are your zones right? If you read Friel's book he bases them on LTHR - which makes more sense IMHO for the sort of stuff we are trying to do.
Friel refers to extensive and intensive Zone 2 sessions. You are doing the former. The latter will have about 1/3 of the entire session in zone 3...so you are probably doing that...so you are probably doing right!
do a flat out 5k and press the lap button half way around. The avHR for the second half is probably somewhere near your LTHR.
Better 5k, Duathlon and Triathlon
Goals: 82% Age Graded 5k and an open water Triathlon.
my Z2 would have me walking more than running according to my HR but I can also run comfortably and talk whilst apparently in upper Z3 hitting Z4
which means I am either a freak (more than possible) or my MHR is even more stupidly high than I thought
@theevilpixie...your zones are wrong then !! if you are young your HRmax could easily be 220.
mine was over 200 in my 30s
this is nothing to shout about as HRmax is NOT a measure of fitness...for that look at HRmin / HRrest
for FTP based training the most effective 1 hour session i think is at 85% of FTP for 2x20 mins HOWEVER you need to do that on an existing endurance base. Obviously just doing zone 2 work won't help shorter faster distances
O.rangeCannon - Extravalanza-ing wrote (see)
I owe you an e-mail. Work has been hectic last month or so, will drop you a line this week.
5K I turn 40 next year so not that young but I don't do pain so max HR tests are tricky as I give up before it gets hard!! I'm less trained these last 18mths due to a career change but recently hit 187 on the bike - going to go out this weekend to beast some hills and see what happens
....what have I started!?
Some cracking thoughts in here. Thanks to all of you. I'm going to review the MAF side of things as well. I also need to sort out my goals - IM is one, going sub 3 on a marathon is another and I just don't think the two will mix well in any one year.
Like others have said, Max HR is a bit of a silly boast - mine has been 210, but I also hit problems after beasting a 10k a few years back and was at 244bpm for long enough that I was rigged up to a cardiogram (?) and it veryfied the 244bpm - a complete freak incident, but it would make my z2 interesting if I went of that!
I'm working off a recently tested 190 under Fink, but suspect I may have to go lower under MAF...that's walking pace which is soul destroying!
OK... call me thick if you like...
Not specifically Don Fink but...... I can see an argument for running very slowly, staying out of the aerobic zone, for long periods. It means you can run further on your long runs and builds up your base endurance.
But if, on a Saturday morning, I have only 2 hours availabIe... or perhaps have a plan to run a fixed 20 miles then, if I'm fit enough, is not better to run this in the aerobic zone... say 75% WHR, rather than 20 miles at 65%? Surely this works on both endurance and cardiovascular efficiency.
If I've got it wrong - just tell me without long explanations... I'll just go back and do some more reading.
Run Wales - what you say would seem to make sense, but you have to consider what your goal is - if you are looking to complete a marathon, then yes you will be fine with that approach. But if you're looking at IM it is important to work within Z2 . One of the key factors is the energy source your muscles will be using. If you keep in the aerobic zone, you use both glyogen and fat as energy - in varying amount. By training in this zone, you 'teach' your body to utilise more fat than it would normally - which is essential for IM (not so much for marathons as you're only working for 3 hours or so) as you will run out of glycogen rapidly.
new max HR on bike today 191
Visit the official Triathlete's World page
Follow Triathlete's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
About Triathlete's World