"It's what you do next that counts"

Larry Brent

Mr Slow wrote: »

Surely the idea is to run a previous marathon pace at a lower heart rate, ie Woddle's aim is to be able to run his previous pb at 160 and not 180?

Yes the idea is to run a previous marathon pace at a lower HR....

....because you will now be fitter having continued and progressed training following that previous marathon.

But you would not race a marathon at that pace, as you're now fitter. You'd run it at a faster pace, so your HR/effort would be the same as the previous marathon but you'd be at a faster pace for that same HR/effort and so you'd run a faster time.

Running the marathon at a higher HR than a previous marathon only comes into it if you were not adequately trained to maintain your highest possible HR during the previous marathon. In practice this is probably the case for the vast majority of amateur runners.

This is because aerobic threshold and anaerobic thresholds are both too low. By training to raise both thresholds you'll be able to run at a faster pace for all HRs. But also you should be able to run at a higher % of max HR before hitting each threshold. And so you might be able to run the next marathon at a higher HR and hence significantly faster.

In summary we want Woddle to be able to run faster at all HRs and we want him to be able to run a marathon at a greater % of max HR.

Larry Brent

When running at certain paces you'll be using mainly fat for fuel and so little lactate is being produced.

As you speed up lactate will start to be produced at a greater level (aerobic or lactate threshold) but the body will be able to deal with it and so it does not accumulate.

As you speed up further, lactate will be produced faster than it can be dealt with and so accumulates (anaerobic threshold or lactate turn point).

By increasing the pace at which you can run before reaching both of these thresholds means you will become more economical or efficient. You'll use a greater proportion of fat and so use glycogen more sparingly and the lactate that is being produced by the glycogen that is being used will be dealt with better.

When you are between the aerobic and anaerobic thresholds you are in a steady state - lactate being dealt with as it is being produced and so does not accumulate. The faster you can run and still be in a steady state the better. A logical way to improve this is by first improving ability to maintain a steady state at lower paces and then gradually increase the pace at which you can maintain a steady state.

To know if you are in a steady state, monitor effort and pace. If pace does not slow for the same effort, or if effort does not increase for the same pace then you are in a steady state. To know this by feel is desirable but for those who find this difficult monitoring HR (effort) and pace during a run will do.

Set your watch to auto lap or just note the time taken for each mile and afterwards compare HR and pace for each mile. After the first couple of miles warming, up pace and HR should not change if running in a steady state, be it an easy run or a steady tempo run. I imagine what happens a lot is people go out for an easy run and try to maintain for example 7:30 pace and have an idea that 150bpm is their easy running HR. To maintain the pace the HR per mile might go 135/140/150/152/154/156/158. So they end up with an average around 150 but they don't see the significance in the fact that it was slowly rising; that being that it's rising because they are producing more and more lactate and so HR is rising to pump more oxygen to the mitochondria to deal with this.

bart simpson

Larry Brent wrote: »

When running at certain paces you'll be using mainly fat for fuel and so little lactate is being produced.

As you speed up lactate will start to be produced at a greater level (aerobic or lactate threshold) but the body will be able to deal with it and so it does not accumulate.

As you speed up further, lactate will be produced faster than it can be dealt with and so accumulates (anaerobic threshold or lactate turn point).

By increasing the pace at which you can run before reaching both of these thresholds means you will become more economical or efficient. You'll use a greater proportion of fat and so use glycogen more sparingly and the lactate that is being produced by the glycogen that is being used will be dealt with better.

When you are between the aerobic and anaerobic thresholds you are in a steady state - lactate being dealt with as it s being produced and so does not accumulate. The faster you can run and still be in a steady state the better. A logical way to improve this is by first improving ability to maintain a steady state at lower paces and then gradually increase the pace at which you can maintain a steady state.

To know if you are in a steady state, monitor effort and pace. If pace does not slow for the same effort, or if effort does not increase for the same pace then you are in a steady state. To know this by feel is desirable but for those who find this difficult monitoring HR (effort) and pace during a run will do.

Set your watch to auto lap or just note the time taken for each mile and afterwards compare HR and pace for each mile. After the first couple of miles warming up pace and HR should not change if running in a steady state, be it an easy run or a steady tempo run. I imagine what happens a lot is people go out for an easy run and try to maintain for example 7:30 pace and have an idea that 150bpm is their easy running HR. To maintain the pace the HR per mile might go 135/140/150/152/154/156/158. So they end up with an average around 150 but they don't see the significance in the fact that it was slowly rising; that being that it's rising because they are producing more and more lactate and so HR is rising to pump more oxygen to the mitochondria to deal with this.

let me get this right....if 1500m is anaerobic, and an ultra is aerobic, would steady state be marathon pace?...should your heart rate remain constant for the first 20 miles of a marathon?

Larry Brent

bart simpson wrote: »

let me get this right....if 1500m is anaerobic, and an ultra is aerobic, would steady state be marathon pace?...should your heart rate remain constant for the first 20 miles of a marathon?

MP might be steady state (e.g. 2.5mmol) or it might be slowly creeping (e.g. from 2.5 but v. gradually rising) - but it will be sub anaerobic threshold. The key is being able to run as fast as possible sub anaerobic threshold, and thus in a steady state as close as possible to that threshold, or in other words to have the aerobic threshold as close as possible to the aerobic threshold. Marathons are generally run around aerobic threshold but in well trained runners they will be closer to anaerobic threshold (although the 2 will be closer together anyhow the better trained you are AFAIK).

In a well trained runner HR will be pretty constant in the marathon but will drift slightly (cardiac drift). In a less trained runner it will probably gradually rise and then drop quite a bit, a sure sign you have run low on glycogen.

To more directly answer your question, 1500m will be above anaerobic threshold, ultra may be below aerobic threshold, marathon will be at aerobic threshold or if well trained closer to anaerobic threshold. Also, 1500 is not completely anaerobic, just a greater proportion of it is anaerobic compared to longer distances.

Woddle

5 mile recovery run at 9:08 pace, AHR 149
http://connect.garmin.com/splits/141495916

I nailed this run, kept the heart rate right where it was suppose to be, it climbed once or twice, once because I sped up to make the lights and the other time was just a lack of concentration.
The pace for these runs is getting back to where it was before getting sick.

One thing that seems odd though is that today I could hold 150 for 9:08 pace over 5 miles but yesterday for 2k it was 9:47.

Woddle

Yesterday was the good today was the ugly

I had a friend call over last night and we decided to play a little online poker, 10 or so hours later :eek: and a 2nd place finish (€256) to our name and there was no point going to bed, I had another friend calling at 8am for a run, so I just got my gear on and lay on the coach for an hour. I was going to play this run by ear and with the heart rate going up all the time I decided to finish the run having ran a tad over 7 miles.
That brings the total to 49.2ish but myself and Emily got out early yesterday evening for about a mile and a half and some strides, so I'm counting it for going over the 50
She appears to be more of a xc runner than a sprinter so we spent some time working on her stride, she's a quick learner and was flying by the end.

7.25 miles at 8:57 pace, AHR 155 (last 1.25 was at 160 hence calling it quits and staying fresh for next week)

menoscemo

Woddle wrote: »

Yesterday was the good today was the ugly

I had a friend call over last night and we decided to play a little online poker, 10 or so hours later :eek: and a 2nd place finish (€256) to our name and there was no point going to bed, I had another friend calling at 8am for a run, so I just got my gear on and lay on the coach for an hour. I was going to play this run by ear and with the heart rate going up all the time I decided to finish the run having ran a tad over 7 miles.
That brings the total to 49.2ish but myself and Emily got out early yesterday evening for about a mile and a half and some strides, so I'm counting it for going over the 50
She appears to be more of a xc runner than a sprinter so we spent some time working on her stride, she's a quick learner and was flying by the end.

7.25 miles at 8:57 pace, AHR 155 (last 1.25 was at 160 hence calling it quits and staying fresh for next week)

Nice win, we'll have to count you in for the Boards Poker night whenever it happens.

Woddle

menoscemo wrote: »

Nice win, we'll have to count you in for the Boards Poker night whenever it happens.

I only learned how to play a couple of weeks ago but I'm game, I should probably add that it was more a case of 2 heads better than one and money was split 50:50

menoscemo

Woddle wrote: »

I only learned how to play a couple of weeks ago but I'm game, I should probably add that it was more a case of 2 heads better than one and money was split 50:50

You can invite your mate too

Woddle

5 early miles at 9:42 pace, AHR 148

Still a bit tired.

Woddle

Plan for the week (should have checked my email before this mornings run

Mon - 5 miles easy
Tue - 8 miles (4x1m @ 175bpm off 90s easy (or maybe 2 mins if you're finding it's needed)
Wed - 5 miles easy
Thu - 5 miles easy
Fri - 2 hours worth of Lsr
Sat - 5 miles easy
Sun - 2m warm up, 8m @ 160

Woddle

A little over 9.6 miles this afternoon.
I had 4x1 mile on the schedule so I headed up to marlay for our nice 1 mile loop (the out and back one)
1st rep 6:54, AHR 173
2nd rep 7:04, AHR 174
3rd rep 7:09, AHR 174
4th rep 7:13, AHR 175

I took 2 minute rest in between reps.
I was taking the first half mile to get the heart rate to about 178 and then I kept it there till the end. I slowed down on each rep though which is telling me I still need to improve my endurance.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/142504614

10% of the 1000 mile challenge done.

Woddle

A tad over 5 miles this afternoon at recovery effort
5.09 at 9:02 pace, AHR 148

I was feeling tired today after yesterdays run but once out there it felt effortless.
I must admit I'm getting very excited about Raheny 5

Woddle

You take a day off and you're on page 5.

I had a nice 12 day streak but should have got a run in early yesterday morning (but didn't as I stayed up to all hours watching Claire Daines 8 episodes of Homeland ) and then just ran out of chances.

Up at 4:30 this morning for my long run. I ran the first 7 on my own and then hooked up with TBB for a few. Wind was a bitch and having not fueled very well for this run I was starting to wane and heart rate was creeping up.
As a result I'll take it a little easier on Sundays run.

12.84 windy miles at 8:43 pace, AHR 161 (first 7 154) (remainder 168)
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/143104301

ecoli

Woddle wrote: »

You take a day off and you're on page 5.

I had a nice 12 day streak but should have got a run in early yesterday morning (but didn't as I stayed up to all hours watching Claire Daines 8 episodes of Homeland ) and then just ran out of chances.

Up at 4:30 this morning for my long run. I ran the first 7 on my own and then hooked up with TBB for a few. Wind was a bitch and having not fueled very well for this run I was starting to wane and heart rate was creeping up.
As a result I'll take it a little easier on Sundays run.

12.84 windy miles at 8:43 pace, AHR 161 (first 7 154) (remainder 168)
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/143104301

And people call me crazy for the odd late night run:D

Woddle

ecoli wrote: »

And people call me crazy for the odd late night run:D

Yeah but I'm putting the baby to bed i about 30 mins and hopefully getting 2 hours kip

belcarra

Woddle wrote: »

I had a nice 12 day streak but should have got a run in early yesterday morning (but didn't as I stayed up to all hours watching Claire Daines 8 episodes of Homeland ) and then just ran out of chances.

Is Homeland/Claire Danes that good?
I saw an ad for it last night and have set the pre recorder for the series.
Looking forward to catching my first episode (But maybe the second of the series??) this weekend...

