login
Should my training run times be this slow?
-
No new posts
 2009-07-16 12:41 PM |
 10 |  Subject: Should my training run times be this slow?I did my first tri last weekend, finished right smack in the middle, it was a sprint with 200 yd swim/12k bike/4k run. My run time was about 19:30 which puts me at a 7:45 or so mile pace. Now I am training with a HRM for the first time, as opposed to going hard and feeling like I was dying like I used to. I did two runs this week, one 3.2 miles in 38:30 and one 4.8 miles in 57:30. I was following a training plan and keeping my HR around 155 or so(156 avg today). Problem is my paces on my two runs have been 12:04 and 11:58. Feels like I'm training to finish DFL. Am I on the right track? |
| 2009-07-16 12:44 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Master 1853     syracuse | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? how did you estabilsh your zones? you need to do a field test. your trainnig paces sound slow based on your race time, but I dont know.... |
| 2009-07-16 12:46 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Master 1790 Tyler, TX | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? I'm no expert on running, but yes, you're running too slow in training. If you can run at a 7:45 pace at the end of a sprint triathlon, I'd guess that your easy run training ought to be in the 9:30 to 10:30 range (or even slower if you're training in a hot climate). I'm sure that others with better running knowledge can confirm. Brian Edited by famelec 2009-07-16 12:47 PM |
| 2009-07-16 1:03 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Master 2125 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? tritosbr - 2009-07-16 1:41 PM I did my first tri last weekend, finished right smack in the middle, it was a sprint with 200 yd swim/12k bike/4k run. My run time was about 19:30 which puts me at a 7:45 or so mile pace. Now I am training with a HRM for the first time, as opposed to going hard and feeling like I was dying like I used to. I did two runs this week, one 3.2 miles in 38:30 and one 4.8 miles in 57:30. I was following a training plan and keeping my HR around 155 or so(156 avg today). Problem is my paces on my two runs have been 12:04 and 11:58. Feels like I'm training to finish DFL. Am I on the right track? Also, what plan are you following? Establish your HR zones (if you haven't) via this: http://www.d3multisport.com/blog/index.php/220-age-misconceptions-a... /> I'd guess your 10k time is something like 48 minutes. According to http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/your long runs would be in the 9:00 to 10:00 range and your easy runs (like the two you just did) would be in the 9:00 to 9:40 range. |
| 2009-07-16 2:00 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
| 12 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? If you are going to train with an HRM then you need to find your max HR. The best way is to have a test ran by your doc so it is in a controlled environment should something go wrong. But if you are not concerned with your heart then some good strong hard hill repeats will let you know what your max HR is. From there you can set your pace zones for training. |
| 2009-07-16 2:06 PM in reply to: #2289817 |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? Venomized - 2009-07-16 3:00 PM If you are going to train with an HRM then you need to find your max HR. The best way is to have a test ran by your doc so it is in a controlled environment should something go wrong. But if you are not concerned with your heart then some good strong hard hill repeats will let you know what your max HR is. From there you can set your pace zones for training. Sorry I disagree knowing your max HR is not really important for training but doing a field test like mentioned a couple post above is much more useful, repeatable and you can use the data to set HR zones. You need accurate testing and data collection to set HR zones right and use HRM correctly. I'm guessing based on your sprint pace your zones are wrong. |
| 2009-07-16 2:07 PM in reply to: #2289665 |
| 128 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? famelec - 2009-07-16 12:46 PM I'm no expert on running, but yes, you're running too slow in training. If you can run at a 7:45 pace at the end of a sprint triathlon, I'd guess that your easy run training ought to be in the 9:30 to 10:30 range (or even slower if you're training in a hot climate). I'm sure that others with better running knowledge can confirm. Brian +1- That seems really slow. Not that I am a running expert either but I pop off about 7:15 in a sprint and my slower paces (which I feel like I am crawling) is around 9:00. The 9 minute miles are likely around 18-20 milers. |
| 2009-07-16 2:28 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
