If you are not currently doing your easy runs based of of Heart Rate, why not?

Can you verify that?

AdrianCh wrote:

Original Posta wrote:

Easy Running absolutely speeds recovery.

This is correct, the body may not recover why running but running more, like twice a day forces the body to adapt and recover faster in a shorter period of time. Therefore easy runs indirectly make the body recover faster

Therefore the body does not recover while running. Why not do three recovery runs if you like your theory?

feldman wrote:

here's a newsflash wrote:

The body doesn't recover while training.

But it can while running significantly below maxHR. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of exercise physiology would know that.

Nope. That's like painting your house while power washing it.

Muscles don't rebuild while undergoing mechanical trauma.

maybe this: wrote:

Alan Bennet wrote:

Everything you say makes perfect sense, except the part where you look at the Garmin.

Quantitative feedback in real time is always useful.

Sure its useful, but it comes at a cost. That cost being temptation. Unfortunately most runners are too obsessive, including myself and likely others who are advocating against HR/Garmin training. We understand our own faults and bad habits, accept them, and ditch the technology. Instead we listen to our bodies which, while less precise than an HR/Garmin, comes with the benefit of not letting paces/HRs get the best of us. It also makes your time spent running more enjoyable.

here's a newsflash wrote:

AdrianCh wrote:

This is correct, the body may not recover why running but running more, like twice a day forces the body to adapt and recover faster in a shorter period of time. Therefore easy runs indirectly make the body recover faster

Therefore the body does not recover while running. Why not do three recovery runs if you like your theory?

Quit posting strawmen if you want to have an intelligent conversation. Obviously, you have to rest. No one is suggesting that you should run continuously. However, you will improve quicker when stimulated by short, easy efforts between workouts. That is basic physiology. Come on, man.

say whut? wrote:

feldman wrote:

But it can while running significantly below maxHR. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of exercise physiology would know that.

Nope. That's like painting your house while power washing it.

Muscles don't rebuild while undergoing mechanical trauma.

No, recovery efforts done below 75% MHR are like applying a coat of primer your house before painting it. Your analogy is either ignorant or disingenuous.

OverTheHillAndBack wrote:

maybe this: wrote:

Quantitative feedback in real time is always useful.

Sure its useful, but it comes at a cost. That cost being temptation. Unfortunately most runners are too obsessive, including myself and likely others who are advocating against HR/Garmin training. We understand our own faults and bad habits, accept them, and ditch the technology. Instead we listen to our bodies which, while less precise than an HR/Garmin, comes with the benefit of not letting paces/HRs get the best of us. It also makes your time spent running more enjoyable.

I get the "more enjoyable" part, although my running is more enjoyable if I know the run is beneficial as well as stress-relieving, etc. To each their own.

FitzyXC wrote:

Hard/Easy is not the only way to the promised land, my friend. Steady mileage, one solid workout, and regular strides/speed work (never hard enough to be a "workout" in my book) has gotten me further than 2 workouts and a race a week with easy runs slower than 7:30 pace.

I doubt it. Not according to every study that's been done on it (look up Stephen Seiler). You're either lying or deluded yourself into thinking you were training easy/hard.

The primer coat is a beautiful analogy. Power washing while painting well describes those that run too hard on easy days.

Unless you are a pro you are a sad individual if you do this

Surely the idea of running is to get away from crap like this. OK you time reps but the other 90 % of the time can't you just enjoy going for a run

Besides which - just go slow its not exactly hard to work out what feels easy and there is no precise science behind the best pace to go anyway

some of us like to squeeze the toothpaste

I did a 1 year experiment using a HR monitor/GPS. The data was nice to have, and I can see some value in it, but it never really told me anything I didn't already generally know. At the same time, it seemed to take the art of running (pacing) away and making it too scientific for me. I get the idea that an easy run should never be more than 70-75% of HRM, but its much more enjoyable for me to just go at an easy effort and periodically just slow down, regardless of how I feel. This will ensure that and easy run stays easy. Also, the strap chaffed me in certain spots.

