Runners, watch out for flying deer. And not reindeer.
Gym this AM:
3 sets of weighted (not much) front squats, 10-12 reps
3 sets of quad extension machine, 10-12 reps, changing foot position on each set
3 sets of leg press machine, 10-12 reps (I pressed like 100 pounds, but the guy before me left 500 pounds which put me in perspective quickly)
3 sets of hamstring curls, 10-12 reps (still the weakest exercise I do in this)
3 sets of deadlifts, 10 reps (100 lbs)
3 x weighted lunges 1/2 across gym (with medicine ball)
In between various push ups, incline sit ups, etc.
I don’t hit full failure on these but I was pretty fried after the 45 minutes of all this.
Friel has a great write up today. I read it and thought, “yes, that makes sense.” Of course I then thought … except when you want to run a lot of T2.
Or T4 or 5.
More seasonable temps today and was able to put up a run today. There was some wind but not the 30 mph stuff we had last night. 10 miles easy, working out the kinks.
‘nother 100 coming to CO.
Been hitting the gym myself. Squats are hard.
ReplyDeleteUh, yeah they are. I flipping suck at them in about every possible way - weight, form, reps. Ugh. I hate starting something new that I stink at. Which is sort of why I like it. But don't.
DeleteGotta admit that the new 100 in Ouray has me pretty excited. Maybe it'll be my backup should I not get into Leadville for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteWyatt
The big thing I think for them will be getting the permits. Still be done from what I am reading.
DeleteKillian will be in Colorado. I bet he takes 12 hours off the Ouray CR.
ReplyDeleteAnd then runs a Nolans fkt in flip-flops.
DeleteThat is an interesting point Tim. I have wondered when the Sal marketing group is going to take the crack at that line and making a movie out of it.
DeleteThat course map makes no sense to me. It looks like its an out and back south, which gets you back to the start at mile 32. Then you go north to the turnaround at mile 72...so there's no way you can get back to the start in under 110 miles. Unless maybe there are a lot of switchbacks to cut. (There is always a place for that joke.)
ReplyDeleteIt is an out and back - but I can't really get where the start is exactly.
DeleteYou and I might be the only two guys who are still enjoying the switchback cutting joke. Well, and Rickey Gates.
KJ just put a video out of him getting his Vo2Max tested on a treadmill over on FB. I was very tempted to write something about no switchbacks on a treadmill...
DeleteHey George,
ReplyDeleteI posted on that Friel Hard/Easy piece. Basically, I was asking where MAF HR would fall into his 3 zone layout. Using the MAF formula- my MAF pace is 146 + 5= 151. I usually cap my training at 150 for most days, or 140 if I feel tired. He responded that he would need to know more about me to answer. What more would he need? I just want to know where the MAF pace corresponds to his 3 zones? Is MAF a zone 1 easy effort? It seems like he is saying that more training should be truly easy. I would not call my MAF running easy at all. I am not even able to do MAF usually if the run is flat. That means speeds that would quickly cause me injury. A MAF run on a track is the closest thing I really do to flat speedwork. I can easily hit MAF running on hills, while on the stepmill/steep treadmill or while skinning at the ski hill. Thus, I keep most of my training in the vertical. I hear so many people talk about how slow and boring MAF is, but MAF for me is a really taxing workout. Is my true MAF HR lower than 151? Could it be that I am working too hard to achieve MAF benefits? I definitely find exercise easier in the 140-145 range.
good stuff Jer.
Delete1.) Lucho is better able to answer all this than me.
2.) MAF is a range. Yeah, I know folks often treat it as a cap, but I see it more as a range.
3.) To Friel's point, I think I'd need to know a bit more about you but if I recall from some of our earlier conversations, I recall you saying MAF efforts were hard. I wondered about your max HR. In some cases, I have seen some people (Tim G's, Tim L's akak Footfeathers), they actually have a lower max HR (I think Tim G's was like 168-170 when he was aged in his low 30s but he was still running sub 15 5ks) and so the typical equations for MAF need to be adjusted. My MAF at that time was like 150, but for him it was closer to 120.
4.) FWIW - that point is one of the flaws with MAF. Equations like what Dr. Phil has put up are appropriate when considering large populations of people. But when it comes to the individual, it might not apply. As George Box said, "all models are wrong. Some however are useful."
5.) When aerobically fit, MAF may not be easy at all. It can be very easy aerobically (or in terms of how your heart is responding in terms of beats) but very challenging muscularly. Lucho talks about getting to this state. I guess Mark Allen got to this state as well as he was doing MAF runs at 5:20 mpm (but was challenged to hold that for a full marathon when he went that route).
