Easy run load based on HR or pace?

Training
1

Hi,
I noticed that the calculated load based on HR for my easy runs is much lower that the load based on pace… and I’m wondering why…
When I do my easy steady run around 4’55" min/km pace, (that would be my Z2, based on a threshold of 3’56" min/km approx.), my calculated Zone based on HR is Z1 most of the time (according to my threshold of 161 ppm)

Then, my questions are:

  • Is the calculated load based on pace using real pace or GAP?
  • how should I configure HR load? based on TRIMP or average HR?
  • would you recommend using the load based on pace or HR to quantify the weekly load?
  • During intervals workouts, I use always pace, but… What parameter do you recommend checking during easy/Z2 runs, or long runs…??
  • Do you think my calculated thresholds might not be well aligned considering the differences I mentioned above? I use the values of my last 21K race= 161 ppm and 3’56 pace

Any feedback from you experts :slight_smile: will be very welcome and appreciated
Thanks in advance

2

My suggestion, just start to perceive yourself and write down your effort based on RPE . So let the pace power/hr feed itself. Unless you have done physiological analyzes , both in this case and in the RPE , you can estabilish certain “limits” for example in easy days do not exceed X Hr value , because variables suach as feeling better on the day to be more recovered , heat etc… Probaly interfere , and in you´re going to do a light day , because the next day it should be be a Hard day , maybe you dont want to exaggerate.

other questions i think better ppl here can answer alot better than me

1 Like
3

Different people will prefer different methods. Here’s my take on it:

  • For Load calculation, use an external metric if available. Power and Pace are external metrics.
  • For workout targets, use HR unless you do short high intensity interval work. HR is an internal metric.

Why am I doing this?:

  • HR will vary quite a bit depending on the situation of the day. Recovery/fatigue, hydration, heat, etc will influence HR. If you push on to reach Power/Pace targets on a ‘bad’ day, the workout could become way too stressing for the condition you’re in. That will result in the need for more recovery after such a workout and might mess up your plan. Or could lead to overload if you ignore the feel.
  • Using HR for steady state work will make your effort more alike for these different situations. HR reflects better RPE. But HR can’t be used for short intervals because it lags too much.
  • Setting HR targets for Z2 work will lead to an ‘easier’ workout and isn’t going to cost you as much when it comes to fatigue/recovery. If you have a specific TSS target (based on power or pace), you can go a little longer to reach the target anyway at lower power/pace and stay within your HR zone.
  • Load calculation is better done by measuring the effective work done. And Power/Pace, being external metrics, are better for a consitent number.
4 Likes
4

thanks you both @MedTechCD @R_S1 for the feedback

Ok! I’ll follow your recommendations @MedTechCD :

  • use pace for load calculation.
  • Check HR to stay in Z2 during my easy runs.

However, I’m still a bit confused about the calculated ppm for my Z2.
I noticed that if I use Joe Friel Running (7) my Z2 is 136->143 ppm, but my feeling of Z2 and the Z2 pace starts around 126 ppm.

Maybe I’m not putting enough effort in my Z2 runs, and I would need to go a bit deeper to reach at least the 136ppm to be in Z2… even though I’d enter more in my “High” Z2 pace
… or maybe, I could fine tune my Z2 to set it like [126-143 ppm]… instead of the range 136-143 recommended by Joe Friel model… what do you think?

I mean, my main concern is if I’m not getting the most of my Z2 runs

thanks

5

Most of the predefined zone systems have the Z2 upper limit too high.
A good starting point for true Z2 is 180 - age (Maffetone principle).
Fine-tune from there paying attention to feel and breathing. That should get you close enough. If you want to be more certain, you will need a lab test with MET-cart.
Just remember that it is very unlikely to go to easy for Z2. It is much more common to go to hard.

6

The last sentence will be my main takeaway! During my Z2 workouts, I’ll focus more on not going too fast rather than worrying about whether I’m in Z1 or low Z2.
Anyway, I think I’ll adjust the Z2 range to 126–140 to ensure I’m not pushing too hard.
I know that I may be overthinking it, but you know… I enjoy these kinds of discussion and learn something else from you experts :stuck_out_tongue:
Thanks so much for the feedback!

7

Isn’t that a bit too easy?
I used this method for months, and the effort level seems quite low. The “conversation test” also seemed to be very easy to pass (I could even sing a little). When running, the pace was excruciatingly slow.
When I aim for Z2 in the Friel 7 zone model, I can still have a conversation, though the effort level can be a bit over what I would call easy-easy, more like easy-to-mild. Z1 in this model is easy, but not slow enough to be frustrating.
Should I simply train more, until my pace at the Maffetone HR gets better?

8

It depends on the volume. The more (duration and frequency) one does, the easier it needs to be.

1 Like
9

If you have enough time to train, volume in Z2 will always be beneficial.

If you’re time-crunched, the situation is different. You better approach training intensity from the side of ‘If I do this, will I be sufficiently recovered when my next training comes along to do it as intended’. That should always be your main concern because doing higher intensity work when not sufficiently recovered will not make you better.
Example: if you can only train 3 times a week, there’s ample recovery time in between sessions. A possible strategy could be to do one long Z2 workout and 2 shorter higher intensity workouts. The higher intensity should be modulated with regards to the training phase you’re in. In Base, this could be 2 Tempo workouts, while in build, it could be 1 low Tempo and 1 threshold. During Peak, the threshold can be replaced by VO2 if your event requires efforts at that intensity.
Just make sure to back of a little when you feel accumulated fatigue.

