Zone 2 Training for an 800m runner looking to do 5k now.

You’re out of shape, give it a month

I’m not out of shape. I’ve been consistently running 30-50 miles a week for years.

I have read that fast twitch guys tend to need to run their easy runs easier. Just run in zone 2 for a while. It will get much faster as you as you do it more. You will start cranking workouts too since you are fresher. I heard a high school coach who had a guy run 4:04 1600 at altitude say he ran slower than 9:00 often.

One vote for 9 min pace.

Anyone else?

(Poster “V“ if you see this please reply, I love your breakdowns)

I'm not anywhere near as talented as you and I can run around 8:15 between 130 and 140 all day long. In a zone 2 effort (purely aerobic), you are definitely out of shape. Have you raced anything longer than a 5k? I'd bet there's a performance drop off the longer you go.

The point of running in a zone 2 HR is that it allows you to run much more. That volume is what is going to make your more efficient aerobically. Once you learn to run more efficiently (faster at a lower HR), the pace you can run before you hit threshold and v02max is that much faster.

There's also the possibility that your max HR is wrong. A 15:50 5k runner should be able to move much faster at that HR. Its possible your max HR is higher than what you are using for your calculations.

All that said, I don't believe low HR running is for everyone. There's plenty of examples of runners who run low mileage and are fast. Its all about what works for you.

Everything below can be summarized by saying: nearly all of the research in running/performance is a good 10+ years behind what most good coaches are actually doing.

I don't know if I have a ton of insight to add. I see "zone 2" popping up so much lately and I haven't seen a compelling case for it yet. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can offer more information.

The last big writeup I saw on zone 2 used a lot of post hoc arguments stating how, "so-and-so trained this way which actually fits our recommendation of XX% of time spent in Zone 2..."

To the best of my knowledge, there are no elite teams or programs that actually program "Zone 2." Those coaches aren't using it as a prescriptive measure, it's largely coming from the peer review community that are trying to retroactively apply this zone to someone that has been successful and ignore all of the other people that were equally successful doing something completely different.

I don't think there's any magic to that heart rate. There is likely some benefit that comes from your runs taking longer so you have more time on your feet (Portland used to program some of their long runs like this), but zone 2 for most people is absurdly slow.

I've seen several researchers (never coaches) so enamored with the low intensity movement that they're suggesting people would often get more fit walking than running because they can't effectively keep within their zone. I hope people aren't taking their advice.

Don't get me wrong, many people run too fast on their easy days, but this is largely people that fell in love with how to quantify something.

I run low 16s for 5K now. Most of my running is Z1 and Z2, which equates to 7:15 - 8:00, depending on the day. It may be that you're aerobically undertrained—that is, it's not that you're relying on your anaerobic strengths in the 5K, but rather that your relatively weak aerobic capacity is limiting your 5K performance. This is based on the assumption that someone who ran 1:52 in the 800 should be faster in the 5K on 30-50 mpw.

The compelling case is that, for anyone doing reasonable mileage, doing a substantial portion of those miles at Z3 or above is suicidal and will almost certainly lead to injury or burnout. The "post hoc" analyses prove that no one who runs a lot and is good at running does that much (ie, >20%) at Z3 or above; therefore there's no need for most anyone to do and, again, doing so would be a stupid approach, again, proven by the fact that smart and successful runners don't do it.

I have a 50.1 400m PR (from a decade ago) I've been avging 35mpw for almost 3 years now.

I don't train by HR, but I do see that my easy runs are generally in the 155-160 range. Lately this is ~7:40 pace easy mileage for a high 16s 5k.

Is your suggestion then to actually run 9:00 pace 80% of the time? It just seems so absurd to me that the local woman I beat by 90 seconds in a 5k would actually have a faster easy day pace than me.

My PRs

800: 1:52 6 years ago
15:30 5k 3 years ago

1:14:20 Half Marathon one year ago

What's the current widely accepted range for Z2? From what I've seen it's usually cited as 60-70% of max HR.

I have heart rate date on my full team from every session we do through our GPS watches. A HR of 155 on an easy run would be right in the middle of zone 3. That's still a very pedestrian pace for any of our athletes. For a sub-14:00 guy that's 7:19 pace. For a sub 16:40 girl that's her running at 7:43 pace. (Data taken from my athletes within the last 2 weeks)

He runs over 80 miles a week. She runs over 55 a week. I guess they could be running more, but it seems to be working so far.

Zone 2 has nothing wrong with it, so I'm definitely not going to knock anyone running that pace, my kids have plenty of days that are there. But I haven't seen the data supporting that it's more restorative or easier to recover from than being in the middle of Zone 3 (I'm assuming that's 75% max HR but again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Thanks very much for posting V. I interpret the zones in the exact same way you do. My easy runs seem to usually be around 75% maxHR similar to your athletes.

Are you another runner who talks about zones, without saying which exact zone you mean and additional without knowing your own HRmax? Rethorical question :)

Unhelpful post—it’s one of the biggest issues with exercise science—people using the same terms to mean multiple things. But I think it’s pretty well established in this thread that we are talking about 60-70% max HR for zone 2.
And while I haven’t done a test to determine my max HR, even if we assume 220bpm is my max, I still am out of the zone (220 *.65= 143)

Daniels defines easy pace as 65%-79% of max hr. Without a lab test, or lactate measuring, this is how I would define zone 2. Those doing high mileage, or FT types may need to train in the lower section of this zone. Others may be able to train at the higher end. it largely depends on recovery, feel etc.

There argument for slowing down is that you will run more. Instead of doing 5 miles in 35min, it will take 45-50mins. So like another hour of training/week. More if you take advantage of the fact you should be able to run more...

Personally I am happy enough to call 2-3mins off 5k pace easy for someone who isn't running high mileage and isn't having injury issues.

No, I think probably the blanket guidance on HR zones, your HR readings, and your perception of effort (and most likely your actual effort) aren't matching up for whatever reason. I mean, you're the only one who would know what 9:00 feels like to you (walking, recovery, easy, moderate, etc). It could be that 9:00 is actually your Z2 (Z2 to correlate with easy or normal aerobic, ie not moderate/lactate accumulating and not recovery, instead of getting stuck on a bpm or % mhr), but you seem to be saying it isn't. I would think, and also to address the comments from V, that it's more valuable to view the zones as effort/perception of effort instead of basing everything on what might be inaccurate data (from imprecise meters) and perhaps some incorrect underlying assumptions. Maybe with regular lactate testing you could determine what 9:00 pace is to you on any given day, but if it feels too easy (easier than easy), then I would go with that feeling. Really, I couldn't run at 9:00 if I tried, and you're obviously faster/more talented than me (also a fast-twitcher: 11/22/51 s in high school). My point, as well as in my other post, was that a substantial proportion of a week's work at moderate or above is likely not wise, and all of the retrospective looks at successful longer distance runners' training, anyway, show that moderate and above is often no more than 20-ish % of a week.

Part of my point is also that zone 3 isn't really even moderate. It's still really quite easy for most well trained runners. I think it was Alan Couzens that posted something not too long ago on Twitter this retrospective look at former great runners and deduced that they were all doing 70-80% if volume in zone 2... But it was rationalized by descriptive terms from their training like "easy" or "conversational".

Not paces. Not HR. Not data.

Thats all fine, but it could just have easily been the dreaded zone 3 that injures you in an instant and leaves you lethargic for months on end (please no one miss that sarcasm).

I just think people are MASSIVELY overplaying how strenuous 70-80% of max HR is to train at for a large number of miles.

Based on your 15:50, one online calculator puts your zone 2 range at 6:22-7:18/mile. So your easy days are in zone 1-2 as determined by some site on the web.

As a former 800 guy, I suspect that you might have a better feel for easy than a lot of 5-10k guys, since hitting the track for 800-type workouts on tired legs makes for a really bad day. It sounds to me that you're hitting the right effort. Trust that, and learn what your HR typically is at the effort you want.

You didn't say what you're doing by day, but one thing you might try to work on endurance is to get in an easy long run -- say, 90-120 minutes, maybe every two weeks. Here, "easy" might be something like low 8 early, working down to low 7 late as you give into boredom.