I’ve been told more than once that, especially in the off-season, the key to the greatest running gains is to train at a low, consistent heart rate (i.e. zone 2 out of 5). At the same time, I’ve heard over and over again that the best run training is to shoot for negative splits (I think someone posted earlier today to try to do that every run).
My problem (and I’m assuming others’ as well) is that, unless I’m starting at a ridiculously easy pace, increasing my pace every mile means that I’m pretty close to full exertion by the time I get to the end of my run. I know part of the solution would be less drastic increases in pace, but I find that once I start increasing my pace by smaller amounts, it’s more of an increase in perceived exertion than anything.
So with a couple months of off-season training left, what’s my best option? Forget about the heart rate and focus on negative splits? Do some low heart rate runs and some negative split runs (maybe distance runs @ heart rate targets and shorter runs @ negative splits)? Or some crazy combination of the two?
hmm interesting question, I am not quite so extreme, but I do try to negative which might mean moving from zone 2 to zone 3 to accomplish. I have heard from a number of sources that even a few minutes out of the lower zone at the end of a run can ruin the point of the workout.
My problem (and I’m assuming others’ as well) is that, unless I’m starting at a ridiculously easy pace, increasing my pace every mile means that I’m pretty close to full exertion by the time I get to the end of my run.
I don’t know why you’d have to increase pace every mile to run negative splits. All you have to do is run the 2nd half of the run ever so slightly quicker than the first.
As far as what is best for you, the key is to create a training plan that contains an ever increasing amount of training load. Exactly how you create that load depends on your fitness and your goals for the upcoming year.
One thing to note is that if you use a rigid heart rate zone, a consistently paced run can move out of the initial heart rate zone. In all climatic conditions, it is quite likely that a runner can start a run in one HR zone and see a noticeable rise in HR even with a consistent pace. I see no reason why an athlete would slow down to drop heart rate. Negative splits, even if the pace change is quite small, only exaggerate this pattern of heart rate increase. I encourage people to judge runs based on pace while monitoring their HR.
One of the upsides to negative splitting each mile is that over time you fine tune your ability to know how much gas is in the tank and how hard you can press on the gas. That becomes quite a valuable tool in longer races.
The point isn’t to run easy for easy’s sake. It’s to run easy so that you can run MORE. 12 miles a week of easy running is no better for you than 12 miles a week of fast running. In fact, it’s not as good. The faster running will actualy have more benefits.
However, there’s always a tradeoff. 12 miles a week in zone three is better than 12 in zone 2, but if you run in zone 2 you should be able to run 16 a week!
So, to clarify, it’s not that you should run easy in the winter. It’s that you should run a lot in the winter, a and to do so it needs to be easy.
On negative splits:
The point of negative splitting is not to run hard at the end, it’s to make sure that you don’t run too hard before you’ve warmed up. For me, a typical 10 mile run will start out at around 65-70% of my max HR. By the time I finish I will have worked my way up to 80% (the top end of zone 2)…and MAYBE I’ll dip into zone three a bit…though if I usualy feel that good, I’ll tack on two extra miles instead of speeding up (ahhh…see? I run slow, I feel good, I run more!).
I’ve read about Kenyans and even train with a guy who ran with Kenayans (and visited Kenya!). Everyone that I’ve spoken with say that the Kenyans start their easy runs rediculously slow for the first two miles. It helps prevent injury to let yourself warmup.