I think if you're consistently going out and riding at 50% of FTP that's probably too low too often. Now that's not to say the occasional ride at 50% of FTP is bad, it's not. In fact if you're shelled going out for a very easy hour such as this can provide many benefits.

On your connected point that sounds like a lot of tempo to sweet spot work. What % of your FTP is 250+w for 3h?

One way, and there was a thread alluding to this recently, to really boost your fitness is to do just what you said. That's very good for half/im racing. probably leave a bit of spring out of your legs for oly/sprints.

yet I'd rather have a FTP of 300 having done a ton of tempo/ss work than have a FTP of 275 having done a lot of vo2 & threshold work

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

There seems to be a lot of stuff going on in this thread. I hope to address two topics:

- It’s hard to hit fast paces in a race you haven’t hit in training.
- For slow/casual workouts to make you faster, you have to have high volume.

You can’t just run slow with little volume and expect results. It doesn’t work like that.

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

I am not disagreeing with what you are trying to point out here but you are pretending everyone is already at the point end of the field and has the time to get all those hour in to properly prep for a plus 3 hr race.

What about trying to say is one program / % structure doesn't fit all. hence why good coaches get results with every type of athlete not just the work horses.

My main point was everyone needs the quality work first in the week and then easy fillers around it. The more volume you get in ratios change of course.

alot of Top guy will do 90/10 some weeks and 70/30 other week. Some slow beginners are basically 50/50 on 7 hours a week and can only do easy work on the bike. due to lack of skill.

Also a heavy runner can not go by the 80/20 rule as all those slow miles are so much harder on their joint load. they will spot running due to injury before they lose wt.

A fast runner that does an easy 10 miles in 1:20 has less stress then a heavy runner doing 10 miles in 1:20 or even1:50.

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

Google steven seiler in fact he's posted on here. google that thread

I pressed the easy button for you: https://scholar.google.com/...is=1&oi=scholart

ETA: here's one of the threads on it. Since this was first posted Seiler himself has modified his position a bit on this topic. There's a large body of work out there you need to watch to help you really grasp it, or at least start with the most recent. Included are several threads on ST as well.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...o__P4931310/?page=-1

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Were you adequately rested for that one quick km? Seems to me that you weren't or you would have been able to hold that pace for more than a few hundred meters.

OK, thanks

Just under 80%. I think of it more as tempo than sweet spot, on the Z2/Z3 border if taking threshold (FTP) as Z4.

My races are mainly hilly and alpine gran fondos and cyclosportives. One hard tempo ride per week through winter has proven to be an effective strategy at building functional endurance to transfer to my longer target events during the season. If I can support over 3 hours straight averaging 260 W (actual average power, not normalized, so pretty much never not pedaling), then a 5 hour ride ridden in a regular way is not so challenging. I live in Switzerland and, compared to LIT, tempo pace also makes it much easier to stay warm on the cold winter days.

I don't know about 'exclusively' but it sure seems like doing 86% of all of the work easy doesn't hurt :-)

https://journals.humankinetics.com/....X5LReDgRp-I.twitter


" The improvement in performance of the participant was mainly determined by the progressive increase in training volume, especially performed at low intensity"

Just the latest in the papers supporting the "go slower to race faster" method. And, it should be noted, 7% of the balance was strength training, so only ~3% of all the training was between LT1 and LT2 and only ~4% above LT2 for the most successful Biathlete of recent times (5x Olympic Champ and 13x World Champ)!

Another interesting note, when he did increase the intensity in 2019, despite maintaining similar volume, his performance deteriorated.

IME, while 'exclusively' going easy isn't the best idea, most significantly underestimate the benefit of really eazzzzy mileage.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Well, an overweight, beginner runner probably Can’t do zone 2 runs at all - it’ll be walking. But then again, 80/20 doesn’t really make much sense unless you’re running at least 4 times/week (for a single sport), depending on the duration, of course. I mean, running 5k 3 times per week Can get you in decent “beginner”-shape and if that’s all the time you have, increasing intensity would definately make a difference. However, running more often would probably be better in the long run, so it’s a little out of scope for this discussion.

If you are defining zone 2 with HR then you'll be walking.

If you define zone 2 with pace then probably not

Depends on your HR & pace zones And the terrain?
On a flat surface, they should correspond pretty well...
The point was that for people out of shape, there MAY be no zone 2 “running”. Technically you could run, But just getting started would you really run at a walking pace?

Hi Mark,

Maybe not, which could have had an effect.

More annoying was the months of running, a lot of running, and seeing my speed slowly drop for the same HR / PE. I was careful to build the distance up slowly, never adding more than 10% a week.

After Christmas I went back to 'normal' training - fewer kms and intervals / tempo work and was running much better within a few weeks.

Everyone is different :) I had read a lot about aerobic only running, and gave it a try.

For reference (someone wrote above I wasn't running slowly enough), my HM HR was 173 Avg, recent max was 196 and my 'slow' running around 135. My pace just declined the whole time.

I think the one benefit coaches with some time under their belt have over the self coached athlete is when you're self coaching 1 yr of self coaching = 1 year of skill set development. Your tool box isn't that big. One year for some coaches = 20-50yr of skill set development. (although I'd argue if you're coaching 50 triathletes you're writing schedules and not really coaching. that's a different argument for a different day though)

When you've been coaching for 10 years your tool box barely fits in a 26ft panel truck. The self coached athlete can put their tool box in the back of a ford ranger after 10 yr of coaching themselves and have room left over for their bike.[/quote]
I think this analogy explains the benefit of coaching far better than anything I have come across (thus, why I decided to comment). I self-coached for years and was reasonably successful, given my limitations. When I started coaching high school runners, I trained them the way I would train. My ability to help them succeed four years later was so much greater for having added so many more tools to my box after working with 20-30 runners, both male and female, during those eight seasons of XC and track. And that was a small high school where I was lucky to fill out a full boys and girls XC team in some years. The smallest, least-important part of coaching is making a training schedule.

As for the OPs question, yes, it is very possible to run at comfortable day-to-day pace and then run fast. At the peak of my fitness, I did about 140 hours of aerobic-only riding and 115 hours of running in a Dec-February timeframe back in 07 and 08. At both of the duathlons I did in March 08, we opened up with sub-5 min miles and I was super comfortable. Unfortunately, I was too all-or-nothing then. I'm sure I would have been some percentage faster had I incorporated some threshold or steady running/cycling. Nearly 15 years later, my coaching toolbox is much larger than before and I'm much better at self-coaching and thus, a lot faster relative to my age/limitations, than I was then.

When i started running it was at a13.5 min mile pace. It wasn't walking but not really running either.

I interpreted your post as a new person trying to run to HR and not being able to stay low enough. Running to a pace in zone 2 wouldn't pose that problem. Perhaps i was mistaken.

Great, thanks

reading through the links provided by Desert Dude, i found thios snippet posted by Steephen Seiler interesting.


"Hi,

Research I did with Arne Guellich at the German Sports Federation on 51 national team junior track pursuit riders suggested that that which distinguished responders (increased power at 4mM blood lactate) from non responders to a 15 week training period was actually that the non responders trained more in the lactate threshold to MLSS intensity range. Wacky I know, but that is what the data showed. Responders had more sub threshold training volume. Also, our interval training study on recreational cyclists suggested that accumulating 32 minutes of work at 90% HR max (9 mM blood lactate) induced positive changes in both fractional utilization and VO2 max. So, my thought would be to move some of the threshold trainin to long interval training. I find that interval durations of 7-10 minutes "force" athletes into the appropriate intensity. Rest duration 2 min. Two time gold medalist single sculler Olaf Tufter had 6 x 10 minutes at 90% as a bread and butter workout. For example, in his 2008 gold medal year, he performed that training session 27 times.

The two articles I refer to and many more are actually available to anyone interested on Researchgate.net."

4mmol is still not really relevant for this sport
For my personal example - my best ever HIM power (some years ago) matches my 2mmol power from long ago when I thought lactate tests were useful - 300w.

For an example of an athlete much better than me


She came off the bike with a 16min lead in her last IM
FRC is the zone you would class as Vo2 effort
There were two FTP level structured sessions in the year shown - 1 as prep for an IM VR and one as prep for cycling national champs (won the TT and 3rd in RR). All the rest of the FTP and FRC/FTP time is incidental (bike racing, having a dig on hills etc) and some progressive extensive sets.
Engine was built by lots of structured Tempo and Sweetspot/extensive

My ITU athlete has a lot more time in Recovery zone and a bit more time in the over FTP zones, because that is relevant to her events. But still building the aerobic engine is the focus as even a 20min MTR race is predominantly aerobic.

I'm trying to reconcile a few things in your posts.

Are you a single sport runner, or a triathlete?

Your HM time of 1:28 is quite good, especially on such a small amount of volume: stated as 40km/week. That's barely enough volume to run much more than 10km in a a few times a week, if you have any frequency at all. Frankly, I'm not really sure how I'd put together a "reasonable" HM plan on 40km / week. A 15k long run only leaves 25km for the rest of the week.

I find it barely imaginable, that someone capable of stringing together 20km @ 4:10/km, after a couple months of building up to 80km/week that you couldn't even manage a single km at 4:30/km.

For a pure runner, 80km isn't really all that much (let alone 40km/week). All of the above makes much more sense to me in the context of a triathlete.

One of the most informative posts on ST.....this year!
ETA...Scroll up 2 posts to see the chart

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I do most of my running in low Z2, however, putting in some fast intervals works really well for me

Over the winter, I do a one hour interval training session, with program which is focused on 2mmol, 4mmol and VO2 Max pace. Typically each session is around 8km. In addition I run around 30-40km at an easy pace (Some weeks I run less and other weeks up to a total of 70km)

In the summer I don't do a dedicated interval session, however, I add some very fast pace intervals into my Z2 runs.... So I may run 15km with 500m to 1000m in Zone 4/5 every 4km

My Average distance this year is just under 40km per week

I run around 3h20 IM marathon and a 3hr stand alone marthon. My anaerobic capacity isn't great, however, I do run an 18m30s 5km and 39m10s 10km.

Yes, BUT, if you watch RM's YouTube videos (particularly his "run slow" video) he states categorically that he does those runs so slow in order to keep fresh for his HI track sessions, where he then rips out 2:12 / 800m reps...

Correct! All those slow and aerobic runs become much more valuable with a sprinkling of high intensity in the training intensity distribution. I am in favor of slowing down the base/endurance/easy runs into zone 1 as it still provides the endurance adaptations compared to z2 which for some runners seems to become more "moderate" than "easy" judging by the talk test.