I hope that the above makes clear that there’s no ‘one fit all’ solution. Make a list of the limitations caused by ‘life’ and adapt your training plan to get the most out of it. Volume is absolutely a determining factor but if you can’t find enough time, you’ll have to find solutions to get as good as possible within the available time. And that’s also a reason why you should change your plan when all over sudden you have more time available. Don’t just do more of what you did before with less time. That will exhaust you.

2 Likes
10

on a normal week I do one or two runs (easy, 6 to 10km), and three (sometimes four) bike rides: one long mountain bike ride and the rest on a trainer (one harder workout, the rest at z2).
I don’t have any event goals, I tarin for general fitness (and to not suffer too much on the long bike ride outside :upside_down_face:).

should I be doing the easy workouts at Maffetone HR or Friel Z2?

also, is this plan too much? I’m 49, not particularly fit, and have only been training for a bit over a year and a half. I’m asking because I have the tendency to do more than I planned, and when I’m not disciplined enough I sometimes get fatigued.

11

If you have the time to train 6 times a week, that’s fantastic!
It means that you can do quite a lot of hours/volume. In that case it is best to keep it really easy on the easy days. You will get fitter quite fast and if you get bored during the easy sessions, there’s no harm in adding some efforts to spice them up a bit. But do those efforts to the end of the session to minimally affect the Z2 work. I suggest to not really plan that, but just do it when you feel good near the end of such a session.
Take it from there and in a while, you will notice that your body handles this structure well. At that moment you can start to increase intensity for one of the easy days. Then again, give your body some time to adapt to the increased load.

Consistent low intensity work is a blessing for weight control!

If you build up gradually, it isn’t too much. No matter your age. Your body will tell you when it is too much, so don’t forget to ‘listen’.
I will repeat a quote from Alan Couzens (respected Triathlon/Iron Man coach, senior athlete): ‘For health reasons, do your age in hours/month at low intensity’. That means more when getting older, but be careful with intensity.
I turned 60 last week and managed 587 hours over the last year. Intensity distribution based on time 91/9, where the 91 is % below VT1/LT1. I have never been in competition but training consistently for almost 20 years, for fun and health reasons.

1 Like
12

thank you both (@MedTechCD, @Gerald).
as usual, you’ve been very helpful and generous with your knowledge.

1 Like
13

I know @prof (Paul Larsen) is active here every now and then.
In their latest podcast, (links below), they discuss the science behind the Norwegian method, and “easy runs” were mentioned a few times on the podcast. Quite a good listen, even though it might be focused more on triathlon training, it’s the principle of keeping easy days easy and hard days hard (double-stacked was discussed, which was interesting too). Maffetone was mentioned too.

Apple Podcast - The Science Behind the Norwegi - Training Science Podcast - Apple Podcasts
Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/0jmMzbrXRjiW24hGXHwhgb?si=LGihPYCPTmi0hY7A9RAV8Q

1 Like
14

So, three months after having that discussion, I’ve implemented your advice (@MedTechCD & @Gerald) and I can already feel a considerable improvement.

TLDR: I started running and cycling at Meffetone or Z1 HR, and as soon as 4-5 weeks I already saw improvements. I was also feeling zero fatigue.

My week usually looks like this: I run Monday and Friday, easy runs that get longer and longer. It’s a bit hard for me to stay disciplined and run at Maffetone, so after a couple of weeks I switched from Maffetone to Z1. Still not fatiguing, and not slow enough to drive me crazy. I do indoor cycling Tuesday and Thursday, at Maffetone HR. On these days I also usually swim about 1000m (I’m very new at swimming, swim very slow, it mostly feels like recovery). On the weekend I do a long (4-5 hours) MTB ride. I also try to get one or two resistance training sessions and a weekly hour of yoga.
Every other week or so I do a harder session instead of one of the four easy one. Usually it’s something like 30-40 mins of easy run/ride, and then 15-20 mins of harder work (hill running, vo2 interval cycling).
My results are still very bad :upside_down_face: but getting better.
For example, my 10km PB was about 1:07:00, and I remember feeling half dead at the end, with HR close to threshold (as estimated by garmin and intervals) for most of the run. In the last few week I’ve been setting a new PB every other week or so without even trying and while staying in Z1 for about 80% of the run, barely ever getting higher than Z2 (I live in a hilly area so there are some spikes). Today I ran 1:03:20 during my usual Z1 run.

Again, thank you for your advice and generous sharing of your knowledge and experience, and especially for helping me get over my ego/enthusiasm.

Edit: I forgot to mention volume changes.
Running: used to be ~15km a week, and is now ~22km.
Cycling: I don’t trust the numbers my indoor trainer outputs, but I’m up to ~3hrs (used to be ~2hrs).
My weekend ride used to be ~40km, and is now ~50km (usually more than 50).

Other improved numbers: fitness and fatigue, garmin’s estimates of vo2max for running and cycling, running pace at z2, z1 and Maffetone hr, and I think also cycling ftp (but can’t be sure if so and by how much).

4 Likes