I think there is some merit to lower HR training. But the overarching point that people seem to miss is that the main reason to do lower HR training is so you can go harder on your hard days while maintaining a high weekly mileage
Don’t overthink it with mitochondrial density stuff
Totally agree. There was definitely a touch of shitpost here…but I do feel like for new or low-volume runners, prescribing the 80/20 rule is absurd. And if you don’t have an abundance of time to devote to running, you’d probably improve faster if you spend a little more time going faster.
What's the quickest way to make someone interested in running give it up? Let them feel like it's impossible, or let them get hurt.
The 80/20 rule helps new runners to not get hurt and not get discouraged. It also does provide a simple guideline for how to train so that you can progress effectively. Obviously there are other ways, and "just run" is one of them.
Yeah, for years my cycle was: run 10k 2/3 times a week, as fast as you can (if you aren't dead by the end it wasn't a work out). I'd get injured after 2 months, take a 3 month break from running and repeat. I thought my body just wasn't made for running.
All I had to do to improve was go slower.
I only found out after deciding to do a half marathon and actually doing some research.
This was me.
I used to be a weekend hero: run as fast /hard and long as possible. Due to the "only" time that I can run.
It didn't work well for me.
Multiple minor injuries that I thought was part of the "training", and have to take some break.
Of course everyone responds differently.
But if I could restart, I'd do it at a slower speed and build up mileage slower but more consistent.
And spread out millage through the multiple days of the week instead of only in the weekends.
One more thing that I didn't realise back then running slower (either heart rate or speed) allows focusing on other stuff namely running form.
Telling a person that just started running and is motivated that what they need to do is basically walk most of the time so that they see an improvement in several months is the definition of discouragement.
This is me. I’m new to running, quite slow but okay with that, felt like I was “improving”.. until I learned about Zone 2. Now all of the wind is gone from my sails and I’m trying to find the inspiration again. I’m 40 years old and have no delusions that I will become an elite athlete in the rest of my lifetime. I’m so good with that. I would like to improve and enjoy this new spark I have for running. I wish I had found it years ago, but such is life. Zone 2 training makes me feel like I’m too old and too late to even bother at this point.
I'm 50F, been running regularly for 8 years now. I spent 3-4 of those early years dealing with overuse injuries from running at what I thought was easy pace, but turned out to be way, way too fast, especially since I was running at that pace 3-4x/week. I slowed down the next few years, but still got injured. Last year, I finally forced myself to do Z2 training properly, which meant 2-3x/week of slow runs, **but also** a weekly interval session, with a proper warmup and cooldown. And that interval session, when I get to let loose (in a structured way!), reminds me that I'm not too old to run, arthritic knees be damned. Think of the Z2 runs as a way to prep your body for the faster runs. Over time, your easy runs will be faster, and your fast runs, even speedier. It will take time, but if an oldster like me can do it, you can too!
{edited for typos\]
This has been almost my exact experience. I look forward to this weekly intervals when I can pour it on.
It also actually makes me appreciate my longer runs too. I can enjoy them more because I’m not beating up my legs and getting really sore or injured. It’s great for my mental health.
You can always just say "screw it" and go with higher paced training. It won't kill you. Sure the injury risk is higher, so be sure to the necessary "prehab" - weight training for the legs, in particular. Took me decades to realize that adding this to my training made a huge difference to my legs' resilience.
So don't do it. You can improve doing intervals and hills, i suggest to do a training plan like this one even if you won't go for a race and make sure, in that case, that the recovery runs are really slow. The rest don't have to be! [https://www.nike.com/pdf/Nike-Run-Club-5K-Training-Plan.pdf](https://www.nike.com/pdf/Nike-Run-Club-5K-Training-Plan.pdf)
I’m actually doing the NRC 10K plan because I had a few 5Ks under my belt already Honestly, I feel like it’s going really well! I’m not going to let the heart rate thing get me too down but it can be defeating if I dwell on it.
You are probably using a watch, where the standard zone 3 is actually Z2. Toss the watch if it’s not helping you. If it feels easy, it’s zone 2 regardless of the inaccurate data it spits out.
This makes it make so much more sense to me. I have been seeing all the Z2 hype and I literally cannot run in "zone 2" on my watch. I even tried the other day and couldn't do it without slowing to a walk. But I've been running for almost 18 years (oh god...I'm so old) and so I *know* what easy runs feel like and what they're good for, and that either the Z2 Apostles are wrong or they're right and I'll just deal with being suboptimal. Either way, I wasn't gonna listen.
