HR Training question

When many runners transition to easy HR running it can be slow. And it takes time to adapt. Only you can decide if it is worth it. When I started I was probably not running quite as slow as you are, but I can now cruise around quite smooth and fast at a low HR. Our max HRs are similar. My regular run days are in the 130s and my super recovery days are in the 120s. I now run faster in the low 120s than I did in the low 140s when I started paying attention to HR about 5 or 6 years ago.

I would recommend reading the Hadd document if you haven't already:

Good explanation for why it works and how to structure your training. You will see more results if you run more miles each week. You'll also see more results if you do some faster running. The tempos recommended in this document are quite helpful for getting fitter. I would also recommend regular strides if you aren't doing them already.

Thanks for the reply and the pdf link.

I'll be adding in some faster stuff over the next couple weeks. I'm still a way away from having to make a decision on whether its working for me. So I'll stick with it for now. Hopefully a little pace variance will help bring the gains I'm seeking

OP, do you have idea what type of runner you are: closer to fast twitch or closer to low twitch? If you are a fast twitch type, than your easy runs might be much slower than 70% HRmax, I would say between 65-68% is ideal, but type of workouts, for example for 5K/10K training should be Tinman CV oriented (high end of threshold spectrum) + really fast track stuff during peak weeks; if you are slow twitch guy, than your easy runs can be little faster, I would say between 70-75% of HRmax, but type of workouts should be more MP/threshold oriented (low end threshold spectrum) + relatively fast stuff (8K-3K) during peak weeks.

This is easy explanation, of course, the best is to find which workouts works best for you personnaly by trials and errors and also depend of type of race which you are preparing for...👍

Where from you have that? Your own experience or read somewhere?

A decent discussion of this was had here recently as well:

Firstly, who the fk is just downvoting posts for the hell of it? Seems as if someone has to much time on their hands.

Secondly, thanks for the reply. It's not something I've ever considered. (Though I am a long term reader of slowtwitch ;-) ) I would suggest that as someone without a background in running. (I have a long term cycling background) I'm probably more slow that fast. I have been wondering if my personal physiology requires a different approach in general. But is that more wishful thinking or based on fact I couldn't say.

I did wonder if my HR "Easy" actually corresponds to my personal Vo2 "easy" A random online converter I found suggests it might not be. But to find out I'd have to go and get Vo2 Max tested I suppose. And would that really be worth the expense?

Perhaps I'm just over thinking all this and I should just go back to the vdot pace based training. And just run more mileage. As that does seem to be the one consistent across all methods of training.

I do like the upvotes, but I agree the downvotes are a little bit unnecessary in most cases.

What are your times (roughly) across race distances? That can help inform where you stand and what your possible improvements are. Also, what has your training looked like before moving to an HR focused approach? How many miles/kilometers per week? What kind of workouts?

You give a little bit of this in the original post, but more info could help with feedback. My thoughts are the aerobic work will be good for you. I'm definitely a slow twitch runner and probably biased towards that, but if you've only been running 35ish miles a week, upping those miles and keeping things easy will get you some big improvement in the long run. It does take time, so you'll need to be patient, but your chance of injury also goes way down, so there is that.

Thanks for the reply. I'll try to keep this concise.

Rightly or wrongly. I don't focus on shorter distances. Any halves I run will be just in a training block and to do something different than run my usual local routes. ANd to check kit and nutrition out. Never done a race 5k or 10k effort.

PB for Marathon is 4h09 (like I said not going to be troubling anyone fast. I genuinely suck at running!)

Average mileage I would say between 35-40 miles, peak was 50 or so. Standard ish 16 week programme. Bought online. This plan trained to paces. The paces prescribed by the plan appear to have been lifted from vDot. And they are generally 20seconds a km, SLOWER than I was doing when I was working to an old Runners World plan some years ago.

Easy pace was 6min/ km (~9min40/mile) - This felt conversational.

Marathon goal pace 5min20 / km (~8m30/mile)

Tempo Pace was 5min / km (~8min/mile)

Interval pace was 4m40 / km (~7m30/mile)

General mix of 4-5 runs a week. Tempos of up to 5-6km, Some strides. Interval sets.

Long run was generally my weakest run of the week. Got up to about 35km for that. But I will have walked a part of that.

Target for that PB marathon was 3h45. I ran the first 30ish km at 5m20 per km. Felt OK, ate gels at appropriate times. But the inevitable blow up points (imo) to me not having a good enough endurance base. Hence the desire to do the whole mitochondria/capillary building thing with Z2 training.

On the subject of injury. As I said above, I feel like I'm getting a niggle, which comes and goes, from my form being so different at this much slower pace. I don't ever look great running anyway, but I feel even less co-ordinated currently. (Tall skinny guy problems!)