cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Fitness and Wellness (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=32)
-   -   Running with a HR monitor (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21173)

SteelBlue 07-28-2008 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar (Post 247689)
I first heard something akin to Zulu's theory about 10 years ago in a talk from Dave Scott (the triathlete). He was talking to a group of triathletes and encouraging everyone to work out with a HRM, which at the time was fairly new. I went home and bought one and have used one pretty faithfully since. Like Zulu, it gives my ADHD brain something to do to distract from the boredom of running.

I'm a doctor with a special interest in sports medicine (not fellowship-trained, however) and have tried to keep up on the research regarding HRM training. On the other hand, I'm pretty slow, due to a combination of lack of time to train and genetics. I'm more of a teacher than a doer, so take this for what it's worth.

I did try the Zulu approach where I tried to keep all my runs within my aerobic zone. End result: I was much slower at all distances. Which parallels both common sense and the consensus on HRM training.

Most runners will do four different types of workouts: Track/Speed, Tempo, Long, and recovery. To figure out your optimal HR, you need to figure out which type of run you're doing. An athlete's maximum HR is variable depending on the person, and slowly declines as you age. You can't influence it with training. Your anaerobic threshold is typically about 85% of your max HR, and signifies the point at which your muscles can no longer undergo aerobic metabolism (the most efficient, but requires oxygen) and swith to anaerobic metabolism (less efficient, doesn't require oxygen, produces lactic acid as a byproduct). You CAN influence this anaerobic threshold with training; well-trained athletes can go up to 90-95% of their max HR without going anaerobic. For most people 85% of estimated max HR is a good guess; if you want an exact number, you have to go into a lab to get tested. The other feature of a well-trained athlete is that they can tolerate much higher levels of lactic acid in their muscles before failure; typical person can tolerate lactic acid levels of 1-2 while an athlete can go as high as 6-7. So, a well-trained athlete can both go at a higher HR before going anaerobic, and can go anaerobic for much longer times before muscle failure.

Your stroke volume (amount of blood pumped with each beat of your heart) can be influenced by aerobic training, which will allow you to reach moderately higher levels of exertion without your heart rate increasing. However, the lactate threshold and anaerobic threshold, both very important to performance, cannot be influenced without exiting your aerobic zone. Additionally, the neuromuscular training gained particularly from track/speed workouts, and one of the most important aspects of speed, will be ignored with solely aerobic workouts.

So, back to the four workouts:
1) Speed/Track - Your point is to increase your lactate and anaerobic threshold and improve your neuromuscular training ("step turnover"). For these, you can go 90-95% of your max HR.
2) Tempo - You're combining aerobic efficiency with some effect on anaerobic threshold. You should not exceed an hour, but probably should be in the 80-90% range with a brief interval up to 95%.
3) Long - Your point is solely to get your muscles used to the pounding and motion they'll receive. You should NEVER go above 85% on these. Remember, that once you're going anaerobic, you're building up waste byproducts and the muscle cells are not being adequately nourished. You're risking injury by combining length and speed.
4) Recovery - The point is active recovery, i.e. less than an hour, never anaerobic.

To answer creekster's question about "bonking". Your muscles always burn their glycogen stores first, regardless of your speed. These are gone in 30-45 minutes; if you want to burn fat while exercising, you need to exceed this time. You'll be able to go much longer (and burn more fat) if you stay aerobic.

An excellent post. Thank you. I think I've been doing things about right, probably need to add more speed work though. And with my new monitor, I'll be better at staying aerobic on my long run.

MikeWaters 07-28-2008 05:08 PM

If you don't throw up at least once a week after your workout, you are not working hard enough.

SteelBlue 07-28-2008 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 247705)
If you don't throw up at least once a week after your workout, you are not working hard enough.

Speed workouts often give me that urge.

ERCougar 07-29-2008 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue (Post 247702)
An excellent post. Thank you. I think I've been doing things about right, probably need to add more speed work though. And with my new monitor, I'll be better at staying aerobic on my long run.

I'd be careful about adding more speed work. This is the most common workout to injure yourself in. Most people recommend only one of these workouts per week. I'd almost be concerned you're doing too MUCH speed work with 2-3 tempo runs plus a track session. From what I read on here, I'm guessing that most people push themselves too hard every workout and would probably improve their performance if they would substitute a few recovery workouts.

SteelBlue 07-29-2008 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar (Post 248014)
I'd be careful about adding more speed work. This is the most common workout to injure yourself in. Most people recommend only one of these workouts per week. I'd almost be concerned you're doing too MUCH speed work with 2-3 tempo runs plus a track session. From what I read on here, I'm guessing that most people push themselves too hard every workout and would probably improve their performance if they would substitute a few recovery workouts.

When I say more speed work what I'm really saying is "some" speed work. I haven't been doing any. I agree with you completely as the majority of injuries I've had were sustained or exacerbated during speed work. It's why I've been so loathe to resume it.

creekster 07-29-2008 02:46 PM

Great info, thanks for taking the time to post it.

MikeWaters 07-29-2008 02:48 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/health/07hearts.html

SteelBlue 07-29-2008 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 248028)

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

ERCougar 07-30-2008 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 248028)

This is sort of a strange article. HCM is nothing new--any time you hear about an athlete dying during a game or intense practice, it's almost always HCM (Reggie Lewis, Hank Gathers come to mind...). I had a friend die two years ago while cycling. He was the type who pushed himself really hard a lot and as I soon as I heard the news, my first thought was HCM, which the autopsy confirmed several days later. What we think happens is that the heart goes into a deadly arrhythmia, one that could be reversed if medical personnel were on hand with a defibrillator, but that's obviously pretty rare.

The article is treating this like we had no idea that athlete's hearts are large. Not true. Or that HCM merely means a large heart. Also not true--what characterizes HCM is the hypertrophy of a particular portion of the heart . Or that they're concerned that athletes can develop HCM through training. Again, not true--it's typically a heritable trait. So I'm not exactly sure what they're researching, other than perhaps merely documenting just how large an athlete's heart can get. I'd be curious to hear CardiacCoug's input on this.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.