Woddle

belcarra wrote: »

Is Homeland/Claire Danes that good?
I saw an ad for it last night and have set the pre recorder for the series.
Looking forward to catching my first episode (But maybe the second of the series??) this weekend...

I finished season 1 yesterday and it's well worth watching, really enjoyed it. Another one I finished off a few weeks back is Breaking bad, fantastic viewing if you can get your hands on it.

Woddle

7.14 miles at 8:55 pace, AHR 152

I had a battle with my friend for the whole duration of this run. I'm in far better shape than he but he insisted on running too fast, so I think I did well to get an average of 152.

belcarra

Woddle wrote: »

I finished season 1 yesterday and it's well worth watching, really enjoyed it. Another one I finished off a few weeks back is Breaking bad, fantastic viewing if you can get your hands on it.

Watched Homeland last night and it looks like it could be good alright. Must watch the first episode later.

I finished watching Breaking Bad myself just before xmas...really good viewing. I'd place it just behind Soprano's/The Wire. Looking forward to the next/final series now!

What was the aim of your run by the way? Too fast for recovery but not fast enough for tempo??

The training seems to be coming along very nicely anyways - really good consistency!

Woddle

belcarra wrote: »

Watched Homeland last night and it looks like it could be good alright. Must watch the first episode later.

I finished watching Breaking Bad myself just before xmas...really good viewing. I'd place it just behind Soprano's/The Wire. Looking forward to the next/final series now!

What was the aim of your run by the way? Too fast for recovery but not fast enough for tempo??

The training seems to be coming along very nicely anyways - really good consistency!

Todays run was fine and it was just about a recovery run but my friend was doing his best to turn it into a nothing run, junk miles. He's a bit like I was a few years months ago, no patience and wants to see results now.

Yeah sopranos was great, wasn't such a fan of the wire but that may have been my own fault in watching them too quickly. I'm really looking forward to season 2 of game of thrones

shels4ever

ecoli wrote: »

And people call me crazy for the odd late night run:D

Think the only time i've run at 4:30 in a morning is after a taxi or a mode of transport home.

BeepBeep67

shels4ever wrote: »

Think the only time i've run at 4:30 in a morning is after a taxi or a mode of transport home.

The only time I ran at 4:30am Irish time was when I was in India!

stipes212

A bit off topic, but,
1 THE WIRE
2 BREAKING BAD
3 TREME
4 THE KILLING
5 THE SOPRANOS
and at no. 6 some lighthearted entertainment with MODERN FAMILY

Woddle

stipes212 wrote: »

A bit off topic, but,
1 THE WIRE
2 BREAKING BAD
3 TREME
4 THE KILLING
5 THE SOPRANOS
and at no. 6 some lighthearted entertainment with MODERN FAMILY

I must check out the killing as I'd agree with most of your list.
Mine would be
1. The Sopranos
2. The west wing
3. Breaking Bad
4. Game of Thrones
5. Quantum Leap

As a kid I used to love watching Time Tunnel and maybe Rome would come in in 6th.
For comedy Modern family is brill and it's up there with Seinfeld and din din din Everybody Loves Raymond, I get slagged over this but maybe it's coming from a close big family but I think it's hilarious.

Another one I have on the ready is Sons of anarchy, I think it's from the writers of the Sopranos and I've heard good things.

ultraman1

less fckin telly and more runnin and ull win berlin

Woddle

ultraman1 wrote: »

less fckin telly and more runnin and ull win berlin

Amn't I ahead of you in the 1KMC

ultraman1

Woddle wrote: »

Amn't I ahead of you in the 1KMC

ill give u dat..............................for now:D

Woddle

5 mile easy at 8:51 pace, AHR 155

Very windy, annoyingly so.

Mr Slow

Woddle wrote: »

Very windy, annoyingly so.

Everytime I turned the corner it was in my face today, ba5tard of a thing :mad: