|
Feb 2009
9:28pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,143 posts
|
Velociraptor
NeilCoates, I wish I'd been given a HRM and shown how to use it when I was at your stage!
You are far more likely to be able to build your mileage without injury and allow your muscles and tendons to develop in line with your cardiovascular endurance if you start running at 70%WHR now. When people break down in the early months after starting running, it's not because they haven't built up their hearts and lungs, it's because their cardiovascular fitness has outstripped their running-specific musculoskeletal strength and endurance.
|
|
Feb 2009
9:30pm, 18 Feb 2009
2,304 posts
|
Fenland Runner
Tangents 'R' Us.....
Another angle on this matter is what is the target?
If you're targeting to be as good as you can be at say up to 10k distance my feel is that a different approach will be successful when compared to targeting say marathon distance.....
Again, a personal anecdote, due to going into the grey or ghey area my flm last year was pants. Although SNOD08 was loads slower it was a great experience. Hopefully, Edinburgh will be a truer (or nearer) reflection of my (lack of) ability.
So in summary, if you're going long, I really believe for the sizeable majority slow is good, 70% or less WHR%.
If Edinburgh is a disaster you can say, I told you so 
|
|
Feb 2009
9:31pm, 18 Feb 2009
1,625 posts
|
DrBob
Not time to read all the way back, is the idea to dost most ? Of running at less than 70% WHR? Is that average or a maximum?
I did 10ish at 7mm today and average was about 72 but peak more like 80
|
|
Feb 2009
9:33pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,145 posts
|
Velociraptor
There are loads of variables that could account for your different experiences in those two races, FR, aren't there?
|
|
Feb 2009
9:34pm, 18 Feb 2009
2,307 posts
|
Fenland Runner
DrBob, my understanding is that it is a steady 70% or less...
So starting slow, than speeding, than slowing down just to hit the 70% is bad.
However the other aspect is cardiac drift on any length of run but if you just concentrate on HR and not pace you'll just get slower.
|
|
Feb 2009
9:36pm, 18 Feb 2009
6,146 posts
|
Velociraptor
BAD DrBob! 72% is the Grey Area!
[Points sternly to trapdoor]
|
|
Feb 2009
9:36pm, 18 Feb 2009
2,308 posts
|
Fenland Runner
True, V'Rap, true. However post-flm I was wrecked for a week. Post-SNOD08 I was running up/down Snowdon (itself) within a few days. A bit chalk 'n' cheese
|
|
Feb 2009
9:37pm, 18 Feb 2009
81 posts
|
Nellers
V'Rap (Can I call you V'Rap? It seems very informal and we've not been properly introduced.:-)),
That actually sounds pretty sensible and also fits with my past history. I have started running before coming from a background of endurance canoing. I think what I did was run fast enought that I felt like my cardio vascular fitness (which was already pretty good) was being stretched without worrying about how strong the legs were. Result: Knees creaking and shin splints and several iinactive years and several additional pounds.
So I guess I start out by sticking to the 70% principle and see what that does to me, and occasionally have a blast to keep me sane if I need it?
|
|
Feb 2009
9:39pm, 18 Feb 2009
1,626 posts
|
DrBob
Sounds a nice idea, thanks FR
I know a few runners who probably never go below 70 or above 85
|
|
Feb 2009
9:42pm, 18 Feb 2009
1,627 posts
|
DrBob
LOL Vrap!
I think I'm probably in the bad books of the Pose police too
|
