These aren't mutually exclusive.

The bulk of your training, if following a standard polarized approach, will be aerobic zone 2 work, but you should be adding key, high intensity sessions in both running and biking.

Swimming? Go hard as much as you can, you risk of injury is much less than running.

---

@floathammerholdon | @partners_in_tri

You got the idea right, although there's obviously huge overlap and one helps/builds the other.

A lot of coaches save the fast work for later on after a good, solid base is built, especially with running, since the injury risk in running is quite high without base, and as well, the fast stuff (VO2 max) tends to develop quickly, but also plateau quickly, so it's unlikely that you'll make progressive VO2max gains after 9 months of hammerfest training focused on it, whereas you can make much more significant long-term gains in the (slow-developing) aerobic slower stuff, and once the aerobic base is built, it's often much easier to really pound on the fast/VO2max stuff.

But of course, there are many ways to skin a cat, and some coaches nowadays turn it completely backwards, and put the speedwork up front and early!

At least for me, I find if I'm actually pushing past my typical boundaries of slow endurance training by increasing volume above and beyond my capacity, it's near-impossible to do speedwork since my legs are so beaten down. Once I get acclimated to that volume though, the speedwork flies.

This makes good sense. How do you define "base" though? I mean, I run 45-50 mi/week now. Albeit slowly, but it gets done. But my z2 speed is something like 10:00/mi. Not 8:30/mi like most folks. So do you maintain the same volume week in and week out, with the gains being efficiency over time, thus speed? Or do you continue to increase volume, even if the long run supersedes your longest race, because volume is king?

I don't have the definite right answer, but for sure, it depends on the length of your race. If it's a sprint, you'll definitely be training WAY more volume than the race length. But for IM, no. For HIM, it approaches the volume. You do hit a point where volume no longer gives you as high yields as adding speed (on top of your volume), or else megavolume would be what everyone does to train.

FWIW, if I'm in triathlete-training mode and running 40mpw + biking equivalent volume, my run speed drops to like 10:00/mile as well, but on race day, I'll run a triathlon HM at near 7 flat.

So this is what's interesting to me. I do most of my work at 10:00/mi but run a HIM at 9:15-9:30. So in reality, my training at 10:00/mi may be way too fast? Let's say my 10:00/mi puts me at 155-160 bpm. I need to slow down and increase aerobic capabilities possibly. Running any slower seems painfully boring, but I guess if the long term gains are faster sustainable speeds over distance, then it's worth it.

My slow miles are 90-120 seconds per mile slower than my HM pace. Re HR, I'm about 70% MHR.

I'd not focus on your pace with these runs. Just enjoy it. Don't look at your watch. Enjoy the easy miles

I think you (and a lot of others) misunderstand this 'running slower' business.

I ran 10:00/mi (with race pace of 7 flat) not because I wanted to, but because my legs were so beat-down between the biking and running that it was all I could manage on the easier days unless I wanted to seriously compromise my harder effort training (which was a minority of the training.) For me, in a single week, that takes at least 40 miles of running (with a LOT of hills), and 120-150 miles of biking (also with a LOT of hills). For standalone running, it's 70+ miles per week of running.

I would not interpret your 'too fast' training paces as incorrectly choosing a pace that is too fast to train at, but that you did not add sufficient volume during basebuilding to get to a breakthrough level. If you really want to significantly improve your endurance ability, you will have to push your body to this 'beat-down' point, where even easy miles seem like a total slog.

What you should NOT do, is artifically slow down your easier day paces so they seem way too slow, in hopes that you'll get faster - running slower without added volume just makes you slower. (I know, duh, but we triathletes make it too complicated sometimes!) If you paces on easy days seem too fast in endurance-build phases of training where your goal is to increase slower endurance, you're ready to amp up the training volume.

There are a number of key considerations to take into effect when focusing your training.

1. What distance will you be racing?
2. What amount of time per week are you allocating to training?
3. Are you doing supplementary strength training on the lower body? (Legs, Core, Glutes)
4. How are you planning your training? 6 Week cycles, 4 week cycles, etc?

So with those questions answered you'll be able to zero in on what to work on to meet the demands for your next season. A lot of the "base mileage" that people get from the slow running can be had on the bike. This is a topic of hot debate but for some of us (myself included) aerobic gains transfer over.

However what this leaves out is the "conditioning" of the running mechanics and muscle recruitment. I do so little run training it would shock you (less than 10mi/week) but I am still the top 10 runner in every race I am a part of. I attribute this to 1. Genetics 2. Bike conditioning. I'm on my bike 6 days a week 52 weeks a year. In my "off season" the running drops off to next to 0 miles per week. In my final 12 weeks leading into competition I do the slow "base" mileage runs for the conditioning and to help avoid injuries by going too hard too often. Then speed work is introduced 6 weeks into this to "knock off the rust". I also do strength training on my lower body to help with injury avoidance.

Hope this somehow helps.

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

This has all been very helpful to me since I'm in the same boat as the OP. I've been thinking about this slow running thing lately and wondering if the same holds true for cycling, especially in regards to climbing skills?

I didn't quite catch your meaning here. Can you explain a different way?

I'm not sure the low efforts will help with climbing skills other than you'll be able to tackle more and more hills in the same ride without tiring as quickly. Unfortunately the only way up faster is more power and less weight. We can't cheat gravity unfortunate as it may be :-)

The key difference is which system you're working Aerobic vs Anaerobic. The better your aerobic engine the less you "suffer" as your fitness gains increase thus making the harder efforts seem less frequent. That's my experience anyway and I can only speak from that but I'm sure others are similar in some regard.

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

Basically, if you feel like your 'easy day' paces are too easy, the solution during the endurance-building phase isn't to just run faster those easy days, but to add overall mileage to your weekly training volume until your legs are somewhat beaten down and the pace drops on its own.

Of course, you should be considering this plan as a whole - if the added volume ends up compromising your hard/big days due to fatigue, you have to reconsider, but generally, you won't have the problem of easy days being too easy/boring during volume rampup training phases.

Gotcha. All of which gets back to: train for volume by doing volume, train for hills by doing hills (while reaping a little transferred benefit from doing the volume work).

Oh, that's interesting. Totally counterintuitive (at least to me), I would definitely just try to run faster. Thanks.




No, just much longer! :)