Runners: Why so slow?
Options
Replies
-
ronocnikral wrote: »
As an engineer, I find HR monitoring to be too inaccurate. As you build aerobic base, you transfer many muscle fibers over to the aerobic side. As such, your aerobic zone becomes much bigger and the "no man's land" is small to virtually non-existent. Physiological testing is the gold standard. In fact, many people say HR monitoring is useless on a long term training basis.
lol @ronocnikral. Context! Not many of us have access to Olympic training facilities or the like. Wish I did though, assuming it was free! Barring that, I stand by my recommendation that using an HRM is the most accurate way, for non-elite runners, with a finite budget and limited time, to learn how to control their exertion such that they're running at the optimum pace to meet their goals.1 -
ronocnikral wrote: »
As an engineer, I find HR monitoring to be too inaccurate. As you build aerobic base, you transfer many muscle fibers over to the aerobic side. As such, your aerobic zone becomes much bigger and the "no man's land" is small to virtually non-existent. Physiological testing is the gold standard. In fact, many people say HR monitoring is useless on a long term training basis.
lol @ronocnikral. Context! Not many of us have access to Olympic training facilities or the like. Wish I did though, assuming it was free! Barring that, I stand by my recommendation that using an HRM is the most accurate way, for non-elite runners, with a finite budget and limited time, to learn how to control their exertion such that they're running at the optimum pace to meet their goals.
I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
0 -
You might want to read some of the books from the experts on the topic like Phil Maffetone. But the idea is that most of the benefits of training are developed either aerobically or anaerobically. Therefore to train the aerobic system you run slower. To train anaerobic you run harder. Generally 80-90% slower is recommended. If you run hard all the time you could have negative side effects. Following these protocols I was able to decrease my race times significantly with the same amount of training.0
-
-
You might want to read some of the books from the experts on the topic like Phil Maffetone. But the idea is that most of the benefits of training are developed either aerobically or anaerobically. Therefore to train the aerobic system you run slower. To train anaerobic you run harder. Generally 80-90% slower is recommended. If you run hard all the time you could have negative side effects. Following these protocols I was able to decrease my race times significantly with the same amount of training.
Maffetone's "Training for endurance" 2nd edition is usually less than $1 on amazon. Unfortunately, shipping is $4. Well worth the money.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
@MeanderingMammal when you find something that is 100% accurate when it comes to gauging exertion and how to exercise optimally to achieve your goals please let all of us know, even though you'll be awfully busy making your fortune with whatever it is. I'm pretty sure there are pro sports associations that will line up at your door to buy your discovery. Unfortunately, biological processes aren't precise and/or 100% understood.
PhD EE, MIEEE, CodeMonkeysRUs0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
@MeanderingMammal when you find something that is 100% accurate when it comes to gauging exertion and how to exercise optimally to achieve your goals please let all of us know, even though you'll be awfully busy making your fortune with whatever it is. I'm pretty sure there are pro sports associations that will line up at your door to buy your discovery. Unfortunately, biological processes aren't precise and/or 100% understood.
PhD EE, MIEEE, CodeMonkeysRUs
Indeed. I'm just conscious that when we're talking about training tools we end up in the realms of where precision is useful, and where it's interesting.
On a track, no debate. For road training, in a speed cycle its potentially useful, otherwise we're in the realms of interesting. On the trails, probably of little value.
0 -
ronocnikral wrote: »I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
That's gotta be tricky, poking your finger every mile during a long run to see if you're maintaining the proper level of exertion. Or do you have the device implanted so it reads real-time?
0 -
There's a bunch of strength conditioning advocates claiming aerobic activities are counterproductive to building strength. Such statements are also loony-toons (insofar they aren't thinking along the lines of PPF).ronocnikral wrote: »Want to get faster? Drop your weight lifting (it is counterproductive to building aerobic base or it adds bulk elsewhere that you need to carry around)
Repeat after me: Proper Strength Conditioning Will Improve Running Efficiency.
Period. Full stop. End of story.3 -
ronocnikral wrote: »I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
That's gotta be tricky, poking your finger every mile during a long run to see if you're maintaining the proper level of exertion. Or do you have the device implanted so it reads real-time?
You clearly don't understand how to apply lactate testing into a training program.0 -
ronocnikral wrote: »ronocnikral wrote: »I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
That's gotta be tricky, poking your finger every mile during a long run to see if you're maintaining the proper level of exertion. Or do you have the device implanted so it reads real-time?
You clearly don't understand how to apply lactate testing into a training program.
You clearly don't understand how to manage exertion during a workout.
1 -
ronocnikral wrote: »ronocnikral wrote: »I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
That's gotta be tricky, poking your finger every mile during a long run to see if you're maintaining the proper level of exertion. Or do you have the device implanted so it reads real-time?
You clearly don't understand how to apply lactate testing into a training program.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the the wink emoji. I'd be happy to give you a link if you wish. LMAO.
Seriously, testing your blood is overkill for most people. The point was that an HRM, while admittedly not perfect, is significantly better than the metric of "conversational pace". It's also better, particularly for new runners, than the most common method used by pro-am runners, perceived exertion. They're also more accessible (you can throw a rock in your local bike or running shop and likely hit one) and easier to understand and learn than lactate measuring devices and how to interpret those results.
And the point of my specific response to you, an HRM also provides real-time feedback while you're running, something lactate testing does not do. New runners need to learn how to pace themselves during a run to avoid overdoing it, and an HRM gives you, not immediate, but fairly rapid feedback if you start pushing too hard. I love it on my long runs because I often lose focus and start pushing too hard and my HRM brings me back to reality.
And yes, after you've run for a while and if want to take your training more seriously, measuring lactate is a great way to take your training to the next level. (<--- See, no wink emoji here. I was serious.)1 -
" lactate testing" -- Isn't that like hiring an accountant to tell you how poor you are?1
-
I don't actually have any desire to run more than 5-6 miles at a time. Absolutely no wish to run marathons, HMs, or anything else super long.
Basically, I'd like to be able to run 5mi (maybe a 10k), have a fast 3mi (5k), and a faster 1 mile. Less than an hour for 5 miles/less than 24 minutes for 5k/less than 7 min/mi.
It all comes down to my general "Zombie apocalypse" training plan (don't laugh, WHO has one too). If you're still running after 3 miles, you need a better plan. I'd much rather spend the rest of my time/energy on fighting (krav maga including sparring) and building strength (lifting).
If I need to run 5-6 miles often to accomplish the other goals thats fine. 5mph was an easy, go forever pace. Ran 4 miles yesterday before I had to go to work. Thanks for all of the advice.1 -
Ok, so as a follow up then..... Are you experience runners spent/panting/DONE when you finish your goal distance? Never, sometimes, most of the time, always?
Depends on what I'm working on... Speed work leaves me spent usually. New (added) distance, sometimes. But the more you run it, the easier it gets, and the faster you get. And a quick 5k is easy peasy after training for half marathons.0 -
I don't actually have any desire to run more than 5-6 miles at a time. Absolutely no wish to run marathons, HMs, or anything else super long.
Basically, I'd like to be able to run 5mi (maybe a 10k), have a fast 3mi (5k), and a faster 1 mile. Less than an hour for 5 miles/less than 24 minutes for 5k/less than 7 min/mi.
It all comes down to my general "Zombie apocalypse" training plan (don't laugh, WHO has one too). If you're still running after 3 miles, you need a better plan. I'd much rather spend the rest of my time/energy on fighting (krav maga including sparring) and building strength (lifting).
If I need to run 5-6 miles often to accomplish the other goals thats fine. 5mph was an easy, go forever pace. Ran 4 miles yesterday before I had to go to work. Thanks for all of the advice.
Good point...you need to train to your goals, not somebody else's.
However, even though zombies are known do pretty quick 5Ks, you only have to be faster than the person next to you. And if you DO get caught...I don't want you to be so fast that you'll catch me. Have a donut would ya?
1 -
I don't actually have any desire to run more than 5-6 miles at a time. Absolutely no wish to run marathons, HMs, or anything else super long.
Basically, I'd like to be able to run 5mi (maybe a 10k), have a fast 3mi (5k), and a faster 1 mile. Less than an hour for 5 miles/less than 24 minutes for 5k/less than 7 min/mi.
It all comes down to my general "Zombie apocalypse" training plan (don't laugh, WHO has one too). If you're still running after 3 miles, you need a better plan. I'd much rather spend the rest of my time/energy on fighting (krav maga including sparring) and building strength (lifting).
If I need to run 5-6 miles often to accomplish the other goals thats fine. 5mph was an easy, go forever pace. Ran 4 miles yesterday before I had to go to work. Thanks for all of the advice.
Good point...you need to train to your goals, not somebody else's.
However, even though zombies are known do pretty quick 5Ks, you only have to be faster than the person next to you. And if you DO get caught...I don't want you to be so fast that you'll catch me. Have a donut would ya?
Eventually you start running (heh) out of people to outpace/trip....
Oh, I'll eat the donut...but it'll just fuel me to run faster
I wonder if zombie-me would retain the fighting muscle memory. If so, sorry not sorry, but you're screwed 0 -
I don't like going slow enough that I can hold a conversation. I lose focus and don't push myself as much. Tho I have told a friend of mine (who just started running) that time will come with distance. The longer you run the faster your speed will get (over time). So I believe that the whole slow down thing is for someone who just started so they don't burn out as easily.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions