I'm not sure how much science actually backs up most training plans. Seems like most people have largely unsubstantiated theories (in the layman sense of the term) that guide training plans or they are guided simply by experience.

Then again, I haven't really paid much attention to the exercise physiology literature for a number of years now.

Sure. I guess I was just asking, when it comes to the theory of heart rate training, what are the recommended volumes / number of sessions in each zone?

Try reading Jack Daniels Running Formula or FIRST.
-FIRST has a nice little app that makes training plan convenient. Basic Principle is - speed workout, tempo workout, long run. I have found this easy to thread in with swimming and biking during the off season and training for a spring marathon. I have found if at minimum you do the 3 key workouts in the week you can see improvement.

Tip: I like to throw in a tempo effort in the middle of my Z1/Z2 long run.

I run everything in zone 4.

If you can recover from your workouts at "X" zone - then why run slower than your body needs to recover?

Thank you! Just looked both of these up and they look really interesting! I have my bedtime reading set.

Interesting you mention throwing in a tempo effort in an easy run. I've always been told that the zone is based on the average effort and therefore zone 1/2 runs aren't allowed to contain anything faster.

Now questioning everything I've ever been taught... ha.

It's funny, I've spent the last three years trying to learn to be faster. Running at MAF, reducing speed work, trying speed work track sessions, etc. Know when I was the fastest runner? When I'd just go for a run and run as fast as I felt like. That first year I started running I had no idea about heart rates or zones or paces. I just ran however my body let me. I was quick. Now I'm slow. I think I'm going to spend a year just running at whatever pace my body feels like it can and see how it all pans out.

Totally what I used to do - and I was faster too. But then I found my heart rate was always really high and I was told that if I ran Z2 for a long time it would come down. Which it has, a bit... but now I'm really slow...

Training in Z1 has a different effect than training in Z4. That's why its a smart thing to mix things up.



I usually do one interval (what kind of interval depends on the season) training per sport per week and one long workout per sport per week. If I manage to do any more training, its usually additional easy work with perhaps some (specific) strength.

Both of these approaches are totally incorrect.

Spending all your time in zone 4 leads to you being a one-speed runner. I've seen this a lot, folks who throw down 6:45/mile pace every time they do a training run, and when they race .... guess what... 6:45/mile.

Spending all your time in zone 2 (or if you can run in zone 1, congratulations!) leads to you being a very efficient, very slow runner. I can't imagine a scenario where this would be desirable.

The whole idea behind MAF, zone training, Jack Daniels, everything, is building enough volume at low HR to be able to support the absolutely critical and key workouts that are nowhere near zone 2. If you don't do them, you are wasting your time running slow all the time.

Also, if you are putting in enough volume, it is true that your easy HR will lead to higher paces -- but you still need the fast stuff.

By time, it might be that you spend 80% in Z1/Z2. 18% Z4, and 2% in Z5, sure. But by importance they're of equal value (depending on your particular weaknesses).

-Eric

So you can recover from yesterday's zone X+1 or X+2 workout.

Thank you very much.

This is what I wanted to know.

So you are saying - gains in zones 4-5; capacity from zones 1-2. Right? (In very simplistic terms.)

So if I do 4 runs per week: 1 x LSR; 1 x medium at LT; 1 x intervals and another shorter zone 2 run, that should be acceptable?

Right. But keep in mind, this is not a hard and fast rule. I mean, it's nearly impossible to have every run be just a single zone all the time, right? It's way smarter and more feasible to keep it to a total weekly volume in whatever zone thing rather than, the long slow run is all zone 2, the medium at LT is all zone 4, and the intervals are going to be in zone 5 .... etc -- this is extremely difficult to manage.

For example, en route to a 10 minute marathon PR last year, I'd structure my long runs as 2 miles in Z1-Z2 (warmup), half the remaining distance in high Z2-low Z3 (chill but rising slightly), and then the last half in Z3 (still endurance but strong, rising due to heat and fatigue), then 2 miles cooldown as close to Z2 as I could get. Not just going out and plodding along at Z2 for 2 hours or 2:20 or whatever. Besides a single interval day, this was all the faster running I did.

In other words, if you are running 4x a week and one of them is long, do a little harder stuff in the long one, do one that's intervals, and do the other two as easy (z2) runs.

That's just my $0.02 -- there are a ton of other really smart running experts around who might have other ideas for you :)

And yes, Zone 2 is capacity, but also, cementing the gains, recovery, and aerobic training all in one!

