Planet Rugby Forum

Mog The Almighty wrote:I'm exaggerating a bit. I expect it would be a very slow jog along the flats and down the hills, mixed with a fair bit of walking.

Are you sure you got the heart rate zone right? My watch actually has a function that allows me to see which zone my HR is in, and they're colour-coded. According to my watch it's zone 3 that is the "target zone" (the green one), which for me is a much more reasonable sounding 152-163bpm.



For what it's worth, I also mis-read zone 2 with is 137-152. Obviously that is much more realistic than whatever I said before.

I they call zone 2, "low cardio", zone 3 "target", zone 4 "threshold" and zone 5, "limit". So I was basically pushing the limit for most of my run.

There is certainly some cross over between zones and their effects. The selected boundaries are all a bit arbitrary - whats the likelihood that your body naturally goes into 10% ranges?

I'd check your HR meter, it seems unlikely that you could genuinely work out in zone 5 for that long. Could you talk? based on the below picture which Zone best matches your percieved feel of the run?



It could also be that you have a very high natural Max HR and your starting zones aren't accurate or more simply you just are an unfit bugger whos body goes into the red taking a leak.

edit: Nominal Max HR I meant as the 220-Age figure, may not be using me wordz quite reet

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:I'm exaggerating a bit. I expect it would be a very slow jog along the flats and down the hills, mixed with a fair bit of walking.

Are you sure you got the heart rate zone right? My watch actually has a function that allows me to see which zone my HR is in, and they're colour-coded. According to my watch it's zone 3 that is the "target zone" (the green one), which for me is a much more reasonable sounding 152-163bpm.



For what it's worth, I also mis-read zone 2 with is 137-152. Obviously that is much more realistic than whatever I said before.

I they call zone 2, "low cardio", zone 3 "target", zone 4 "threshold" and zone 5, "limit". So I was basically pushing the limit for most of my run.

There is certainly some cross over between zones and their effects. The selected boundaries are all a bit arbitrary - whats the likelihood that your body naturally goes into 10% ranges?

I'd check your HR meter, it seems unlikely that you could genuinely work out in zone 5 for that long. Could you talk? based on the below picture which Zone best matches your percieved feel of the run?



It could also be that you have a very high natural Max HR and your starting zones aren't accurate or more simply you just are an unfit bugger whos body goes into the red taking a leak.

edit: Nominal Max HR I meant as the 220-Age figure, may not be using me wordz quite reet

Hmmm ... I have no idea to be honest. Very unfit? Well ... I have definitely always struggled with my cardio fitness for sure. It was always my Achilles heel playing rugby. I'd be in total f-cksville, hands on head sucking in huge breaths and the fat prop who had five beers last night would run past me. Could never figure that out. Having said that, I don't think I can be "a very unfit bugger" and be able to run 5km without stopping or walking in under 30 minutes at 40. Obviously that doesn't qualify me as "a very fit bugger" by a long shot either, but I would have thought somewhere in between the two. I doubt your average "very unfit 40 year old" could beat me over 5km. Also, my heart rate goes down at a normal pace, I think. It dropped about 30bpm within the first minute after stopping and was back down to about 100 within fifteen minutes. My usual resting heart rate is fairly low. Mid-fifties I would guess.

No, I don't think I would have been able to talk during most of the run. I mean maybe I could have communicated with "yeah", "no", "shut up" between sucking in huge breaths, but there's no way I could have held a conversation. I think I was probably in the fifth zone based on that image.

Lastly, the heart-rate zones I gave you above that I got from my watch, I just realized they weren't based on max heart rate. They were based on "Lactose Threshold" whatever the f-ck that means. It's something that my watch automatically figures out for me. If I change it to "max heart rate" then I get almost identical numbers that are in the image you supplied.

Anyway, next run I do, I'm going to do exactly what you suggest with one minor alteration: I'll aim for zone 3 instead of zone 2. So the 70-80% range. I'll paste the results here, and if you would be so kind, I'd appreciate it if you could cast your eye over them and tell me what you think.

Last question, I know this is getting lengthy ... is it possible to go over your "max heart rate"? I mean, when they say, "max heart rate" are they talking literally "the fastest your heart can beat", or are they talking, "the maximum you'd want to push it to". The reason I ask is I'm wondering, is it a good rough estimate to punch it in at about 195? The logic being that it reached 192 on this run, and if I really wanted to flatten myself I'm sure I could have pushed a teeny bit harder and got it up to 195, although I might have painted the pavement with last night's dinner if I'd tried, but my "max" is probably about 195 before collapsing.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:I'm exaggerating a bit. I expect it would be a very slow jog along the flats and down the hills, mixed with a fair bit of walking.

