A hearty Thanks! to
@GreatLakes and
@DopeyBadger for the explanations.
A solid bonus of DopeyBadger's posts is that all the equations and graphs makes it look like I am doing paid work, not reading up on LT and trying to compute my mm based on current VO
2max. I now have plenty of new questions stewing away, but the one I still have is regarding the statement of cumulative fatigue and stacking long runs which turn out in the example given in the post to not simply be additive. Is this hyperbole or is there some additional basis to this? I have no plans to intentionally do this, but I would like to understand.
The short answer is that it's not so easy to say that a 7 mile easy run + an 11 mile long run the next day provides the
same stimulus as day off + an 18 mile long run, it does not have to be perfectly additive. Or in my terms, a 60 min easy run + 85 min LR does not necessarily equal a 135 min LR. The goal is to receive a
similar stimulus from the stacked workouts in order to lessen the risk of injury.
But I'll take a stab at the longer answer (because you knew I would at least try).
First, to understand what I'm talking about, read this background information on TRIMP (
link) and HRSS (
link). The short version of those is that TRIMP and HRSS are methods to calculate the stress (or training load) of a workout using duration and relative HR (based on someone's resting HR, max HR, and LT HR). Also, "Fitness" builds slower than "Fatigue" as both are measures of training load averages over timeframes of 6 weeks and 2 weeks. So it takes longer to build fitness, and fatigue can be erased at a faster rate.
The goal of training is to provide a stimulus such that you get an adaptation. Two different methods are to be rested entering the workout (0 easy + 18 mile LR) and the other is to be fatigued entering the workout (7 mile easy + 11 mile LR). The idea is that with the lesser stacked workout (i.e. not taking the duration further out) you should have less of a fatigue feeling entering the next workout (come Tuesday) then you would if you did an 18 mile LR alone.
I'm going to use my own dataset for the example, since that's the most extensive set of examples I can give.
Let's say two runners enter a peak week at the same "Fitness" (defined in TRIMP as 6 week average training load) and "Fatigue" (defined in TRIMP as 2 week average training load). One problem with this example is going to be that two runners following these two different types of plans may not end up with the same "Fitness"/"Fatigue" entering peak week.
Runner A does the following week -
M- OFF
T- 3 mile easy
W- OFF
R- 3 mile easy
F- OFF
Sa- OFF
Su- 26 mile LR
Total = 32 miles
Runner B does the following week -
M- 1 mile Easy + 2 x 1.5 mile at 10k w/ 0.5 mile RI + 1 mile Easy
T- 4 mile Easy
W- OFF
R- 1 mile Easy + 4 mile M Tempo + 1 mile Easy
F- OFF
Sa- 6 mile Easy
Su- 12 mile LR
Total = 33.5 miles
Based on my own data set (extrapolated using someone else's paces but my durations, so they should be equivalent), then we get the following training load data set:
Fatigue = 65
Fitness = 50
Runner A
M- OFF = -13% from Fatigue and -2.5% from Fitness (Fatigue = 55.9, Fitness = 48.75)
T- 3 mile Easy = -4% from Fatigue and 0% from Fitness (Fatigue = 53.66, Fitness = 48.75)
W- OFF = -13% from Fatigue and -2.5% from Fitness (Fatigue = 46.6, Fitness = 47.5)
R- 3 mile Easy = -4% from Fatigue and 0% from Fitness (Fatigue = 44.7, Fitness = 47.5)
F- OFF = -13% from Fatigue and -2.5% from Fitness (Fatigue = 38.8, Fitness = 46.3)
Sa- OFF = -13% from Fatigue and -2.5% from Fitness (Fatigue = 33.8, Fitness = 45.1)
So entering the Sunday LR, this runner has dropped their "optimal" training from +15 down to -12 (now in "race mode" entering their LR).
Su - 26 mile LR = +44% from Fatigue and +12% from Fitness (Fatigue = 48.7, Fitness = 50.5)
So this runner lost about 16.3 points in Fatigue through the week and gained 0.5 points in Fitness
Runner B
M- 1 mile Easy + 2 x 1.5 mile at 10k w/ 0.5 mile RI + 1 mile Easy = +12% from Fatigue and +3% from Fitness (Fatigue = 72.8 and Fitness = 51.5)
T- 4 mile Easy = -4% from Fatigue and 0% from Fitness (Fatigue = 69.8, Fitness = 51.5)
W- OFF = -13% from Fatigue and -2.5% from Fitness (Fatigue = 60.7, Fitness = 50.2)
R- 1 mile Easy + 4 mile M Tempo + 1 mile Easy = +14% from Fatigue and +2.5% from Fitness (Fatigue = 69.2, Fitness = 51.5)
F- OFF = -13% from Fatigue and -2.5% from Fitness (Fatigue = 60.2, Fitness = 50.2)
Sa- 6 mile Easy = +3% from Fatigue and +1% from Fitness (Fatigue = 62, Fitness = 52)
So entering the Sunday LR, this runner has maintained their "optimal" training from +15 down to +10. So still fatigued entering the run.
Su- 12 mile LR = +20% from Fatigue and +4% from Fitness (Fatigue = 74.4, Fitness = 54.1)
So this runner gained about 9 points in Fatigue through the week (thereby maintaining the cumulative fatigue) and gained 4.1 points in Fitness.
While the total mileage was similar (32 vs 33) there was a much larger gain based on TRIMP and HRSS for the runner doing schedule B than was for schedule A. That's because schedule B allowed for other types of training since you weren't so focused on the ability to do the long run.
This is the best way I can quantitate it for you to show the difference between the two. The TRIMP and HRSS are not the end all be all, but merely a method of analyzing training in a quantitive sense.
QOTD: What is the warmest temps you have gone out for a run in? What about the coldest? Which would you prefer of the two extremes?
I believe the hottest was a T+D of 165. I believe the coldest was a wind chill of -30F. Honestly, they're both brutal. I'm not sure my family will let me run in the super cold anymore, so I guess that would mean I must prefer the hotter temps moving forward (although I like cold running).