-Eric

As you can see, there are many theories and methods, and many of them DO work.

I think the most important thing for you if you go the HR-route is to find ONE established method and then stick with it. You won't get good results by mixing and matching random theories.

I've experimented just with seeing how my body responds, and I think all of them have merits.

The almost all low-z2 stuff DOES work, but requires a LOT of volume. Basically, if you're not cranking out volume to push your limits, you're not getting faster. Even the Trainerroad 'traditional' plans reflect this - hours and hours of Z1-2 stuff that takes like 10hrs+/wk compared to 5-6 if you incorporate higher effort work. A common misconception is 'run slower @ Z2 and get faster' which is totally WRONG. It's 'run slower @ Z2 so I can crank out a LOT more weekly volume and THEN get faster'.

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about z3 training as well, but I honestly got a lot of my best results by lots of Z3 training. Depending on how you define Z3, it can be 'sweet spot' which means you can do a lot of it without killing yourself yet have good enough intensity to not need tons of hours.

Z4 has been fine for me as well, but is quite painful and definitely increases risks of strain injuries. I did a block where I did a lot of Z4 work, but was necessarily running a lot lower miles total. I felt that the Z4 work is really best for prerace sharpening as most plans use it for, as it's just not physically possible to do hours and hours per week at Z4.


Honestly, I would love to just use HRM-based training for all my triathlon training as it captures my SBR efforts as a whole better than anything else (even better than the PM), but the reality of HRM measuring is the problem. There's always a lag, there are always glitches spikes and dropouts with the HRM (I've used nearly all of them, none are remotely perfect), and it's enough to make it tough to make it your #1 metric. I always know my HR on my hard run/bike efforts so I still use it actively during workouts, but it's not robust enough to use TSS equivalents of it (like the TRIMP score which is the HR equivalent of TSS as calculated by GoldenCheetah - sounds great, but varies too much compared to the powermeter-generated TSS.)

I've never understood why people say HR is too variable to be useful.

That is simply not true. The variability of your heart rate is incredibly useful.

I'm trained as an engineer to consider kinetics. (ie...how fast things change) and know how valuable kinetic analysis can be.

For example. My "threshold heart rate" for example is not one consistent number but increases from about 165 to about 175 BPM as I get closer to one hour of threshold time. This is natural!

I use my heart rate response to gauge my high intensity intervals as well. When I do a 30 second sprint my heart rate will surge for 5-10 seconds after the effort is done. The higher it surges the more tired I am.

You can also use your heart rate to gauge how well you are recovering between intervals. At the end of a very hard VO2max workout, my heart rate will be in Zone 1 (< 65% Max HR) just walking around for about 10 minutes. After the first interval, it'll easily drop to zone 1 because I'm not fatigued yet.

You can also use heart rate to better gauge effort on hot days. I find that I need to add about 2min/mile to my run pace when the temp is >80F and humid.

Pay attention to how your heart rate varies and you can learn tons about how to pace your efforts!

I should clarify - I find HR extremely useful!

It's not robust enough for me to use as my predominant metric in training with the same uses as a powermeter.

You can do this by running GoldenCheetah and analyzing your % time in each HR vs power zone, and GC will even calculate a TRIMP score which is in effect a calculated score that weights time at high HR more than lower HR.

My powermeter TSS, %zones, etc. are rock solid. The HR data, however, is a lot more variable, mainly due to what I think are recording glitches. I suspect this is a big reason why NOBODY uses TRIMP scores, even runners who don't use powermeter but who might very well use HR metrics a lot.

But HR is still really useful. It's the main thing I monitor for racing; in fact, I get much better results by racing by actively tracking HR in real-time, and just ignoring my powermeter - I have done hot races where it was just impossible to hold original PM %FTP target watts, and cold races where I could def go harder than my planned %FTP by a lot. Whereas I know from experience that if I'm biking above my redline HR, bad things are going to happen on the run, regardless of the power number.

For training though, it's powermeter - I do enough workouts in varied enough conditions that it all seems to average out over time as I get better/worse. The TRIMP score numbers don't seem to correlate well at all though, unfortunately, even when I feel like I'm getting good HR readings - again, I think there's too much technical variability in measurements to rely on it.

I find this conversation interesting. I've dabbled in running for summer triathlon season the last couple years (I'm a full time swimmer, part time triathlete), but have given it a much more serious go this season and am planning to continue run (and bike) training through the winter. Worked on building some base with the "Barry P" plan, but have been looking to take the next step with some varied HR zone training. Using the traditional Zone delineations (Z1 =< 60% of Max HR, Z2 =60-69.9% of Max HR, Z3 =70-79.9% of Max HR, Z4 =80-89.9% of Max HR, Z5 =90+% of Max HR) , I can barely run at Zone 2, forget zone 1. And no, I'm not using the vague 220-age formula, but the max HR I've registered on a run (189 bpm on the final Sprint on the 5k run leg of a Sprint Tri).

Is that an outdated way to determine zones? Do I have to slow to nearly a walk (+/- 11:45/mile) to stay at the top end of Zone 2 because I still don't have the run fitness yet? Or am I just a physiological outlier? I have done a lot of sprint training for swimming, so maybe my HR is always "on the ready" for the next high-demand situation? I was @ 95% of HRmax or higher for that entire Sprint Triathlon.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

I would say doing long runs in mostly zone 5 probably won't help your recovery much. Splitting it up from 2 to 4, but zonal training for the most part is tough and my focus is on pace. If I'm mostly in zone 5 for a workout then I know I'm unfit at that time.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Hey zone 4 works for me. I am getting faster at the same avg HR every week.

All these training plans are great but no one considers the human body is so different. There are billions of variables involved. If someone did the exact swim workout as Phelps, everyday, all the time..someone would still be faster or have a lower HR. It is foolish to say someone is training right or wrong. Records have been broken by training long and slow and those same records have been broken by others who train intervals.

You can do long and slow and it might work for your genetic and environmental combinations...but it might not work for others.

My theory is just do what feels best. If you are getting faster and not hurt - keep doing that. If you are getting slower then don't do that. Mix it up so the body doesn't get used to one thing. Stress it. Muscles do not grow unless they become stressed (to a point) and your body is basically one big muscle.

I will keep running in zone 4. If something starts to hurt, I will back off to 2 or 3 until it feels better. If I start to plateau then I will switch it up. Zone 4 is what is comfortably uncomfortable to me and it is the pace and HR I settle into. Just happens to be in that zone.

I'm not saying zone 4 is a bad thing. I'm just interested where someone says they can do all of it basically at race threshold which would be training all zone 4 and 5.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

^ true. If I do a full blown track speed session - that I used to do a lot. I am sore for 2 days after. No one could my body handle that stress. It can handle zone 4 and occasional 5 thrown in day after day so Ill keep it there haha

Hey Gary. I think maxHr is the least reliable way to setup your zones. I primarily setup my zones by threshold (10k} pace. But, I also setup my hr zones based on my 10k hr...so, I know approximately what hr corresponds to what pace. I use the Friel method because that's what training peaks defaults to. My log of choice.

I think you will have better luck setting your zones this way.

I have a similar maxHr as you. My max z2 hr is 154. For barryP running I average 151. My 10k HR is 172.

I don't ever do a true 5k effort, by my max avg HR for 5miles is 179 this year.

Heck no, actual MAX hr is pretty good at setting up the zones, especially compared to 220-age, which I like to joke is only correct for 1 year of your life :)

Good stuff, gents, carry on.

-Eric

OK, but what to do with the HRmax, then? Because the commonly prescribed 60/70/80/90% zone boundaries don't seem to be useful to me. If I go by RPE, a Zone 2/3 borderline effort is close to Tom's 154bpm. That's a zone 4 effort on the 60/70/80/90 scale.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

Honestly, you have described the biggest challenge to HR zone training. For example, I have my own HRmax, as determined (and reached) by 2 Vo2MAX tests in labs, 1 crit finish, 1 hot run with a sprint at the end, 1 half marathon finish at low elevation .... in other words, I know it's 185 from all these things.

But then, setting up the zones, even with that one good data point, gets wacky, right?

For myself, I tend to not use them strictly, in fact, I almost never think of them, except to see on a monthly basis how much time I'm spending in which ones, say, or for generally knowing what type of effort I'm aiming for.

In fact, I half suspect that the reason the "Always Zone 4" guy is being successful is that his zone 4 is not what he thinks it is. :)

I mostly think of easy, moderate, tempo, and race pace, which ends up being very roughly, easy = z1 and z2, moderate = z3, tempo = top of z3, bottom of z4 but VEEEERY bottom, my LTHR is about 5 beats into Z4, and race pace is right at or over LTHR for say, a half marathon.

I dunno. I think we can agree that it's not necessarily a 1 size fits all equation.

-Eric