6.) I think most of Friel's target is towards the tri guy and while the principles are applicable, there is are some wrinkles I see in crossing the conversation. IM folks tend to live in zone 1, or the MAF effort. And that makes sense since they are going to be out there for 9 hours or more.
7.) My experience has been that in different exercises, different MAFs - or actually easy efforts as measured in terms of HR are applicable. For example - I can run 7:30s at 145 (assuming healthy and fair weather) for say an hour and call that an easy run. Now, put me on a bike and tell me to hold 145 for an hour and I'd be in the hurt box. I am just not fit that way (on the bike). If I were interested in getting better at the bike, well - I'd have to bike a LOT more and that would mean a lot of easy biking at probably a lower HR (like 120). I'd expect that over time, I'd see that I'd be able to do two things better: hold a higher HR at an easier PE (perceived effort) and be faster doing it.
So in your case, you are probably better at climbing than the flat running (I see this sort of thing all the time with running partner Jeff V). So you have a few choices:
--adjust into a HR based on the MAF formula meaning your easy stuff is 14x-145 on the hills and the flats
-- have slightly different MAF paces for the different types of exercises This one gets into a bit of a debate if that is MAF, but I see that as a discussion about terminology (which, yes is important but less important than the results).
The question I guess unanswered here is if the 151 paces on the hills feel easy.
Sorry to ramble. Lucho please adjust, correct, modify.
I was looking at that Ouray100 race course as well. Looks like it starts/ends at the hot springs. Will just assume the miles early on is correct but one can question that. While big chunks of the course look pretty cool, that section from Ridgeway north to 550 looks very uninteresting from a running perspective.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, that county road 1 is a beautiful drive with amazing views of the Sneffels range, but that area is surprisingly populated and the stretch is a good mix of dirt and pavement. 30+ miles of that kind of kills it for me.
It would be nice to see a new race like this occur in that area, but not holding my breath. Seems like every few years a race idea pops up only to go away shortly after.
Thought the same. Lots of "green" on that course map, but the course rarely hits it.
DeleteI remember the Ouray Mountain Run 14-miler a few years back that had La Sportiva backing. Fizzled after just two years I think.
Bit of a challenging time as well in the calendar, although there is only so much space in the summer. Right in between HR, Leadville. I guess it could get some play if Leadville does lottery.
Delete2 cents
ReplyDeleteJoe wrote that piece about a type of training or a method that has been researched by others. Joe (who BTW is a renowned cycling and triathlon coach who will tell you that basing training off of age is ridiculous) actually advocates 7 training zones. He says in the article that "The reference to zones here is strictly for the purposes of these studies and not the same as the zones normally used by athletes." The entire study is based on lab tests using blood lactate. Joe was asking you about your lactate threshold. Which really is the only way to give you a definitive answer. Plus the three zone method is incredibly broad. Their Zone 1 I would call Zone1/2 which could have a HR range of 30-35 beats which would cover from recovery up to marathon pace? So the three zone method is crap to begin with.
Without any blood tests, answering how MAF correlates to a method based on blood lactate is a tough one. There is no definitive answer because the two methods are based on completely different ideas, plus perceived exertion at MAF changes with your fitness. A guy off the couch will be in Zone 1 at MAF while Farah is probably in Zone 3. So you can't assume that every 34 year old in the world runs at the same effort as you at MAF.
MAF is horseshoes and hand grenades where you are simply trying to get close to an effort (by using the formula which errs (usually) on the side of caution) that builds "aerobic" or fat burning economy. The MAF range should put you well below your AeT (typically the 50/50 balance point for fat/ CHO%), or what that article describes as the "moderate" zone. BUT, for a well trained runner MAF is certainly NOT what they describe as "Zone 1" or a recovery effort. And this is where the Three Zone method is flawed... there are ranges in between the 3. Which is why Friel (and most other coaches) use a 5-7 Zone system.
It's obvious that you are ridiculously fit from a fat burning, long range economy perspective. Even if your MAF range is incorrect for you, and I'll get to that, it is probably close and it would fall in the high Z1/ low moderate zone from that article.
It is possible that your MAF is getting too close to LT. There certainly should come a time where MAF starts to feel closer to a Zone 3 or tempo effort. At that point it is (IMO) important to then work on elevating your threshold. LT is not genetic. Use it or lose it. The problem with too much MAF running is that it neglects other very important aspects that define "fitness". It isn't good to build your MAF too close to lactate threshold (which is dropping). That leaves only a very small window between your MAF and going over threshold. You shouldn't be struggling at 20 beats below a HR that you should be able to hold for close to an HOUR.
Those are general ideas in terms of zones (based roughly off your assumed LT of 170) correlating to effort and distance.
Zone 1- HR<130-140 Recovery/ Ultra effort
Zone 2- HR 140-150 MAF/ Ironman/ Ultra
Zone 3- HR 150-160 Marathon/ 1/2 Ironman/ Ironman (elite)/ 50k-50 mile (elite)
Zone 4- HR160-170 1/2 Marathon (elite)/ 15k (average runner)
The best I can tell you is to forget the Three Zone Method and continue with what you are doing. When you don't feel good then run at ~130-145. When you feel good then let it slip to 150. Like I said, MAF is hand grenades... not a sniper rifle (or in your case a bow). At 150 you are still aerobic enough to build the desired fitness that MAF is meant to build. I would also say to start to focus a little more on Vo2 max/ LT. Like I said, use it or lose it.
Lucho,
DeleteThanks for taking all that time to help me here.
As I have mentioned before, I am really injury prone, especially in winter. I avoid any and all speed work, tempos, etc- except in the context of cross training. The closest I get to LT efforts is in the pool, running my intervals in the deep end, and skinning up the local ski resort. I was just concerned that I was targeting a HR that was too high for base training, as the Friel article did not really flush out what "easy" was. I was concerned that I may be targeting a HR that was actually too high and missing out on some lower end adaptations. 150 feels pretty hard and fast while running on flats, but is pretty manageable while doing uphill stuff. I will keep my target around there for the most part. It has served me well and I have made progress without plateaus so far. Most importantly, if I avoid the junk easy/frozen road mileage and avoid too much intensity work (even x-training), I have stayed healthy. When the trails melt, I can usually move my LT higher simply by attacking some hills during my runs and racing some shorter races. I am planning some half marathons and 50K's this spring. That's pretty much sprinting, right?
Thanks for weighing in Tim. Better said than my stuttering for sure.
Delete50k is a sprint. Nice. Lace up those spikes and go do the mile this spring or summer. Or if you really want to get close to the maker real quick, an 800.
DeleteBased on what I have learned from Lucho, I would agree with him in that it appears if your estimated MAF equals a pace that is uncomfortably fast, then its not an area of weakness. Working on speed/LT/etc should be a point of focus for improvement. MAF is not even marathon pace, so you should be able to run 30 miles at it rested if you had to....either that or your MAF number is maybe 10 beats lower than what a black and white math equation says.
DeleteExplaining MAF never gets old :) It seems that MAF is so simple it's confusing. 180 - age. Three numbers and three letters. But I totally get it.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to think of a way to describe MAF and WHY it works and I came up with this...
Say that the HR range needed to train my fat adaptation is 55-165 (which if I went to a lab and tested Rq would probably be pretty close.) As long as I'm in that HR range I will be burning predominately fat. I'm 42 so that puts my MAF range at about 133-143 (I'll add 5). So I can pretty much run freely as long as I don't break AeT. And just remember that running below the MAF range simply means you are burning an even higher percentage of fat to CHO with out the muscular stimulation.
I think people believe that if they go ONE beat over MAF that they are now rifling through CHO and an Rq test will show that to simply not be true. You can go 10 beats over MAF and you're still building a base and burning mostly fat.
However, and this is the main point of MAF IMO, the issue then becomes one of intensity, cumulative fatigue, and consistency. MAF is designed to allow for consistency and safe high volume because it is so moderate. If I ran at HR 150-160 every day it would just wear me down and I risk injury or inconsistent training or lowered volume. If I run at HR 133-143 I can run 100 mile weeks week in and week out. I've run 150 mile weeks at MAF and felt fine.
MANY coaches will tell you that the #1 mistake that athletes make is running their easy days too hard. This is what they are talking about. MAF just puts a HR value on it.
And part of the reason I (initially) am a stickler with the MAF HR range is due more to simple discipline. I want to teach athletes to be disciplined with training correctly. If they are half assed with a simple thing like MAF then how can I expect them to be disciplined when things get hard?
When I was in basic training a long time ago, they really got worked up on how you made your bed and folded your underwear.
DeleteThey would tell you (while screaming) they knew that really did not matter. Once you were at your duty assignment no one would care if you washed your dang underwear or made your bed.
But ... details matter. "How can I trust you dirt bags to fix multi-million dollar airplanes if you can not show me you can handle making a simple bed?"
Sometimes you play the game with the little stuff to show you can handle the big stuff.
Perfect analogy.
ReplyDelete