The value of slow long runs .

21 to 33 of 33 messages
04/03/2013 at 16:21

Lactic thresholds are not at 80% -you can estmate them at 85% but even then that is an estimate - the zones always are always unless you get properly tested. I have been and so I know my threshold HR for bike and run but didn't really max out - it did look like my bike threshold is at 83% max and my running threshold is 88% max.  So from that you can instantly tell that I have a lot more experience in running.  So, if I run a marathon at 85% - this is still aerobic for me - although there will be period where I go over and periods where I dip down.  However I suspect this would still be too much for me and I am more likely to race at 80 ish - have never worn a hr strap in a race because of the likelihood of major skin chaffing.

 

This is why endurance LSR tends to be recommended at 80 - so that you are well below. I believe Maffetone is even lower than that to ensure maximum aerobic training.  

 

So, even though someone is running a marathon at a HR that is edging on 85% (not that I am saying they are - just taking that as an example) - if they can sustain this for a marathon then this must be below their threshold. Therefore calling it anerobic is incorrect. A marathon pace has to be aerobic or it is not sustainable.

 

04/03/2013 at 16:23

So...  I ran a half marathon yesterday.  I was kept to 8min 20s for 10 miles - this was definitely running, definitely some effort, but I guess I could have kept it going for quite a longer.   As it was, I was able to step it up for the last 3 miles.   Would it be fair to say that 8:20 represents my LT?  Which would presumably mean 9:50 would be a good pace for my long slow runs.

04/03/2013 at 16:31
I would expect your 5k time to be closer to your threshold pace.
04/03/2013 at 16:46
GymAddict wrote (see)

Lactic thresholds are not at 80% -you can estmate them at 85% but even then that is an estimate - the zones always are always unless you get properly tested. I have been and so I know my threshold HR for bike and run but didn't really max out - it did look like my bike threshold is at 83% max and my running threshold is 88% max.  So from that you can instantly tell that I have a lot more experience in running.  So, if I run a marathon at 85% - this is still aerobic for me - although there will be period where I go over and periods where I dip down.  However I suspect this would still be too much for me and I am more likely to race at 80 ish - have never worn a hr strap in a race because of the likelihood of major skin chaffing.

 

This is why endurance LSR tends to be recommended at 80 - so that you are well below. I believe Maffetone is even lower than that to ensure maximum aerobic training.  

 

So, even though someone is running a marathon at a HR that is edging on 85% (not that I am saying they are - just taking that as an example) - if they can sustain this for a marathon then this must be below their threshold. Therefore calling it anerobic is incorrect. A marathon pace has to be aerobic or it is not sustainable.

 

I'd be perfectly prepared to accept this. 80% of MHR isn't a hard and fast rule......but I'd imagine that for most people, doing a LSR at under 80% MHR would be ideal rather than over.

Interestingly, my LSR recommended pace is 7:28 per mile. This equates to roughly 78% of my own MHR.

04/03/2013 at 16:54
Jamie Newton 2 wrote (see)

The science behind the long slow run is that you are supposed to be running it in a heart rate zone that is of benefit to your aerobic system (an easy/converational pace at between 70-80% of max heart rate. Marathon pace....or any race pace would be in an anaerobic heart rate zone (above 80% max heart rate).

Put in layman's terms, a better developed aerobic system is of great benefit to distance runners.

If all training was done at anaerobic pace there would be a greater chance of burnout, injury, lack of improvement. Plus the individual would be missing out on developing a vital component of their running.

So can you see where you have gone wrong in the previous statement?  

 

Marathon pace is still Aerobic.  5k is on the cusp of threshold  - but anaerobic running is only really shorter track races - not 5k and up.

04/03/2013 at 16:55

Fox and Haskell is very generic, and can be confusing due to the training zone Names. The anaerobic threshold can happen somewhere between 80% and 90% according to then - i.e. somewhere in that range the energy systems switch to aneerobic. For some, this threshold may be at 80%, and others at 90% - that' a big band.

For me, about 89% is the max I go using areobic systems, creeping just above that towards the end of a HM or Marathon

Long runs will be run at about 75% to 82%, but including some quality later in training, with some mileage around 85% - 88% (never any anaerobic pace). My marathon pace is obviously aerobic constrained for endurance sport.

Tempo Runs will go to the top end of my cardio range, and possibly just over (I use my 10 mile pace). Here emphasis is on conditioning / improving lactate threshold (not something you would do in a long run). So save some speed for this session.

Intervals are run in the 90+% range for me, emphasis being on improving VO2. So again, having speed here rather than a long run is important (if you do intervals)

I think the confusing factor here was when JN stated "Marathon pace....or any race pace would be in an anaerobic heart rate zone (above 80% max heart rate)" which sounds like you would be running anaerobically - whereas this was the Fox and Haskell band - the Anaerobic Training zone does not mean you are exercising anaerobically.  Statistically, your anaerobic threshold is likely to be somewhere in that band. As a name, Anaerobic Training Zone stinks

04/03/2013 at 16:59

Perhaps I should have clicked on his link before starting a lecture.

