I’m not an advocate of HRM. I do use one (Garmin 305) but only to summarise my runs, to see where I’ve struggled or run well etc. It does give you a different insight into your running. Also agree that runners who have run for a number of years can run based on perceived rate of exertion. I also believe that technology can, when used appropriately, aid training if training is what you want. If it’s social just enjoy the run!
The Fells made me run you know!!
Flopsy - I use a HRM but I don't really watch the HR on it unless I feel the need to. It's more useful to me to look at the data afterwards to see what sort of level I was working at (which is useful for getting perceived effort correct) and it gives a good indication of improvement if you run a course faster than before but at the same HR.
seems 2 schools of thinking are appearing here!! But id say 50-60%, talking should come easy, no stress to the body, save your effort for the tempo runs/intervalsOriginally Posted by Alexandra
from a very different school of thought to myself there m8
but I think recovery runs and long steady runs are two very different things
Recovery runs are a bit of a luxury - if you have time then sure it's good to unwind with a 30-40 minute jog. Or go for a gentle bike ride or summat.
If your intention is to set down a good base and increase endurance then I think something more than a long jog is required. My long weekend run is 2.5-4.0 hours and I'd try to put some effort into that (probably in the 70-80% range of RPE/MHR), so I felt like I was pushing a bit all the way - but capable of chatting.
If I was going to do more than four hours, in prep for an ultra or something, I might then slow it down to something more gentle.
Have only just been introduced to HRMs as part of these spinning classes I'm doing - which are really good I must say. The targetting of zones makes total sense, expecially in terms of raising your threshold. But then cycling is more suited to techy style training, IMO.
I wouldn't neceesarily want to take it across to running, as part of the attraction of running to me is letting it all go and relaxing and, er, 'communing with nature', etc. But then I know my exertion levels in running a bit more instinctively, so I can regulate 'one-hour max efforts' and that sort of thing, just by RPE.
Last edited by ZootHornRollo; 17-02-2011 at 11:19 AM.
Correct. I try not to do long slow runs, that doesn't mean to say I haven't in the past and at times still do if running for a long time. However I try not to do many. Much prefer long steady runs and definitely with HR above 50-60 %. As far as recovery runs go I either rest, walk or bike. As I mentioned earlier I use my Garmin to give me statistics of my run and then use them as an aid to my next run. Once the watch is on I tend not to look at it again until I'm back home. Surely though being able to see how fast, far, long and high you have run, the intensity of effort you have put in at stages of your run, points at which you have run well and badly can only be a good thing - and these are the basics that watches do! Or is it just me??from a very different school of thought to myself there m8
The Fells made me run you know!!
All my weekend runs tend to be in the 10 to 20 mile bracket and always, always in the hills. So I guess my natural pace is geared to that and, for long races, all I do is set off pretty much at my same old 'speed'. In the rare occasion of doing a short race, I then speed up as best I can. Having done some ultras though, the last thing I would say is that you need to train running slow and again I just run at my default hilly run speed which is something like 5 mph on average. In last years fellsman I think I ran the first 20 miles to Dent in something like 4:30 hours and that included going up and down Ingleborough, Whernside and Gragareth/Great Coum on the way - all in the next 40 odd miles maybe took me a further 13 hours of running, what with food stops and stuff so clearly weariness, time on my feet and distance kicked in but I really don't think doing the first 20 miles slower would have made any improvement to my final time; in fact I think it would have just made it proprtionately that much slower. Its all about having a natural metronome like pace and trying to stick to it best you can I think.
your base fitness must be superb, the amount you do, stolly - if you chucked in some speed work, you'd be a demon!
Almost undoubtedly, it would.
imagine if Seb Coe set off on a 5000m race at 1500m pace, you'd fully expect him to blow up.
Why not sprint the first 400m ? surely that would save you time.
Its the first thing that any competitive runner has to learn
Pace yourself
I'm amazed you haven't and you really shouldn't try and persuade less experienced runners that heading off "too fast " is a good idea
Remember I was running at something like 5 mph here - I'm not suggesting setting off too fast but just at a reasonable pace! And I'm pretty sure Alexandria is a very experienced runner anyway. I have in the past personally set off miles too fast - doing the first 7 miles of the Edale Skyline in an hour and blowing up massively and dreadfully in the second half and also being effectively forced (by other team members) to run the first 10 miles of the HPM much much too fast and acting as a dead weight for the team later as a direct result.
Last edited by Stolly; 17-02-2011 at 01:27 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote