[James Malloch]

Good news is that some new shoes and some supportive insoles seem to be doing the trick, touch wood! I’ve ran (without any walk) for longer than 15 mins for the first time in about 5 years anyway! It’s nice to be moving again!

That’s brilliant. I’ve been really lucky with injuries but went over on my (already bad) ankle in June and it’s been very unstable/weak since. Seeing a podiatrist next week (Colin Papworth who is well known in Sheffield). I run in 5 different shoes so I’m hoping he doesn’t tell me I have to chuck them all away and buy some stability shoes!

I never got an actual diagnosis, but this was a last attempt to try and correct the way i was landing. Stiff shoes and some insoles to correct overpronation - the way i was landing was causing a fast change of angle in my ankle due to not landing straight.

I changed shoes and how i ran at the same times of the insoles, so not sure if any aspect if helping more than others, but for now I’ll take the benefits that seem to be happening.

I was surprised how many of the shoes which I’d been “fit” for looked awful when i was videoed on a treadmill.

I hope your appointment goes well!

[chriss]

Glad you are getting there, running injuries suck.... RE heartrate on the watch, you do wear it past the wrist bone (heading towards the elbow) You probably do, but thought I'd mention it.

I also have 4 road & 3 trail pairs of shoes, but they cross over (2 are due to be retired). It helps with injury prevention as it's a different foot strike with each pair. Essentially the only 'bad strike' is over striding.

[steveri]

The only pair of shoes I’ve not really got on with was when I was persuaded I needed stability shoes!

I was chatting to a mate at the fell relays who reckons he does most of his training in zone 2. Other people have tried to sell this to me in the past …except Frank is regularly top 5 in local races. Anyone else?

[James Malloch]

The only pair of shoes I’ve not really got on with was when I was persuaded I needed stability shoes!

I was chatting to a mate at the fell relays who reckons he does most of his training in zone 2. Other people have tried to sell this to me in the past …except Frank is regularly top 5 in local races. Anyone else?

I’m always surprised at how slow friends who do long races do in their regular runs. They said that sticking in zone 2 does wonders for their endurance and means they can do more runs as it takes less out of them.

Though I’ve no clue about any of that kind of thing…

[turnipturned]

I did the BGR this year and my three rules of thumb seemed to work well.

1. 80:20  i.e. 80% of my weekly run was Z2 with 20% speed/ intervals.

2. Don’t increase mileage for the 15% per week

3. Easy runs on tired legs

Took me a while to get used to running slowly (Z2) , but once I did, I really started to enjoyed it, you can think, connect and take in the environment much betters.

(*ps I know very little about training)

The only pair of shoes I’ve not really got on with was when I was persuaded I needed stability shoes!

I was chatting to a mate at the fell relays who reckons he does most of his training in zone 2. Other people have tried to sell this to me in the past …except Frank is regularly top 5 in local races. Anyone else?

[edshakey]

I was chatting to a mate at the fell relays who reckons he does most of his training in zone 2. Other people have tried to sell this to me in the past …except Frank is regularly top 5 in local races. Anyone else?

I also know someone who is regularly top 5 locally, who also trains z2 mostly. He was explaining it (something he read in a book) as keeping your HR in z2 burns fat supplies, so is sustainable for longer races. If your HR is in z3+, then you're using carbs, which normally causes a bit of a crash after 90-120 mins. [I don't perfectly recall what he said, so this might be slightly or totally false, pinch of salt, etc.] So fine if you're racing that time or less, but anyone looking at longer races probably wants to work on lowering heart rate during training runs. Apparently aggressively training this was very tedious and involved lots of walking, but something's working, he's having a great year results-wise.

I've also heard Emile Caress talk about this on a podcast, how he and many other elites do most of their training at very easy pace, and then just mix in some high intensity sessions - much like Dan's 80/20 idea above. I believe this strategy also has something to do with keeping your legs relatively fresh so the high intensity sessions are also high quality, whereas if you are constantly thrashing yourself, you won't be able to do a really good speed/hill session because your body is just knackered before you begin.
My one reservation with this is that it would appear to work for professional athletes, since they have the time to do 15+ slow miles every day, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be the right strategy for someone more time-poor, who maybe only gets to run 3 times a week. Maybe that person should be running harder in the sessions they can actually manage to fit in? This is just conjecture really though, I wouldn't be surprised if easy running could be a fundamental part of anyone's training plan.

[Stabbsy]

I did the BGR this year and my three rules of thumb seemed to work well.

1. 80:20  i.e. 80% of my weekly run was Z2 with 20% speed/ intervals.

2. Don’t increase mileage for the 15% per week

3. Easy runs on tired legs

Took me a while to get used to running slowly (Z2) , but once I did, I really started to enjoyed it, you can think, connect and take in the environment much betters.

(*ps I know very little about training)

There’s probably a longer post about this, but basically what Dan said.

There’s been numerous Science of Sport podcasts on it. I think this one was maybe the most accessible.

https://shows.acast.com/realscienceofsport/episodes/how-the-pros-train-and-what-we-can-learn-from-it

[chriss]

Lot's of runner's local to me work with a coach that does everything via heart rate, all of them have had good results knocking out regular PB's. This includes  seasoned & fast runner's, not just newish people.

Again it focuses on low intensity, with say 2 quality session a week. I've trained a similar, but less scientific way & had good results. As mentioned it helps with fat adaption, you are also able to train more consistently which is the name of the game.

Few years ago I went to a talk with said coach & London marathon winner Mike Gratton. He said best improvements were running every day, the next step being twice a day. I guess this approach is for the dedication amateur, but standard for the elite. From memory Steve Jones used to just run hard all the time, the Ingebrigtsens mainly run at tempo.

[steveri]

My one reservation with this is that it would appear to work for professional athletes, since they have the time to do 15+ slow miles every day, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be the right strategy for someone more time-poor, who maybe only gets to run 3 times a week.

Mm, I get the theory but that's exactly my fear. I don't run anywhere near daily and less now I'm prioritising climbing more. Given I don't need much excuse to be lazy, I'm worried I might forget to try hard. Still if I can get a decent xc season that's guaranteed effort.

[Stabbsy]

N+1 etc., but I went from 5 runs a week with 2 sessions (1 speed, 1 threshold) and a weekend long run that was harder than easy to 5 runs a week all easy except one session and a few strides during one of the easies and improved dramatically at longer distances. My 5k time hardly changed.

[T_B]

My tuppence worth based on personal observations and spending a lot of time following the training of sub-elites. Caveat: I am shit at running and have never run more than 60km pw.

There’s loads of evidence for 80/20 but my view is it does not apply to the casual climber-runner who is running sub 5 hours per week. Even less so for anyone who cannot run faster than a 45-minute 10K.

1. The whole idea is to tolerate more volume and that will get you fitter. I reckon to run 80% Z2 you need to be running at least 60km/5 times per week and even then you only have 12km of faster work or 1 run realistically. If you’re running 30-40km pw and most of that is easy you will not get faster.

2. ‘Long Slow Run’ is a myth unless you’re quite fit. Even at a very slow pace your heart rate climbs as you become more fatigued so what might start off as Z2 can end at top end of Z3.

3. In my opinion you need to be at least a sub 22 minute 5k runner to run 80% at Z2. Otherwise your true easy effort is so slow that it’s only possible on flat roads. So any slower fell/trail runner is going to be running at a higher effort than ‘true’ Z2.

4. You need to train race effort. Plodding around then expecting to run 1 - 2 minutes faster per km in a race is unrealistic.*

5. Some runners perform very well off natural talent and low mileage.

6. Consistency is a better thing to focus on than 80/20 for average/slow runners.

*If you have good natural form and are experienced i.e. know what effort whatever the distance is you’re racing then this may be less true.

[duncan]

My tuppence worth based on personal observations and spending a lot of time following the training of sub-elites. Caveat: I am shit at running and have never run more than 60km pw.

There’s loads of evidence for 80/20 but my view is it does not apply to the casual climber-runner who is running sub 5 hours per week. Even less so for anyone who cannot run faster than a 45-minute 10K.