Are you sure you got the heart rate zone right? My watch actually has a function that allows me to see which zone my HR is in, and they're colour-coded. According to my watch it's zone 3 that is the "target zone" (the green one), which for me is a much more reasonable sounding 152-163bpm.



For what it's worth, I also mis-read zone 2 with is 137-152. Obviously that is much more realistic than whatever I said before.

I they call zone 2, "low cardio", zone 3 "target", zone 4 "threshold" and zone 5, "limit". So I was basically pushing the limit for most of my run.

There is certainly some cross over between zones and their effects. The selected boundaries are all a bit arbitrary - whats the likelihood that your body naturally goes into 10% ranges?

I'd check your HR meter, it seems unlikely that you could genuinely work out in zone 5 for that long. Could you talk? based on the below picture which Zone best matches your percieved feel of the run?



It could also be that you have a very high natural Max HR and your starting zones aren't accurate or more simply you just are an unfit bugger whos body goes into the red taking a leak.

edit: Nominal Max HR I meant as the 220-Age figure, may not be using me wordz quite reet

Hmmm ... I have no idea to be honest. Very unfit? Well ... I have definitely always struggled with my cardio fitness for sure. It was always my Achilles heel playing rugby. I'd be in total f-cksville, hands on head sucking in huge breaths and the fat prop who had five beers last night would run past me. Could never figure that out. Having said that, I don't think I can be "a very unfit bugger" and be able to run 5km without stopping in under 30 minutes. Obviously that doesn't qualify me as "a very fit bugger" either, but I would have thought somewhere in between the two. I doubt your average "very unfit 40 year old" could beat me over 5km. Also, my heart rate goes down at a normal pace, I think. It dropped about 30bpm within the first minute after stopping and was back down to about 100 within fifteen minutes. My usual resting heart rate is fairly low. Mid-fifties I would guess.

No, I don't think I would have been able to talk during most of the run. I mean maybe I could have communicated with "yeah", "no", "shut up" between sucking in huge breaths, but there's no way I could have held a conversation. I think I was probably in the fifth zone based on that image.

Lastly, the heart-rate zones I gave you above that I got from my watch, I just realized they weren't based on max heart rate. They were based on "Lactose Threshold" whatever the f-ck that means. It's something that my watch automatically figures out for me. If I change it to "max heart rate" then I get almost identical numbers that are in the image you supplied.

Anyway, next run I do, I'm going to do exactly what you suggest with one minor alteration: I'll aim for zone 3 instead of zone 2. So the 70-80% range. I'll paste the results here, and if you would be so kind, I'd appreciate it if you could cast your eye over them and tell me what you think.

I wasn't having a dig with the unfit bugger comment BTW, that was firmly tongue in cheek, I've seen how much training you do from your posts on here.

Training in Z3 will be fine. Lactate Threshold is basically where you start really hurting, simply put its the point where the build up of Lactate happens quicker than your body can remove it.

There is no right answer, as with everything its good to investigate different theories and challenge your preconceptions with these things even if you make no changes yourself.

Okay thanks - don't worry no offence taken. I know I'm a shit runner. Also, I edited that post and tacked a question on the end of it...

edit: forget it, I Googled it. I guess 195 is a reasonable guess, I'll punch that in. Like you said, it's not an exact science, it will do.

I was chatting to a lad in the gym the other day and he was saying that rowers sometimes consume small amounts of baking powder before erg tests as they believe it helps the body deal with lactic acid buildup more efficiently and, thus, go harder for longer.
Unfortunately a side effect is getting a serious dose of the shits, so guys who took too much or got their timing wrong would have to ditch their test to make a break for the toilets.

Sounds extreme and possibly foolish.

Mog The Almighty wrote:Okay thanks - don't worry no offence taken. I know I'm a shit runner. Also, I edited that post and tacked a question on the end of it...

Without checking, I don't know - I guess its a theoretical rather than a hard limit without scientific testing, although each person must have an absolute max limit.

Bath Uni nearish me (30 mins) do a full testing for less than £100 where they do a series of physical and medical tests to define your training zones. I know a few people who have done and use it and I have been tempted but never found the time to do so yet.

Threshold is where you really start to suffer, so you'd expect to be in that zone for a 5km effort at close to your maximum pace for the distance.

