login
Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time?
-
No new posts
|
 2013-08-13 2:36 AM |
 8 |  Subject: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time?OK guys so I used to just go out there and run swim bike and not really pay any attention to my heart rate, speed,duration ,or distance. I hit a big wall and was not improving at all. I would try and run and swim faster but aerobically I was not gaining any benefits. So i took a look into heart rate training and realized most of the time, if not all, I was way out of my aerobic zone. I was maybe 180-190 bpm. I'm a young healthy guy in the military so I didn't feel like I was dying or anything. After a little research I read about base building and keeping my heart rate in an aerobic zone to gain more of a cardiovascular benefit. According to most calculations,( i did a few) i need to be about 160 bpm or lower to induce the proper aerobic physiological adaptation. After a few weeks of this "base building" ill be able to run a little faster and aerobically be a lot stronger. Here is my question, I've been at around 160 bpm for an hour a day for a little more than a week now, i feel like im absolutely wasting my time. At this intensity i feel like i am huffing and puffy EVER SO SLIGHTLY... Will this low of a heart rate really bring the cardiovascular adaptions i want to be able to run faster for longer at a lower heartrate? Thanks |
| 2013-08-13 4:16 AM in reply to: raybankid |
Master 1718    Loughborough, England | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? After reading your post my initial thoughts are that expecting noticeable improvements after just a week of low intensity training is unwise. If you have been training for some time now then you will have already built up a good level of fitness, regardless of what HR you have been doing it at. Your post reads like you have continued your training as normal but just lowered the intensity. I am not a coach but I can't see this working. If you lower the intensity then you should be increasing the volume. Gradually, by keeping your HR lower (zone 2), you will be able to increase the distance you are able to r/b/s. You should still be doing some training at a higher intensity though. This article recomends 80% of your training to be at lower heart rates (Z1&2) and the rest at a higher intensity - http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=... You may also want to have a read of this article about calculating heart rate zones - http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=... |
| 2013-08-13 4:34 AM in reply to: 0 |
928 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Agree with Dan that you definitely need more time than a week to see results. However, you MAY be running too slowly to see benefits. I say this reluctantly because many people feel like the pace is too slow when they first start running aerobically, but it actually is the right pace. How much slower is it than you were running before? To give you a one-point example, I had my heart rate zones tested and found out my aerobic zone should be around 150-156 bpm, but other age-based calculators or even the home methods often discussed here would have told me to be low 140s. That was too low according to my test to be of real benefit. You describe how you always go the same pace and have plateaued in progress. To me that definitely means that you are running in that "no man's land" zone which is too fast for aerobic benefit but slow to be stimulating improvements in LT and VO2max. If you feel like you'll be bored doing all your runs slower, I would suggest slow down most of your easy runs (maybe a minute per mile slower than you've been doing), but SPEED UP a small percentage of your running. Like once a week after a warmup do intervals (keep it simple like 4 minutes hard, 3 minutes recovery, repeat 6 times) or a tempo run (comfortably hard for about 20 minutes, building up to 40 minutes). As you get more used to it you can do two of these per week. P.S. I just realized you asked about swimming too. I come from a running background so this is how I approach running-- swimming can be approached similarly, but I don't think using HR as a gauge is as useful. You can also do more interval swimming than running (a higher percentage of your week) and I don't think you'll get as much benefit from actually swimming slower. Good luck.  Edited by jennifer_runs 2013-08-13 4:36 AM |
| 2013-08-13 5:30 AM in reply to: jennifer_runs |
Member 242 Co Louth, Ireland | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? I was in the same boat and slowed all my runs down to zone 2 - it took a while and was quite hard to slow down from my normal pace. But it did allow me to go further, recover much easier, allow me do a lot more training and my speed has quickened as a result for the same effort. Worth sticking with if you can. |
