Does it matter how fast you do your long runs?

Victor Mora - Well you may not be Renato Canova, but your advice is far more useful for the 15-17min 5k/32-38min 10k folks you speak of. I think the spirit of Renato's suggestions - nameley, the need to vary the stimulus - is bang on. However, applying the specifics he suggests - at least without some clarification - would leave all but a handful of gifted athletes in a broken heap.

No disrespect intended.

Please outline during which training phases each of these speeds are used. Possibly a weekly breakdown of each phase. Thanks.

Yeah, I see, but I wanted to compare my 12:40 performance with Shaheen's. At 5km we both are running different races, albeit not totally different, since it takes him 12:40 to finish his and 15:40 to finish mines.

Oh, and I coulda' sworn Renato used 12:40 as his 5km pace.

And you're wrong with 37km in 2:02 being 3:26/km, it's actually 3:17/km and 5:18/miles. But lets stop nit picking and get back on topic.

Yeh, I thought he said 37km in 2:07 but it was 2:02. That pace is quite reasonable but some of the other paces he mentions are more difficult, 95% pace 3x3000m (9:51 for you) w/ 3min rest, 90% pace for 10k - for you that's 34:50, how would these workouts feel for you, I am assuming you could do them but feel quite difficult.

Not sure what your training backround is but if you are familar with LT runs, this would give you an idea of the toughness or lack thereof of this workout.

It really isn't that hard of a workout if you are fit. That is the key though. You have to be strong and fit. If you are running 10% slower than 10k pace is slower than LT pace. I have seen with my own running that I can handle 6% slower than my 10k pace for 5 miles without killing myself. Slowing down 12 seconds a mile and going an extra mile wouldn't be hard for me.

This is not for the half serious runners though.

I meant to say, if you are running 10% slower than your 10k pace you are therefore running slower than LT.

Sorry but 5 miles at 6% slower than 10k pace is not a LT type workout, it is more like a race. A 30 min 10k runner will not run 5 miles in 25:28 (6% slower than 10k pace) and call it a LT run. My guess is you are running that workout way too fast.

Ok, so anyway, we are still in need of clarification here regarding the paces. Renato's computation for Shaheen's 37k run is nowhere near the 85% of 5k pace he suggests.

Renato? Are you out there?

KudzuRunner wrote:Renato:

....

I'm genuinely curious to know what your opinion is of the so-called "low heart rate training" propagated by Hadd and, in particular, Maffetone.

...

he's seen amazing results from his willingness to put in lots and lots of easy miles--very easy miles, at heart rates of 72% and less of max. He's

...

This training method seems diametrically opposed to your own. I'd love to know what you think, in any case.

KudzuRunner,

I just want to correct your interpretation of Hadd's approach to training (or this other dude's interpretation, as I infer from your post and his writings), which seems to be a common misunderstanding.

You need to realize, first, that the lengthy article in the thread titled "One approach to distance training" dealt strictly with aerobic conditioning, which Hadd explained that he felt too many runners ignore in favour of the "quick fix" through too much fast interval work, too early (if I may paraphrase him). He made no attempt to outline later phases of proper distance training in that thread, although he wrote about those elements in other earlier threads.

The second thing you need to realize is that the base phase described in that thread does NOT involve only running at 72% HRmax (or the like), but rather includes two faster strong aerobic sessions each week, culminating at 2 x 10k or 20k continuous at 87-88% HRmax, which would be expected to be a little bit quicker than marathon pace.

So if this young runner is only running long easy distance with no faster running, he is NOT following Hadd's approach, and I don't personally see how he can improve much (beyond what any novice might expect from just running some mileage) without incorporating some strong work a couple of times a week.

If I might digress from the specific discussion of the slow running, I would comment that Hadd's complete training approach is not all that different than what I've seen written by gentlemen like Antonio Cabral and Renato Canova, with perhaps the biggest differences in some of the finer details. I think the essential elements are mostly the same - an emphasis on aerobic fitness, progressive work at various paces based on some measure of current fitness, some form or periodization, high mileage, etc.

I would like to point out that the athletes I know who have received guidance from Hadd have also often shown dramatic gains at shorter distances (5k/10k) after breakthrough marathons (and vice versa, I suppose), so I thought Renato's comment to that effect was very interesting. One such runner recently improved his marathon time from 2:35 to 2:30, and then within a month lowered his 5000 to 16:04 and his 10000 to 33:10 (his 5k/10k times have always been a little slow relative to his HM and marathon - he's pure slow twitch).

Anyway, I just wanted to add some clarification, and hopefully also add a little to the discussion.

oasis wrote:Sorry but 5 miles at 6% slower than 10k pace is not a LT type workout, it is more like a race. A 30 min 10k runner will not run 5 miles in 25:28 (6% slower than 10k pace) and call it a LT run. My guess is you are running that workout way too fast.

I will disagree with you here, because I've done that workout more than once and felt it to be "comfortably hard." I have also done 5k at 5k pace plus 5% (roughly 12-13s/mile), and felt it to be roughly equivalent. Neither session was any more demanding to recover from than, say, a session of 3 x (4 x 400) fast with 200/400 jog rest.

I think an athlete with underdeveloped aerobic fitness (relative to his/her personal potential) will find such a session to be quite stressful. That athlete may be very adept at running lots of hard 200s and 400s, but will not find the strong aerobic session to be nearly as comfy. An athlete with very good aerobic fitness (again, relative to his potential) will not find this session to be very demanding, I think.

Pete:

You're quite right about Hadd. I've read his six-part thread many times.

Jesse Leitner's approach--which is, as I say, his own working-through of Phil Maffetone's approach--is quite different from Hadd's. (I mentioned Hadd simply because he's often placed in the low-HR corner, for good reasons but not, as you note, definitive reasons.) Hadd's schedules call for training, in the initial phase, at three different HRs: 140, 150, and 160. Leitner/Maffetone cuts out the two higher HRs entirely, at least initially. His FAQ is far more eloquent and specific than I can possibly be, which is why I gave a hyperlink.

KudzuRunner wrote:Hadd's schedules call for training, in the initial phase, at three different HRs: 140, 150, and 160.

OK, not to be a pain in the ass, but this simplification is another source of confusion for many on this board. The training is guided by percentage of maximum HR, not absolure HR numbers. All easy running (the bulk of the volume) is at or below 70-75% (preferably under 70% once fit). The strong aerobic work is done at HR ranges like 80-83% (to start), 82-85%, 85-88%, and finally, 87-90%.

You can't use absolute HR values because they simply don't translate from one athlete to another (I can only ever see 160 near the end of short races as my HRmax is low 160s). I'm sure you realize this and wrote it with real numbers to keep things simple, but sometimes making things too simple confuses the simpletons... :-)

Just to be a little more specific: Here's Maffetone's formula as described on his website, a website hyperlinked from Leitner's FAQ:

"The 180 Formula

To find your maximum aerobic heart rate:

Subtract your age from 180 (180 - age).

Modify this number by selecting one of the following categories:

If you have or are recovering from a major illness (heart disease, any operation, any hospital stay) or on any regular medication, subtract 10.

If you have not exercised before, you have exercised but have been injured or are regressing in your running, or you often get colds or flu or have allergies, subtract 5.

If you have been exercising for up to two years with no real problems and have not had colds or flu more than once or twice a year, subtract 0.

If you have been exercising for more than two years without any problems, making progress in competition without injury, add 5.

For example, if you are 30 years old and fit into category b: 180 - 30 = 150, and 150 - 5 = 145. This is your maximum aerobic heart rate. For efficient base building, you should train at or below this level throughout your base period."

Using me as an example: I'm 48 and fit. 180 minus 48 + 5 = 137. That's my Maffetone or "Maff" heart rate. Maffetone claims that ALL of my running during my base phase should be at this HR or below.

The Maff formula cares nothing for actual max HR, which is to say nothing for percentages of max HR or HR reserve. But since my actual max HR happens to be 196, my Maff HR is exactly 70% of max.

Maff's formula stipulates, in other words, that all my training runs, including long runs, should be at 70% of HR max or below. All.

Leitner trained this way and lowered his 50 mile time by more than two hours. He ran a BQ (3:17, as I recall) untapered, at the end of a 70 mile week, with a surprisingly low HR. He seems to have turned himself into a quite remarkable aerobic engine, of a kind.

It's not clear how applicable this sort of training is to elite runners, needless to say. My own hunch is that this is an exceptionally good way for a relatively untrained runner, of ANY talent level, to spend the first several years of his or her career.

I was curious, in any case, to hear Renato's opinion. Curious about yours, too.

Yes, I used those HRs because they're what Hadd works through in his six-part thread--after stipulating that he's describing workout schedules he gave to a particular runner with a max HR of 193 or above.

Not to be a pain in the ass, but Hadd's training is not, strictly speaking, guided by a percentage of max HR--or rather it's "guided" only in a general way. He says that the 140/150/160 figures work for anybody with a max HR of 193 or above. So whether your max HR is 193 or 210, he suggests that you begin with 140 as a baseline, rather than with a percentage of max HR as a baseline.

With a max in the low 160s, of course he'd have you start somewhat lower. He's not a sadist!

Well, since Renato's not here, man, I'll tellya what I think...

On first glance I think the approach is good in the way that any approach that gets someone off the couch and into some form of organized aerobic activity is good. Beyond that, I think long-term benefit would be by accident rather than design.

For me, the formula yields 145 as a working HR (180 minus 40 plus 5). That is an aerobic working HR for me (very strong aerobic effort), but puts me very close to M-pace, which I sould not run every day. My easy day efforts are (and need to be, IMHO) closer to 110-120 bpm.

My primary source of concern is using any form of age-based HR formula in ANY kind of semi-advanced training approach. For Joe Couch Potato, this is probably fine. To design a training program for running to take someone past the novice experience, such an approach is simply erroneous.

I don't mean this in a bad way. This could be a very good approach for a beginner (and evidently has been for this guy you mention). I don't see it being very helpful for a runner trying to move to the next level (i.e. Novice "B" instead of "A").

Having said this, maybe Maffetone's approach is progressive and we're only talking about an introductory phase, in which case maybe my comments don't apply.

Renato? Calculation confusion...anything?

10% slower than 10k pace is (or should be) marathon pace.

Pete,

I also picked that up quickly. I was going to comment on that on the coolrunning website, but didn't.

That 180 formula is no different from the 220-age.

What is the basis for the number 180??

Maybe it was taken from subjects with a background of cardiovascular disease and little or no exercise background. (ie. subtracting for major illness and such.)

It would not work for myself either. My number would be 159. That's 77% of my maxHR (205)

A buddy of mine has a maxHR of 180, he's 25. His number would be 160.

I'd be at 77%. My friend would be at 88%

I agree it would be hit or miss with that formula.