Just thought I'd post something. Made goal by getting all of that work (grading) done by today. Didn't even run this morning, so that I could put finishing touches on the waste of trees courtesy of writing pedagogy.
I was looking at a website I'd bookmarked probably a year ago that has calculations for HR training zones. It uses resting HR and max HR, a little subtraction and division to produce one's training zones (70%- 90% of max HR, etc.). The results are different compared with the perhaps more commonly used 70%-90% of max HR straight calculation. The corresponding HRs are higher.
So I fire-off an email to Lucho, curious what he might add. He said I should just run, that I'm over-thinking. Talk about a role reversal.
One last point on HR (than I'll just shut-up and run), in terms of aerobic HR, no matter what calculations I make, it all pretty much boils down to 144-146 as that target fat-burning effort. Whether it's 180 - age, or 75% of max, or this other one that includes RHR, the same general number comes-up. Now I'll sleep better at night. By the way, I've been sleeping great!
I've been running "comfortably" lately outside on trails. My average on an easy day is 147 - 150. That's money. And it will only go down. As a matter of fact, on Monday, after getting role reversaled by Lucho, I went to my little trail and ran 5 miles. I saw a definite fitness gain. Not only was my avg HR lower, but my HR recovery response was dramatic. I think that is a big factor especially with racing in hills. Can you recover to hammer the descending or flatter sections.
At the same time, I've been running hard if I want to. I guess all I'm saying is the training appears to be working from a HR perspective. Of course, it's only November, so I'm just trying to quietly get this next campaign (the next 20 years) under-way.
Diet: Lemon water, espresso, organic apple, salad, coconut water. . .so far.