If you haven't got a lot of distance training in your recent history, or a natural pre-disposition to it, then definitely try and manage your HR a bit. I've noticed guys who come to cycling from other sports tend to be prepared to suffer a lot but get burnt out after an hour. It is a different mindset when you are training for time/distance at a lower HR. I tend to daydream about all sorts of stuff but I'll still catch myself gradually picking up the pace and have to drop it again.

Sounds crazy!

Nolanator wrote:I was chatting to a lad in the gym the other day and he was saying that rowers sometimes consume small amounts of baking powder before erg tests as they believe it helps the body deal with lactic acid buildup more efficiently and, thus, go harder for longer.
Unfortunately a side effect is getting a serious dose of the shits, so guys who took too much or got their timing wrong would have to ditch their test to make a break for the toilets.

Sounds extreme and possibly foolish.

Not really a repeatable tactic on race day unless you're prepared to curl one out over the side.

Armchair_Superstar wrote:

Nolanator wrote:I was chatting to a lad in the gym the other day and he was saying that rowers sometimes consume small amounts of baking powder before erg tests as they believe it helps the body deal with lactic acid buildup more efficiently and, thus, go harder for longer.
Unfortunately a side effect is getting a serious dose of the shits, so guys who took too much or got their timing wrong would have to ditch their test to make a break for the toilets.

Sounds extreme and possibly foolish.

Not really a repeatable tactic on race day unless you're prepared to curl one out over the side.

I got the impression that there wouldn't be any curling them out. More like pouring some rusty water into the river.

Nolanator wrote:

Armchair_Superstar wrote:

Nolanator wrote:I was chatting to a lad in the gym the other day and he was saying that rowers sometimes consume small amounts of baking powder before erg tests as they believe it helps the body deal with lactic acid buildup more efficiently and, thus, go harder for longer.
Unfortunately a side effect is getting a serious dose of the shits, so guys who took too much or got their timing wrong would have to ditch their test to make a break for the toilets.

Sounds extreme and possibly foolish.

Not really a repeatable tactic on race day unless you're prepared to curl one out over the side.

I got the impression that there wouldn't be any curling them out. More like pouring some rusty water into the river.

Certain energy gels (SIS) have pretty much the same effect on me

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Okay thanks - don't worry no offence taken. I know I'm a shit runner. Also, I edited that post and tacked a question on the end of it...

Without checking, I don't know - I guess its a theoretical rather than a hard limit without scientific testing, although each person must have an absolute max limit.

Bath Uni nearish me (30 mins) do a full testing for less than £100 where they do a series of physical and medical tests to define your training zones. I know a few people who have done and use it and I have been tempted but never found the time to do so yet.

I read about it. Apparently it's the highest your heart can beat. They said one way to do it is a field test where you basically go as hard as you can running up hills and then add 10 to whatever you maxed out at. If that's right, then mine would probably be more like 205 I guess. And FWIW, I do trust the heart rate monitor. I've checked it against manually measuring my pulse on several occasions and it's very accurate. In fact, even just the optic sensor on the watch was very accurate. I'll put it in at 195 anyway, and if it turns out that technically I'm dipping into zone #2 when I'm aiming to stay in zone #3 then meh. As you rightly said, it's a rough guide so f-ck it.

On a slightly related note, I came across this chick on youtube the other week and started following her Instagram. Last weekend she lifted some crazy numbers at a powerlifting meet. I think I read that she now has the highest Wilks score in the world, which accounts for age, gender, weight etc. Not sure what the value in it is, but it's a cool record for her.

Almost certainly on all sorts of extra curricular assistance, but impressively strong, nonetheless.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnDSNWoFjjT ... hare_sheet


Apparently a bit of wee making its way onto the platform is a frequent enough occurrence for female lifters, particularly during sumo DLs.



This longish video of Jujimufu messing around in her gym is actually quite watchable. She's insanely strong. Watching Juji hit a PR is pretty good motivation to go and smash some weights, too.

blindcider wrote:Certain energy gels (SIS) have pretty much the same effect on me

I tried out an aspartic acid supplement last year. It's supposed to help boost test levels (although since then I've seen evidence pointing to it mostly being a waste of time for your typical male lifter).
It consistently gave me the scutts. Had to give 3/4 of the bag to a friend as it wasn't sustainable.

Nolanator wrote:Almost certainly on all sorts of extra curricular assistance, but impressively strong, nonetheless.

She's a beast, and yes I think you can remove the "almost", and also yes, incredibly impressive regardless.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

Nolanator wrote:Almost certainly on all sorts of extra curricular assistance, but impressively strong, nonetheless.

She's a beast, and yes I think you can remove the "almost", and also yes, incredibly impressive regardless.

I was covering my arse! We know how BC feels about allegations of PED use.

