login
Z2
-
No new posts
 2015-12-28 9:57 PM |
 23 |  Subject: Z2So the training program I'm following called for 40 minutes of running in Zone 2, which for me is in the neighbourhood of 150 BPM using the Karvonen method. I did 40 minutes all with a fairly consistent pace, and ended up doing 8.1 km over 40 mins for an average pace of 4:56 per km or thereabouts. But my heart rate averaged 164 (top of Z3/low Z4) over the run and was 170-180 (getting into Z5) for the last 10 minutes, and I did feel pretty winded especially for the last few minutes of it. I am new to all of this and have no background in any of the three disciplines, and certainly have no experience with HR zone-based training. This was actually my first outdoor run using my new HR monitor. (Got up to -10 C today so had to get out there) So my question, given that I was supposed to keep it to Z2 but probably was above that for the final 30 minutes of my 40-minute run...I was able to keep the same pace over 40 minutes, do I consider this workout a success? Or did I miss out on the entire point of the workout by spending most of it above the targeted heart rate? (And if so, why?) Thanks for any help! |
| 2015-12-28 10:21 PM in reply to: #5158149 |
Member 622   Franklin, TN | Subject: RE: Z2 The purpose of zone 2 running is to help you build endurance while allowing you to recover fairly easily. Running a lot above zone 2 will a) increase the likelihood of injury and b) require too much recovery to give produce quality efforts in your subsequent workouts. A tempo effort (like the one you did) should be used sparingly (once, maybe twice a week) once you've built up your volume with a lot of zone 2 running. |
| 2015-12-28 11:18 PM in reply to: JoelO |
| 23 | Subject: RE: Z2 Originally posted by JoelO The purpose of zone 2 running is to help you build endurance while allowing you to recover fairly easily. Running a lot above zone 2 will a) increase the likelihood of injury and b) require too much recovery to give produce quality efforts in your subsequent workouts. A tempo effort (like the one you did) should be used sparingly (once, maybe twice a week) once you've built up your volume with a lot of zone 2 running. Thank you! So basically, a good workout for me but it could come at a cost in terms of future workouts. I appreciate the response. I have to get out of the mentality of giving 'er as much as I think I can each time out. Coming over from a sport where you go hard for 45 seconds and then sit for 3 minutes or so, it's kind of different! |
| 2015-12-29 7:26 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Z2 Originally posted by bsuball41 Coming over from a sport where you go hard for 45 seconds and then sit for 3 minutes or so, it's kind of different! Hockey ? If so, the importance of Z2 training may even be greater. Another trick : look at running race results and plug them into the McMillan calculator. It will give you training paces. The long and easy runs should be close to Z2. If paces and HR line up, you know you're on the right track. Edited by marcag 2015-12-29 7:29 AM |
| 2015-12-29 11:00 AM in reply to: bsuball41 |
Pro 6582  Melbourne FL Gold member | Subject: RE: Z2 Take a read of this article for LTHR field testing for another perspective of HR zones, the Q&A link in the article goes to a big BT thread. If I use the Karvonen method I get a Z2 of 132 - 147 bpm, however using LTHR test results, my Z2 is calculated as 150-160 bpm. On your run, you experience a big HR drift and need to slow it down. I also agree with checking McMillan run calc if you have some recent run races. I have found in the past that the training paces and my LTHR zones line up well. |
| 2015-12-29 11:03 AM in reply to: marcag |
| 23 | Subject: RE: Z2 Originally posted by marcag Hockey ? If so, the importance of Z2 training may even be greater. Yeah. Not pro or anything, just my main sport growing up and as an adult. Originally posted by marcag Another trick : look at running race results and plug them into the McMillan calculator. It will give you training paces. The long and easy runs should be close to Z2. If paces and HR line up, you know you're on the right track. Look at that, what a great resource. Thanks for this! Plugged my top 5K time (23:04) into the McMillan calc, and it says an easy run is between a 5:17/km and 5:55/km pace. Quite a range but drastically different than what I've been doing. Just got to get through my head that "less is more" when it comes to this stuff. Seems so backwards to have to give less than what I've got available in the tank! |
| 2015-12-29 11:22 AM in reply to: Donto |
| 23 | Subject: RE: Z2 Originally posted by Donto On your run, you experience a big HR drift and need to slow it down. "HR drift" - thanks, even having a term like that to google and read about is a big help. This is my HR from yesterday's run and "drift" certainly applies to it!  Originally posted by Donto I also agree with checking McMillan run calc if you have some recent run races. I have found in the past that the training paces and my LTHR zones line up well. Looking at past results (but without having done a true test) I think my LT will be right around 170, which actually lines up pretty well with my zones as calculated by the Karvonen method. I'll do an actual test at some point soon to find it out. I appreciate all the responses. "Slow the hell down" being the major theme  |
| 2015-12-29 11:29 AM in reply to: bsuball41 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Z2 Originally posted by bsuball41 Originally posted by marcag Hockey ? If so, the importance of Z2 training may even be greater. Yeah. Not pro or anything, just my main sport growing up and as an adult. Originally posted by marcag Another trick : look at running race results and plug them into the McMillan calculator. It will give you training paces. The long and easy runs should be close to Z2. If paces and HR line up, you know you're on the right track. Look at that, what a great resource. Thanks for this! Plugged my top 5K time (23:04) into the McMillan calc, and it says an easy run is between a 5:17/km and 5:55/km pace. Quite a range but drastically different than what I've been doing. Just got to get through my head that "less is more" when it comes to this stuff. Seems so backwards to have to give less than what I've got available in the tank! If you ran around right in the middle of that McMillan zone your HR would have probably been much closer to 150. Try it. |
| 2015-12-29 11:34 AM in reply to: bsuball41 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Z2 Originally posted by bsuball41 "HR drift" - thanks, even having a term like that to google and read about is a big help. This is my HR from yesterday's run and "drift" certainly applies to it! On the subject of "drift" and signs of how "fit" you are, read this http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/aerobic-endurance-and-de... |
| 2015-12-29 11:58 AM in reply to: marcag |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Z2 I agree with the paces comments above. Also, yes Z2 is important. I find some new Athlete's do "drift" into Z3 sometimes as the distances are often new to them. A lot of people use somewhat aggressive training plans to build mileage, and it's almost impossible to stay in Z2 without walking. If you drift to Z3 early, you need to slow down those runs. But, if you're drifting there near the end, I usually say it's ok for young, resilient athletes. For older, or more injury prone athlete's I usually stress a short walk to cool it down and get back to Z2. The more experience you get in running, the more the zones end up lining up with the paces. |
| 2015-12-29 3:04 PM in reply to: bsuball41 |
| 1660 | Subject: RE: Z2 Pretty much 100% of the folks who are complaining that Z2 workouts are too slow, haven't built up long enough workouts or enough weekly volume to really capitalize on the benefits of Z2 workouts.
You can go pretty hard in workouts of an hour, even 75-90 mins if you're in good shape, holding Z3-4 HR with a hard effort. But extend past 90 minutes, and unless you've lowballed your z2, it'll be really tough to keep up those Z3+ efforts. Extend to 2hrs and it's pretty much impossible with correctly set zones. Also, if you're pushing past the boundaries of your typical weekly volumes, you won't be able to hammer all the extra volume, and will likelyhave to build it slow at z2 or below.
Another important thing to remember that beginners constantly get wrong is the assumption that you will 'get faster by working less hard', meaning beginner triathletes mistakenly think they are not improving because they're 'running too hard.' The benefits of mostly z2 running come from being able to INCREASE volume steadily over time so overall training volume continues to go up and up.
|
| 2015-12-29 9:04 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 2406 Bellevue, WA | Subject: RE: Z2 People with new HR monitors for Christmas should also research the "Maffetone method". This is also known as the "go slow to go fast" method of getting started with marathon running. The Maffetone method is well known in marathon training and back in the day the famous triathlete Mark Allen was a big fan of this approach. Basically you run at a fairly low HR for a few months to train your body into burning fat for fuel. It will feel very slow at first but it pays off over time. I went from 4:30 type marathons to 3:30 as my fastest. My fasted IM run was 4:10 for an 11:53 IM (when I was 41 years old, I'm 50 now). This is not a "just finish" type of training approach. http://philmaffetone.com/ and search for "Maffetone method" Read the Mark Allen interview: http://philmaffetone.com/alleninterview/ This is the classic post on Maffetone training, from mid 2000s and updated in 2009. This is the article that got me started training this way: http://duathlon.com/articles/1460/ Edited by brucemorgan 2015-12-29 9:04 PM |
| 2015-12-31 12:59 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 23 | Subject: RE: Z2 Originally posted by marcag If you ran around right in the middle of that McMillan zone your HR would have probably been much closer to 150. Try it. Middle of that McMillan zone for me was about a 5:40/km pace. Resulted in this (you were bang on) -  Edited by bsuball41 2015-12-31 1:08 AM |
| 2015-12-31 1:03 AM in reply to: bsuball41 |
| 23 | Subject: RE: Z2 Just wanted to thank everyone for their input, especially marcag and Donto for introducing me to the McMillan calculator, Bruce for the great stuff about the Maffetone method, and yazmaster and Meulen for helping drill concepts through my thick skull. There’s so much info out there it’s hard to figure out what exactly is relevant to me at this time, so it’s great to have you all point me in the right direction. Greatly appreciate the assistance!! |
| 2015-12-31 5:00 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Z2 It looks like you are close to where your Z2, McMillan Long/Easy and Maffetone paces come together which is brilliant. Do all your running there, slowly build up your volume, mostly through frequency and keep at it for a good 8 weeks. You will find yourself running faster on less beats or less beats for the same speed. You will have begun to lay down a solid aerobic base. This is what is being accomplished at that pace. If you want to prove it, do a MAF test ( http://philmaffetone.com/maf-test/). You don't have to use his formula, use your 150number if you want. With time you will be faster and you will see less drift. If you do it, try to find a place with repeatable conditions, ie a treadmill you will have access to in the future or a track or flat route without snow and ice :-) Edited by marcag 2015-12-31 5:01 AM |
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK