Saturday, August 9, 2008

Saturday 24 miles.

am) Up before the sun to get a run before Jo went to work. I was dreaming when my alarm went off.. something about asking to borrow a clean shirt from someone but they only had really tight half shirts. Pretty sure that has something to do with an internal conflict of some sort. (ha)
12 miles- in 1:15 with an average HR of 144. I've done a ton of reading in regards to the need to run a certain pace in order to benefit marathon specific endurance. This is marathon specific, not Ironman so the pace needs to be 'hotter' in relation to lactate threshold. Triathletes remember- an open marathon is a similar intensity to somewhere between an Olympic distance race and a half Ironman.
The paces that I have found to be the most relevant are 80% up to 103%. These are recommended intensities to train at. Keep in mind these are based on ideal conditions, flat course, no wind, cool weather... all reasons to use a HR monitor! Today I wanted to do a run at 80% of my (estimated) lactate threshold pace per mile to see where my HR fell. As you can see I ran 6:15 pace for 12 miles at an average HR of 144. And that's about all I can tell you- I am not experienced enough to really be able to tell you what that means and I can just about guarantee that there is little to no information out there on this subject. Runners are checkers players.. But- I will be trying my best to pay more attention to these 2 numbers and their relation to my fitness. What I am suspecting is that 6:15 pace is not 80% of my LT.. it is a lower percentage (I may be underestimating my LT pace).

N) At the gym- 6 miles on the AMT (Adaptive Motion Trainer) which totally kicks butt. This thing blows anything else away in terms of cross training for running. You can come very close to running with a natural stride but there is resistance through the entire range of motion. Brilliant. This was harder than the morning 12 miler.
Then 45:00 (6 miles) aqua-jogging.
I always have a hard time calling this mileage- but I do because it has a specific purpose to my goals. The AMT was harder than running.

Then 45:00 in the dry sauna with massage. At 30:00 my HR was at 145... after 45:00 I felt like I had run a 5k.


Frank said...

Lucho - Interesting comment on open marathon vs. OD/HIM tri. What would you suggest for open half-marathon intensity expressed in tri-equivalent terms?

(from a new Dad who has finally realized that there's just no time for swim and bike this year)

Dave said...

Just curious, what is the 103% HR? I'm not a math guy whatsoever, but I'm a little confused as to getting up to 103%. Wouldn't you top out at 100%? I'm sorry if the answer to this is obvious, but I'm definately lost on this one.

Lucho said...

Frank- What you need to look at is the over-all time of the event. There is no exact equivalent as tris and running are completely different. But I would surmise that a 1/2 marathon may be close in intensity to a sprint tri. This would be for a well trained runner. A half marathon can be run hard from the gun.

Dave- 103% of marathon pace, not max. Using 5:30 pace, 103% would be 3% faster than 5:30 pace or ~5:26 pace.
I may not be explaining myself too well and should just say 3% faster than goal pace.

Dave said...

Oh, now I see. Sorry, I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Now it makes plenty of sense.

Matt said...

a half marathon is "close" to a sprint tri? No way. If you can run, a half marathon is a beast. Sure I'm a putz, but even an oly is not a half marathon at, say, 7:00 mile.

A sprint is just a "sprint."

And I did catch the caveat that tris and running are completely diff.

Lucho said...

Matt- Of course this is apples and oranges. Close in intensity from an effort stand point, so I think you and I are agreeing. I am trying to equate intensity based on relation to lactate threshold, running a half marathon you are just a couple of beats below LT- then above LT for the last 3-4 miles. A sprint tri, because of the duration in time of the over-all event, is similar.
And on a final note- the 40 miles I ran on Wednesday of last week was a cake walk compared to the Ironman run. I've started an Ironman wasted, dead, exhausted tired and every step for 26 miles was painful.
With swimming the suffering is different from running, far different. I think cycling may be tougher than running simply because of the length of time one can suffer on a bike (think Tour De France- 21 days). I've pushed at just below my LT for several hours on group rides only to finish with an attack at a HR of 190-200. Running is the simplest and least technical of the 3 disciplines but also the hardest on the body..
Once again, apples and oranges.

Matt said...

I see your point but imagine some elite tri sprint guy vs. Ryan Hall's sub 1 hr. half. Is there a similarity in HR? I don't know. But one is like a ride at the county fair. The other is a sick world class achievement that's waaaay out of reach. The sprint bike is 9 miles. A road half marathon will beat you up so even with HR it's only part of the picture (and I know that's part of what you said: "apples and oranges").

Cheers, Lucho.

Matt said...

Lucho, one more thing.

The water running is simply the belt in the deep end, yeah?

And what are the specific benefits of the sauna? I know you've mentioned, but it's obviously big.

Lucho said...

Ya- the aquajogging is with a belt in the deep end. Part of the benefit to this is the compression effect that the water has on your legs. At a depth of ~4ft the water pressure squeezes your legs quite a bit more than you realize. Plus the movement increases blood flow and loosen the muscles. It's a great recovery workout with zero impact on your legs.
I think the sauna is a phenomenal tool for any athlete. I really have read a lot on the thermoregulatory response of the body but there isn't too much info in regards to an endurance athlete. Vasodilation is is one benefit- all the little cappilaries expand and open up increasing oxygen transport. This also increases blood volume. You sweat out a lot of heavy metals and waste product which is great for health. Heat acclimation- your body will learn to preserve electrolyte stores. I also think there is a benefit to the aerobic system- although I am a simple 'arm chair' physiologist.. like I said today, after 45:00 I felt like I just finished a 5k race. My HR was elevated and I was obviously in oxygen debt.
Brfoot gave some great info in regards to the body responding by releasing hormones that increase the inflammatory response too- although I don't think this is a good thing.
The suffering is different between running and cycling and swimming. I'm watching the Olympics right now and Michael Phelps just crushed the WR in the 400IM.. I think that is far harder than a sub- 1:00 1/2 marathon. Phelps' big weeks are 80 miles (25-30 hours).. cyclists' big weeks are 35-40 hours.. a runners big weeks are 14-16 hours.. less suffering by time for sure.

beth said...


just a note on the aquajogging. i spent 3 months doing it 5 days a week last summer. i started with a belt to get the right form and then ditched the belt- thought the workout was a lot better sans belt(for me). so that's an option.

yeah- that 400IM was AWESOME! we just watched him crush it.

Lucho said...

Beth- No belt... you're tougher than me! I think the difference between doing an aqua-jog for recovery and for an actual workout lies in the belt. I would say to keep the recovery sessions with a belt, and as you pointed out, to learn the proper run form.
Watch the tendonitis when starting aqua-jogging too. The tendency for a runner to develop tendonitis in the ankles and hips is high. But for the same reason there is risk- there is also benefit.
And yet another thought- aqua-jogging is great for learning the best way to carry your arms. The water exacerbates inefficiency.