Nolanator wrote:On a slightly related note, I came across this chick on youtube the other week and started following her Instagram. Last weekend she lifted some crazy numbers at a powerlifting meet. I think I read that she now has the highest Wilks score in the world, which accounts for age, gender, weight etc. Not sure what the value in it is, but it's a cool record for her.

Almost certainly on all sorts of extra curricular assistance, but impressively strong, nonetheless.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnDSNWoFjjT ... hare_sheet


Apparently a bit of wee making its way onto the platform is a frequent enough occurrence for female lifters, particularly during sumo DLs.



This longish video of Jujimufu messing around in her gym is actually quite watchable. She's insanely strong. Watching Juji hit a PR is pretty good motivation to go and smash some weights, too.

She’s an animal, 190kg squat is scary.

There are some seriously strong woman around.

Jen Thompson is a IPF (drug tested) lifter and she just bench 142.5kg at under 63kg bodyweight.

I've seen videos of Jen Thompson benching 100kg/225lbs for fun. Very impressive.

Nolanator wrote:Heavy upper body this morning went well. Mostly just pressing and pulling variations.
Was messing about a bit and finished with some plate weighted neck flexion and extension, just 5kg for sets of 12.

About an hour later back in work I got the flashing lights of a migraine aura. Went and sat in the bog for 20 minutes covering my eyes. It came and went without much of a headache, but my head is a shade woozy.
I suspect that the neck extensions caused some kind of tension headache. Those little muscles right at the base of the skull can cause it, as far as I know. Will probably leave the extensions out going forward and see how I fare just doing weighted flexion and banded twisting work.

Edit, scratch that. Proper headache now.

I hit a PR squat last weekend while nearly blind with a fuzzy migraine aura

Nolanator wrote:On a slightly related note, I came across this chick on youtube the other week and started following her Instagram. Last weekend she lifted some crazy numbers at a powerlifting meet. I think I read that she now has the highest Wilks score in the world, which accounts for age, gender, weight etc. Not sure what the value in it is, but it's a cool record for her.

Almost certainly on all sorts of extra curricular assistance, but impressively strong, nonetheless.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnDSNWoFjjT ... hare_sheet


Apparently a bit of wee making its way onto the platform is a frequent enough occurrence for female lifters, particularly during sumo DLs.



This longish video of Jujimufu messing around in her gym is actually quite watchable. She's insanely strong. Watching Juji hit a PR is pretty good motivation to go and smash some weights, too.

She's an unbelievable lifter, it's absolutely ridiculous how strong she is. I like watching her videos as, especially on deadlifts, she looks like she's dying and hasn't a hope of a single, then she'll end up doing a set of 5. It's very impressive.

This thread isn't solely about benching and steroids ... Who knew.

In that case:

Anyone have good interval sessions for on the bike? In trying to maximise my training which I've had to reduce time wise due to work being @#£#&@#£#+ insane. I train a lot with HR and my max is 192bpm. Im looking for something of about an hour. No longer have the time for 3 hour rides daily and the weight is starting to creep on a bit. 86kg :s

Doing ID sessions daily is great for strava prs but it's not helping me boost my base rate conditioning like I would want it to.

Mog The Almighty wrote:Wow cool, great info mate.

I have a Garmin chest-strap. You can configure your heart-rate-zones in the app ... if I put 192 (the highest recorded so far) as the max, then let it auto-configure, the 60-70% band is between 116 and 135bpm. That seems ridiculously low. I mean, I think I could get it up that high on a brisk walk. If I run 5km in that range I think I'd be walking most of it...

Garmin also used HRR "heart rate reserve" so do you know your resting HR? If so on the app you can put that in as your resting, plus your max and it will give you a better zone to work in.

For example my zones are:
Z1 - 124-140
Z2 - 140-155
Z3 - 155-171
Z4 - 171-186
Z5 - 186-202

Stevus55 wrote:

Nolanator wrote:Heavy upper body this morning went well. Mostly just pressing and pulling variations.
Was messing about a bit and finished with some plate weighted neck flexion and extension, just 5kg for sets of 12.

About an hour later back in work I got the flashing lights of a migraine aura. Went and sat in the bog for 20 minutes covering my eyes. It came and went without much of a headache, but my head is a shade woozy.
I suspect that the neck extensions caused some kind of tension headache. Those little muscles right at the base of the skull can cause it, as far as I know. Will probably leave the extensions out going forward and see how I fare just doing weighted flexion and banded twisting work.

Edit, scratch that. Proper headache now.

I hit a PR squat last weekend while nearly blind with a fuzzy migraine aura

That's commitment.

Earlier this year I was going for an OHP 1RM and I wound myself up so much before it that I got a vicious head rush just from unracking the bar. Came within a whisker of blacking out half way through the rep with lots of weight over my head, until I decided to abandon the rep.

nardol wrote:This thread isn't solely about benching and steroids ... Who knew.

In that case:

Anyone have good interval sessions for on the bike? In trying to maximise my training which I've had to reduce time wise due to work being @#£#&@#£#+ insane. I train a lot with HR and my max is 192bpm. Im looking for something of about an hour. No longer have the time for 3 hour rides daily and the weight is starting to creep on a bit. 86kg :s

Doing ID sessions daily is great for strava prs but it's not helping me boost my base rate conditioning like I would want it to.

Interval sessions can be difficult to do cycling, purely because of the nature of roads with junctions and traffic. I tend to use two sessions on the road, 5 minutes of hard effort, followed by 5 of easy repeated until you are tired and a fartlek type session where I ride different length intervals at different efforts - constantly changing how hard you are riding. This can work quite well cos you can use junctions and landmarks to define the interval length.

Easiest to make consistent with a turbo trainer and following a session (I have a dumb trainer and often use the GCN free sessions on youtube) as you can easier master the conditions. This is something that something like TrainerRoad is very good for

nardol wrote:This thread isn't solely about benching and steroids ... Who knew.

In that case:

Anyone have good interval sessions for on the bike? In trying to maximise my training which I've had to reduce time wise due to work being @#£#&@#£#+ insane. I train a lot with HR and my max is 192bpm. Im looking for something of about an hour. No longer have the time for 3 hour rides daily and the weight is starting to creep on a bit. 86kg :s

Doing ID sessions daily is great for strava prs but it's not helping me boost my base rate conditioning like I would want it to.

Personally I find it easiest to do structured intervals on Zwift when I am pushed for time. There are all kinds of intervals on there and you can do an FTP test which is basic but it'll give you a rough figure to base the watts off.

If you're pushed for time then working in 2 strength sessions a week and a sensible diet will do a lot more to keep the weight off than killing yourself doing intervals.

ElementFreak wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Wow cool, great info mate.

I have a Garmin chest-strap. You can configure your heart-rate-zones in the app ... if I put 192 (the highest recorded so far) as the max, then let it auto-configure, the 60-70% band is between 116 and 135bpm. That seems ridiculously low. I mean, I think I could get it up that high on a brisk walk. If I run 5km in that range I think I'd be walking most of it...

Garmin also used HRR "heart rate reserve" so do you know your resting HR? If so on the app you can put that in as your resting, plus your max and it will give you a better zone to work in.

For example my zones are:
Z1 - 124-140
Z2 - 140-155
Z3 - 155-171
Z4 - 171-186
Z5 - 186-202

Thanks mate. I'm not sure what "resting heart rate" is exactly. My watch says it's like 48 or something ... but on further investigation that number is just the lowest that it hits all day while I'm awake and they call it "resting heart rate". I think my "average resting heart rate", as in, what it would be if I just sat down for five minutes, is something more like about 60.

Circuits last night and then upper body volume this morning. Was fairly tired at the start of my session today and was definitely fatiguing quite fast, but had a good session in the end.

Circuits last night finished with that Moby song "Flower" where you've to squat up or down every time the song says Sally up or Sally down. Was only BW squats and I can rest quite comfortably at the bottom of the squat, so it wasn't an awful challenge. Had a fairly decent burn by the end, though. Did high rep leg work yesterday morning as well, so today my glutes are on fire.
Some lunatics tried to do pushups for the challenge. That didn't look fun.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

ElementFreak wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Wow cool, great info mate.

I have a Garmin chest-strap. You can configure your heart-rate-zones in the app ... if I put 192 (the highest recorded so far) as the max, then let it auto-configure, the 60-70% band is between 116 and 135bpm. That seems ridiculously low. I mean, I think I could get it up that high on a brisk walk. If I run 5km in that range I think I'd be walking most of it...

Garmin also used HRR "heart rate reserve" so do you know your resting HR? If so on the app you can put that in as your resting, plus your max and it will give you a better zone to work in.

For example my zones are:
Z1 - 124-140
Z2 - 140-155
Z3 - 155-171
Z4 - 171-186
Z5 - 186-202

Thanks mate. I'm not sure what "resting heart rate" is exactly. My watch says it's like 48 or something ... but on further investigation that number is just the lowest that it hits all day while I'm awake and they call it "resting heart rate". I think my "average resting heart rate", as in, what it would be if I just sat down for five minutes, is something more like about 60.

