A while ago I posted regarding training by time vs. distance. I would like to revisit. I have begun ironman training and strictly using time and heart rate zones as my basis. The plan I am using is from a book titled “Be Ironfit.” To make this short, most of the training is in zone 2…which for me is 136-155 while running. I feel like this is too easy. This translates into a pace much slower than I normally run. I am normally comfortable running 7:30-8:00 pace and keeping a 160 HR. Does anyone have experience with HR training or with this particular book? I know I am not going to win this race, but I would like to be respectable. I don’t want to “just finish.” The plan I am using from this book is considered the “competitive” plan. Throughout the plan, zone 3 is never maintained and only a few times do any of the workouts get into zone 4. I did the track test they recommended to determine my HR max. It just happened to match identically to 220-age (38)= HR max 182. Any thoughts, help, other plan suggestions? thanks.
Popular theory would state that yes, you do a lot of training in low HR zones… long runs, recovery runs, long rides, etc. Then you do shorter workouts at higher HR such as track workouts, bike intervals, hill repeats and so on. Does this training plan have you just working out in low HR zones the entire time?
There are three issues here,
First is whether your max hr is accurate. You say you did the test but maybe you didn’t quite nail it the way you could have. Maybe there was an extra 10 bpm in there. Maybe on a different day feeling a little better or on a day when it was hotter outside you would have held a higher HR. That’s a possibility and maybe part of the issue.
Second is that even for two people of same max hr, their sustainable heart rates can be different, but this is probably a minor concern.
Probably though, it is a matter of you not having a feel for what is sustainable for iron distance and not having the ability to run very quickly at those efforts.
So for one,you say you run at 160 bpm. How far? How often? Do you hold 160 bpm for your thrice weekly 4 to 8 mile run? That workout lasts 40 minutes to an hour, where on race day your run segment alone is much more likely to last four hours, and that is after 8 hours pf previous activity give or take. The message being that the HR you can cold for your 40 minute run is a far cry from what you will be able to hold on race day.
The other wrinkle is how often, as the volume builds, you will be getting up to 12 hours to 15 hours in your bigger weeks I’d bet. If you’re currently running 3 times a week ad fine with it. The effort you can maintain week in and week out will be lower than what you are doing in weekly run sessions right now if your volume is low.
But mostly, it is hard for new people to understand just how easily you will need to ride and run at Ironman to still be running at the end of it. Happens all the time., you’re by far not the first.
The author of the program you are using has found that people who run somewhere in the neighborhood of zone 2 on ironman day tend to hold up well for the run. This then translates into spending a fair bit of time (not all of it) at that intensity, or perhaps slightly above race day intensity. But in that general zip code.
I have a feeling that if you took recent race results and found a 5 zone calculator for paces, you’d also be surprised how slow the zone 2 is when based off of paces.
But in a few weeks you get better at it, your pace at those low heart rate will go up. Your hr at those paces will decrease as well and you’ll feel more normal about it.
You’ll find that good HR based plans avoid Zone 3. Zone 3 is typically a “feel good” zone for most athletes; you generally feel comfortable (because you are sub LT), but you also feel that you are getting a good workout (because you feel a little burn). You may very well race in Zone 3, but regarding training, the problem with Zone 3 is that it does little to improve the systems that will contribute to performance gains. Zone 2 work specifically targets aerobic and metabolic conditioning, both of which are of critical importance to IM athletes, and the early part of your plan probably relies heavily on Zone 2 for that purpose. Zone 4 work specifically targets LT and LT tolerance, both of which are of less importance to IM athletes, and the later part of your plan will probably use Zone 4 to develop your ability to sustain a high effort level. It sounds like your plan is based in good science, and for what it’s worth, I’d give it an honest shot. I hope that this helps to shed some light on what its creator may have intended. Best of luck!
Last year I trained for HIM with HR and it did not seem like a big deal to run a bit faster because the event was less than half of what an IM is. Now that I am training for and IM I am focusing on keeping my pace where the zones are, even if it is painful to look and see my watching say 8:30 or so. I have just realized that this training is training me for a LONG day, not just 4.5 hours or so. I don’t know who said it but I read it everywhere when it comes to triathlons, “keep your easy days easy and make your hard days hard”. If you are supposed to go on a zone 2 1.5 hour run Friday then follow that up with a 5 hour ride Saturday with some intervals then maybe a race paced brick run after you will have a much easier time on that long workout Friday if you stay in your zone in Friday’s run. It just doesn’t take as much of a toll on your body as that 1.5 hour run at zone 4, even if you can comfortably run at that pace.
use the mcmillan pace calculator for running paces with different types of workouts, i found heartrate monitors worthless really, they give you an idea of what you did after the workout, during, i dont see the point, if you have the endurance sports experience necessary to do an ironman you probably know where how you should feel at different paces
.
Some good feedback. This plan is largely zone 2 oriented. As the weeks go by there is some zone 4, but it is normally at the end of a workout. For example, run for 1:15 in zone 2 and after one hour do 10 minutes in zone 4. I thought there would be more interval work. I understand the theory some others have talked about, it’s a long race and you must train your aerobic system primarily. After reading and then reading more I just find there is not really a consensus on how to train for an ironman. The theory “train fast to be fast” doesn’t seem to hold here. I am sticking to the plan. I trust it has worked well for others (and it’s the only plan I’ve got).
What are everyone’s thoughts on using running zones based on 10K times? What about using both HR and Pace zones?
In “Going Long” Joe Friel lays out running paces based on a 5k/10k pace. I am following IronFit this year too and was thinking about combining my HR data and pacing data to see when I need to run faster, and when I need to back of to stay in Z2 (e.g. early in the morning my HR is about 10 bpm lower than in the evening at the same speeds).
I just find there is not really a consensus on how to train for an ironman. The theory “train fast to be fast” doesn’t seem to hold here.
Disagree. Just about every plan I have ever seen for IM distance are pretty similar for when they prescribe volume vs intensity. Linear periodization is a pretty standard system in this regard. I think training in this fashion also helps teach you some discipline during race day. The run course will be littered with bodies of people who didnt think it felt right to go so slowly on the bike.
If this doesnt ‘feel’ right to you, or you are a more advanced athlete, you might check out Block or Inverse Periodization which have different ideas about when to pour on the intensity and in what quantities. The problem with train fast to be fast in IM distance is that it puts too much wear and tear to train long and hard all the time. If you train long all the time, you will lose speed, if you train hard all the time, you will lose endurance.
What are everyone’s thoughts on using running zones based on 10K times? What about using both HR and Pace zones?
In “Going Long” Joe Friel lays out running paces based on a 5k/10k pace. I am following IronFit this year too and was thinking about combining my HR data and pacing data to see when I need to run faster, and when I need to back of to stay in Z2 (e.g. early in the morning my HR is about 10 bpm lower than in the evening at the same speeds).
I’ve been using a 10K as a HR zone test for years now, as do many people I train with. I’ll average my HR over the last four miles and use that number as my LT heart rate, then extrapolate the zones from there. I’ve used a 5K before, but the HR zones were typically 7-9bpm higher; I’ve been told that 5K races are often run at higher than LT heart rate. For that reason, I’m sticking with the 10K. After that, I’ll train and race based on those zones… 10K, 1/2M, olympic triathlons, 1/2 IM, everything. Never let me down.
I also echo what CoachMike said about L3 training. I’m not a physiologist so I can’t say for sure, but when I had my coach and onto now, training/coaching myself, I don’t do a whole lot of level 3 work. Aside from the aerobic benefits, training higher than level 2 in my long runs requires too much recovery time. Long runs at level 2, track/interval workouts at level 4 and just occasionally a level 3 type run… but I’ve always finished those workouts, wondering what the purpose was. 
I attended a lecture from Frank Shorter last year… he said it best: “Coaches tend to over complicate things on purpose, so people feel like they need a coach. To get fast, you need to do this weekly: A long run at conversation pace, 3miles of speed work once or twice a week, then as many miles as you want on the other days at conversation pace. That’s it.”