I tend to run my long runs at the sharp end of comfortable, this usually equates to an average HR of around 160 (approx 75% max working HR for me). Any slower seems to give me strange niggles, and any faster leaves me too tired to put the hard work in on efforts through the week.Originally Posted by MP1
Last edited by Rob Furness; 12-03-2011 at 11:16 PM.
Jeff Galloway advocates inserting lots of walk breaks into runs, both training and races. Walking by itself, as I can testify from experience, doesn't prepare adequately for running, although I'm sure it helps. It doesn't prepare for the impact and also the particular muscular movement of running. Before now I have returned from 2 weeks of almost daily long mountain walks only to find that 3 miles of relatively flat running led to agonising DOMS
Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.
well, maybe more like 80% come to think about it, on a perceived effort basis - what that translates to in terms of HR I'm not sure
but the suggestion of 50-60% of MHR sounds low to me, though I've never worn a HRM for running
I'd be happy going at a slower pace pace as long as my LSR was longer than the race I was targetting - that's just building up good base fitness
but if you are targetting AL races around the 20-mile mark, then I think you have to put some hard work in - I just prefer to know that I have actually run that distance at a half-decent pace, especially as I don't train on the sort of hills or terrain that the races will be run over
I feel like I have to compensate for the easier ground and gradients I run on by going reasonably hard. I'm not going to do it the weekend before an AL, that would be daft, but given some time and some tapering it feels about right
Last edited by ZootHornRollo; 13-03-2011 at 05:26 PM.
Stop being a pillock, I did say I was using the word in a relative sense. I meant that you go slow compared to your race pace or tempo pace (as you well know). However you're not entirely on the wrong track, if you were to walk 20 miles instead of a long run each weekend it would still have a decent effect on muscles and tendons which would improve your running, just not anywhere near as much as it would if you ran the distance instead.
Your reference to the beginner who runs at a slower pace than their V02 max, yes they would get faster because the muscles and tendons they used for running and their general endurance would still improve. Would they get to their full potential training this way? Clearly not, but they would certainly improve.
Seeing as how you keep having a pop at everyone on here for their training methods, how about sharing the gospel of St Christopher Leigh with us? (to coin you own terminology). I'm quite interested to know what it is we're all doing wrong if you have all the answers.
Christopher, do you think you might be a little obsessed with age? Fear of the future, perhaps (you too, you know, will probably be 68 one day, can you bear to contemplate that?). Of course my training, racing, speed, recovery etc are influenced by my age. However my age has nothing to do with many of my contributions to the Forum. I begin to think that if I were to remark that the sun shone today you would immediately dismiss that comment, attributing it to my ageing eye-sight.
I have not always been 68, you know. My discomforting discovery that strenuous walking is not a sufficient preparation for running happened many years ago.
I thoroughly agree with Rob's last post. I have long thought that walking is the best foundation for running, only the running still needs to be introduced very gradually however much walking the individual has already done. And for beginners, any activity at all is going to lead to an improvement, providing they don't injure themselves or put themselves off forever.
Finally, Christopher, I think it is a bit cool on your part to complain that other people are rude. Who lives by the sword is likely to perish by it.
Last edited by Alexandra; 13-03-2011 at 05:46 PM.
Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.
Read my post again, I said walking would improve your running, Not running speed
I am well aware of Alexandra's age thank you, you've banged on about it often enough on this thread that I'm sure everyone in the world knows how old she is by now
Isn't the science of training the same for all adults, regardless of age?
i c this thread just keeps on running
VO2 max, maximum heart rate, muscle volume and lung capacity all fall with age, and recovery times are longer and joints stiffer. Muscles often develop a degree of fibrosis/stiffness, and the differences between the various fibre types becomes blurred. In the 12 years I have been running the emphasis has changed from speed work and PBs, to injury prevention and endurance, and from road to trail/fell. Whilst the basics of the science are the same, in practice injury is so much more likely that only the lucky well designed people who chose the right parents can train anything like their younger colleagues. If they can train like younger people and not get injured then they should reap similar, though not so pronounced benefits.
I like your idea of choosing better parents. I should have chosen better to avoid being prone to my 'special' and highly inconvenient injury of stress-broken kneecap! Some people do just seem to get lucky in terms of injury don't they. If only we had the science of prediction all sorted out, we could train to avoid what we will be prone to suffer.... or something...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote