Pete Plan Summer 2015 starts June 14

[jackarabit]

Bob, let's hope Jack gets there before he hits the toboggan run.

[jackarabit]

Tomorrow i start on Pete Beginner @ week 7. The appeal is gradual progression of volume, less emphasis on speed than in the case of Lunchtime, greater emphasis on stroke quality and power production at middle ratings, occasional opportunity to plug in or sub 30'r21, and reduction to five sessions per week. I had a point to prove about old fat cats and Lunchtime training volume and I held it together on 6 days for 5 wks but to be honest i was pinched a bit on recovery time and stiffness and soreness from free weights wasn't helping. I believe this approach will make 60'+ go down a little easier while carrying up pace. Jack

[Galeere]

Did somethin today that might be considered close enough to the Pete-plan-rep 4x2k to post it here:

Morning: 10k on FM target pace - 1sec (-> 2:05) this morning; weird HR-drift from 125 to 158. Wrote that off to bad sleep.

Then 5 hours later gym time to duplicate F2Ds efforts for 2 reps per day
Previous 4x2k was just under 1:53.
So goal for 3x9min R3min was sub 1:53.
Went
2405- 1:52.2
2421 - 1:51.5
2409 - 1:52.0
Total 7.235 (just a hair sub 1:52)
Second rep was going well till the end but sort of emptied the tanks there. No way for negative splits as on the third I needed to slow down to 1:56ish in the middle but was able to pull it down again on the last 3 min. As a result I saw a new HR max of 172 (one more than before). Which leads to the question whether HR max is influenced by hard training in the middle/long run?! 2 months ago it was 169, now 172 is in the logs. Or is that within plausible variance of the accuracy of a HR-band?
After this little endevaour I did some weights, somewhat powerless though.

[jackarabit]

In addressing the do it yourself HR max estimation question, we accept without question that greater exertion produces higher heart rate. The final ten minutes of an hour above AT is the test context. The first 50' have to add drift to observed max, I think. And we discount or ignore daily variation and the accuracy of the measurement. By definition, if you see the highest HR you've ever seen, it's max. Rough-hewn empirical method is superior to casting bones and reading tea leaves. But how much uch better? Jack

[Galeere]

In addressing the do it yourself HR max estimation question, we accept without question that greater exertion produces higher heart rate. The final ten minutes of an hour above AT is the test context. The first 50' have to add drift to observed max, I think. And we discount or ignore daily variation and the accuracy of the measurement. By definition, if you see the highest HR you've ever seen, it's max. Rough-hewn empirical method is superior to casting bones and reading tea leaves. But how much uch better? Jack

So there is no training induced change of max HR and instead I am seeing improvments on empirical observation by doing a high enough number of hard rows?
Next thing I might do is a 1hr-TT with a hard sprint at the end to find out what can be observed then.

[gregsmith01748]

Hi,

There is actually some research that shows a slight reduction in maximum heart rate with improved fitness. It is thought to be related to an increase in the mass of the heart muscle and an increase in the stroke volume of the heart. Having said that, it was certainly my experience during my first year of "training" versus "exercising" that I continued to discover that my actual MxHR was higher than I had previously measured. I started with the always wrong 220-age, which was 172, then did a step test, and got around 178, then that inched up a beat or two in particularly hard long interval or hard distance pieces.

I chalked that up to an increase in my ability to tolerate pain, and a familiarity with how my body worked at close to the limit.

I want to clarify the point on the last 10 minutes of a 60 minute piece. A shortcut method to find the heart rate associated with your Lactate Threshold is to take the average HR over the last 10 minutes of an all out 60 minute piece. Another method to do the same is to use the avg HR for the last 20 minutes of a 30 minute trial (ref: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... _threshold )

In an all out 60' time trial, the last few minutes are likely to be above 95% of your HRR, and the last minute could very well be right at you actual max. Before I decide to increase my MaxHR, I want to see that HR sustained for 10 seconds or so to avoid transient effects.

[G-dub]

I think it's intensity and "pain tolerance" - at least that makes sense to me. I thought mine was at 185 based on seeing it at the end of my early TT's. Then during PP I found 190 a couple of time. It even flashed to 194 one day, but it was only a flash. My bet is that there are a few more beats in there than we can't get too anyway.

[jackarabit]

Oh I believe there are training-induced changes in HR range. Higher heart rate IS the heart working harder. Tachycardia is the heart working harder and cavitating. More is not better always. HR as a litmus of fitness (say that five times while pinching your nostrils) is one of a large constellation of parameters. The pulse just below the skin is most easily accessible which is why we speak of HR as a rough proxy for tests of chemical change in the body which are not so convenient of measurement. Pulse checking is a seat of the pants estimation of probabilities based on optimistic expectations of a simple correlation between what we can see and what we can't.

[jackarabit]

The idea of equilibration of process is the complication we miss. The contribution of increased heart muscle mass and increased stroke volume to slowing the heart rate is like saying a pump increases its own compression and displacement and reduces its speed as a result of pumping. Don't see much or that in the world we are able to create! The relationship of weight loss to exercise-induced increase in ratio of muscle mass to fat in body composition is another example of unwelcome complication. We are very impatient of complication and inclined to see all process as arriving at termini of our own choosing.

[jackarabit]

By the by, Galeere, the 7200 and change on the 3x9' is very consistent one interval to the next. I get weaker and weaker.

Jack

[Galeere]

Hi,

I want to clarify the point on the last 10 minutes of a 60 minute piece. A shortcut method to find the heart rate associated with your Lactate Threshold is to take the average HR over the last 10 minutes of an all out 60 minute piece. Another method to do the same is to use the avg HR for the last 20 minutes of a 30 minute trial (ref: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... _threshold )

In an all out 60' time trial, the last few minutes are likely to be above 95% of your HRR, and the last minute could very well be right at you actual max. Before I decide to increase my MaxHR, I want to see that HR sustained for 10 seconds or so to avoid transient effects.

Thanks for that link Greg, which I am trying to understand. What I get to is that the lactate treshhold test should give you a pace and/or HR you should not exceed when you want to go long distance. I am a little confused though as that very speed seems to differ a lot between long range pieces depending on their length. On a 30min I am able to go faster than on a 10k; on a 10k I am able to go faster than on a 1hr. And that is still faster than a HM. The MHR-measurement (and the 30min test which gives you a HR one should not exceed) seems fairly straightforward by comparison.

[Galeere]

By the by, Galeere, the 7200 and change on the 3x9' is very consistent one interval to the next. I get weaker and weaker.

Jack

The pacing derived from the Pete-Plan seems to work nicely Jack. A tad too ambitious on the second interval but then who knows maybe I hit the optimum anyway as it wasn´t training but a ctc-TT. I don´t like to hear you getting weaker and weaker. Time for optimization of your workload?!

[G-dub]

I see whats happening now, we can't post workouts in here if we are not truly doing the PP, but we can chat under the guise that we are learning about the Pete Plan. Not bad. On my FrankenPete journey I've started I am thinking that on the speed intervals I will not always feel the need to beat my previous time, but rather stick on say my current 2K PB but at r30-32 (which will still be damn hard but a couple of seconds slower than my last 8 X 500). The thinking being that I'm not really trying to get faster at the moment and I want to save more this time for the endurance pieces. Does that make sense or do I have to fall off the erg each time?

[Galeere]

I see whats happening now, we can't post workouts in here if we are not truly doing the PP, but we can chat under the guise that we are learning about the Pete Plan. Not bad. On my FrankenPete journey I've started I am thinking that on the speed intervals I will not always feel the need to beat my previous time, but rather stick on say my current 2K PB but at r30-32 (which will still be damn hard but a couple of seconds slower than my last 8 X 500). The thinking being that I'm not really trying to get faster at the moment and I want to save more this time for the endurance pieces. Does that make sense or do I have to fall off the erg each time?

I beleive we had this idea earlier in our plan when we discussed that a HR-cap of 90-95% would not be a bad idea. And slower stoke rates are good for strength, a good stroke and good technique. And of course the answer to your last question is no. Once a week might do .

[jackarabit]

Dub, makes sense to me if the sense I make of it makes sense? I think you're saying that you're enjoying the workouts that' are less obviously entrained to the racing goal--namely strength and endurance sessions. These days i'm thinking in terms of bringing the rating down and the power up. Need a low rate 30' sesh for Pete Beginner daily. I'm treating it as itty bitty intervals: 5x6'/1:30R with rate progression 19, 21, 23, 21, 19. I tend to regard PP as sacred text. Not so Beginner; I have to learn to make my own decisions on what direction to take to correct personal insufficiencies and imbalances. Jack