Monday, July 16, 2012

What aerobic base?

Wow, what a shock today. I went out with my HR monitor alarm set to go off whenever my HR got out of the predominantly 'aerobic zone'. I chose a relatively flat loop as I knew there would be no way I could keep my HR around 130bpm on the hills around Black Mountain. Alas any incline at all resulted in a HR out of the zone. I suspect this is a carry over from overdoing it the week before last, but wow the numbers today were seriously depressing! Average pace was 6:36 min/K, average HR was 128bpm. It is extremely hard and terrible for running form trying to stick with that pace! However, persist I must to see if I can recover and develop some sort of aerobic base before attempting any hard sessions (except for Sutherland2Surf this weekend). A good thing Sutherland2Surf has a course profile like this:

A downhill run to the beach :-)
Latest Training:
Friday - gym session, no running
Saturday - Slow 11.2K run at Bruce Ridge, ~6:20min/K, HRav 135bpm. Rate 1.5/3 
Sunday - gym session, no running
Total for the week - 32K
Monday - 11.3K Central basin/Telopea School circuit, 6:36min/K, HRav 128 bpm. Rate 2/3 

3 comments:

  1. Nice course profile :) That'll help keep the HR down.

    It looks like you've lost some aerobic condition from where you were a couple of months back - 844 h/b per k for that Monday run whereas I recall you doing runs around the 750 mark then. My guess is that it's due to the lower mileage (unless you have a touch of the 2Fs).

    I remember back in '07 when I was trying to do 'low HR' training I'd end up walking on hills (or walk/jog/walk etc). I couldn't run up a hill under HR 130 (still can't). Agree that running form is pretty ordinary when jogging slowly. An alternative stragegy would be to run with 'good form' for 200m or so (until your HR got up to 135), then stop and walk until it declined to 115 and continue in that vein. In that way you keep the HR low but get the neuro-muscular benefit of running with 'good form'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks ET. It was about 805 h/b per k tonight and I felt a lot better. It's the muscle training intolerance thing. Before I blew up the numbers were better - for my last interval session it was 695 h/b for the 2000m and a flattish 5K run that same week had it at 763 h/b per k. A good indication of less efficiency at the slower running rates! Also for the run I did yesterday it was around the 750 mark for that same loop in June.

      Delete
    2. OK. Down to 805 is a good drop. HRs are also affected by tiredness, heat & humidity as you'd know. Yes, running faster is more efficient down to about AT pace. Fast walking produces very high h/bs per k as there's no 'free ride' from rebound off the ground. Short runs will produce better h/bs per k as the AHR of the first km or two is low as you've started from rest and it takes a while for the HR to build up and stabilise.

      Delete