need to continue to develop it while also working other systems.

Fifth, if I can still walk in the fall, I am (currently) expecting to take this bugger full on.

Sixth, as long as we are comparing the top athletes in the world in running endurance sports (Kenyans), there are some Americans that have caught up. I guess we can throw out folks like Meb and KK - given their African origins, but Ryan Hall, Ritz, Alan C, Sell ... why don't we hear them loudly advocating MAF techniques but instead speaking of approaches that are both base building AND doing other (non aerobic) work?

Finally, again, it is fully my intent to just discuss this ... and not be a LETSRUN *sshole about this. I hope my questions on this are not interpretted as such. Thanks again.

Lucho said...

Gz- I would bet you have been detraining your aerobic system which intensity tends to do. Which is why top athletes go back every single year and rebuild it. All I am telling you to do is spend a few months working on your aerobic system and THEN go out and run hard. No one is preaching zero intensity.. the MAF method does not say "zero intensity". It simply says to prepare your body to handle it better. You say MAF is too slow yet you went over your limits by running a big mileage week? The mileage will do you more good than running a track workout every week.
Ryan and Ritz are not the norm and besides.. they are still well off the world's best. You and I are the norm. They were running sub 28 10k's in high school. Also, put Ritz on the world scene and he'll get his butt kicked.. he has a 2:11 PR in the marathon which would maybe make the Kenyan "C" team. The point is- once again- that you are an individual. You are not Ryan Hall or Ritz or Geb or anyone else but you. Look at what your weakness is then correct it but don't expect someone else's training schedule to do that. And we are only suggesting that you try the MAF method... no one is twisting your arm. If you choose not to use it then you'll be one less person I have to worry about in our next race ;)