Summary of my experiment - HRM may work great for some people, but for me not much gained other than data to prove what I basically already knew, and some chaffing. I went back to the only tool a runner will ever need, the trusty old Timex Ironman.

6'5 180 , low hr is too slow to give me the muscular training I need to have good biomechanics/stride length, and stay injury free going through build and peak. I assume this is because of the inefficiency of being 50 pounds heavier than the prototypical runner, but maybe there is some other explanation.

Also, My easy pace does not improve running under 130BPM with a max of around 185 BPM. 145ish on non-workout days is much better. I have fun and can run with better runners when I want to. Mileage is lower , cross training is higher and fatigue is lower, or no worse than with LSD( carrying 50 pounds around for hours for no good reason is tiring) .

Omnivore wrote:

6'5 180 , low hr is too slow to give me the muscular training I need to have good biomechanics/stride length, and stay injury free going through build and peak. I assume this is because of the inefficiency of being 50 pounds heavier than the prototypical runner, but maybe there is some other explanation.

Also, My easy pace does not improve running under 130BPM with a max of around 185 BPM. 145ish on non-workout days is much better. I have fun and can run with better runners when I want to. Mileage is lower , cross training is higher and fatigue is lower, or no worse than with LSD( carrying 50 pounds around for hours for no good reason is tiring) .

Did you test your HR parameters? Or did you use a formula?

It SOUNDS like you used a formula, which will give you numbers that may not benefit you if you have MHR outside the "bell curve".

Alki Hall wrote:

The primer coat is a beautiful analogy. Power washing while painting well describes those that run too hard on easy days.

Why, thanks :-)

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Unless you are a pro you are a sad individual if you do this

Surely the idea of running is to get away from crap like this. OK you time reps but the other 90 % of the time can't you just enjoy going for a run

Besides which - just go slow its not exactly hard to work out what feels easy and there is no precise science behind the best pace to go anyway

I genuinely enjoy knowing that my easy efforts are easy enough and that I am improving, slowly but surely, on my easy runs... and seeing my "easy" paces get faster over time, running faster and faster at the same easy effort and knowing my effort isn't an illusion...

I think you overestimate your ability to accurately diagnose your own effort levels.

RE: If you are not currently doing your easy runs based of of Heart Rate, why not?

Because I can't afford the equipment yet. Chest based heart rate monitors are the only truly accurate consumer devices. I have a wrist based heart rate monitor but it's really not accurate for heart rate during exercise. I'm inept at taking my own pulse from the neck or wrist.

Even if I wasn't, not sure that's practical to do while running and thinking of increasing or lowering pace. When I get the cash, I think a chest based heart rate monitor is a good investment.

Without a heart rate monitor, you can also try to gauge yourself through nasal breathing, conversation (conversational running) and how you are feeling. Heart rate is scientific but if you haven't been getting sleep or an illness is coming on, you should darn well know it by intuition. #lifeskills

Informally tested , 5k's, 800's repeats, hill reps, I have never seen my HR as high as 185, so I am almost certainly rounding up. Running non-workouts right around failing the talk test , it is best. That's the 145ish BPM.

Omnivore wrote:

6'5 180 , low hr is too slow to give me the muscular training I need to have good biomechanics/stride length, and stay injury free going through build and peak. I assume this is because of the inefficiency of being 50 pounds heavier than the prototypical runner, but maybe there is some other explanation.

Also, My easy pace does not improve running under 130BPM with a max of around 185 BPM. 145ish on non-workout days is much better. I have fun and can run with better runners when I want to. Mileage is lower , cross training is higher and fatigue is lower, or no worse than with LSD( carrying 50 pounds around for hours for no good reason is tiring) .

^^^This. Faster-twitch muscle fibers are slow to adapt aerobic adaptations, and may not be recruited enough if your pace is kept too slow.

Heart rate training is great for aerobic fitness, but often ends up sacrificing neurologic fitness.

Another item often ignored is that higher intensity exercise increases insulin sensitivity, which makes it easier to burn fat. For runners who are not already lean, long slow runs may not be the optimal way to lose weight, as these runs do not yield the hormonal changes needed to become lean.