Am I running my long runs too fast?

Too tough to answer that question without knowledge of what sort of a plan you're on - it really does depend on what the point of that zone 1 run is. Recovery? Endurance? 

FWIW - I do zero zone1 running, but I do spend a lot of time in zone 2. 

Generally though, if your long run feels "too slow" even at the end, you might want to consider re-testing your speed levels or increasing overall run volume (gradually) - of course, do it in the context of the plan. As long as it doesn't compromise the rest of the weekly workouts.

The rule of thumb is that you should run your long runs at a pace where you could carry on a conversation.  If you're breathing too hard to do that, slow it down.   It's okay to run the last part a little harder as that will get your body used to pushing at the end.  

+1

If you force yourself to run while you have bad form you may injure yourself and that's the bad thing that will happen.  Speed skill runs and working on efficiency seem to be the way to increase your pace.  I also do not do any long runs in Z1 but stay around Z2-2.5ish.

Retest your zones as mentioned.  IIRC, milage increase should be around 10% each week.  

If my HR went up 6-8 beats per mile (starting at mile 1) while my pace stayed the same, and I thought I was in pretty decent shape,  I'd be seeing a cardiologist or slowing down.

I run alot of 9:30 - 10  minute miles these days......my HR stays at 134-136 mile after mile on those runs.....I'm 53.  I realize that we are all different, but a drift like you are showing would be a warning sign for me, epecially if I was "fit".

Not worrried about my ticker at all.  I can slow down and find a pace where my HR stays in the 143-148ish range forever.  So yes...I get that the long run should be at an easy, conversational pace and this is a bit faster than that.  I guess I'm wondering, if my mileage is decreased from last year, will the increased intensity on my long runs benefit my efforts to get faster or am I still sabotaging my efforts? 

I tested at a local 4 mile race just a few weeks ago - per the BT instructions and calculator.    During the race, I held 181 for the last 2 miles (almost 15 minutes).   I did want to puke the whole time, but I blame the pizza and fried chicken breakfast.  My HR has always been higher than average for everything...when 220-age gave me a max of 190, I saw my HR hit 208...I did think it was going to stop on me that day. I will be retesting at a 5k on March 10th.

I'm able to complete my current long runs at the 9:00 pace...since they're only 10 miles (compared to when my long runs were 16-20 a few months ago).

As LeftBrain points out, the gradual climb in HR from mile 1 onwards looks a little odd. If you're a legit 1:45 HM contender, then doing a long run at 9:00 pace should be straightforward enough. 

One thing that might be relevant here: you're comparing HR values from a recent outdoor race with HR values on a treadmill. I would advise against trying to cross-calibrate between these. I never run on a treadmill, but I do know that I see much HR variation depending on whether I'm biking outside or biking indoors with or without suitable cooling. The limited cooling indoors makes my HR go higher than it would for a similar effort on a cool day outdoors. The HR increases that you're seeing could reflect cardiac drift, associated with heat and hydration.

I believe the biggest mistake that you could be making is testing to get a HR and then racing based on a pace.  You got your HR number so use those zones.  What the pace happens to be associated with those zones, so be it.

After you get good at that, then you can base your runs off of pacing.  The biggest mistake that people make, IMHO, is chasing a pace when they have not established what that pace should be.  Train at the fitness you have, not the fitness you want.  Doing the former will lead you to the latter.

That's a great way to look at it.  I've been in that boat myself.  I set a particular goal, but train based on HR and have often thought to myself that this seems a bit contrarian.  How can I set a goal pace when I don't know what pace my HR will allow me to run?  

I'm glad you wrote this as it kind of confirms the thoughts I've had.  After years I think I've finally settled in to truly following HR regardless of how slow I'm going and I'm seeing improvements. 

I think this is a great point for the person who started the thread to consider.  Especially for a longer distance race. I think chasing a pace is fine for short distance races, but for something like this and up, it's really a matter of what your body allows you to do, within reason.

Alternatively, use your pace from the race and plug it into something like McMillan's calculator or JD's VDOT to see what your training paces should look like based off that info.

Why would a 5k or 10k be any different?  Smart training is smart training.  And the opposite is also true, regardless of race distance.

Because most people aren't going to wear a HR monitor for a 5k or 10k.  You just go as hard as you can.  

Maybe it's me, but I approach a full/half IM a little different than a 5 or 10k. 

Exactly.  You seem to be caught between training by HR v. training by pace.  If you really want to train by HR, then you need to first confirm your zones.  After that then you train in your target zone and not worry about pace.  It is what it is as determined by your level of fitness.  If you train consistently, then your pace will gradually increase for the same HR zone.   Most folks complain about having to run so slowly to stay at their target HR when they first start. 

Mark  

No,  you don't. You still need to pace them.

Most definitely. Figure out your fitness. Train appropriately for that amount of fitness, adjusting as you improve. Base the race off your fitness come race time, don't just pick a time. It can be hard to learn how to stay easy enough early on, but it does work.

A 5K is still an aerobic endurance event.  You can only go as hard as your aerobic fitness allows.  When I run a half marathon it's as hard as I can also, it's just at a slower pace due to the distance.

I would agree that most folks probably run a 5K more by pace rather than HR.

Mark

Pacing does not stop when you aren't wearing a HRM.  I never wear one anymore.  I always pace myself.  Your approach to a 5k or 10k should be a little different than a longer race.  But they are more similar than you might think.

X2....even if you use 200 as your max, how are you coming up with 140's as Z1?  We're all different, but on runs up to 10 miles, our small group of runners has very minimal drift, even in Z2 and the low side of Z3.  Wonder what others have to say.

He said he did an LT test and an it was 181. So his zone 1 is 119-153 per BT calculator. My LT is 187, the 140's is my easy warm up.