65-75mpw easy only (in "zone 2" HR)

Garzerg wrote:

go for it man wrote:

OP is not elite and this sounds like an approach which will work for lowering his HM time from 1:24 to sub 1:20. This training isn't optimal (doing the math it appears your training runs are really, really slow) but do it if that's what you want to do.

It's pretty optimal. Almost all elites train this way, across all endurance disciplines. Usually about 90% of running, by time, is spend below AeT, and most of that well below AeT.

Sure, guys like Rupp are doing most of their easy runs between 5:45-6:30 pace, but scale that. Rupp is a 60' HM guy. OP is in, let's say, 1:22 shape. That's 36% slower. If we take 6:00 pace for Rupp, and scale that up 36% we get 8:15 pace....

Right about where the OP is running.

Many guys between 15'-18' 5k range are running too fast, and the vast majority of guys around 18'+ 5k pace are running too fast most of the time (if we assume that the training typical of professionals is optimal).

reallysimilartoyou wrote:

I'm nearing 40, been back running for about 5 years. I have routinely run into some injuries and often need to scale back. But for almost the last 12 months my training has been really simple. I've worked up from 40 mpw to holding 60-70 mpw week all summer (might try to bump up again this fall).

The vast majority of my runs are easy, but not every single one of them. Like you, I follow HR. Not religiously. And I don't walk on steep hills just to prevent a spike. But I run in the 130s for well over 90 percent of my runs and it is easy and enjoyable. My max is in the mid to high 180s.

Most weeks are all easy runs between 60 and 75 minutes. One to two times a week I'll add a 30 minute double. About every other week I get a 90+ minute run, sometimes 2 hours.

I probably end up doing "workouts" about twice a month. I say "workouts" because they are just not that demanding, and I do not plan them in advance. My favorites are going to the track to run some 200s on/200s off. I do anywhere from 8 to 20+ depending on how I feel that day. The ons are around 5k pace or faster, and the offs are just easy running. Other workouts will be a run where I feel good and tell myself I'm just going to pick it up x number of times over the rest of the run. Maybe it's 3 times, maybe it's 7. Doesn't matter. I just run faster for however long I want and then jog recover for however long I want. The last type of workout I do is just a progression run. So on those days when you're just feeling good, maybe you push it up a hill and feel you could just roll on, well, I let it roll. Just get into a rhythm and cruise, sometimes picking it up more, sometimes just holding it. Again, I don't think it matters. And I never look at my paces until after a run. The only thing on the watch is time spent running and current HR.

And I don't think those faster sessions are all that important. For me the key is enjoying the process and having fun with it. I am also seeing some nice progress. Subjectively my body feels better, my legs look vein-ier, leaner, and feel harder. I also feel much more fit. I haven't tested my fitness in over 6 months, but my paces at the same HR continue to drop (even in the humid heat of the summer, which surprises me). And when I did test my paces I dropped my 10K from 39 to 37 and my half from 1:24 to just barely under 1:20. I think I could do better than both of those times right now, and I might try to do some small local time trials or something this fall.

I'm well aware this training would not be fun for many people. But for those who like it, or are curious about it, I think it has a lot of benefits. If you want some further reading on this I recommend Joe Henderson's old book Long Slow Distance. It used to be free on his site, but that's down now. You can pick it up for a couple bucks on Amazon. I think it's worth it. Over the last year I've read it 3 or 4 times, always getting a little more insight into this different approach. And gaining a little confidence to stick with it, too.

Parsec wrote:

The research has helped establish why this works, which is that at aerobic intensity (below AeT) training behaves more as an ON/OFF switch. It is time-exposure dependent, and is NOT dose response dependent. As long as you meet a minimum threshold, which seems to be around 60% of HRmax, you get virtually the same benefits as going at 75%-80% of HRmax. Same benefits, with lots less stress. This allows for a combination of more recovery or more volume.

The higher intensity stuff is different. That IS dose response dependent to some degree. In other words you can get similar (not identical) benefits from spending 15 minutes at 95% of HRmax as you can spending 45 minutes at 88% of HRmax.

The dose response dependent makes sense to most people. It's intuitive. You work harder, you're more tired, you benefit more. It's the easier stuff that is tricky, both from an ego and a "trusting it works" perspective.

And it really works. I coach some and have been observing athletes and their training for a while now. I've seen lots of athletes doing 7-12 hrs/wk of training, most of it fairly solid work with good structured intensity, but with a tendency to do aerobic mileage on the more intense side. The difference between "this is mindlessly easy" and "this is totally comfortable but I'm getting some training in". When they shift from the latter to the former, even if they drop the intensity dramatically, they see gains. This holds even if the total duration of training remains they same. They go easier, with less hard training, and get faster. Very counter intuitive. Didn't fully accept it until I did it in my own training.

That said, if you go easier AND increase the duration, the results are even better, especially if you put in a reasonable progression on the duration as well as the duration of the longer efforts.

Parsec wrote:

I was going off this, where he stated the following:

rothomaq wrote:

Zone 2 is 60-70% of HRreserve for me.I have years of data on HR so I'm confident in my zones. I'm not sticking to this religiously or doing proper MAF but have noticed my pace per HR, from even 6 months ago, has dropped.

My average paces are between 8:05-8:50, I go by feel and let my body run at the pace it wants in that range. Most runs are averaging 8:20-8:30.

Maybe I misunderstood and those were his old paces though.

b) No, you can't ignore the quality stuff. My point is more just to emphasize what pace Rupp is running the easy mileage at. It sounds fast as hell to run easy runs at 5:45-6:30 pace, but scaling it helps many runners realize that if Rupp ran they way they did, he would do most of his easy mileage between 5:00-5:30 pace.

My other point with b) is that Rupp, even if he wasn't doing much quality work, would not want to shift the paces of those easier efforts. Going harder doesn't give any greater aerobic benefits. That's one of the big things to come out of Seiler's research. We've always known elite athletes across all disciplines do the vast majority of training (90%) at paces below AeT (which is a little slower than MP).

The research has helped establish why this works, which is that at aerobic intensity (below AeT) training behaves more as an ON/OFF switch. It is time-exposure dependent, and is NOT dose response dependent. As long as you meet a minimum threshold, which seems to be around 60% of HRmax, you get virtually the same benefits as going at 75%-80% of HRmax. Same benefits, with lots less stress. This allows for a combination of more recovery or more volume.

The higher intensity stuff is different. That IS dose response dependent to some degree. In other words you can get similar (not identical) benefits from spending 15 minutes at 95% of HRmax as you can spending 45 minutes at 88% of HRmax.

The dose response dependent makes sense to most people. It's intuitive. You work harder, you're more tired, you benefit more. It's the easier stuff that is tricky, both from an ego and a "trusting it works" perspective.

And it really works. I coach some and have been observing athletes and their training for a while now. I've seen lots of athletes doing 7-12 hrs/wk of training, most of it fairly solid work with good structured intensity, but with a tendency to do aerobic mileage on the more intense side. The difference between "this is mindlessly easy" and "this is totally comfortable but I'm getting some training in". When they shift from the latter to the former, even if they drop the intensity dramatically, they see gains. This holds even if the total duration of training remains they same. They go easier, with less hard training, and get faster. Very counter intuitive. Didn't fully accept it until I did it in my own training.

That said, if you go easier AND increase the duration, the results are even better, especially if you put in a reasonable progression on the duration as well as the duration of the longer efforts.