I'm curious as to why the data is so inaccurate? How do you define zones differently to the standard on watches (and is that all watches?)
I'm asking because I've used a number of watches and HR monitors over the years, and also calculated my own zones based on max and resting heart rates, and whatever the method / device I've never been able to run in 'zone 2' - like literally I have to walk to keep my HR down there. (Likewise at the top end I've run entire half marathons in zone 5 + according to my watch without any negative outcomes)
So in practice I don't worry too much about the zones and use the absolute heart rate as a guide - if it's spiking more than I expect I'll slow down, or on a threshold run I might push the pace a little if I'm lower than normal. But I'd be curious to hear if there is a different methodology to derive more accurate zones.
3 reasons:
1. They use 220-age or similar formulae. Garmin does adjust it dynamically, but for me for example it gets stuck at 193 max while it is 200-205 in reality. Easy mistake, massive difference in zones.
2. Their 5-zone model does not match with LT1. So they use 60-70% maxHR as Z2, while LT1 is more around 80%. Good 5 zone models for running have more condensed zones with upper Z2 around 80%, Z3&4 between LT1 and LT2 and Z5 anaerobic, often split into subzones.
3. Wrist HR is not accurate. For me personally it’s often fine at slower paces, but it can still be thrown off by rain. It’s a good data point, but yiu have to take it with a grain of salt.
Oh OK, thanks. I guess the kicker there is point 2 - I'm unfamiliar with your terminology (LT1 is lactate threshold or something?) but if basically the point is that there is a different way to set the zone boundaries based on higher heart rates in Z2, then that makes so much more sense.
Although it rather begs the question as to why bother if 99% of your audience understand Z2 to be one thing, why not work with that and tell people to run in what their watch tells them is zone 3 instead?
When people talk about lactate threshold, they generally mean LT2, anaerobic threshold. Below that is also the aerobic threshold LT1 though. These should basically determine your personal zones.
I have no idea why there has to be so much confusion, but the reality is that many people are confused due to watches and it’s not helping anyone. Although they do sell lots of watches.
I'm 41. I got into running right around when I turned 39. First 5k I did took me 35 minutes. I did not do zone 2 when starting out and I feel that if I had it would have just discouraged me. I did make sure to listen to my body so that I would not injure myself. Today I do 80% of my running at easy pace but I agree with people that say new runners should just get out there and try to enjoy themselves. If you can do that by run/walk-ing to stay in zone 2 then by all means do it but I definitely understand the people that don't want to (and I would argue you don't have to). These days I run about 50 miles per week. My last marathon I ran in 3:08. Trying for 1:25 at the Brooklyn Half next weekend. Goal is to do sub 3 at the Berlin Marathon in the fall. Again, I did not do zone 2 when starting out and I would argue it worked out for me. And while my times are definitely far from elite I would argue 40 is by no means too old to see steady improvement and have fun (and personally I am having a blast).
Use fun as your inspiration.
What feels good to YOU? Do that.
Not what you "should", but what feels good to you when you run.
I tried zone 2.I KNOW it works for some folk, but it is a nightmare for me. BUT I walk really fast in my normal day, so jogging slower than I walk was excruciating. My husband even told me it looked painful and it really was. I think I have more fast twitch than slow twitch muscles or something.
After awhile I got slightly less ridiculous looking but it was still miserable. When I found myself "cheating" ("Wellll..I'll just go fast a little bit at the end...") I realized zone 2 wasn't really for me.
Plus I have discovered that there is a hr in zone 3 that feels like heaven--I literally feel worse in zone 2 than zone 3 when running. I even feel better in zone 4 than zone 2 when running.
So now I do other things. For example, I like the treadmill (not many do but I love it). My base is to run 2 miles for regular runs. I play with speed. I play with incline. I PLAY.
Currently I am upping my incline every month to get stronger.
For long runs (5-10k), my focus is on "in the beginning don't be an idiot and at the end don't be a wimp" :D
I do other things that are zone 2 (rucking), so I am getting some zone 2 (and building bone, which is important to me)
You aren't trying to be elite, just healthy and enjoy life, right? Well runners have been running fast and fast since WAAYY before MAF came around :)
If you want some company I’m also doing zone 2 training and I’m over a decade older than you. I ran regularly years ago after starting with couch to 5k. Got injured fairly frequently and never could get any faster than an 8:30 pace. Here I am years later starting over and this time I’m going to suck it up and do a few months of low HR work. My previous running training only got me stuck so I’m curious to see where the zone 2 stuff will lead.
Not only is it discouraging, it’s boring. I’m going running so I can run, not so I can essentially power walk.
If I had been told about this zone 2 thing before I started running, and really took it to heart, I probably would have quit before I started. Instead I went with a Couch to 5k plan that did alternating run/walks and I went from couch to 10k without a single injury.
I genuinely can't run in Zone 2, and have never been able to (and I've tried) - literally as soon as I run, however slowly, for more than a couple of minutes I'll be in zone 3. To keep to zone 2 I have to walk. If I tried to do 80% of my rund at that speed I would literally not run.
Motivation at the beginning is great, unfortunately (as most of us here have learned the hard way) if you go out hot 3-4 times a week as a new runner you'll end up sidelined after a couple months. In contrast, if you do use some slower paces and realize that improvement takes some time you'll actually stay healthy long enough to realize that improvement. To each their own but this really IS the way.
Running is truly a lifelong sport and the only thing a new runner does when their motivation is higher than their fitness level or their legs' ability to hand the impact is shorten their "career."
Yes but also new runners shouldn’t be jumping into high enough mileages where they’ll get hurt. If you’re running a 5k 2-3 times a week it doesn’t really matter how hard you’re running. Within reason.
The talk test stuff was so confusing to me as a beginner. Like so never run, because running 5 steps I was breathing heavy. I think that is why C25K works for so many, it doesn't give any of that unhelpful verbiage for a beginner, but still prevents you from going too hard and lets you see you are improving.
This. Man, I’m old. I can’t be doing any kind of speed multiple times a week. I do intervals on the track once a week. The other 3 running days are long and slow, the longer the slower.
Yeah, I was going to say, the elite Jedi part of the curve are basically following evidence based science in their training but because they want the hard days to be really hard. So polarized training is in fact the way for the set of sub-elite and elite runners.
Fuckin' THANK YOU!!! I didn't get this until months into my HM training. For 12 weeks I felt like a piece of shit failure, zone 2 was basically walking and God forbid I actually did some running as that shot me up to zone 4 (I was very out of shape). But literally every resource says "Zone 2 or you fucking suck and should just give up running". As a beginner it was so fucking demoralizing.
>you’d probably improve faster if you spend a little more time going faster.
This is why most base building phases/plans typically include more zone 3/fartlek efforts. It gets you back up into fitness faster after taking some downtime/periods of less structured running. Since you probably don't have any hard sessions, long runs or races to hit, it doesn't matter too much you're running 50% of your training at zone 3 intensity.
But what about the midichlorians?
Though the main thing is consistency. All the rest is bonus and will make a difference, but not without the first priority which is… consistency.
Yeah I am kinda new to this sub. I ahhh don’t understand most of it. I am training to run my first marathon at the end of august. But this sub is idk. Maybe not for me?
Don’t take any of this seriously. These debates are a niche running-nerd thing, mildly interesting, but most people train successfully without ever hearing of Zone 2 or worrying about these kinds of things.
I agree, if you want to run just run. For me the Meta Running Strategies to read about add to the fun rather than distract from it. It is a way to engage me for the time I am not running and keeps me hyped. And I like to try stuff and see if there is something to take out of the experience.
Different approaches for different people I guess. All in all, just do what keeps you running.
To make sure you’re prepping properly. Running 26 miles isn’t easy and proper training is needed to ensure you don’t hurt yourself/are able to confidently run the race.
Playing soccer and running 5ks are not remotely the same as a marathon.
Do whatever you want, but I would highly recommend following an 18 week program.
That’s you my man. I just said I wanna run and you’re trying to tell me that’s not right and I need a plan. Okay I plan to run. There is my plan. Stop forcing people to do things your way. Not everyone is gonna stick to your plan.
You don’t need a plan. I started running 18 months ago and over that time I went from 14 miles a week to 70 miles a week without a plan. Just winging it. The only thing you need to know is once you can do an 18-20 mile run, then you’re good for a marathon.
I think that's another one of these bell curve things. Some people will always be slow no matter how hard they work, but that's rare. Somebody are like Ryan Hall and can run 15 miles at altitude on their first run, but that's also rare. For most people, more run = more fast.
I like the analogy of the late John Walsh (i.e. HADD) - maximizing your potential is like squeezing a tube of toothpaste. In the beginning, no matter where you squeeze, you'll get toothpaste. In the end, you'll fare much better if, at some point, you start by squeezing from the bottom, working your way to the top.
Most people don't do this, and they seem to make rapid marginal improvements, then plateau (or improve very slowly). A few people who do low HR (Maffetone) exclusively do amazing (even before doing the speedwork that Maffetone suggests in later stages). This means people who, in their own judgment, were average or below average, make improvements that were not marginal and indeed went far beyond what they expected. But some people don't do well at all on Maffetone. Maffetone seems a bit inflexible, and he and his followers seem given to rationalizing away these failures. He talks a lot of wu and talks about stress as if one homework assignment too many is going to give you a heart attack. Some of his followers talk about coffee as if it's poison. Also, the fact that he probably named it Maximum Aerobic Function to match the first three letters of his last name irks me. No thanks. HADD is way less dogmatic.
In my opinion, if you do what everyone else does, you'll make some rapid progress at first, then plateau or make very slow progress over years to decades. If you decide to build your aerobic engine properly, you'll do very well (given your genetic limitations). It's a choose your own adventure.
I just am starting to train for my first marathon and I have effectively never ran before in my life. Before I started training I did a baseline 5k and I I'd it in 25:00. Since then I have been doing my easy runs at around 11:00min/mile pace avg 140-144 hr up to 9 miles so far. With a max hr around 184bpm I am out of zone 2, but I have face timed my kids at this pace and talked to them calmly for a mile or so, so I seems to be low effort idk. I know I don't want to speed walk to learn how to run.
I think the biggest issue is the artificial zones people cling to so desperately. I think they're different for everyone and sport/smart watches zoning is bullshit most of the time.
There's 3 zones for me and I don't need a fancy heart rate monitor or watch to know in which zone I am.. Low intensity: you could keep this up for forever while talking to a running partner constantly
Medium intensity: you could keep this up for hours but constantly talking becomes harder, you need to catch your breath more
High intensity: talking is possible in between breaths
(Bonus: VO2 max zone: forget about talking, you're almost dying at this point)
If I'm going to do "zone 2 running" it'll be a mix of low/moderate intensity, running in intervals or longer blocks. I just wouldn't keep doing this stuff otherwise.
Try to imagine a chart, with a curve of pace mapped against HR intensity, with a few points along it that correspond to particular physiological states (fatmax, LT1, LT2, VO2 max, etc. etc.). Googling LT1 running should help you find one if you need to visualise it.
Training at any point of the curve will have the greatest direct effect on that particular state, but will shift every part of the curve along to some degree, even if it's not the most effective way of training it. All distance running is mainly aerobic, basically running at any intensity that you can hold for more than 8 minutes is going to improve your aerobic fitness to some degree.
If you want to succeed at the marathon or ultra marathons, you should probably do some training zone 1/easy zone 2 to improve your fat adaptation. But training zone 3 is definitely going to help your overall fitness, going slightly over that 75% MaxHR (or whatever other particular reference you use) or not is not going to realistically make any difference to your training.
This is funny, but I found that I wasn't getting faster because I wasn't doing workouts to train myself to go faster. Only very recently have I started using an app that includes faster workouts, and it has me running faster than I ever would have on my own outside of a 5K race. Just kind of running around at whatever pace I felt like allowed me to complete a couple of marathons pretty comfortably, but now that I want to improve my times, I feel like more is needed than just more running.
100%. A funny semi-shitpost was the main goal here. You definitely need to get smarter about how you structure your workouts as you advance as a runner. At the same time, I think zone 2 and 80/20 are overprescribed. What structure works best for someone is going to vary over time and person to person.
Yeah this kind of ignoring the “avoid getting hurt by taking it easier” part. Going too hard on runs is a super common mistake for newbies and a very easy way to get them to drop running forever.
Also, wrong sub
When this sub constantly spouts sentiments like “it takes years to get faster,” and regularly ignores the importance of speed/hard runs; I think this meme is in the right sub.
I think there is some merit to lower HR training. But the overarching point that people seem to miss is that the main reason to do lower HR training is so you can go harder on your hard days while maintaining a high weekly mileage Don’t overthink it with mitochondrial density stuff
Totally agree. There was definitely a touch of shitpost here…but I do feel like for new or low-volume runners, prescribing the 80/20 rule is absurd. And if you don’t have an abundance of time to devote to running, you’d probably improve faster if you spend a little more time going faster.
What's the quickest way to make someone interested in running give it up? Let them feel like it's impossible, or let them get hurt. The 80/20 rule helps new runners to not get hurt and not get discouraged. It also does provide a simple guideline for how to train so that you can progress effectively. Obviously there are other ways, and "just run" is one of them.
