I'd suggest that the first issue is not HRM or not, but what your training plan was. It sounds like you might have tried to accomplish too much too quickly, since overtraining is usually the result of going too hard too often or too long. Coming out of surgery, the plan presumably should have been to gradually reestablish your endurance base, adding some short upticks and longer intervals in a deliberate way. The time range of the plan would also have depended some on the type of surgery, how long you were out of action, and what kind of training you had done prior to surgery. An HRM can help you learn the feel of your training zones and give feedback, but it's the plan and sticking to it that counts. That means, for example, deciding where, when and for how long the pickups in intensity are going to be in long, slow distance workouts, rather than letting your enthusiasm or the terrain decide it for you. There are different approaches to training for masters, and I don't know that session necessarily have to be laid out for weeks or months on end, but it helps to have some overall strategy or guiding approach, rather than just going about it willy nilly. Also, if you do have a plan, then afterwards there's a basis for judging how it worked and what needs adjusting.
RM
JonLPXC@gmail.com wrote:
I struggled with overtraining a lot this past season (recovering from
inactivity due to surgery). My body seemed to have a hair-trigger
sensitivity to the slightest bit of intensity that I would add to my
workouts.
I was wondering if a heart rate monitor would have helped, if I had
carefully tracked how much time I was spending at higher intensities
and then ratched it up slowly (versus just feeling good and so
cranking up a hill.) If anyone had any experience with this, would
appreciate hearing about it. (I'm coming from the perspectice of
always have an aversion to the "robo-skier" aspect of wearing a heart
Sure, it doesn't have to be real formal or stripped of fun. The general point is that having a plan for getting in the kind of condition you want does pay off. It might be something simple like in the spring and summer making sure the basic workouts each week are L1-focused with pickups of 15sec to 1 min; one (or two) are planned L3 or L4 intervals, determined by terrain, distance or time; and one or two sessions involve a focus on strength. Then vary the way you do them.
I find HRMs helpful for three things: planned intervals when I want to keep track of something; comparing perceived exertion to real HR in endurance sessions where I'm not sure; and during races. Another use is for resting HR in the morning. I don't do that much anymore, unless I'm curious or feel sickness coming on. One morning a couple of years ago I woke up feeling the recurrence of pneumonia and found my resting HR up 10 beats, a sign of trouble. So I went to a doc, who proceeded to ridicule the accuracy and use of the HRM and not find anything wrong. But he gave me an azithro sample just in case something developed, which to my mind already had, and I was better within 24 hrs.
rm
JonLPXC@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies.
I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.
In the past, I've taken the "natural interval" approach to my weekend,
destination skis (i.e., driving up to New Hampshire to a major xc
center) and then just went by feel during the week to recover (skiing
on a flat golf course). Now that I'm middle aged, this isn't
working.
The problem I have with systematic training schemes is that they do
take away the spontaneous competition with a friend up a long hill, or
just skiing fast cause the snow's good and it's a sunny day, etc. My
vision was that if I had a HRM, I might be able to indulge myself
during those "recreational" times, but then adjust the rest of my
training based on how much Level 1 versus Level 4 work I did during
the indulgences. I consider myself pretty guide at using Perceived
Effort, but the problem with natural intervals is remembering how much
time each interval took. (I've always a similar issue with coming up
with a way to estimate the aerobic demands of tennis.)
About block interval training, there's been some articles on fasterskier.com, if you check their archives. I'm going to suggest caution with it. It's been hotly debated at the elite level, and most of us here aren't even close to that. It would seem to raise again the problem you're trying to solve (avoid).
rm
JonLPXC@gmail.com wrote:
Again, thanks--very helpful comments. A few points this discussion
clarifies is: laying a foundation is key, know what your general
aerobic condition is and accept the limitations that go along with it,
and you can (sort of) have it all (i.e., spontaeneity and getting
yourself in competitive shape) by following a general structure to
your workouts and adjusting according to how you're body is feeling
and opportunities that arise (e.g., big unexpected snowfall).
Incidentally, I have Torbjorn's book from about 15 years ago and found
it very helpful. The latest edition appears to be from 2000--is there
an equivalent resource that's more current? (So that includes things
like "block interval training," which sounds pretty intriguing.)
Jon
On Apr 10, 6:01pm, ADK Skier <lgs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:27pm, highpeaksnordic <highpeaksnor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:04pm, JonL...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.
You are missing the key "3rd" issue here - skiing is just plain FUN!
Unless you have specific racing goals, everything that you do (IMHO)
should revolve around that. I think you get that, though, based on
your comments about adjusting your training on the fly.
- Bob
You should be able to develop a sense of what intensity you are
training at without a heart rate monitor. The more you train the more
you should train at level 1 (60-70%) of max HR. Take at least one day
off each week to avoid overtraining. Generally it's not the volume of
your training which causes overtraining, but the intensity. Many folks
just train at a medium intensity level 2-3 (80% of max HR). This will
do two things. First lead to overtraining if you do it on daily basis
and add intensity workouts. Secondly it will become your race pace.
For high end ntervals wear the monitor. If your HR doesn't respond and
it's sluggish, your tired or overtrained. Take several days off and go
back to level 1 workouts. Buy Torbjorn Karlsen Norwegian training
In article <bfb777a8-7ae4-4b56-934a-22708c04064b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ADK Skier <lgsumr@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:27 pm, highpeaksnordic <highpeaksnor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:04 pm, JonL...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.
You are missing the key "3rd" issue here - skiing is just plain FUN!
Unless you have specific racing goals, everything that you do (IMHO)
should revolve around that. I think you get that, though, based on
your comments about adjusting your training on the fly.
- Bob
You should be able to develop a sense of what intensity you are
training at without a heart rate monitor. The more you train the more
you should train at level 1 (60-70%) of max HR.
This can be REALLY hard to do if you're coming back from a long layoff. Precieved effort can be way way off... An HRM is just a tool, and you can use it effectively even with ad hoc fun training.
In my own case, I found it a very useful tool to adapt my training to where I really was vs where I thought I should be.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