| 2013-08-13 7:31 AM in reply to: raybankid |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by raybankid OK guys so I used to just go out there and run swim bike and not really pay any attention to my heart rate, speed,duration ,or distance. I hit a big wall and was not improving at all. I would try and run and swim faster but aerobically I was not gaining any benefits. So i took a look into heart rate training and realized most of the time, if not all, I was way out of my aerobic zone. I was maybe 180-190 bpm. I'm a young healthy guy in the military so I didn't feel like I was dying or anything. After a little research I read about base building and keeping my heart rate in an aerobic zone to gain more of a cardiovascular benefit. According to most calculations,( i did a few) i need to be about 160 bpm or lower to induce the proper aerobic physiological adaptation. After a few weeks of this "base building" ill be able to run a little faster and aerobically be a lot stronger. Here is my question, I've been at around 160 bpm for an hour a day for a little more than a week now, i feel like im absolutely wasting my time. At this intensity i feel like i am huffing and puffy EVER SO SLIGHTLY... Will this low of a heart rate really bring the cardiovascular adaptions i want to be able to run faster for longer at a lower heartrate? Thanks You're starting to get on the right track, but a little more would help out. How did you come about deciding on the 160 bpm? Was it from a threshold test? This would be done for each of the 3 sports as they can be different. |
| 2013-08-13 7:47 AM in reply to: jennifer_runs |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by jennifer_runs Agree with Dan that you definitely need more time than a week to see results. However, you MAY be running too slowly to see benefits. I say this reluctantly because many people feel like the pace is too slow when they first start running aerobically, but it actually is the right pace. How much slower is it than you were running before? To give you a one-point example, I had my heart rate zones tested and found out my aerobic zone should be around 150-156 bpm, but other age-based calculators or even the home methods often discussed here would have told me to be low 140s. That was too low according to my test to be of real benefit. You describe how you always go the same pace and have plateaued in progress. To me that definitely means that you are running in that "no man's land" zone which is too fast for aerobic benefit but slow to be stimulating improvements in LT and VO2max. If you feel like you'll be bored doing all your runs slower, I would suggest slow down most of your easy runs (maybe a minute per mile slower than you've been doing), but SPEED UP a small percentage of your running. Like once a week after a warmup do intervals (keep it simple like 4 minutes hard, 3 minutes recovery, repeat 6 times) or a tempo run (comfortably hard for about 20 minutes, building up to 40 minutes). As you get more used to it you can do two of these per week. Well, all the areas being discussed are primarily dependent on the aerobic system, meaning LT and VO2 are in there as well. They're just higher up in it. What you're talking about with the aerobic zone is more likely referred to as Zone 2. Zone 3 does work things a bit more because it's harder to do, but as noted, it's also harder to recover from and does not necessarily work LT or VO2 that much more. So it tends to work better to slow things down to Z2 for much of time and then do specific workouts targeting Z4 and Z5 at times to work those two areas. The Z2 work still stresses the aerobic system and while it will take some more to create the same stress, one can do a lot more of it with less risk of injury. P.S. I just realized you asked about swimming too. I come from a running background so this is how I approach running-- swimming can be approached similarly, but I don't think using HR as a gauge is as useful. You can also do more interval swimming than running (a higher percentage of your week) and I don't think you'll get as much benefit from actually swimming slower. Good luck. Swimming (& biking) don't really have the injury risk that running does, so one can (and should) work hard there more often. Swimming especially needs it for further stroke development. Running goes by mostly easy, sometimes hard. With the volume most tend to do, swimming could be seen more as mostly hard and sometimes moderate. The bike varies between this and halfway between the two depending on how much riding one is doing. A pace clock would be much more helpful for swimming than HR as well. It's incredibly helpful to see how that effort is translated into speed. |
| 2013-08-13 7:57 AM in reply to: raybankid |
Master 1460 Burlington, Vermont | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Keep with it. And ignore the advice that you might be "going too slow". You're looking at it backwards. Think of it this way ... the more time you spend within your aerobic zone, the more efficient you'll be in that zone. Give it 4 weeks. And don't cheat ... give yourself a fast day at the track, once a week, where you're doing intervals into Zone 4 (and recovery back into Zone 2) that'll allow you to feel the speed. But stay with it. As you learn to become more efficient, you'll get faster and faster within your aerobic zone. And you'll be able to, eventually, hold that speed at that lower rate for longer periods of time. Right now, your've essentially trained your body that it has to be approaching 190 to find any speed. And your body can't hold that HR as long as it can hold a 160. Wouldn't it be great to be able to hold that speed at 160? Like anything, you have to practice that. A week?!?! Are you kidding me? You're thinking of ditching a scientifically proven training approach because you didn't see results in a week? This is a lifestyle. Enjoy the journey. |
| 2013-08-13 9:30 AM in reply to: brigby1 |
| 928 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by jennifer_runs Agree with Dan that you definitely need more time than a week to see results. However, you MAY be running too slowly to see benefits. I say this reluctantly because many people feel like the pace is too slow when they first start running aerobically, but it actually is the right pace. How much slower is it than you were running before? To give you a one-point example, I had my heart rate zones tested and found out my aerobic zone should be around 150-156 bpm, but other age-based calculators or even the home methods often discussed here would have told me to be low 140s. That was too low according to my test to be of real benefit. You describe how you always go the same pace and have plateaued in progress. To me that definitely means that you are running in that "no man's land" zone which is too fast for aerobic benefit but slow to be stimulating improvements in LT and VO2max. If you feel like you'll be bored doing all your runs slower, I would suggest slow down most of your easy runs (maybe a minute per mile slower than you've been doing), but SPEED UP a small percentage of your running. Like once a week after a warmup do intervals (keep it simple like 4 minutes hard, 3 minutes recovery, repeat 6 times) or a tempo run (comfortably hard for about 20 minutes, building up to 40 minutes). As you get more used to it you can do two of these per week. Well, all the areas being discussed are primarily dependent on the aerobic system, meaning LT and VO2 are in there as well. They're just higher up in it. What you're talking about with the aerobic zone is more likely referred to as Zone 2. Zone 3 does work things a bit more because it's harder to do, but as noted, it's also harder to recover from and does not necessarily work LT or VO2 that much more. So it tends to work better to slow things down to Z2 for much of time and then do specific workouts targeting Z4 and Z5 at times to work those two areas. The Z2 work still stresses the aerobic system and while it will take some more to create the same stress, one can do a lot more of it with less risk of injury. I tend not to use the Zone 2, Zone 3, etc. designations because these labels are not universal; I guess most people here use them referring to Joe Friel's system, but that's not the only way. (For example, the lab where I had my lactate testing uses "Zone 1" to mean what Friel calls "Zone 2", etc.) Since the OP referred to "the aerobic zone" I used that same language (and many protocols or pace charts talk about "general aerobic running" or the like, so that seems to be more universally used. But you're right that all of this is aerobic running. |
| 2013-08-13 9:31 AM in reply to: BernardDogs |
| 8 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Well thanks for the info guys, and no no for the record im not giving up after a week. I just wanted to make sure what I was doing was proper to achieve more aerobic benefits. My goal is to one day go back to the speed I was at(6:00 miles) and not burn out so quickly. (I was huffy and puffing quite a lot at this space.) I used various calculators online which gave me very low heart rates for zone two. (140's) Mabye this is correct. I'm not sure. I came up with 160 bpm due to the talk test method. 160 feels low intensity and aerobic to me compared to what I used to be doing. Mabye I should go lower. In the mean time ill maybe drop down to 150 bpm and increase the volume slowly as mentioned above. I'm 23 180lbs very active and workout 5-6 days a week. ( my aerobic work was low however, that I just learned ) Thank you all for your help just looking for some reassurance from people that have been there. thanks |
| 2013-08-13 9:36 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 928 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? What pace were you doing at the HR 180-190 (was that 6:00/mile?), and what pace were you running in the 160 "aerobic zone"? And how much running were you doing at the faster pace before you slowed down? Edited by jennifer_runs 2013-08-13 9:41 AM |
| 2013-08-13 9:41 AM in reply to: raybankid |
Veteran 976 New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Another option if you're not into the HR thing, or think it's too low, is to use something like this so you have a pace to follow for the time being vs Z2/Z3: http://www.runbayou.com/jackd.htm. |
| 2013-08-13 9:49 AM in reply to: jennifer_runs |
| 8 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? All of my run training is done on a treadmill. Its too hot outside 110-120 degrees. my 180-190 bpm was around a six minute pace ( I believe but not sure.) 11 min pace for 160-170. I try and slow down further but its tuff. I was running 3-4 times a week. each run was 3-4 miles. anywhere btwn 9 to 16 miles a week. all at a 6 min to 730 pace. |
