So how quickly does zone 2 pace improve?

RunningFromTime wrote:

Happy to see this bumped. When I posted this thread, I was just trying to figure out zone training. Happy to report that my last easy run was 7 miles at 8:17 avg pace (~250ft elevation). So I've gone from 10 min slogs to approaching 8 min pace after a single summer. Also, my easy days are now firmly in the middle of zone 2 rather than riding the edge of zone 2 / low zone 3 that was happening at the start. My last 5k in 85 degree heat / 80% humidity was 18:47 so saw an improvement in my time without having to endure hardly any tough vo2max workouts (i mostly just do 2 threshold workouts a week, 10k volume each time). To the previous poster - this raises a good point. Actually hitting your max HR is not an easy thing to do - in my last two races, I peaked at 201 and then 203, higher than the 190 estimate I started with.

RunningFromTime wrote:

dsrunner wrote:

This heart rate zone stuff is so stupid it physically hurts me to write this response, but somebody has to:

There is simply no excuse for being this misguided about your training.

Take back your power and start questioning the premises of this approach, not just the conclusions.

Well color me naive - want to expand a bit? Everything I read whether it's from Jacob's training to Wejo's summer trance that improved his 10k time after college + all the science interpretations I read emphasize the key to improving performance in endurance running is to build volume, the vast majority of it being easy. After my improvements plateaued and I realized I couldn't build volume due to being sore, I have started to learn what the term "easy running" actually means. Running 7 miles at 7:45 pace sure felt easy, especially relative to my tempo runs and workouts, but surely I was in the zone 3 region, accumulating lactate during my supposed recovery days instead of truly recovering and developing the aerobic system

fisky wrote:

RunningFromTime wrote:

To people wondering, I am early 30s and last 5k was 19:30. I have been running consistently for about 1.5 years but clearly did not know how to train for most of that. My attempt over the last few months of a real training plan left me fatigued a lot and my 5k did not improve from beginning of winter to just recently. I was doing my easy runs at 7:30 - 8:00 pace, which was too fast. I got the garmin only recently and my HR was in the 155 - 160 range on one of those "easy runs" meaning I have probably never actually done aerobic running or developed this crucial system in any way shape or form.

My max heart rate is 190 and resting is 60. For that obnoxious run I did yesterday, I used the calculation max HR * 0.7, which is 133 for an easy run.

That was too stupid, so today I instead used the heart rate reserve method. (max - resting) * 0.7 + resting = 151 so my "run" today was more reasonable 9:25 with an average of 142 bpm meaning I have a bit more wiggle room using this less conservative calculation

Darby, that is super reassuring that I can reasonable expect some gains in aerobic fitness over the summer. Hope I can make big strides in my 5k time come fall and then move on to 10k

It seems that you're on the right track. Here's a trick that I have used to keep my HR low and keep my running pace faster on easy runs. Set your HRM to beep when you hit the upper boundary of your "easy" HR zone. When you hit that beep, focus on breathing a little deeper and relaxing. I've found that to reduce HR by one beat. If you get 2 beats above your easy zone, switch to a brisk walk. When you get to, say, 2 beats below your upper zone, start running again. Your walk will probably be less than 30 seconds.

Here is my rationale for this approach. As ViperDom pointed out, your heart doesn't know miles (or pace, for that matter). Your heart only knows time and effort so giving it this brief rest keeps your heart in its recovery zone on easy days. Your legs, however, DO know pace. There's a lot of difference in your form at 6 min/mile than at 10 min/mile. The more your easy pace mimics your race pace... in terms of form... the more race specific your workout becomes. And you can accomplish that with short breaks. I've done this by purposely adding walk breaks (5min run/1 min brisk walk) and found that at the end of a 4 mile run, my average HR was two beats lower than my normal easy 4 mile run and my time was only a 30 seconds slower than normal. If you do the math, my running pace was sub-9 when I was actually running.

Anyway, I've seen no studies to back up this approach. I don't think it would work for the marathon or half, but it should work for the 5k.

RunningFromTime wrote:

Happy to see this bumped. When I posted this thread, I was just trying to figure out zone training. Happy to report that my last easy run was 7 miles at 8:17 avg pace (~250ft elevation). So I've gone from 10 min slogs to approaching 8 min pace after a single summer. Also, my easy days are now firmly in the middle of zone 2 rather than riding the edge of zone 2 / low zone 3 that was happening at the start. My last 5k in 85 degree heat / 80% humidity was 18:47 so saw an improvement in my time without having to endure hardly any tough vo2max workouts (i mostly just do 2 threshold workouts a week, 10k volume each time). To the previous poster - this raises a good point. Actually hitting your max HR is not an easy thing to do - in my last two races, I peaked at 201 and then 203, higher than the 190 estimate I started with.

lexel wrote:

Cavorty wrote:

Interesting. I'm 65, and have a 19:49 5k this year (close to the OP).

My max HR is 165, at 82% I'd be 137, which would be a solid steady run (7:30 or a bit quicker).

At 72% it would be 119, which is somewhere around what I call a recovery run 8:00 to 8:15.

I don't do any running slower than 8:15.

What I would say is that I'm not doing a lot of mileage, and my recovery runs are only 3 or 4 miles, just to burn calories, alternating every other day with an EIM (Easy Interval Method) session, and then about 4-5 weeks of race pace sessions once a week approaching the race (I only race 4 or 5 times a year).

I can't imagine racing at 6:10-6:20 5k pace and then running recoveries at 9:30, it's got to totally destroy your form.

You do great! Btw there is no recovery run in your training. It is easy (08:00 to 08:15) training, and it seems to be part of your success i have the feeling.

Opposite to you, i have the feeling that running slow is good for the form, improves it, but this is not the topic here, but whould be a nice thread.

dsrunner wrote:

The heart rate zone stuff is just silly. Lots of overly simplistic thinking given the wide individual variation in both peak HR and active muscle metabolic qualities. But some physiologists and coaches, for whatever reason, just seem compelled go to a one size fits all. Many of the readers and posters here don't realize HRpeak can be changed in athletes' testing with merely the additional encouragement to continue the test, especially in the over 40 crowd. Astrand decades ago recognized that elite endurance athletes seem to save a gear for racing. so which HR numbers shall we go with?

Too many factors that contribute to the adaptation process and all of this perspective ignores non-steady state HR kinetics (duration, work/rest and intensity dependent), within individual heart rate variability influences, fatigue process and aspects related to fueling, depletion, dehydration, weather, fiber type, and weather. And even the same HR can mean drastically different circumstances in the active muscle, including motor unit rotation, blood flow distribution, work of breathing and so forth. (See for example, Dempsey's Is the lung built for exercise?, Wolfe memorial lecture)

Now the UK kid in the short video above is smart enough certainly except the lactate break points he describes don't always occur, does this fact matter to you? This sort of analysis also ignores the influence of testing protocol and modality, especially stage duration, impact of overreaching, blood draw site, mathematics and data points,and monthly, seasonal and circadian factors. Determination of these thresholds is unreliable.
And if nothing changes in testing aspects, performance capability can be quite different.

Anyway hope this helps.