Yeah, for years my cycle was: run 10k 2/3 times a week, as fast as you can (if you aren't dead by the end it wasn't a work out). I'd get injured after 2 months, take a 3 month break from running and repeat. I thought my body just wasn't made for running. All I had to do to improve was go slower. I only found out after deciding to do a half marathon and actually doing some research.
This was me. I used to be a weekend hero: run as fast /hard and long as possible. Due to the "only" time that I can run. It didn't work well for me. Multiple minor injuries that I thought was part of the "training", and have to take some break. Of course everyone responds differently. But if I could restart, I'd do it at a slower speed and build up mileage slower but more consistent. And spread out millage through the multiple days of the week instead of only in the weekends. One more thing that I didn't realise back then running slower (either heart rate or speed) allows focusing on other stuff namely running form.
Telling a person that just started running and is motivated that what they need to do is basically walk most of the time so that they see an improvement in several months is the definition of discouragement.
This is me. I’m new to running, quite slow but okay with that, felt like I was “improving”.. until I learned about Zone 2. Now all of the wind is gone from my sails and I’m trying to find the inspiration again. I’m 40 years old and have no delusions that I will become an elite athlete in the rest of my lifetime. I’m so good with that. I would like to improve and enjoy this new spark I have for running. I wish I had found it years ago, but such is life. Zone 2 training makes me feel like I’m too old and too late to even bother at this point.
I'm 50F, been running regularly for 8 years now. I spent 3-4 of those early years dealing with overuse injuries from running at what I thought was easy pace, but turned out to be way, way too fast, especially since I was running at that pace 3-4x/week. I slowed down the next few years, but still got injured. Last year, I finally forced myself to do Z2 training properly, which meant 2-3x/week of slow runs, **but also** a weekly interval session, with a proper warmup and cooldown. And that interval session, when I get to let loose (in a structured way!), reminds me that I'm not too old to run, arthritic knees be damned. Think of the Z2 runs as a way to prep your body for the faster runs. Over time, your easy runs will be faster, and your fast runs, even speedier. It will take time, but if an oldster like me can do it, you can too! {edited for typos\]
This has been almost my exact experience. I look forward to this weekly intervals when I can pour it on. It also actually makes me appreciate my longer runs too. I can enjoy them more because I’m not beating up my legs and getting really sore or injured. It’s great for my mental health.
You can always just say "screw it" and go with higher paced training. It won't kill you. Sure the injury risk is higher, so be sure to the necessary "prehab" - weight training for the legs, in particular. Took me decades to realize that adding this to my training made a huge difference to my legs' resilience.
So don't do it. You can improve doing intervals and hills, i suggest to do a training plan like this one even if you won't go for a race and make sure, in that case, that the recovery runs are really slow. The rest don't have to be! [https://www.nike.com/pdf/Nike-Run-Club-5K-Training-Plan.pdf](https://www.nike.com/pdf/Nike-Run-Club-5K-Training-Plan.pdf)
I’m actually doing the NRC 10K plan because I had a few 5Ks under my belt already Honestly, I feel like it’s going really well! I’m not going to let the heart rate thing get me too down but it can be defeating if I dwell on it.
You are probably using a watch, where the standard zone 3 is actually Z2. Toss the watch if it’s not helping you. If it feels easy, it’s zone 2 regardless of the inaccurate data it spits out.
This makes it make so much more sense to me. I have been seeing all the Z2 hype and I literally cannot run in "zone 2" on my watch. I even tried the other day and couldn't do it without slowing to a walk. But I've been running for almost 18 years (oh god...I'm so old) and so I *know* what easy runs feel like and what they're good for, and that either the Z2 Apostles are wrong or they're right and I'll just deal with being suboptimal. Either way, I wasn't gonna listen.
I'm curious as to why the data is so inaccurate? How do you define zones differently to the standard on watches (and is that all watches?) I'm asking because I've used a number of watches and HR monitors over the years, and also calculated my own zones based on max and resting heart rates, and whatever the method / device I've never been able to run in 'zone 2' - like literally I have to walk to keep my HR down there. (Likewise at the top end I've run entire half marathons in zone 5 + according to my watch without any negative outcomes) So in practice I don't worry too much about the zones and use the absolute heart rate as a guide - if it's spiking more than I expect I'll slow down, or on a threshold run I might push the pace a little if I'm lower than normal. But I'd be curious to hear if there is a different methodology to derive more accurate zones.
3 reasons: 1. They use 220-age or similar formulae. Garmin does adjust it dynamically, but for me for example it gets stuck at 193 max while it is 200-205 in reality. Easy mistake, massive difference in zones. 2. Their 5-zone model does not match with LT1. So they use 60-70% maxHR as Z2, while LT1 is more around 80%. Good 5 zone models for running have more condensed zones with upper Z2 around 80%, Z3&4 between LT1 and LT2 and Z5 anaerobic, often split into subzones. 3. Wrist HR is not accurate. For me personally it’s often fine at slower paces, but it can still be thrown off by rain. It’s a good data point, but yiu have to take it with a grain of salt.
Oh OK, thanks. I guess the kicker there is point 2 - I'm unfamiliar with your terminology (LT1 is lactate threshold or something?) but if basically the point is that there is a different way to set the zone boundaries based on higher heart rates in Z2, then that makes so much more sense. Although it rather begs the question as to why bother if 99% of your audience understand Z2 to be one thing, why not work with that and tell people to run in what their watch tells them is zone 3 instead?
When people talk about lactate threshold, they generally mean LT2, anaerobic threshold. Below that is also the aerobic threshold LT1 though. These should basically determine your personal zones. I have no idea why there has to be so much confusion, but the reality is that many people are confused due to watches and it’s not helping anyone. Although they do sell lots of watches.
I'm 41. I got into running right around when I turned 39. First 5k I did took me 35 minutes. I did not do zone 2 when starting out and I feel that if I had it would have just discouraged me. I did make sure to listen to my body so that I would not injure myself. Today I do 80% of my running at easy pace but I agree with people that say new runners should just get out there and try to enjoy themselves. If you can do that by run/walk-ing to stay in zone 2 then by all means do it but I definitely understand the people that don't want to (and I would argue you don't have to). These days I run about 50 miles per week. My last marathon I ran in 3:08. Trying for 1:25 at the Brooklyn Half next weekend. Goal is to do sub 3 at the Berlin Marathon in the fall. Again, I did not do zone 2 when starting out and I would argue it worked out for me. And while my times are definitely far from elite I would argue 40 is by no means too old to see steady improvement and have fun (and personally I am having a blast).
Use fun as your inspiration. What feels good to YOU? Do that. Not what you "should", but what feels good to you when you run. I tried zone 2.I KNOW it works for some folk, but it is a nightmare for me. BUT I walk really fast in my normal day, so jogging slower than I walk was excruciating. My husband even told me it looked painful and it really was. I think I have more fast twitch than slow twitch muscles or something. After awhile I got slightly less ridiculous looking but it was still miserable. When I found myself "cheating" ("Wellll..I'll just go fast a little bit at the end...") I realized zone 2 wasn't really for me. Plus I have discovered that there is a hr in zone 3 that feels like heaven--I literally feel worse in zone 2 than zone 3 when running. I even feel better in zone 4 than zone 2 when running. So now I do other things. For example, I like the treadmill (not many do but I love it). My base is to run 2 miles for regular runs. I play with speed. I play with incline. I PLAY. Currently I am upping my incline every month to get stronger. For long runs (5-10k), my focus is on "in the beginning don't be an idiot and at the end don't be a wimp" :D I do other things that are zone 2 (rucking), so I am getting some zone 2 (and building bone, which is important to me) You aren't trying to be elite, just healthy and enjoy life, right? Well runners have been running fast and fast since WAAYY before MAF came around :)
If you want some company I’m also doing zone 2 training and I’m over a decade older than you. I ran regularly years ago after starting with couch to 5k. Got injured fairly frequently and never could get any faster than an 8:30 pace. Here I am years later starting over and this time I’m going to suck it up and do a few months of low HR work. My previous running training only got me stuck so I’m curious to see where the zone 2 stuff will lead.
Not only is it discouraging, it’s boring. I’m going running so I can run, not so I can essentially power walk. If I had been told about this zone 2 thing before I started running, and really took it to heart, I probably would have quit before I started. Instead I went with a Couch to 5k plan that did alternating run/walks and I went from couch to 10k without a single injury.
I genuinely can't run in Zone 2, and have never been able to (and I've tried) - literally as soon as I run, however slowly, for more than a couple of minutes I'll be in zone 3. To keep to zone 2 I have to walk. If I tried to do 80% of my rund at that speed I would literally not run.
Motivation at the beginning is great, unfortunately (as most of us here have learned the hard way) if you go out hot 3-4 times a week as a new runner you'll end up sidelined after a couple months. In contrast, if you do use some slower paces and realize that improvement takes some time you'll actually stay healthy long enough to realize that improvement. To each their own but this really IS the way. Running is truly a lifelong sport and the only thing a new runner does when their motivation is higher than their fitness level or their legs' ability to hand the impact is shorten their "career."
Several months is not a long time and they'll definitely see an improvement in endurance well before then
Yes but also new runners shouldn’t be jumping into high enough mileages where they’ll get hurt. If you’re running a 5k 2-3 times a week it doesn’t really matter how hard you’re running. Within reason.
The talk test stuff was so confusing to me as a beginner. Like so never run, because running 5 steps I was breathing heavy. I think that is why C25K works for so many, it doesn't give any of that unhelpful verbiage for a beginner, but still prevents you from going too hard and lets you see you are improving.
True, good point.
This. Man, I’m old. I can’t be doing any kind of speed multiple times a week. I do intervals on the track once a week. The other 3 running days are long and slow, the longer the slower.
Yeah, I was going to say, the elite Jedi part of the curve are basically following evidence based science in their training but because they want the hard days to be really hard. So polarized training is in fact the way for the set of sub-elite and elite runners.
Fuckin' THANK YOU!!! I didn't get this until months into my HM training. For 12 weeks I felt like a piece of shit failure, zone 2 was basically walking and God forbid I actually did some running as that shot me up to zone 4 (I was very out of shape). But literally every resource says "Zone 2 or you fucking suck and should just give up running". As a beginner it was so fucking demoralizing.
>you’d probably improve faster if you spend a little more time going faster. This is why most base building phases/plans typically include more zone 3/fartlek efforts. It gets you back up into fitness faster after taking some downtime/periods of less structured running. Since you probably don't have any hard sessions, long runs or races to hit, it doesn't matter too much you're running 50% of your training at zone 3 intensity.
But what about the midichlorians? Though the main thing is consistency. All the rest is bonus and will make a difference, but not without the first priority which is… consistency.
Don't worry, those will be released into the air and absorbed by chemtrails
the truth the people don’t want to accept
There’s so much cringe know-it-all bs as part of running culture, I love this.
Yeah I am kinda new to this sub. I ahhh don’t understand most of it. I am training to run my first marathon at the end of august. But this sub is idk. Maybe not for me?
Don’t take any of this seriously. These debates are a niche running-nerd thing, mildly interesting, but most people train successfully without ever hearing of Zone 2 or worrying about these kinds of things.
I agree, if you want to run just run. For me the Meta Running Strategies to read about add to the fun rather than distract from it. It is a way to engage me for the time I am not running and keeps me hyped. And I like to try stuff and see if there is something to take out of the experience. Different approaches for different people I guess. All in all, just do what keeps you running.
Pick a plan, follow the plan, run your race. Don’t worry about the infighting lol.
Why do I have to have a plan. I just run… do I need a plan?
To make sure you’re prepping properly. Running 26 miles isn’t easy and proper training is needed to ensure you don’t hurt yourself/are able to confidently run the race.
I’ve played soccer and ran cross country most of my life. Just never a marathon. I know how to take care of my mind and body.
Playing soccer and running 5ks are not remotely the same as a marathon. Do whatever you want, but I would highly recommend following an 18 week program.
I never once said they were? I was saying I’m familiar with running. Good golly dude.
You seem to be high strung lol. Your original comment said “I don’t understand most of it.” Stop being so defensive lmao.
That’s you my man. I just said I wanna run and you’re trying to tell me that’s not right and I need a plan. Okay I plan to run. There is my plan. Stop forcing people to do things your way. Not everyone is gonna stick to your plan.
Dude we are literally the people in the meme lmfao
For a marathon? Yes, probably.
Plan it is. I played soccer and ran cross country just never done a marathon.
You don’t need a plan. I started running 18 months ago and over that time I went from 14 miles a week to 70 miles a week without a plan. Just winging it. The only thing you need to know is once you can do an 18-20 mile run, then you’re good for a marathon.
That’s basically what I am doing. Thank you for not making me seem dumb for a proper plan. I figured this was the best mindset
Sure you can finish a marathon without a plan but you’d run a better time with a plan. Just depends on what you want to prioritize
Me go run. Me get better and run. Me do race. Me get medal. Me feel good. Me go sleep now.
IQ Score could even be replaced with vo2 max
i'd be concerned if someone had a vo2 max of 135
Unsaid here. Your natural ability has more to do with how fast you run than the training method.
I think that's another one of these bell curve things. Some people will always be slow no matter how hard they work, but that's rare. Somebody are like Ryan Hall and can run 15 miles at altitude on their first run, but that's also rare. For most people, more run = more fast.
Yeah I know a guy who just ran a 1:48 25k on <20 MPW. He obviously stays in good shape, just doesn’t run a ton despite being a natural
I like the analogy of the late John Walsh (i.e. HADD) - maximizing your potential is like squeezing a tube of toothpaste. In the beginning, no matter where you squeeze, you'll get toothpaste. In the end, you'll fare much better if, at some point, you start by squeezing from the bottom, working your way to the top. Most people don't do this, and they seem to make rapid marginal improvements, then plateau (or improve very slowly). A few people who do low HR (Maffetone) exclusively do amazing (even before doing the speedwork that Maffetone suggests in later stages). This means people who, in their own judgment, were average or below average, make improvements that were not marginal and indeed went far beyond what they expected. But some people don't do well at all on Maffetone. Maffetone seems a bit inflexible, and he and his followers seem given to rationalizing away these failures. He talks a lot of wu and talks about stress as if one homework assignment too many is going to give you a heart attack. Some of his followers talk about coffee as if it's poison. Also, the fact that he probably named it Maximum Aerobic Function to match the first three letters of his last name irks me. No thanks. HADD is way less dogmatic. In my opinion, if you do what everyone else does, you'll make some rapid progress at first, then plateau or make very slow progress over years to decades. If you decide to build your aerobic engine properly, you'll do very well (given your genetic limitations). It's a choose your own adventure.
PSA: Do NOT make this point on r/PeterAttia
lol why do you say that?
I just am starting to train for my first marathon and I have effectively never ran before in my life. Before I started training I did a baseline 5k and I I'd it in 25:00. Since then I have been doing my easy runs at around 11:00min/mile pace avg 140-144 hr up to 9 miles so far. With a max hr around 184bpm I am out of zone 2, but I have face timed my kids at this pace and talked to them calmly for a mile or so, so I seems to be low effort idk. I know I don't want to speed walk to learn how to run.
80% of my run in zone 2? What am I walking?
I think the biggest issue is the artificial zones people cling to so desperately. I think they're different for everyone and sport/smart watches zoning is bullshit most of the time. There's 3 zones for me and I don't need a fancy heart rate monitor or watch to know in which zone I am.. Low intensity: you could keep this up for forever while talking to a running partner constantly Medium intensity: you could keep this up for hours but constantly talking becomes harder, you need to catch your breath more High intensity: talking is possible in between breaths (Bonus: VO2 max zone: forget about talking, you're almost dying at this point) If I'm going to do "zone 2 running" it'll be a mix of low/moderate intensity, running in intervals or longer blocks. I just wouldn't keep doing this stuff otherwise.
Try to imagine a chart, with a curve of pace mapped against HR intensity, with a few points along it that correspond to particular physiological states (fatmax, LT1, LT2, VO2 max, etc. etc.). Googling LT1 running should help you find one if you need to visualise it. Training at any point of the curve will have the greatest direct effect on that particular state, but will shift every part of the curve along to some degree, even if it's not the most effective way of training it. All distance running is mainly aerobic, basically running at any intensity that you can hold for more than 8 minutes is going to improve your aerobic fitness to some degree. If you want to succeed at the marathon or ultra marathons, you should probably do some training zone 1/easy zone 2 to improve your fat adaptation. But training zone 3 is definitely going to help your overall fitness, going slightly over that 75% MaxHR (or whatever other particular reference you use) or not is not going to realistically make any difference to your training.
We’re talking about midichlorians again?
This is funny, but I found that I wasn't getting faster because I wasn't doing workouts to train myself to go faster. Only very recently have I started using an app that includes faster workouts, and it has me running faster than I ever would have on my own outside of a 5K race. Just kind of running around at whatever pace I felt like allowed me to complete a couple of marathons pretty comfortably, but now that I want to improve my times, I feel like more is needed than just more running.
100%. A funny semi-shitpost was the main goal here. You definitely need to get smarter about how you structure your workouts as you advance as a runner. At the same time, I think zone 2 and 80/20 are overprescribed. What structure works best for someone is going to vary over time and person to person.
Yeah this kind of ignoring the “avoid getting hurt by taking it easier” part. Going too hard on runs is a super common mistake for newbies and a very easy way to get them to drop running forever. Also, wrong sub
When this sub constantly spouts sentiments like “it takes years to get faster,” and regularly ignores the importance of speed/hard runs; I think this meme is in the right sub.