I jut run with what my watch tells me, average is 48/49 over the last 4 weeks and 49 for the last 7 months so I trust it. Plus the running in those zones feel really good so I assume it's pretty accurate.

I tried this heart-rate zone training thing yesterday. It was aiming at the 70-80% band, which was ~135 - ~158bpm, calculated as a percentage of max-heart rate. I found it very easy. I was only sweating slightly at the end of the run, and, unlike my previous run where I went as hard as I could over the same route, I could have easily held a conversation for most of it.

Obviously I was much slower, and you can see how much I was walking. Once I'd got my heart-rate up to the target zone, it basically turned into running for a hundred meters, then walking until my heart-rate hit about 135bpm then running until it went back towards 158 (which didn't take long, especially up the hills), and then repeat. It looks like past the first kilometer or so, I was actually walking more than I was running.

One odd thing is that even though I was going much slower, my watch "detected" that I was performing much better. You can see the graph "performance condition" (compared to my baseline), which is above average through the entire run (it usually is above average at the start, crosses the average line half way and dips to below average at the end). After I'd finished the run, my watch told me that I had set a new V02 Max of 44, which was also kind of weird. In any case, my watch seemed to like what I was doing.

I hope that the evidence is actually strong to support that this is healthier and more effective way of training, because it was actually pretty pleasant. I felt good afterwards. In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover. I even had time to stop and take a photograph of a gigantic mushroom.



Other graphs and shit:
Just put them in the spoiler tag to save a bit of horizontal space.

Mog The Almighty wrote:In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover.

This is a major benefit point, but only if you want to run regularly. It does make running more pleasurable but you do miss that nice lung and lactic acid burn.

Question: During the run segments are you pushing hard or just taking it easy? If you are taking lots of walk breaks it could be that you are pushing slightly too hard on the run bits and by the time the HR lag catches up you are already over the HR limits you set. I know when I have tried this method in the past I found it difficult to stay in the zone for the first few runs until I'd properly mentally adjusted too the right effort level. Its a good start though

Managed to do my hilly local parkrun in 25:01 this week which is nearly 4 minutes slower than this time last year, the double Ironman has utterly destroyed my run legs and I'm still struggling for form 15 weeks later Going to commit to some Z2 training myself when I get back on it this week and start the long build towards next years double.

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover.

This is a major benefit point, but only if you want to run regularly. It does make running more pleasurable but you do miss that nice lung and lactic acid burn.

Question: During the run segments are you pushing hard or just taking it easy? If you are taking lots of walk breaks it could be that you are pushing slightly too hard on the run bits and by the time the HR lag catches up you are already over the HR limits you set. I know when I have tried this method in the past I found it difficult to stay in the zone for the first few runs until I'd properly mentally adjusted too the right effort level. Its a good start though

Managed to do my hilly local parkrun in 25:01 this week which is nearly 4 minutes slower than this time last year, the double Ironman has utterly destroyed my run legs and I'm still struggling for form 15 weeks later Going to commit to some Z2 training myself when I get back on it this week and start the long build towards next years double.

Sounds like you're doing awesome work.

Regarding the question, I was definitely taking it easy on the running bits, trying to keep to the HR zone. I could have easily sprinted, but I probably would have hit Z4 in a few seconds I'm taking it easy, but there is still some "lag" there, but it's only a few bpm, which is why it says I spent a significant amount of time on Z4. I'd stop when I hit the ceiling of Z3, but the "lag" would take me into Z4, but only by about 5 bpm, and as I was walking fairly briskly, it would take a little time to go back into Z3, even if it was just a few bpm. But as you say, it's not as if the human body works on exact 10% bands. It was close enough I think. It seems counter-intuitive that this could be the most effective way for me to increase my fitness. Like "lifter light and less often to get stronger". What? But I hope you're right because it was a very pleasant and repeatable experience, especially out in the nature.

I was thinking about what you were saying before, maybe I have a naturally high max HR? I dunno but I feel very little-to-no physical discomfort running until my HR gets up well into Z4 and approaching Z5. This run was extremely easy and really pleasant and enjoyable. I could easily do it for 10km. 5km was nothing.

I bailed on doing my parkrun last weekend. Alarm went on Saturday morning and I was just too tired. Legs (glutes particularly) were still fried with DOMS from Thursday.

Had a good vanity session on Sunday; benching and arm isolation, and a good heavy lower body session this morning. Although, I messed up the order of my exercises.
Squats: 130x2, 5 sets
OH squat: 40x4 / Front squat: 70x8, 3 sets
DL: 160x2, 3 sets
Glute thrusts: 100x12, 3 sets

Should have done the DLs before the squat volume, but wasn't thinking straight. Legs were fairly fried by the time I got to DLs and it felt very heavy. Was also mucking about doing some OH squats to work on postural stuff, which fried my shoulders when combined with racking the front squat. Found it hard to lock out my upper body on the DLs as a result.

I'll switch it all around next week.


Going to plan my sessions a bit better towards the end of this week so that I don't miss my run on Saturday.

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover.

This is a major benefit point, but only if you want to run regularly. It does make running more pleasurable but you do miss that nice lung and lactic acid burn.

Question: During the run segments are you pushing hard or just taking it easy? If you are taking lots of walk breaks it could be that you are pushing slightly too hard on the run bits and by the time the HR lag catches up you are already over the HR limits you set. I know when I have tried this method in the past I found it difficult to stay in the zone for the first few runs until I'd properly mentally adjusted too the right effort level. Its a good start though

Managed to do my hilly local parkrun in 25:01 this week which is nearly 4 minutes slower than this time last year, the double Ironman has utterly destroyed my run legs and I'm still struggling for form 15 weeks later Going to commit to some Z2 training myself when I get back on it this week and start the long build towards next years double.

It's amazing (to me as someone who does not run competitively) how much of a difference the course makes. Of the parkruns near me, Brentwood parkrun must be about 2 minutes slower than Chelmsford due to all the hills.The biggest difficulty at Chelmsford is the popularity (~700 runners) causes a right bundle for the 1st mile.

A few times over the summer there were over 1000 people at my local Parkrun. Made for fairly congested starts.

Guilted myself into going for an almost 5km jog this evening to make up for missing Saturday. It was lovely and sunny walking home from work and I passed loads of people running in the common so I got in the mood for it. Just threw on my gear as soon as I got in and went straight back out before I got too comfortable.

Legs are tired now after the run and gym work in the morning.

Homer wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover.

This is a major benefit point, but only if you want to run regularly. It does make running more pleasurable but you do miss that nice lung and lactic acid burn.

Question: During the run segments are you pushing hard or just taking it easy? If you are taking lots of walk breaks it could be that you are pushing slightly too hard on the run bits and by the time the HR lag catches up you are already over the HR limits you set. I know when I have tried this method in the past I found it difficult to stay in the zone for the first few runs until I'd properly mentally adjusted too the right effort level. Its a good start though

Managed to do my hilly local parkrun in 25:01 this week which is nearly 4 minutes slower than this time last year, the double Ironman has utterly destroyed my run legs and I'm still struggling for form 15 weeks later Going to commit to some Z2 training myself when I get back on it this week and start the long build towards next years double.

It's amazing (to me as someone who does not run competitively) how much of a difference the course makes. Of the parkruns near me, Brentwood parkrun must be about 2 minutes slower than Chelmsford due to all the hills.The biggest difficulty at Chelmsford is the popularity (~700 runners) causes a right bundle for the 1st mile.

Notley and Maldon are not that busy , normal 220-270 people.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover.

This is a major benefit point, but only if you want to run regularly. It does make running more pleasurable but you do miss that nice lung and lactic acid burn.

Question: During the run segments are you pushing hard or just taking it easy? If you are taking lots of walk breaks it could be that you are pushing slightly too hard on the run bits and by the time the HR lag catches up you are already over the HR limits you set. I know when I have tried this method in the past I found it difficult to stay in the zone for the first few runs until I'd properly mentally adjusted too the right effort level. Its a good start though

Managed to do my hilly local parkrun in 25:01 this week which is nearly 4 minutes slower than this time last year, the double Ironman has utterly destroyed my run legs and I'm still struggling for form 15 weeks later Going to commit to some Z2 training myself when I get back on it this week and start the long build towards next years double.

Sounds like you're doing awesome work.

Regarding the question, I was definitely taking it easy on the running bits, trying to keep to the HR zone. I could have easily sprinted, but I probably would have hit Z4 in a few seconds I'm taking it easy, but there is still some "lag" there, but it's only a few bpm, which is why it says I spent a significant amount of time on Z4. I'd stop when I hit the ceiling of Z3, but the "lag" would take me into Z4, but only by about 5 bpm, and as I was walking fairly briskly, it would take a little time to go back into Z3, even if it was just a few bpm. But as you say, it's not as if the human body works on exact 10% bands. It was close enough I think. It seems counter-intuitive that this could be the most effective way for me to increase my fitness. Like "lifter light and less often to get stronger". What? But I hope you're right because it was a very pleasant and repeatable experience, especially out in the nature.

I was thinking about what you were saying before, maybe I have a naturally high max HR? I dunno but I feel very little-to-no physical discomfort running until my HR gets up well into Z4 and approaching Z5. This run was extremely easy and really pleasant and enjoyable. I could easily do it for 10km. 5km was nothing.

This is where the benefits are for this type of training. Sure the 10km will take longer than if you were running in Z4, but think about Z2 as the base of a pyramid. The more time you invest in the base the higher the tip of the pyramid can be, or at least that's how it was explained to me.

bimboman wrote:

Homer wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover.

This is a major benefit point, but only if you want to run regularly. It does make running more pleasurable but you do miss that nice lung and lactic acid burn.

Question: During the run segments are you pushing hard or just taking it easy? If you are taking lots of walk breaks it could be that you are pushing slightly too hard on the run bits and by the time the HR lag catches up you are already over the HR limits you set. I know when I have tried this method in the past I found it difficult to stay in the zone for the first few runs until I'd properly mentally adjusted too the right effort level. Its a good start though

Managed to do my hilly local parkrun in 25:01 this week which is nearly 4 minutes slower than this time last year, the double Ironman has utterly destroyed my run legs and I'm still struggling for form 15 weeks later Going to commit to some Z2 training myself when I get back on it this week and start the long build towards next years double.

It's amazing (to me as someone who does not run competitively) how much of a difference the course makes. Of the parkruns near me, Brentwood parkrun must be about 2 minutes slower than Chelmsford due to all the hills.The biggest difficulty at Chelmsford is the popularity (~700 runners) causes a right bundle for the 1st mile.

Notley and Maldon are not that busy , normal 220-270 people.

I like my parkrun which is only 2km away from my place, I can jog there as a warm up, do the 5km with only 40-60 other people, then jog home as recovery. However the course is very hilly so the benefits are amazing for when I go to my sister's course and it's rather flat. Means I can churn out some quick times.

bimboman wrote:

Homer wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:In fact I could easily do it again today (and I will do it tomorrow), where as I usually have to take a couple of days off in between to recover.

This is a major benefit point, but only if you want to run regularly. It does make running more pleasurable but you do miss that nice lung and lactic acid burn.

Question: During the run segments are you pushing hard or just taking it easy? If you are taking lots of walk breaks it could be that you are pushing slightly too hard on the run bits and by the time the HR lag catches up you are already over the HR limits you set. I know when I have tried this method in the past I found it difficult to stay in the zone for the first few runs until I'd properly mentally adjusted too the right effort level. Its a good start though

Managed to do my hilly local parkrun in 25:01 this week which is nearly 4 minutes slower than this time last year, the double Ironman has utterly destroyed my run legs and I'm still struggling for form 15 weeks later Going to commit to some Z2 training myself when I get back on it this week and start the long build towards next years double.

It's amazing (to me as someone who does not run competitively) how much of a difference the course makes. Of the parkruns near me, Brentwood parkrun must be about 2 minutes slower than Chelmsford due to all the hills.The biggest difficulty at Chelmsford is the popularity (~700 runners) causes a right bundle for the 1st mile.

Notley and Maldon are not that busy , normal 220-270 people.

Its a good number as a run director - more than that and the issues seem to increase drastically. My local parkrun often gets over 300 and the issues seem to increase drastically at this threshold.1000+ like at Poole with Nolanator or nearly 1500 at Bushy is bloody hard to manage when you consider its a free event and there is no chip timing. The barcode system works well but does add a lot of work.

I'm currently setting one up near me - I am currently down as event director but not sure I can spare the time long term so I may handover to someone else when we are set-up. Got the funding sorted and hopefully finalising the course tomorrow , then its just the risk assessment and paperwork to complete

Did another 5km this morning. I adjusted my heart-rate zones so they are set automatically by watch depending on whatever it figures out is my lactate-threshold. Using that method for determining zones, my Z3 is between 152-161 bpm. It doesn't leave much to play with. I basically have to stop running when it hits 158, and the lag will take it to 161 or 162, and start running when it hits 154 and the lag will take it back below 152. I should actually stop on 155 if I want to create a nice green line on the zone graph. Using this method there was a lot of walking, then running, then walking, all over small distances.

Oddly enough my V02 Max went up again. Apparently I have the fitness of a 20 year old. I think there is something wrong here, either with my max heart rate or the zone settings, or just this training method...

It's actually so easy I'm going to do another run in my lunch break today.