| 10 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? Okay, I've had the HRM for about a month now and did the max HR test twice while running and hit 196 and 195. In the tri my max HR was 194, though don't know when it happened. On the run I tried my best to stay at 180 or so, but was around 185-188 for most of it and I saw 190 once. As far as my training background, I come from the old school method where I played sports as a kid (hockey and baseball) and had coaches who worked us to death. There was no plan. The first 5 or so minutes of hockey practices last 10-15 minutes would be coach trying to make us puke (at least it seemed that way). I also had an older baseball coach (as in WWII vet old) whose idea of getting us in shape was running our legs off. Without any excercise education or knowing any experts I've just kinda carried that philosophy over where I would go run a few miles a few days a week, probably close to 90% max HR, and bike a few times a week purposely trying to kill myself on climbs thinking it was helping. After reading up on training I figured out there is A LOT I have gotten wrong, so this whole HRM training and restraining myself is new and maybe I am holding back too much. I am following the 16 week olympic run focused plan. I have modified the days of the week to fit my schedule (today was my "Sunday" run). My first two runs ran over time wise because I ran so slow that I didn't have my loop run done. I set my zones by using the calculator here (Karvonen method). I had to guess at resting HR (used 65). That makes 155 my 70-80% target, which is what the training program said from the program: "Typically for your first year, for the Karvonen formula, stay in zone I. Long Slow = 50-70%MHR (% of max heart-rate) and II. Endurance = 70-75%. Mainly in the second zone though." Maybe I'm just that out of shape where my runs are going to be slow for awhile. Thanks for the help everyone. |
| 2009-07-16 2:28 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
| 10 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? Another thing, when I finished the 57+ minute run I felt like I could go for another hour no problem. |
| 2009-07-16 2:43 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
| New user 57 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? Maybe I'm an idiot but I have to admit I'm really confused about the zone training, too, despite all the information out there. I know my max HR and I know my resting HR, but I see conflicting information out there (on the same website, even) about how to calculate the Zones. For example: Zone 2: Endurance Also known as: Extensive Endurance AND Zone 2: Endurance, strength Lower Limit = Heart Rate Reserve * .71 + Resting Heart Rate |
| 2009-07-16 2:50 PM in reply to: #2289939 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? its easy to get confused on this. if you dont understand it, dont use it. run on feel, or paces. do you have a stand alone 5k, 10k time? if so, go to : http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm type in your stand alone time, and it will give you some paces to go off of. this will work until you understand HR better. |
| 2009-07-16 2:58 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
| New user 57 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? Or perhaps someone helpful will explain why there are two formulas which use the same constants and produce totally different results for what is defined as same thing (zone 2). Either I am calculating something wrong, there's a mistake with the formulas, or there really is that big a difference between the two methods/philosophies. Edited by slkirsch 2009-07-16 2:59 PM |
| 2009-07-16 3:11 PM in reply to: #2289830 |
| 12 | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? KathyG - 2009-07-16 2:06 PM Sorry I disagree knowing your max HR is not really important for training but doing a field test like mentioned a couple post above is much more useful, repeatable and you can use the data to set HR zones. You need accurate testing and data collection to set HR zones right and use HRM correctly. I'm guessing based on your sprint pace your zones are wrong. I think both will get the job done to establish training zones. From the zone method You should finish knowing you gave it everything you had. As I take it that means finish at max effort. This max effort should be your max HR as well. Either method will establish training zones which is what the OP is after. Part of his issue with the running he did seaming very slow is running efficiency. I have seen a lot of runners that could do a lot better than they do if they would just work on form drills and efficiency drills. Wasted movement is wasted energy and increased heart rate. And lets not forget HRM accuracy. You get what you pay for usually with gear. Polar, Suunto, Timex Ironman series, or a Garmin HRM equipped Forerunner should be the more accurate products. Most others are suspect. |
| 2009-07-16 3:29 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Master 2571 Tiger's Den | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? You don't know your max heart rate. Those were max hr for those runs and don't use them. Run a search in triathlon talk for Lactate Threshold test or LT and you will find a thread from maybe 2 years ago started by Mike Ricci of D3. Read that thread, do that test. You sound like you have a high hr, my LT is 180 and sounds like yours might be more like 184-188ish, which is unusual, but everyone is different. |
