There was a good thread a while back where someone recommended running 10 hrs or 100 mpw, whichever came first.
The 100 mpw threshold would only be hit by a person clocking 6 min miles though. Even if my MP were 6:00, I doubt I'd be running a full week of training at that pace. As a result I wonder what coaches would recommend for less talented runners?
Do you start with 10 hrs and eventually work your way up to 100 mpw? Or do you start with 100 mpw and eventually work your way down to 10 hrs?
But why choose 10 hrs, or 100 miles/week in the first place?
I'm going to suggest a new way to look at selecting one's training load. It actually may be the best way, though may need further refinement as we learn more about recovery and super-compensation. I suggest one structure's their work-load around their EPOC Training Loads. That is, one would work up-to, over time, a certain weekly EPOC Training Load (e.g., 700/week), and then, shift the focus of that training load (higher intensity vs lower intensity) depending on whether they are building base or approaching, and in, their in-competition phase. Each successive training block, the athlete would seek to gradually increase (relatively slowly over time) their weekly EPOC Training Load. (Note, an elite athlete's weekly training load may be well over 1000/week).
BTW, in case you were not aware, a decent Garmin watch will provide the EPOC Training Load for every activity.
BTW, in case you were not aware, a decent Garmin watch will provide the EPOC Training Load for every activity, whether it be running, cycling, cardio, etc.
Most don't tho afaik...
Hard to teach an old dog new tricks?
I'll have a goal peak mileage that I'll want to hit then Badger mile it. I use the newer "Jerry" system, where you base volume on 7 min miles for men and 8 min miles for women, not based on average training pace (which was borne out of necessity without GPS watches).
I just think of it as, if you're trying to use volume as a training stimulus, it makes more sense to me from a scientific standpoint for it to be judged in terms of time stressing the system rather than miles covered. So when you're more fit, whether it be month to month or over the year, your training volume stays the same but distance covered increases or fluctuates.
So for example, I'll set the goal at 65 miles @ 7 min pace = 7:35 hrs. And I'll try to stay within 90% of that, going lower during certain periods of training. But early on, I might only be able to handle a weekly average of 8 min pace, which means I'm only covering about 55 miles a week. As I get more fit, I approach the 65 mile a week goal, but my volume hasn't changed.
Zante wrote:
I'll have a goal peak mileage that I'll want to hit then Badger mile it. I use the newer "Jerry" system, where you base volume on 7 min miles for men and 8 min miles for women, not based on average training pace (which was borne out of necessity without GPS watches).
I just think of it as, if you're trying to use volume as a training stimulus, it makes more sense to me from a scientific standpoint for it to be judged in terms of time stressing the system rather than miles covered. So when you're more fit, whether it be month to month or over the year, your training volume stays the same but distance covered increases or fluctuates.
So for example, I'll set the goal at 65 miles @ 7 min pace = 7:35 hrs. And I'll try to stay within 90% of that, going lower during certain periods of training. But early on, I might only be able to handle a weekly average of 8 min pace, which means I'm only covering about 55 miles a week. As I get more fit, I approach the 65 mile a week goal, but my volume hasn't changed.
A confounding factor with this simple approach is that 'time-on-feet' is not always indicative of the actual training stress. For example, I can run an interval workout (say a 4x4min) and spend a total amount of 60 mins performing the workout (including warm-up and cool-down), and the EPOC Training Load for that workout can easily turn out to be 3-5 times that of a workout spent running steady for 60mins at 70% MaxHR.
How would one determine EPOC without a heart rate monitor?
Hazel wrote:
How would one determine EPOC without a heart rate monitor?
Well, there is always the old-school imprecise, and very subjective, Perceived Exertion.
As a minimum, one is going to need a HR monitor, but considering new things a HR monitor can provide insight on, like EPOC Training Load and Recovery (based on HR variability), makes them all the more valuable as a training tool.
I don't subscribe to Strava, but if one has a HR monitor different than a Garmin, I think there is a Strava tool attempting to evaluate an activity's 'training load'. Based upon my personal observation of Garmin's EPOC Training Load, I would use it first, and then see how the Strava 'training load' metric compares.
Garmin training data is useless and that's where you lost me.
Wrist HR is unreliable in most people but can be solved but its algorithms and metrics are totally unreliable.
I've seen endless wonky data
Alfamale wrote:
Garmin training data is useless and that's where you lost me.
Wrist HR is unreliable in most people but can be solved but its algorithms and metrics are totally unreliable.
I've seen endless wonky data
Personally, under vigorous activity, I almost always use a chest strap. The optical wrist measurement is less prone to error in normal sedate daily activity (where any minor errors in those situations due to such things as 'time-averaging' are less significant in the big-picture of one's total weekly training load).