1. The whole idea is to tolerate more volume and that will get you fitter. I reckon to run 80% Z2 you need to be running at least 60km/5 times per week and even then you only have 12km of faster work or 1 run realistically. If you’re running 30-40km pw and most of that is easy you will not get faster.

2. ‘Long Slow Run’ is a myth unless you’re quite fit. Even at a very slow pace your heart rate climbs as you become more fatigued so what might start off as Z2 can end at top end of Z3.

3. In my opinion you need to be at least a sub 22 minute 5k runner to run 80% at Z2. Otherwise your true easy effort is so slow that it’s only possible on flat roads. So any slower fell/trail runner is going to be running at a higher effort than ‘true’ Z2.

4. You need to train race effort. Plodding around then expecting to run 1 - 2 minutes faster per km in a race is unrealistic.*

5. Some runners perform very well off natural talent and low mileage.

6. Consistency is a better thing to focus on than 80/20 for average/slow runners.

*If you have good natural form and are experienced i.e. know what effort whatever the distance is you’re racing then this may be less true.

T_B has run the London marathon so he's not completely shit at running! I am completely shit at running but I built up to 5km consistently and 8-9km on a good day a few years ago before a knackered ankle and hip and the after-effects of covid put paid to it.

From my n=1 I agree with the main point about z2 not applying to shufflers like me. My z2 is a brisk walk which I've done plenty of for 50+ years; my running would never have progressed if 80% of my training was walking. The other points seem pretty sound too, especially the one about consistency (so, by implication, not getting injured).

I wonder if this also applies to ARC/aerobic capacity training for punter-climbers?

[edshakey]

The other points seem pretty sound too, especially the one about consistency (so, by implication, not getting injured).

I'd have said the 80/20 split might lend itself to less injury, no? Given a certain amount of time running per week, running more of it at a slower pace sound less injury provoking than running at consistently high effort.

[Paul B]

I wonder if this also applies to ARC/aerobic capacity training for punter-climbers?

I'd be massively surprised if it doesn't. Imagine spending 80% of a limited time commitment per week simply traversing around in the Foundry corridor and expecting endurance improvements 

I've been lucky enough this summer to take a break between work and the improvement I've seen in my own (cycling) has been ridiculously marked (and a lot easier to 'measure'). It probably fell well into 80/20 in that 80% of the time I was mooching around by msyelf/with Nat and 20% of the time I was trying desperately to not get dropped by a much stronger UKBer. My takeaway from this going forward is to adopt the Mark Katz mantra of "do something".

[Stabbsy]

From my n=1 I agree with the main point about z2 not applying to shufflers like me. My z2 is a brisk walk which I've done plenty of for 50+ years; my running would never have progressed if 80% of my training was walking. The other points seem pretty sound too, especially the one about consistency (so, by implication, not getting injured).

I struggle with the logic behind this, although that’s not to say it isn’t right. Given it’s a relative to fitness level, why would it be different for different fitness levels? One thought might be that Z2 is not that well defined. In my case, I mean 80-90% of lactate threshold. If I defined it in terms of max heart rate as a lot of websites do, it would be lower in my case. Maybe that’s part of the difference?

Tom - on your long slow run point, yes agree that you get HR drift with fatigue. However, I set the pace at the start and maintain that pace/effort and just expect the HR to drift. I don’t see this as a problem.

[jwi]

I struggle with the logic behind this, although that’s not to say it isn’t right. Given it’s a relative to fitness level, why would it be different for different fitness levels? [...]

One of the most established and important principles of training is that the effect is vastly different from one person to the next.

All training should be based on the individual's preparedness, age, gender, etc... It is well established that the result of an intervention, even in fairly homogeneous groups, is vastly different.

(As an aside, a long time ago I used to share an office with a world-class bi-athlete, and asked him how to train for endurance. According to him, if you had only one session a week that session should be interval training.)

[T_B]

Neil -

My threshold HR is about 170bpm and I tend to think of my Z2 topping out at 153bpm.