 

Sorry Jamie - okay - Anaerobic training Zone is a crap name

 

Joe Beer calls it the 'dead zone' - so that's what we call it in our house 

Edited: 04/03/2013 at 16:59
04/03/2013 at 17:01
Jamie Newton 2 wrote (see)
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_exercise

Its confusing because sprinting/lifting weights etc is anaerobic. Whereas running say anything where your BPM is above 80% of max means that you are training in an 'anaerobic' training zone.

JN, I don't know if I'm missing something but do you really mean to equate "anaerobic training zone" with the suggestion that above 80% max HR, you are getting all your energy requirements from anaerobic pathways?  Because if you are, it's just plain wrong and contradicted by the wikipedia link you've put up: "Any activity lasting longer than about two minutes has a large aerobic metabolic component."

If you're referring to anaerobic threshold, then fair enough (possibly... the definition still confuses me) but it's easier to infer from what you've said that there is a switch from one to the other (aerobic - anaerobic) at a certain level of HR, which is not the case.

FWIW my marathon HR is about 82/83% max, half marathon HR ~85%, 10k ~89%. This would correspond, I'd imagine, with an estimate for LT occurring around 86/87%, but for all these distances the vast majority of energy requirements are aerobic.

Edited: 04/03/2013 at 17:01
04/03/2013 at 17:06

x-post. OK, think we covered that.  Maybe there's too much terminology going on, confusing people.  I blame Noakes.

Run a lot, mainly at an easy pace, with some quicker.  Sleep properly and don't eat too much crap.  Don't smoke fags.  You'll get quicker! 

04/03/2013 at 18:15

DF3s gone quiet, I think you all lost him on the 12th post, as he doesn't actually know anything about running.

04/03/2013 at 22:36
Also-ran wrote (see)

Fox and Haskell is very generic, and can be confusing due to the training zone Names. The anaerobic threshold can happen somewhere between 80% and 90% according to then - i.e. somewhere in that range the energy systems switch to aneerobic. For some, this threshold may be at 80%, and others at 90% - that' a big band.

For me, about 89% is the max I go using areobic systems, creeping just above that towards the end of a HM or Marathon

Long runs will be run at about 75% to 82%, but including some quality later in training, with some mileage around 85% - 88% (never any anaerobic pace). My marathon pace is obviously aerobic constrained for endurance sport.

Tempo Runs will go to the top end of my cardio range, and possibly just over (I use my 10 mile pace). Here emphasis is on conditioning / improving lactate threshold (not something you would do in a long run). So save some speed for this session.

Intervals are run in the 90+% range for me, emphasis being on improving VO2. So again, having speed here rather than a long run is important (if you do intervals)

I think the confusing factor here was when JN stated "Marathon pace....or any race pace would be in an anaerobic heart rate zone (above 80% max heart rate)" which sounds like you would be running anaerobically - whereas this was the Fox and Haskell band - the Anaerobic Training zone does not mean you are exercising anaerobically.  Statistically, your anaerobic threshold is likely to be somewhere in that band. As a name, Anaerobic Training Zone stinks

 

GymAddict wrote (see)

Perhaps I should have clicked on his link before starting a lecture.

 

Sorry Jamie - okay - Anaerobic training Zone is a crap name

 

Joe Beer calls it the 'dead zone' - so that's what we call it in our house 

 

PhilPub wrote (see)
Jamie Newton 2 wrote (see)
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_exercise

Its confusing because sprinting/lifting weights etc is anaerobic. Whereas running say anything where your BPM is above 80% of max means that you are training in an 'anaerobic' training zone.

JN, I don't know if I'm missing something but do you really mean to equate "anaerobic training zone" with the suggestion that above 80% max HR, you are getting all your energy requirements from anaerobic pathways?  Because if you are, it's just plain wrong and contradicted by the wikipedia link you've put up: "Any activity lasting longer than about two minutes has a large aerobic metabolic component."

If you're referring to anaerobic threshold, then fair enough (possibly... the definition still confuses me) but it's easier to infer from what you've said that there is a switch from one to the other (aerobic - anaerobic) at a certain level of HR, which is not the case.

FWIW my marathon HR is about 82/83% max, half marathon

04/03/2013 at 22:46

Hi again folks,

Don't know why but my post was clipped. Probably due to space taken from quotes.

Basically, things are starting to get a little too scientific for the purpose of the thread. For what its worth easy paced long slow runs and marathon paced training form part of my own training plan and I'm sure they do for most of the thread contributors. There are certainly benefits to be gained from both training paces irrespective of anaerobic thresholds/anaerobic traing zones or anaerobic pathways.

I think we can all agree on that.......

05/03/2013 at 09:28

Definitely


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
21 to 33 of 33 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums