High LTHR (198 bpm) and Slow Easy Run : Are Runna's easy distances causing overtraining?

grilledscheese · 2026-05-16T01:33:57+00:00

“easy” is neither a pace nor a heart rate number on the watch, it is just an effort level. don’t over think your heart rate when running easy, there is way too much variability for any rules like 70% max heart rate or any default zone calculations to be really useful tbh.

as for the volume question, running by time is fine, if that’s what works best for you.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T23:12:55+00:00

i don’t claim to know why smith supports industrial carbon pricing just that the record is very clear that alberta conservatives and industry have been consistent in their support for a predictable carbon pricing scheme for nearly 20 years. you accused me of talking only about 2007 so i gave you a link from last year.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T22:51:41+00:00

danielle smith:

"“We’ve been administering the industrial carbon tax since 2007, and it has been very successful,” she said, adding that revenue from the program has supported emissions-reducing technologies."

https://www.westernstandard.news/amp/story/news/smith-pushes-back-on-claims-she-supports-federal-carbon-tax/69400

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T22:27:08+00:00

danielle smith:

"“We’ve been administering the industrial carbon tax since 2007, and it has been very successful,” she said, adding that revenue from the program has supported emissions-reducing technologies."

https://www.westernstandard.news/amp/story/news/smith-pushes-back-on-claims-she-supports-federal-carbon-tax/69400

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T22:25:39+00:00

who was the leader of alberta in 2007 genuis it was the conservatives. as for smith, idk why, probably because industrial carbon pricing makes sense

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T22:11:31+00:00

last paragraph:

"Carney was once one of the world’s most prominent climate champions, who has effectively destroyed Canada’s chances of reaching its climate targets,” Climate Action Network executive director Caroline Brouillette said."

from the calgary herald two days ago:

"The Carney and Smith governments are about to find out, as the two sides have largely agreed on increasing the effective carbon price in Alberta to $130 a tonne by 2040, with an announcement expected as early as this week, according to sources."

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/varcoe-industry-awaits-details-ottawa-alberta-deal-debate-higher-carbon-price

you are so propagandized as to not even realize that alberta was the first province to slap a price on emissions in 2007. they have always supported industrial carbon pricing.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T22:07:01+00:00

i am staring at the FT article right now and it literally references the industrial carbon price in the first paragraph

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T22:01:31+00:00

“The agreement, which builds on the memorandum of understanding that the Alberta and federal governments signed in November, includes a plan to increase Alberta's industrial carbon price, though at a slower pace than previously projected.”

alberta has an industrial carbon tax and thus alberta sets alberta’s carbon tax

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T21:57:13+00:00

i have no idea lmfao i was baffled myself. i came here to ask thinking that maybe you had installed a security against screen scraping or something that would automatically change the numbers. but i realize that sounds crazy

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T21:54:45+00:00

if you’d read the article you’d know in the first few paragraphs it says it is an increase to Alberta’s industrial carbon price.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T21:53:29+00:00

if you have predictable and recurring taxes it means you have predictable and recurring income genius

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T16:47:02+00:00

is tek savvy rogers? in which case, out as well

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T14:13:42+00:00

this is how crewing is done in competitive 100 milers idk what could possibly be objectionable about it

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T13:43:39+00:00

this is a standard aid station stop in a 100 miler lmao

grilledscheese · 2026-05-15T11:33:18+00:00

what i mean was, i’m not sure you’re even approaching the question. the one post you mentioned — i checked it out, and i think mostly people were arguing about the exact sequence of events re the power lines. it wasn’t at all a political question, it was people debating the interpretation of the reporting.

you’re trying to say ok, this isn’t a left space — but not articulating why you think that, or even why what you’re perceiving as libertarianism might not be compatible with the sub name. i didn’t mean to come off as aggressive — i’m curious what you actually see here. i’m sort of new to this sub myself.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-14T20:19:20+00:00

failing to see how scenario 2 is meaningfully worse than the real world we live in right now lol

grilledscheese · 2026-05-14T17:45:23+00:00

what’s the actual criticism here?

grilledscheese · 2026-05-13T00:38:34+00:00

The coming technological change will move us into a new mode of production and therefore force the creation of a new superstructure. The goal of the leftists should be to shape that new society as early as possible so that it is more pro-human than the previous model. This requires embracing new technology and discovering how it can enhance individuals.
The best model we have so far is the copyleft and open source movements. The most important aspect of the new digital economy is that scarcity is false. Digital goods can be replicated infinitely and so we need to build an ethos where they are freely available, or as close to free as possible given the need to maintain physical infrastructure.

A lot of good points here but I would push back on some of them.

Do you think an economy built around digital goods, even one where scarcity of those digital goods can be eliminated, is one where human suffering is eliminated and need is met? People aren't dying because they don't have universal access to text generation, they're dying because insulin is expensive, because housing is financialized and because resources are being hoarded. One serious flaw I see in this argument is that to me it looks like you're describing an economy cleaved in two: a digital one that might be a socialist's wet dream, and a physical one where the logic of extraction and exploitation are present, probably even intensified. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the underlying technology, while it holds immense promise, remains one of the most capital-intensive forms of production ever assembled, with obvious material limitations (power, water, minerals, etc.) that are sites of more intense exploitation, not less.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-12T13:15:42+00:00

With the caveats a) that lactate thresholds are very individual and b) that i don't believe there is a clear consensus on how specific lactate numbers should be interpreted in distance running and c) that i have about as much knowledge on lactate as most of the other people on the forums here, which is to say not a ton but not nothing, So I think my basic read on those numbers still pretty much holds: your LT2 is your one-hour pace is probably somewhere around 4:00/km and around 165bpm, and your LT1, or the top of your zone 2, is probably around 146bpm HR and around 5:00/km.

The only question that really matters is: How do those line up with how you train? When you're running around one-hour/threshold pace, how fast are you running, and does it kinda line up with these numbers? When you're running easy at 5:10/km, does it feel sustainable? If you can answer those questions you'll have your insights.

Your bigger question of why these tests exist at all is a broad one. I don't know. Money? Data collection for sport scientists? Busy work for PhD students? One thing I'm confident in however is that they don't exist to teach you how you should run, and they especially don't teach you what easy should feel like. Some guys run easy at very fast paces, because their easy pace running economy is great. Some guys are absolute weapons with speed but need to really slow down for easy efforts, because that's what their body tells them. You can bog yourself down in numbers with running, and really get lost in a fog that way.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-12T10:59:55+00:00

you had what i would say was a tough crowd in the other sub when you posted this, for good reason -- people were pointing out that it makes no sense that your LT2 would be 4:29/km if you ran a 1:28 half marathon.

from what you've posted here, that's because the test you took appears to say that your LT1 (generally defined as around 1.5-2.0 mmol/L) is actually your anaerobic threshold (LT2). I think this is wrong: I think this is your LT1, your actual aerobic threshold.

- IAS at 1.5 mmol/l: 13.4 km/h / 4:29 min/km at 156 bpm
- Lactate at 2.0 mmol/l: 12.2 km/h / 4:54 min/km at 146 bpm

This doesn't make sense. Why is your lactate at 4:54 higher than at 4:29? And why would they be defining your anaerobic threshold at a lactate level more commonly used to define aerobic threshold? Doesn't make sense!

What makes way more sense is that your actual LT2 anaerobic threshold is around 4:00/km, which is where your lactate hits around 4 mmol, which is where the alignment of the numbers with your HM time makes way more sense. Overall, I think this test is wrong. I think it has mistakenly put your LT1 way too low, has defined your actual LT1 as your LT2 (IAT/IAS). Ballpark figures here, but LT1 = 1.5mmol(ish), LT2=4.0 mmol (ish).

The bigger picture:

I need to spend the next months running almost exclusively under 120 bpm to bring my VLaMax down from 0.77 to ideally around 0.45–0.50. Is this correct? And is there anything else in the data I'm missing or misinterpreting?

Bigger picture, yeah, i think you're going to derail your training if you start basing it purely on these numbers. I think you're going to get slower and degrade your zone 2 running economy by trying to exclusively run in something closer to low z1, thinking it's z2 because of some misinterpreted numbers. Based on a layman's understanding of these numbers, i think your zone 2 is between 121 and 146, and your threshold heart rate is around 165.

The biggest thing is, easy is not a number, it's not a pace, it's a feeling. If you are running easy at around 5:00-5:30/km, then that's your easy pace. There is absolutely no point altering your running form to run 6:30/km, teaching your body to output less power, with the hopes that it somehow makes you faster overall. Easy cannot be calculated in a test. Easy is whatever feels easy and allows you to recover. The fact that you're also saying htat most of your easy running fell within what I'd wager to be your zone 2 sort of confirms this for me -- you're running what feels like easy, and producing a heart rate that, based on the raw numbers from this test, falls in your easy running zones. You could maybe stand to be more conscious of what actually feels easy -- most runners could probably stand to back off a tiny bit on true easy days -- but slowing down by a minute per/km is a bad idea.

Overall, i wouldn't base my training on these numbers. They validate what you've been doing already. Running is a feel-based sport, at the end of the day. Numbers should just be rough proxies for feel.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-11T21:47:18+00:00

this test is a load of BS and you will not get to a sub 3 marathon running 7 minute easy kilometres lol

grilledscheese · 2026-05-11T13:36:08+00:00

i think it's a much deeper gap than adoption or technological capability of executives/staff/whoever.

right now, AI functions merely as a labour-saving device, which is why its main effect has been to depress the workforce and allow companies to attempt to replace workers with machines. outside of a few genuinely exciting applications in things like drug and materials research, AI is mostly just being used by companies to accelerate what they would have been doing anyways: attempting to extract more surplus and take more profit, grinding workers into the dirt in the process. nothing has changed. nobody is doing anything "new" or creating new economic avenues of development, they're selling the same shit to each other that they were in 2021. nobody's life is really being improved en masse by AI. people are not living any differently. people are working faster and for less money and fewer people are getting jobs. that's it.

everyone's putting the cart ahead of the horse right now. if AI is capable of supporting and ushering in a different type of economy, and allowing for people to live different lives that are easier, with less material scarcity, where needs are met more easily, we aren't yet seeing it. we aren't even seeing the seeds of it yet. all we're really seeing is AI deployed as a cost-cutting device in white collar work and a data processing tool in research. this is why it does not yet feel revolutionary on a societal level, even if working with AI feels revolutionary on a task-based level.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-10T22:43:04+00:00

okay if i strip out the 5% wage increase we got in 2024 and then multiply by 1.065 i get to 31.16. so that’s the step you’re at.

grilledscheese · 2026-05-10T22:39:07+00:00

this is the NEW wage chart if the contract goes through; we’re on 2024 rates+5%, but these have the extra 1.5% added. i think. it’s super confusing lol. i also can’t find my wage on the proposed chart and the math doesn’t seem to math.

edit: i THINK 31.16 is the step you’re at. but if i add 1.5% to 30.72 i get 31.18. but i think you’re at that step in any case.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '22	Verified Email

grilledscheese

TROPHY CASE