The point I was trying to make is I can run flat roads ‘easy’ or around 148-150bpm at a pace you might describe as jogging. If I run a flattish loop off road as gently as possible, but without walking, I struggle to keep my HR below 153bpm.

I see better runners doing ‘easy’ runs on the fells/trails but back to Steve’s original post I can’t see how the slower runner can realistically run 80% at Z2 without being very disciplined about flat road running.

Regarding the long runs, if you end up working quite hard later in the run as you fatigue it’s not ‘Long Slow Easy’ is it?

[duncan]

I'd have said the 80/20 split might lend itself to less injury, no? Given a certain amount of time running per week, running more of it at a slower pace sound less injury provoking than running at consistently high effort.

Don't listen to me about running, I have minimal command of the physiology and less experience. Right on cue though here is an article from the BJSM on long slow training which supports your idea:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2023/10/23/the-error-of-easy-running-in-terms-of-stroke-volume-response-to-exercise-or-why-peter-coe-was-right/
TL/DR: running slower enables you to do more training distance.

It’s definitely true for my climbing but I am a better climber than runner. I can manage something like zone 2 climbing for ages and ages (I know they are not exactly equivalent, but let’s say TRing a 5+ whilst chatting away happily and not getting pumped). I do quite a bit of this it's been good in that I don't get injured and it helps trad. onsighting and multipitch. Sport redpointing not so much...
 
Unfortunately barely jogging (zone 1 speed) elicits a zone 3 heart response, >70% MHR, and I get short of breath. If I went any slower to lower my HR I’d be walking. I can't do long slow, only short slow.

5. Some runners perform very well off natural talent and low mileage.

Was talking with a good friend today who said she’d just “accidentally” run a half marathon this morning. She swims and goes to the gym regularly which I know includes a few minutes of treadmill or static bike but never runs on the road. She was on holiday, couldn't get to a gym, so went for a jog. She’s in her 50s...

[SA Chris]

T_B has run the London marathon so he's not completely shit at running!

Not saying T_B is shit, but this isn't an indicator!

[SA Chris]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/oct/27/harvey-lewis-ultramarathon-backyard-championship

This is just batshit bonkers.

[James Malloch]

I managed to injure my adductor the other day doing some faster intervals. I wanted to join the local club but can’t manage their distances yet, so joined the interval session instead.

As is standard for me, whilst reining it in I still overdid it on the sprints. The next few runs I only got 50m from the house before having to stop.

After a few days it settles down, so I’ve started doing some adductor exercises. Main one is a band around the table leg and pulling it with the injured leg across my body and past my other foot.

Seems to be going okay at the moment and I’ve increased the band resistance today. Does this seem like a sensible approach? Plans to have a very light jog in a few days if things are still improving and see how it feels.

I’d normally book in with a physio but things are busy at the moment so just going by feel for now…

[slab_happy]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/oct/27/harvey-lewis-ultramarathon-backyard-championship

This is just batshit bonkers.

I mean, Laz invented the Barkley Marathons (which the article manages to avoid mentioning directly), so I don't know what else you'd expect from him.

[SA Chris]

Different game to the BMs though. This is more akin to the old dance marathons or the original Running Man story. 5 days of 15 minute catnaps at most.

[Durbs]

I've just started on a Garmin training plan, partly to better my 5k PB (Currently 25:19, target of 22:30), partly to actually have a plan to get me out the door, and partly cos I'm getting tubby.

The overall plan is lots of easy runs, some long, some shorter, mixed in with some strides, and then some "pace runs", i.e. 400m at target pace, then 5 minutes at  a chilled pace.

Only in week 1, and ended up getting Norovirus, but Garmin at least seem to subscribe to the "lots of slow pace" as a key to success.

Shall report back on "race day" some time in January.

[SA Chris]

If you want to burn calories and lose weight, long and easy worked for me. When I did marathon training I was nearly a stone lighter than I usually am, come race day. And if you can, time runs so you can eat a meal when you get home, as I am usually really hungry after a few hours out on the road, and will eat anything I get my hands on as i walk in the door.