Road to Nowhere

Mark B wrote:

Joel H wrote:Ah yes, I had already taken Beacon Rock off the list as I remembered you had done that one and you were cursing the almighty on that one. Thanks for the info on the others. Looks like I have a few choices and now I just need to convince the wife to let me do it and get her up there....hmmm, now that is going to be the TOUGH part.

Good luck with that! You might also want to point out some of the amazing/cool/fun things to see and do in this part of the country that don't involve running.

And just to be clear, I was cursing TO the almighty at Beacon Rock, not cursing AT the almighty. And yes, I hope to run that race again, when I'm ready.

Mark B wrote:Low HR Run: 60 minutes (4.46 miles) on treadmill

Temp: 68. Gear: Free 3.0 v4s, shorts, t (shucked) Fuel: Got water halfway through

I wanted to do something a little different today, so I hopped on the treadmill, set it at a slowish (12/mi) pace and decided to just keep going until I didn't want to do it anymore. I got up to about 25 minutes before my HR slowly climbed up to my target of 138. I passed the TM and got some water, then started back up again, thinking it'd give me more time before having to slow down. Not really. After a few minutes, I slowed the TM a bit (not sure how much) and got it to a point to where my HR would fluctuate between 137 and 140, depending on my form. I spent the next half hour experimenting with that, trying to relax and stay loose. I decided it was time to wrap it up and do my 5-minute cool down at 55, but mostly because I need to be able to get Alec at the bus stop. I could have kept going, and kind of wanted to. That's the sort of feeling I'm shooting for - that "let's run all day" feeling.

Walked first and last 5 minutes, as usual. Average HR for entire workout: 126

Joel H wrote:The problem is NOT the amazing things to do outside of running, it is the RUNNING a marathon on vacation that the wife may not agree too. Trust me she is dying to go see her friend so that will not be a problem. I have nearly a year to convince her though.

Joel H wrote:I have seen a lot more treadmill runs lately, is that due to any other reason than just convenience or is there a specific training stimuli you are trying to get out of it?

Tom H wrote:Congrats on the shrinking waistline. I know that losing a belt notch represents a lot of focused effort.

Tom H wrote:Congrats on the shrinking waistline. I know that losing a belt notch represents a lot of focused effort.

ounce wrote:ditto.

I took some kitchen string and cut off a piece for the true size of my waist. That's been fun re-measuring, too.

ounce wrote:My heaviest 'healthy' weight is 171. I'll get there before August.

The belt method of assessment works, as long as the pants aren't too big. I can tug in an extra notch in size 34 pants, but I have to give a notch for 36 or 38's. I've stopped wearing 38's now, as they're just too baggy.

Until I settle in around 170 or less, I'll be getting my Dockers at Goodwill for $7 a pair. Yeah, I'm a cheap bastard, but I don't want to buy a new pair knowing that I'll just have to buy a smaller pair in a couple of months.

Oh, the complications of losing weight.

Dave P wrote:Nice pic Mark & sounds like a nice walk.

Joel H wrote:Very cool picture and looks like a great place for a walk...lots of things to keep your eyes wandering.

I found out that our friends live in Oak Harbor, Washington which looks to be on the complete opposite side of where you are so I am not sure if any of those races will work. Looks to be about 4+ hours from you based on a quick google search. Hmm....what to do, what to do.

KathyK wrote:Nice run, Mark. I'm glad you got to visit the llama and alpaca!
It's been fun to track your barefoot running progress.

ounce wrote:Question, sir. In Maffetone, he said (if I remember correctly) that when you're figuring the HR target, one could add 5 bpm, if you're in good shape. Does he ever say if you're in better than good shape that one could add 10 bpm?

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Question, sir. In Maffetone, he said (if I remember correctly) that when you're figuring the HR target, one could add 5 bpm, if you're in good shape. Does he ever say if you're in better than good shape that one could add 10 bpm?

I don't blame you for asking, though. EVERY runner wants to cheat that heart rate up a few more beats, just to get a little faster! (Myself included.) And while OF COURSE you can run faster than you can at your MAF heart rate, doing so defeats the purpose of this type of training. You start burning sugar instead of fat, you stop building mitochondria, and you predispose yourself to injury and burnout.


You mileage may vary, but caveat emptor.

ounce wrote:You may have over reached in the downside by saying mitochondria stops building.

ounce wrote:But it's not clear to me yet how the affect of low carb diet (or much lower than traditional running doctrine) skews the burning fat instead of sugar equation. Yesterday, I did not notice any reduction in energy on my 10 mile run.

I wonder if, like buidling endurance by a slow increase in mileage, one can truly depend solely on fat for endurance events. I've read where triathletes who are strict Paleo do it. The body always has pretty much an infinite supply of fat, even those with single digit fat percentage.

I know quite clearly at what point my body will demand carbs by its cramping. Wouldn't it be interesting, if I could PR without carbo-loading? Ah, the journey continues. Thanks for the clarification.

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:You may have over reached in the downside by saying mitochondria stops building.

According to Maffetone (my source in this), I didn't overreach. His theory/guidelines note that, once you have breached the aerobic/anaerobic threshold, the stimulus on the body changes and your body begins adapting in a different way. It's not just about burning fat vs. burning sugar.

I'm trying to remember this correctly, but I believe he argues that going anaerobic during the aerobic build phase raises blood lactate levels to the point to where it shuts down adaptations that improve the aerobic system (which would mean mitochondrial growth). If anaerobic metabolism/physiology is designed for emergencies, then it's logical that anything that would get in the way of maximum power would be suppressed.

Again, these are Maffetone's theories. I have no empirical evidence to prove them right or wrong, except my own. I did notice when I started sneaking in anaerobic work before I was ready for it, my MAF times plateaued and then collapsed. Whether it was by short-circuiting the aerobic process, or simply wearing myself out with too much work that was just barely anaerobic, I don't know. But what I do know is, I don't want that to happen again.

That said, even Maffetone says anaerobic work is necessary. However, he says the best approach is to continue doing low HR work until your MAF test times begin to plateau. At that point, he says, you've gotten as much out of the aerobic training as you can, and you're ready to start working in anaerobic workouts/competition - no more than 3x per week - for six to eight weeks. After that time, if you return to pure low HR work, you'll find that your MAF times will begin to improve again, thanks to the extra strength you've built.

Sounds suspiciously like periodization, doesn't it? Maffetone doesn't get much credit in this area because all most people talk about is the low HR work. But while he's still not a big fan of it, Maffetone does see anaerobic work as a useful tool. Just at the proper time.

And that's just it. I don't know that I've ever reached the point to where I've plateaued in low HR work. For many people, simply the low HR work and aerobic development can yield huge gains in efficiency and speed.

Didn't mean to write a dissertation on it, but it's more complicated than it appears.

Yeah, I was thinking the mitochondria made the muscles cells, instead of producing the ATP which is the fuel. I found an article that said the slow twitch muscles use the ATP and the fast twitch can't use mitochondria (ATP), but uses glucose instead. So, I sit corrected. http://members.shaw.ca/bodybuilding/Muscles/structure.html

ounce wrote:But it's not clear to me yet how the affect of low carb diet (or much lower than traditional running doctrine) skews the burning fat instead of sugar equation. Yesterday, I did not notice any reduction in energy on my 10 mile run.

I wonder if, like buidling endurance by a slow increase in mileage, one can truly depend solely on fat for endurance events. I've read where triathletes who are strict Paleo do it. The body always has pretty much an infinite supply of fat, even those with single digit fat percentage.

I know quite clearly at what point my body will demand carbs by its cramping. Wouldn't it be interesting, if I could PR without carbo-loading? Ah, the journey continues. Thanks for the clarification.

If you could PR without carbo loading, it'd be impressive. And, imagine this: if you'd trained for the race low carb, then loaded before the race and supplemented carbs during the race! Does the term "rocket fuel" bring anything to mind?

I know even skinny ultra runners will take carbs during a run, as much to keep their brain from fuzzing out as anything.

ounce wrote:Yeah, I was thinking the mitochondria made the muscles cells, instead of producing the ATP which is the fuel. I found an article that said the slow twitch muscles use the ATP and the fast twitch can't use mitochondria (ATP), but uses glucose instead. So, I sit corrected.

http://members.shaw.ca/bodybuilding/Muscles/structure.html

The 'rocket fuel' metaphor was pretty much the carbo loading effect the website I first read about the low-carb training for endurance athletes. It does work. I had 64 grams of pasta (the 'serving size' on the wrapper about 9 hours before a 5K in April, after doing 9 miles in the morning, and I was not hurting or feeling tired during the race.