4 ms·

Anecdotally, I experience somewhat higher perceived effort at a given (moderate) heart rate when better trained. For example, my resting and max heart rates hav

Anecdotally, I experience somewhat higher perceived effort at a given (moderate) heart rate when better trained. For example, my resting and max heart rates have been nearly constant at 36-40 and 170-175 since about 18 (I'm 32 now). During that time, I've been a top-10 NCAA nordic skier, alpinist, and a casual runner (2y in Chicago; 'nuff said). I try to avoid "junk" time in the 128-142 zone because the intensity is too high for recovery/endurance benefits, but not high enough to target aerobic threshold or VO2max. When in mediocre shape and trying to do a lower intensity workout, I accidentally end up in that range more easily than when in racing shape. Meanwhile, threshold and VO2max intensities are easier to sustain when better trained, though I can hit similar max heart rates either way. I interpret this as the lactic acid versus heart rate curves have different profiles even with similar endpoints. I've also seen acute short-term effects. For example, I did a 160-mile backcountry race after a competitive nordic ski season. For about a week after the race, I couldn't get my heart rate above 145 (30 beats below my normal max). During that week, I did VO2max-intensity intervals with a well-matched regular training partner and could match a pace that would normally require me to be at 160 while I was at just 140. The pace felt more comfortable than expected (probably "felt like 150"), but there was no headroom to go faster.

buzzdenver 11y ago
Do you have more info on this supposed "junk zone" ? Have to admit that I'm a little suspicious of it.
- bcbrown 11y ago
  When training competitively, you want to provide a stimulus to the systems you're improving. Any stimulus will require a recovery period, so ideally you only provide the stimuli that affects the systems you need to improve, to minimize recovery time and maximize improvements. I'm a powerlifter, so that's the perspective that I take. The systems I care about are peak strength across multi-joint compound movements, so I focus on high weight, low reps. Strongman competitions take strength endurance, they emphasize moderate weight, higher rep exercises. For endurance athletes, systems include respiratory efficiency, VO2max, glycogen storage, among others. Some of those are best trained at low intensity, high volume. Some of those are best trained for at high intensity, low volume. None of those are best trained for at moderate intensity. When you've reached the level of adaptation where you need to manage your effort/recovery cycle, it becomes important to avoid training efforts that don't optimize for the systems you wish to improve; there's a real recovery cost for little gain. What jedbrown is saying absolutely makes sense. It's also of lesser benefit to anyone who isn't training competitively.
- jedbrown 11y ago
  While these high-intensity sessions are believed to be critical to achieving maximal performances, they cannot be performed optimally if intervening basic endurance sessions are performed at too high an intensity (Bruin et al., 1994). However, high-intensity training sessions appear to be well tolerated when variation in intensity of training is ensured (Lehmann et al., 1991, 1992). Less experienced athletes may tend to train harder than prescribed during low-intensity sessions and not hard enough during prescribed high-intensity sessions (Foster et al., 2001). -- http://fastforwardtriathlon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Intensity-Distribution-in-Elite-Endurance-Athletes.pdf http://fastforwardtriathlon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/I... It's oft-discussed in training plans across endurance sports. Here are a few showing up in a quick search. http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/articlejunkmiles.html http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/articlejunkmiles.html http://www.marathon-training-schedule.com/heart-rate-training-zones.html http://www.marathon-training-schedule.com/heart-rate-trainin... http://coachlevi.com/training/junk-miles-what-why-avoid/ http://coachlevi.com/training/junk-miles-what-why-avoid/ Of course if you're training for general fitness rather than to optimize performance, then zone 2 training is fine. It burns calories and you feel like you get a workout without the pain and injury potential of higher intensity training. This is an accessible review article: http://www.fitnessforlife.org/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/02%20IJSPP_2010_Seiler_0009.pdf http://www.fitnessforlife.org/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/D...
- nl 11y ago
  It's pretty well established in endurance training circles. Train hard or train easy, but that point just below 'hard' just exhausts you without providing training benefit. On mobile, but Google "junk miles"

buzzdenver 11y ago

Do you have more info on this supposed "junk zone" ? Have to admit that I'm a little suspicious of it.

bcbrown 11y ago
When training competitively, you want to provide a stimulus to the systems you're improving. Any stimulus will require a recovery period, so ideally you only provide the stimuli that affects the systems you need to improve, to minimize recovery time and maximize improvements. I'm a powerlifter, so that's the perspective that I take. The systems I care about are peak strength across multi-joint compound movements, so I focus on high weight, low reps. Strongman competitions take strength endurance, they emphasize moderate weight, higher rep exercises. For endurance athletes, systems include respiratory efficiency, VO2max, glycogen storage, among others. Some of those are best trained at low intensity, high volume. Some of those are best trained for at high intensity, low volume. None of those are best trained for at moderate intensity. When you've reached the level of adaptation where you need to manage your effort/recovery cycle, it becomes important to avoid training efforts that don't optimize for the systems you wish to improve; there's a real recovery cost for little gain. What jedbrown is saying absolutely makes sense. It's also of lesser benefit to anyone who isn't training competitively.
jedbrown 11y ago
While these high-intensity sessions are believed to be critical to achieving maximal performances, they cannot be performed optimally if intervening basic endurance sessions are performed at too high an intensity (Bruin et al., 1994). However, high-intensity training sessions appear to be well tolerated when variation in intensity of training is ensured (Lehmann et al., 1991, 1992). Less experienced athletes may tend to train harder than prescribed during low-intensity sessions and not hard enough during prescribed high-intensity sessions (Foster et al., 2001). -- http://fastforwardtriathlon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Intensity-Distribution-in-Elite-Endurance-Athletes.pdf http://fastforwardtriathlon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/I... It's oft-discussed in training plans across endurance sports. Here are a few showing up in a quick search. http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/articlejunkmiles.html http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/articlejunkmiles.html http://www.marathon-training-schedule.com/heart-rate-training-zones.html http://www.marathon-training-schedule.com/heart-rate-trainin... http://coachlevi.com/training/junk-miles-what-why-avoid/ http://coachlevi.com/training/junk-miles-what-why-avoid/ Of course if you're training for general fitness rather than to optimize performance, then zone 2 training is fine. It burns calories and you feel like you get a workout without the pain and injury potential of higher intensity training. This is an accessible review article: http://www.fitnessforlife.org/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/02%20IJSPP_2010_Seiler_0009.pdf http://www.fitnessforlife.org/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/D...
nl 11y ago
It's pretty well established in endurance training circles. Train hard or train easy, but that point just below 'hard' just exhausts you without providing training benefit. On mobile, but Google "junk miles"