Re: Diet and Exercise 2011: Better Than This.
Was this an organized event, or just something you did on your own? Either way, nice work.
In other news, I finally pulled the trigger and invested in a Garmin. I love that thing, but I think I spent more time on my 12 yesterday staring at it rather than actually running. I also tried a new fueling tactic, basically copying what my sister does. Instead of Gu, I used Hammer Endurolyte tablets and then just a simple source of sugar (in this case, a few gummy candies). Seemed to work, and I definitely felt better after the run and throughout the day, but as I hit a kind of wall again around 9 I'm wondering if maybe I needed to take in just a bit more.
2 weeks out. I'm rethinking my breaking 1:45 goal and aiming to be in the 1:46:anything range. It'll still be SIGNIFICANTLY faster than last year, and I hit a 1:48 while holding back a bit back in May, so I think that's a reasonable goal.
Not that I actually know anything about running, but.
We've used HR monitors for a few years now, and when I started, I really looked into useing them effectively. There are a ton of articles on line about effort, and the point of training- some referencing HR and effort directly, some indirectly, some not at all- but with precieved effort.
Here's how I've read them.
First of all, you can work too hard depending one what you are doing. If you are doing an aerobic work out, especially for a long time, it really does you no good to exceed your aerobic effort for the whole time- hills and sprints are ok if you recover. That comes out to roughly 80% max heart rate (which varies vs. age and sex).
Second, when focusing on a specific thing- you need to keep the rate in the correct range. If you are doing speed work, you need to know if you are shooting for a longish 90%, a short 95%, or a 100% sprint. (mostly hitting the rate at the end of the cycle). If you don't reach the range, the intended improvement may not be what you hope.
It will take a while to translate HR to effort, but based on my observations of me and others, generally, we under estimate effort.
So, how does this translate into 'diva's situation (again, IMHO...).
One of the big problems with running long distances is the ability to store enough energy to run. We've probably seen the estimate of 100cal/mile, which seems to be for a 130-150lb person. I'm closer to 140/mi. But the important thing is that we seem to be able to eat and store about 2000 cal on an immediate basis- even with the best of carb loading. So most people will be 600-1000 cal short. And it appears that the faster you run (more effort, really) the faster you run out of gas.
But fat stores 3000cal/lb, right? And even the best of the best atheletes are 3-5% fat (I'm closer to 20%). Which means that if you can get just ONE lb of fat metabolized into energy, you can run a marathon on that. From what I read, it's your liver that does that. Simple. The problem is that it takes considerable O2 to do that. And if you run too hard, you don't have enough excess air to metabolize fat at a high enough rate.
Here's an interesting connection- from what I can tell, HR is a very good reflection of O2 effort.
Putting all of the documents I've read together, IF you can keep your HR in an aerobic zone, you can keep your liver metabolizing fat. This is one reason you see the "fat burn" zone on machines. Although, those tend to be in the 60% HR range, I think aerobic zone is quite good at fat burning too.
Now putting this all together, and reading between the lines on a lot of the training plans......
The MAIN goal of the long distance runs is to train your body to metabolize your fat and use it as energy to run with. Run too fast, and you can get in better shape, but the effect of improvement isn't as good.
So, 'diva. Now that you have a Garmin, when you are doing your long run, you should do your best to keep your HR below 80% Max.
You may start out slow, but I read an older article about a world class runner who had issues, and decided to try this method. He was at about 5min/mi, and immdeiately had to slow to 9min/mi. He did panic, but didn't abandon it, and eventually ended up faster than he was before, and was a much better marathoner.
Again, there's little that has all of that in one place, and this is mostly based on my conclusions reading and thinking too much about running. But it seems to work.
YMMV.
IMHO.
Good luck.