| 2013-08-13 9:56 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 928 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? That's actually slower than I expected you'd say, but I agree with the others to stick with that for a bit and you should eventually see the HR come down. I actually think you can probably go closer to 10:00/mile (and eventually faster), but maybe not right away. As a test you should be able to breathe at a rate where you can hold a conversation, about 5-6 words at a time. You shouldn't be able to give a speech or sing. Not that you'd be doing that on the treadmill unless you want to get kicked out of the gym. Since you were only running for about 20 minutes each time before, you were probably getting up into your lactate threshold zone or higher every time. Edited by jennifer_runs 2013-08-13 9:58 AM |
| 2013-08-13 10:06 AM in reply to: jennifer_runs |
| 8 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by jennifer_runs That's actually slower than I expected you'd say, but I agree with the others to stick with that for a bit and you should eventually see the HR come down. I actually think you can probably go closer to 10:00/mile (and eventually faster), but maybe not right away. As a test you should be able to breathe at a rate where you can hold a conversation, about 5-6 words at a time. You shouldn't be able to give a speech or sing. Not that you'd be doing that on the treadmill unless you want to get kicked out of the gym. Since you were only running for about 20 minutes each time before, you were probably getting up into your lactate threshold zone or higher every time. Ok that makes a ton of sense. My idea of talk test was to be able to speak full and coherent sentences. Not quite a sing thought That would for sure cause some problems. I know you were going to say that about that pace. I too think I should be faster for that 160 heart rate but all of my training, running and lifting has been anaerobic. I'm getting into tri's and im trying to keep it aerobic so I can become much more efficient and maintain a good pace for longer. I just got to slow it down and get that volume up.(im guessing this is where real aerobic adaptions are made) Mabye ill add in some 1/4 mile repeats once a week. |
| 2013-08-13 10:11 AM in reply to: raybankid |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Double check on the pacing as that difference is very big for the HR differences given. The 6 to 7:30 alone is large. The conversational pace mentioned is another way to help out. I've liked the "sentence, but not a paragraph" idea. Get a handle on this pacing and become familiar with the tools your using while doing so. Pace will be fairly steadish and HR should climb for a bit and then mostly flatten out. Learn to associate that with the previous effort given and then you'll be able to add more things in. |
| 2013-08-13 10:12 AM in reply to: raybankid |
| 928 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by raybankid Originally posted by jennifer_runs That's actually slower than I expected you'd say, but I agree with the others to stick with that for a bit and you should eventually see the HR come down. I actually think you can probably go closer to 10:00/mile (and eventually faster), but maybe not right away. As a test you should be able to breathe at a rate where you can hold a conversation, about 5-6 words at a time. You shouldn't be able to give a speech or sing. Not that you'd be doing that on the treadmill unless you want to get kicked out of the gym. Since you were only running for about 20 minutes each time before, you were probably getting up into your lactate threshold zone or higher every time. Ok that makes a ton of sense. My idea of talk test was to be able to speak full and coherent sentences. Not quite a sing thought That would for sure cause some problems. I know you were going to say that about that pace. I too think I should be faster for that 160 heart rate but all of my training, running and lifting has been anaerobic. I'm getting into tri's and im trying to keep it aerobic so I can become much more efficient and maintain a good pace for longer. I just got to slow it down and get that volume up.(im guessing this is where real aerobic adaptions are made) Mabye ill add in some 1/4 mile repeats once a week. Full short sentences. Here's a good link about the "zones" simplified. You should be in the second zone: http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/define-your-training-zone... |
| 2013-08-13 10:27 AM in reply to: raybankid |
Member 17 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? I'd recommend doing an actual LT test and getting a better idea of specific zones. But the conversational test is a good place to start. There is a thread on here by Mike Ricci that explains it all very well somewhere...http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25733&page=1# Stick with it. It just takes time. I started last Fall with aerobic heart rate training. Actually, I started with the Maffetone Method and then after a couple of months moved to a more Joe Friel-based zone method. Previous 5K personal bests were always at ~30 minutes flat. I was running a lot like you. 30 to 40 minutes at a time and pretty hard to really hard the whole time. Couldn't ever really break that 9:30/mi barrier. A month or so of Maffetone running exclusively saw me edge down to 28 flat. All of my runs up to that 5K were 10:45-11:30/mile pace, but i was running a lot more volume than before because it was easier on my body. In January, I did a LT test, set up zones and started doing most of my runs in Zone 2, which was higher than Maffetone. Next 5K in March I PR'ed at 22:18. No speedwork was done before that run. I just completed my first HIM at Steelhead two weeks ago and did the half-marathon at 9:30/mi pace and my HR never left low-to-mid zone 2 (cramping hamstrings kept me from running what I think would've been a full minute/mile pace faster). Now, I was doing speedwork in the month leading up to the HIM. All of this is to say that it takes months, not weeks to see real progress. But you will see it if you are doing it consistently. Good luck and keep at it! |
| 2013-08-13 12:35 PM in reply to: smccaffity |
| 41 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by smccaffity I'd recommend doing an actual LT test and getting a better idea of specific zones. But the conversational test is a good place to start. There is a thread on here by Mike Ricci that explains it all very well somewhere...http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25733&page=1# Stick with it. It just takes time. I started last Fall with aerobic heart rate training. Actually, I started with the Maffetone Method and then after a couple of months moved to a more Joe Friel-based zone method. Previous 5K personal bests were always at ~30 minutes flat. I was running a lot like you. 30 to 40 minutes at a time and pretty hard to really hard the whole time. Couldn't ever really break that 9:30/mi barrier. A month or so of Maffetone running exclusively saw me edge down to 28 flat. All of my runs up to that 5K were 10:45-11:30/mile pace, but i was running a lot more volume than before because it was easier on my body. In January, I did a LT test, set up zones and started doing most of my runs in Zone 2, which was higher than Maffetone. Next 5K in March I PR'ed at 22:18. No speedwork was done before that run. I just completed my first HIM at Steelhead two weeks ago and did the half-marathon at 9:30/mi pace and my HR never left low-to-mid zone 2 (cramping hamstrings kept me from running what I think would've been a full minute/mile pace faster). Now, I was doing speedwork in the month leading up to the HIM. All of this is to say that it takes months, not weeks to see real progress. But you will see it if you are doing it consistently. Good luck and keep at it! I'm kind of where you were, 29 min 5K's. I'm switching to Z2 HR type running, targeting a 5K in November. Working on ramping up my volume from 12-15 mpw to something higher, not sure how much higher. What was your volume when you were training to run your 28 flat and your 22? |
| 2013-08-13 12:42 PM in reply to: jennifer_runs |
Master 1460 Burlington, Vermont | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by jennifer_runs That's actually slower than I expected you'd say, but I agree with the others to stick with that for a bit and you should eventually see the HR come down. I actually think you can probably go closer to 10:00/mile (and eventually faster), but maybe not right away. As a test you should be able to breathe at a rate where you can hold a conversation, about 5-6 words at a time. You shouldn't be able to give a speech or sing. Not that you'd be doing that on the treadmill unless you want to get kicked out of the gym. Since you were only running for about 20 minutes each time before, you were probably getting up into your lactate threshold zone or higher every time. I'm sorry, but this is simply backwards. You're not choosing a pace and hoping the HR comes down. You're running according to HR and becoming more efficient (faster) within that zone. The difference between the two is an important concept to grasp. |
| 2013-08-13 1:08 PM in reply to: RollTideTri |
Member 17 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? i fluctuated between 20 and 30 mpw. i think my highest run volume week was 30 miles, if i recall right. i was much closer to 20 mpw (if not under) at the time of the 22 min 5k because i was swimming and biking more. i actually decreased my mpw as i ramped up the other two disciplines in jan/feb. |
| 2013-08-13 1:15 PM in reply to: 0 |
| 1660 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? I've said this so many times that I'm like a broken record, but it still needs to be said: Don't forget the common sense reality: if you hold training volume steady but cut intensity, you're going to get worse. No way around it. Training at lower intensities for better aerobic gain definitely works, but only if you significantly increase training volume. A lot of the whole point of that lower-intensity training is to allow you to go farther and longer on workouts. If you're pushing at 'threshold' pace, be it swim,bike,run, you'll likely be totally busted after an hour if you're truly going at that intensity. If you're going at VO2 hi-intensity pace, you'll be toasted well before that. So even though those are great workouts for speed and intensity, they're not going to help you as much in building a big endurance base, particularly for multihour events. Shoot for a gradual rampup to 20% or more of AVERAGE training volume compared to your prior best training volume. Do it slowly, gradually, and preferably with a plan. In most cases, this rampup of volume will take care of the slowed speed itself - you shouldn't be feeling like you're running 'too slow' or need to slow yourself down artificially. If you are feeling that good, it's time to ramp up your volume even more. So if you want to get better for longer events, it will require training longer distances, which will be facilitated by backing off on intensity. A very typical type of workout for athletes on this regiment are 3 hr long weekend rides, 90+ min long runs, and regular weekday workouts of 60-120 mins per session. So you can see why you won't be hammering every session at high HR. Edited by yazmaster 2013-08-13 1:17 PM |
| 2013-08-13 3:38 PM in reply to: raybankid |
Veteran 285 Tampa | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by raybankid Originally posted by jennifer_runs That's actually slower than I expected you'd say, but I agree with the others to stick with that for a bit and you should eventually see the HR come down. I actually think you can probably go closer to 10:00/mile (and eventually faster), but maybe not right away. As a test you should be able to breathe at a rate where you can hold a conversation, about 5-6 words at a time. You shouldn't be able to give a speech or sing. Not that you'd be doing that on the treadmill unless you want to get kicked out of the gym. Since you were only running for about 20 minutes each time before, you were probably getting up into your lactate threshold zone or higher every time. Ok that makes a ton of sense. My idea of talk test was to be able to speak full and coherent sentences. Not quite a sing thought That would for sure cause some problems. I know you were going to say that about that pace. I too think I should be faster for that 160 heart rate but all of my training, running and lifting has been anaerobic. I'm getting into tri's and im trying to keep it aerobic so I can become much more efficient and maintain a good pace for longer. I just got to slow it down and get that volume up.(im guessing this is where real aerobic adaptions are made) Mabye ill add in some 1/4 mile repeats once a week. My suggestion would be to stick with building an aerobic base for now. You know you can run fast, so the 1/4 mile repeats are not going to do anything for what your problem is. I bet some people here hate MAF, but if I were you I would try that. Basically, use 157 as the HR to aim for. It takes time, but after a while you should see your pace get faster at that same heart rate. This was the method used by legends such as Mark Allen, and is also what Angela Naeth is doing right now and she is winning pretty much every race she competes in. |
| 2013-08-13 4:06 PM in reply to: raybankid |
| 1660 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by raybankid All of my run training is done on a treadmill. Its too hot outside 110-120 degrees. my 180-190 bpm was around a six minute pace ( I believe but not sure.) 11 min pace for 160-170. I try and slow down further but its tuff. I was running 3-4 times a week. each run was 3-4 miles. anywhere btwn 9 to 16 miles a week. all at a 6 min to 730 pace. FWIW - I run a high 18 min 5k, and I don't run any of my 25-30 mpw as a triathlete faster than 7:00min/mile, and my more typical run pace for those miles is about 8:00/mile. The only time I'll dip under 7:00/mile in training is on VO2 intervals less than 1200m long, but I rarely do those, maybe once/twice in a season when the local club is doing them when I can make it. I'm also not naturally fast - without the training, I'd be a 23+ 5k runner, but all those aerobic miles over years made all the difference. I made most progress in running when significantly ramping up volume, even if the speed of my training were surprisingly slow. |
| 2013-08-13 4:07 PM in reply to: yazmaster |
| Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by yazmaster I've said this so many times that I'm like a broken record, but it still needs to be said: Don't forget the common sense reality: if you hold training volume steady but cut intensity, you're going to get worse. No way around it. Training at lower intensities for better aerobic gain definitely works, but only if you significantly increase training volume. A lot of the whole point of that lower-intensity training is to allow you to go farther and longer on workouts. If you're pushing at 'threshold' pace, be it swim,bike,run, you'll likely be totally busted after an hour if you're truly going at that intensity. If you're going at VO2 hi-intensity pace, you'll be toasted well before that. So even though those are great workouts for speed and intensity, they're not going to help you as much in building a big endurance base, particularly for multihour events. Shoot for a gradual rampup to 20% or more of AVERAGE training volume compared to your prior best training volume. Do it slowly, gradually, and preferably with a plan. In most cases, this rampup of volume will take care of the slowed speed itself - you shouldn't be feeling like you're running 'too slow' or need to slow yourself down artificially. If you are feeling that good, it's time to ramp up your volume even more. So if you want to get better for longer events, it will require training longer distances, which will be facilitated by backing off on intensity. A very typical type of workout for athletes on this regiment are 3 hr long weekend rides, 90+ min long runs, and regular weekday workouts of 60-120 mins per session. So you can see why you won't be hammering every session at high HR. Good post. Getting faster involves improving fitness. Improving fitness requires you to increase your training load. Training load is a factor of time and intensity. You either increase your time (duration, distance, or frequency) or you increase your intensity (higher HR zone, power, RPE, etc)...or you can do both. The key is how can you increase your training load while not burning yourself out or injuring yourself? Doing "some" of your training in lower zones can allow you to boost up your training load because it allows you to go longer (increase duration), recover faster (allowing you do do more workouts/frequency), and reduce chances of injury. If you're injured, you can't train, and your training load reduces. As brigby1 mentioned earlier, activities like swimming and cycling are low impact and lower risks for injury. They also take much less time to recover from as compared to running, so there isn't as much of a need to lower intensity for those workouts. A few lower intensity swims or bikes may be appropriate if you're doing extremely high volume or you're using a few lower intensity swims and bikes to supplement the high intensity swims and bikes you're already doing. As for running, most people would benefit from MORE (key word) lower intensity running. This will help boost your training load in a safe and managable way. Just know that most fitness improvements take time. Weeks...months...even years. |
| 2013-08-13 4:41 PM in reply to: 0 |
| 928 | Subject: RE: Aerobic zone, am i wasting my time? Originally posted by Jason N Originally posted by yazmaster I've said this so many times that I'm like a broken record, but it still needs to be said: Don't forget the common sense reality: if you hold training volume steady but cut intensity, you're going to get worse. No way around it. Training at lower intensities for better aerobic gain definitely works, but only if you significantly increase training volume. A lot of the whole point of that lower-intensity training is to allow you to go farther and longer on workouts. If you're pushing at 'threshold' pace, be it swim,bike,run, you'll likely be totally busted after an hour if you're truly going at that intensity. If you're going at VO2 hi-intensity pace, you'll be toasted well before that. So even though those are great workouts for speed and intensity, they're not going to help you as much in building a big endurance base, particularly for multihour events. Shoot for a gradual rampup to 20% or more of AVERAGE training volume compared to your prior best training volume. Do it slowly, gradually, and preferably with a plan. In most cases, this rampup of volume will take care of the slowed speed itself - you shouldn't be feeling like you're running 'too slow' or need to slow yourself down artificially. If you are feeling that good, it's time to ramp up your volume even more. So if you want to get better for longer events, it will require training longer distances, which will be facilitated by backing off on intensity. A very typical type of workout for athletes on this regiment are 3 hr long weekend rides, 90+ min long runs, and regular weekday workouts of 60-120 mins per session. So you can see why you won't be hammering every session at high HR. Good post. Getting faster involves improving fitness. Improving fitness requires you to increase your training load. Training load is a factor of time and intensity. You either increase your time (duration, distance, or frequency) or you increase your intensity (higher HR zone, power, RPE, etc)...or you can do both. The key is how can you increase your training load while not burning yourself out or injuring yourself? Doing "some" of your training in lower zones can allow you to boost up your training load because it allows you to go longer (increase duration), recover faster (allowing you do do more workouts/frequency), and reduce chances of injury. If you're injured, you can't train, and your training load reduces. As brigby1 mentioned earlier, activities like swimming and cycling are low impact and lower risks for injury. They also take much less time to recover from as compared to running, so there isn't as much of a need to lower intensity for those workouts. A few lower intensity swims or bikes may be appropriate if you're doing extremely high volume or you're using a few lower intensity swims and bikes to supplement the high intensity swims and bikes you're already doing. As for running, most people would benefit from MORE (key word) lower intensity running. This will help boost your training load in a safe and managable way. Just know that most fitness improvements take time. Weeks...months...even years. Good points-- I should have mentioned it my first response but sometimes I forget the obvious. OP implied he was hammering all his short runs and burning out-- slowing down will allow you to improve by allowing you to gradually increase volume (lengths of runs and frequency). And while it is true that the slower pace shouldn't feel forced or unnatural, it WILL sometimes feel very slow for someone used to hammering it every time. And yes, improvement takes time, but if you're starting at 10-15 miles per week you have the potential to make huge gains in periods of 6-8 weeks. It won't take years. Just remember to build gradually so that you don't overload. Edited by jennifer_runs 2013-08-13 4:44 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Am I wasting my time Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| What the heck: Millions of people waste their time by jogging Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK