Hard-Easy CV Training

[Stephen Di]

I have been incorporating the hard-easy principle in
heart-rate monitored running (for fitness, not competition).
On hard days, after a warm-up, I run 40 minutes, 30 of which
at 80%-85% cardiac reserve (just under 90% maximal heart rate,
for me), with interspered recovery totaling about 10 minutes
(e.g. 10 minutes at the above level of intensity, separated by
3 minute recovery periods of slow jogging). The 80-85 cardiac
reserve is just below my anerobic and lactate threshold, which
are approximately equal in my case.

I have added (to incorporate the hard-easy principle) two days
of at the same duration, but at 60%-70% cardiac reserve.

I wonder whether the hard-easy principle is really applicable
to this level of intensity (no really long runs; no anerobic
intervals).

Do I really gain more from the hard-easy pattern than if I
simply ran 5 days at the higher intensity? I find it hard to
believe that the light days add more than hard days of
comparable duration, or that over-training is really an issue
at this level of intensity.

[I had long thought that I was pushing my limits, because
after a hard day I would feel fatigued the rest of the day.
Recently I made an interesting discovery. An adequate warm-up
seems to be crucial to avoding the fatigue. Three minutes of
running at 60-70% cardiac reserve seems to have been an
insufficient warm-up. Now I warm-up for a full ten minutes at
a really light pace: 50%-60% cardiac reserve. Even though the
warm-up is added to, not substracted, from the total exercise
time, diminution of lasting fatigue is striking. I think that
if you go even moderately intense activity too rapidly, you
start out somewhat anerobic, or at least I do.]

Stephen Diamond

[Van Bagnol]

In article
<stephend15-961478.11141314082002@news.mindspring.com>,
Stephen Diamond <stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I have been incorporating the hard-easy principle in
> heart-rate monitored running (for fitness, not competition).
> On hard days, after a warm-up, I run 40 minutes, 30 of which
> at 80%-85% cardiac reserve
[...]
> I have added (to incorporate the hard-easy principle) two
> days of at the same duration, but at 60%-70% cardiac
> reserve.
>
> I wonder whether the hard-easy principle is really
> applicable to this level of intensity (no really long runs;
> no anerobic intervals).
>
> Do I really gain more from the hard-easy pattern than if I
> simply ran 5 days at the higher intensity?

One thing I'd read (Paul Skilbeck, _Single-Track Mind_) is
that the two levels are focusing on different aspects of
conditioning, and so the alternation between them provide
mutual recovery periods for each other.

Low-intensity endurance (1-3 hours at 65-75% HRR) builds the
endurance base and trains the body to metabolize fat stores
efficiently. High-intensity endurance (45-60 minutes at
75-80%, sometimes 85-90% HRR) builds aerobic power, i.e.,
VO2max and stroke volume.

This suggests, from a recovery standpoint, that a hard-easy
regimen with the _two_ distinct goals in mind would be more
effective than simply going 5 days at a higher intensity,
whose lack of a recovery period makes it more susceptible to
overtraining.

(Let me stress that I'm talking about alternate hard/soft
days, not the high-intensity/low-intensity periods within an
exercise session commonly known as interval training or
Fartlek training.)

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain
Biking ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
...thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse
to Correct It"

[Stephen Di]

In article <van-0D9EB2.02125216082002@news.earthlink.net>, Van
Bagnol <van@crl.com.invalid> wrote:

> Low-intensity endurance (1-3 hours at 65-75% HRR) builds the
> endurance base and trains the body to metabolize fat stores
> efficiently. High-intensity endurance (45-60 minutes at
> 75-80%, sometimes 85-90% HRR) builds aerobic power, i.e.,
> VO2max and stroke volume.
>
> This suggests, from a recovery standpoint, that a hard-easy
> regimen with the _two_ distinct goals in mind would be more
> effective than simply going 5 days at a higher intensity,
> whose lack of a recovery period makes it more susceptible to
> overtraining.

It makes sense to me to call fitness at the higher intensity
stamina; at the lower level, endurance.

It seems to me that outside of athletic competition in
endurance events, particularly for ordinary daily living, it
is stamina that is important, as life consists of a series of
controlled physical challenges, not a constant moderately high
level of exertion--at least the life of those who have
sedentery jobs.

This seems to be the case even for most sports. When I trained
at a lower level, I would get winded when playing a hard
fought point in tennis. Now that doesn't happen. But it isn't
like a get unduly fatigued by a long match, as a consequence
of NOT training at the lower level.

On the other hand, there are benefits to the increased
mileage, mainly for weight control.

One idea your numbers give me is to at least increase the
intensity of the easy runs five percentage points.

Do you agree on the relative importance of stamina and
endurance, or am I missing something?

Stephen Diamond