| 2009-07-16 3:30 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? tritosbr - 2009-07-16 12:41 PM I did my first tri last weekend, finished right smack in the middle, it was a sprint with 200 yd swim/12k bike/4k run. My run time was about 19:30 which puts me at a 7:45 or so mile pace. do you have any recent open run race results? (i.e. 5K, 10K)Now I am training with a HRM for the first time, as opposed to going hard and feeling like I was dying like I used to. I did two runs this week, one 3.2 miles in 38:30 and one 4.8 miles in 57:30. I was following a training plan and keeping my HR around 155 or so(156 avg today). Problem is my paces on my two runs have been 12:04 and 11:58. Feels like I'm training to finish DFL. Am I on the right track? |
| 2009-07-16 3:32 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Master 2571 Tiger's Den | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? |
| 2009-07-16 3:36 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Expert 1123 Falls Church, VA | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? are you part hummingbird or something? Wow those are some high heart rates. |
| 2009-07-16 4:42 PM in reply to: #2289649 |
Expert 713 Lake in the Hills, IL | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? I will be watching this to see what else is brought up because this is a confusing topic. I think the 220- age also has alot of people messed up. Most people I know still follow that and it screws them up. |
| 2009-07-16 5:20 PM in reply to: #2290037 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Should my training run times be this slow? Venomized - 2009-07-16 3:11 PM Kathy is correct, Max heart rate is irrelevant just by the simple fact it is hard to obtain (rarely athletes can push at their true max, this stress tests are rather tough), it is not trainable, it is genetically set for each of us and it will decrease as we age.KathyG - 2009-07-16 2:06 PM Sorry I disagree knowing your max HR is not really important for training but doing a field test like mentioned a couple post above is much more useful, repeatable and you can use the data to set HR zones. You need accurate testing and data collection to set HR zones right and use HRM correctly. I'm guessing based on your sprint pace your zones are wrong. I think both will get the job done to establish training zones. From the zone method You should finish knowing you gave it everything you had. As I take it that means finish at max effort. This max effort should be your max HR as well. Either method will establish training zones which is what the OP is after. Part of his issue with the running he did seaming very slow is running efficiency. I have seen a lot of runners that could do a lot better than they do if they would just work on form drills and efficiency drills. Wasted movement is wasted energy and increased heart rate. And lets not forget HRM accuracy. You get what you pay for usually with gear. Polar, Suunto, Timex Ironman series, or a Garmin HRM equipped Forerunner should be the more accurate products. Most others are suspect. In terms of a field test; having you go all out for certain time i.e. 30 min, the goal of the test is to have you achieve your greates HR avg for that duration and the result will be hardly close to your maximal heart rate, in fact will range between 85-90% of max heart rate depending on the individual and field test protocol. However by adjusting the result one can closely estimate what your heart rate @ lactate threshold is. Knowing your heart rate @ or near lactate threshold (more accurately related to maximum lactate steady state) is very important because it allow us to avaluate fitness level, predict performance and design training levels (aka zones) to specifically target certain training adaptations to train optimally for our specific goals. That been said knowing your pace (as opposed as heart rate) or power for cycling can be more accurate and efficient for training. Finally, as far as efficiency; in terms of running we refer to it as running economy and running gait ("form") is not a reliable way to determine whether a runner is economical or not. The only way to define this is via lab testing. Paula Radcliffe has an unorthodox running gait, some might call it unproper running 'form' still she among fastest female runners and she also exhibits a great running economy. BTW, economy doesn't change as much whether you run fast or slow, it is suggested your body self selects the best running gait and your economy is relatively constant, although it can change significantly if you do change your natural running gait. The best way to improve economy seems to be by just running more, those athletes who have been running more many years tend to exhibit greater running economy than those that don't. You are right about drills, some drills resemble plyos and this can in fact improve your running economy. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK