That's interesting because now your training zones (in %) are similar to the Norwegian Olympic Committee 5 zone model. This model tends to be the one better appropriate for well trained individuals. However, you mentionned using 75/78% % of MHR at the beginning for your top end zone 2. This is more similar to the 5 zone model we see everywhere with Zone 2 below 75% MHR. Your article makes this point pretty clear : 5 zones model is interesting, but the percentages are changing depending on your fitness level, training history...
Really appreciate to read your blog post ! Have you found some correlations between between bigger than usual improvements and new training interventions (examples could be doing more volume on the bike, adding strength training, adding hill reps, fueling more ...) ?
thank you Alexandre, much appreciated. In terms of making progress: I looked into this in the past, trying to understand for example which hard sessions would make me progress more, or the impact of volume, and eventually I would feel fairly confident to say that in my case it doesn't really matter. What I mean is that what really matters are 1) high volume (nothing as high as what I actually do, even just 80-90 km / week are enough 2) consistency of intensity (any hard session, just done well and consistently, will make me progress. If I run less or if I am unable to run hard for a few weeks, then I will start to get slower and slower. Eventually I do a lot more volume because I need it for my main goal (marathon to 100 km), but for shorter distances, it doesn't matter, I could do with less. This is also why my sessions are always the same, I do not really need to entertain myself with different sessions, I always do e.g. 8 x 3' hard as VO2max, and 4-5 x 2000m as threshold, then 20-30 km tempo, these are the three workouts that I know keep getting me better and better if I can keep them up consistently, in the context of the races I target. Makes sense? This is probably also due to my level, which is quite average, and to the fact that the sessions are quite "massive", either very hard or long and hard, and therefore the stimulus is meaningful. Just some thoughts .. I did manage to do well also when biking a lot, which surprised me (discussed here: https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/cross-training-experiment-expectations and here: https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/amsterdam-marathon-training-and-race), while I never noticed the effect of strength training (even though I keep doing some, but I am of the opinion that running lots of trails and hills is more useful for running and provides somewhat similar stimuli). Feel free to share your experience, always curious to learn as these are things we don't really know or understand well from the limited studies we have. Thanks!
I have been training 20h avg weekly for 6/7 years, with trail running + road biking + Strength training and here what I have seen over this period :
- Volume is key, but I can manage to train mostly in Zone 2, even low Z3 in hills, without accumulating too much fatigue, as long as I am eating a lot !
- Strength training is helpful in my case when I do not do enough steep hills with power hiking. If I just run a lot, I feel better with 1 strength training focusing on step up exercises per week, and 1 for upper body / core. If I do more, I can not train well !
- Cross training is key in my case as I am doing only ultra events. Sometimes you can feel really tired after doing 2/3 long days on the trails and the next day you can feel pretty good on your bike. It's like shifting the neuromuscular work helps me a lot, despite the same metabolic cost...
- Eating during training is also key. If I tried to play a bit and wait until I feel a bit empty before eating during training longer than 2h, I feel it the days after.
- Power Hiking in steep terrain with poles helps me also a lot to develop strength and muscular endurance. I do not feel the same effect working on the bike or running uphill. The higher the elevation gain weekly, the stronger I feel.
- I avoid to do VO2 max block. I can not recover properly if I want to keep training volume high. Instead, doing an anaerobic workout like 8 to 10 times 30s all out up hill gives me a big boost (every 7 or 10 days).
- For long event working on durability is key. I don't think it's as important for shorter event like the marathon. And for durability the stronger you are (in a broader sense) the more durable you are in my opinion...
- If I do not like the training I do, I am not improving. If I like what I do, do not follow a strict plan, and are flexible by listening to my body and mood, I improve way more.
thank you Alexandre! I can relate with a lot what you say here in terms of fueling during training, cross-training and volume, thank you for taking the time, really appreciate it
Great information in this article! Thank you for sharing.
I have a question! 🙋
I performed a heart-rate drift test, which indicates that 140 BPM is the top of zone 2 for me. I find running at this heart rate for an hour to be quite uncomfortable! I even find it hard to speak in complete sentences at a heart-rate of 130-135. My ventilatory indicators and RPE seem very much out of sync with my heart-rate data.
I’m not a strong runner (a 10 minute/mile pace will put my heart-rate at 140 within 10-20 minutes), so the phenomenon of fitter athletes needing to do more of their “easy” volume in zone 1 is very unlikely to be at play here.
Here is my question: I am a heavier person at 185cm, 90kg, sub 10% body fat. Could the increased mechanical load required to run at this body-weight be the reason that the top of zone 2 feels so hard to me?
It seems like the only way I can run at the frequency I enjoy is to do almost all of my runs—other than speed work—in zone 1.
In your opinion, should I do all my “easy” runs in zone 1, and push the pace in my medium and longer aerobic runs towards the top of zone 2, even if it makes those routine aerobic runs feel like fatiguing workouts? Or should I keep ALL of my volume work at whatever pace feels easy, even if it is very much below the top of zone 2?
I would first try to double-check the 140 bpm with other methods as possible (e.g. an actual lactate measurement after long steps like 6-8 minutes at low intensities and gradually increasing), or even simpler methods to see if it's ballpark accurate (e.g. if you know your heart rate max, see how far you get with e.g. 75% of it).
Then assuming the 140 bpm is correct, your reasoning makes sense to me (e.g. being heavier there is more mechanical load and it can be harder to run top end zone 2 with respect to zone 1). The training to do will depend on your history, goal race, etc. - for example, for 'general fitness' (e.g. you are not trying to get better at the marathon, but you use running to stay fit and healthy), then I would polarize training more (as you also suggest), e.g. spend your easy runs in what we can call zone 1, and then do your workouts at higher intensities, otherwise zone2 becomes a sorf of middle ground for you, fatiguing but not hard enough to give you the benefits of a workout (plus, injury risk might be higher).
If your goal was to run a marathon faster though, then it is likely that you'd need to spend time at that intensity as well, gradually over time, as training gets more specific (just an example, but you see what I'm saying here, the type of training depends on what you have done earlier, your current capacity and your future goals).
I hope this helps a bit and all the best for your training!
Your substack is fascinating, really informative. I had some lactate testing done in the lab but am not quite sure how to interrupt the results. Do you offer some type of review that could help me out?
thank you Peter, much appreciated. At the moment we offer consultancy services only for data collected with our tools (e.g. HRV related). If you have some generic questions, I could try to answer here. All the best in the meantime!
Hi Marco, thanks for sharing the plot of heart rate distribution!
Is this showing the average heart rate for each activity or does it take into account heart rate distribution within activities? (ex. a track workout with warmup + cooldown may have a 150bpm avg heart rate for the activity with spikes of high intensity that are not captured by looking at the average)
Thanks Johnny! I used only averages here, but I split my workouts in three activities on Strava, so the main set has high heart rate (I normally do relatively short and quick recoveries between hard reps). Still an approximation, with some underestimations, but a decent overview I think
Hi Marco, your Substack is really very interesting, congratulations for your extensive in-depth work. I observe and study your data with great interest but I reflected on the fact that I personally mainly participate in trail races and certainly the heart rate zones and metabolic responses are different from road races. Thanks a lot again !
Hi Marco, very interesting article, thank you ! Do you include only running activites in your total amount of training or also lifestyle trainings (commuting by foot or bike, hiking, swimming...) ? Is it important to track this lifestyle activites with wareables ?
Thanks! I log only training, which is mostly running and cycling for me (and strength training). The other activities are part of daily life, and the more movement the better, but I don’t track it and I don’t think it’s important to track it with a wearable.
Hi Marco,
That's interesting because now your training zones (in %) are similar to the Norwegian Olympic Committee 5 zone model. This model tends to be the one better appropriate for well trained individuals. However, you mentionned using 75/78% % of MHR at the beginning for your top end zone 2. This is more similar to the 5 zone model we see everywhere with Zone 2 below 75% MHR. Your article makes this point pretty clear : 5 zones model is interesting, but the percentages are changing depending on your fitness level, training history...
Really appreciate to read your blog post ! Have you found some correlations between between bigger than usual improvements and new training interventions (examples could be doing more volume on the bike, adding strength training, adding hill reps, fueling more ...) ?
thank you Alexandre, much appreciated. In terms of making progress: I looked into this in the past, trying to understand for example which hard sessions would make me progress more, or the impact of volume, and eventually I would feel fairly confident to say that in my case it doesn't really matter. What I mean is that what really matters are 1) high volume (nothing as high as what I actually do, even just 80-90 km / week are enough 2) consistency of intensity (any hard session, just done well and consistently, will make me progress. If I run less or if I am unable to run hard for a few weeks, then I will start to get slower and slower. Eventually I do a lot more volume because I need it for my main goal (marathon to 100 km), but for shorter distances, it doesn't matter, I could do with less. This is also why my sessions are always the same, I do not really need to entertain myself with different sessions, I always do e.g. 8 x 3' hard as VO2max, and 4-5 x 2000m as threshold, then 20-30 km tempo, these are the three workouts that I know keep getting me better and better if I can keep them up consistently, in the context of the races I target. Makes sense? This is probably also due to my level, which is quite average, and to the fact that the sessions are quite "massive", either very hard or long and hard, and therefore the stimulus is meaningful. Just some thoughts .. I did manage to do well also when biking a lot, which surprised me (discussed here: https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/cross-training-experiment-expectations and here: https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/amsterdam-marathon-training-and-race), while I never noticed the effect of strength training (even though I keep doing some, but I am of the opinion that running lots of trails and hills is more useful for running and provides somewhat similar stimuli). Feel free to share your experience, always curious to learn as these are things we don't really know or understand well from the limited studies we have. Thanks!
Thanks Marco for all the details.
I have been training 20h avg weekly for 6/7 years, with trail running + road biking + Strength training and here what I have seen over this period :
- Volume is key, but I can manage to train mostly in Zone 2, even low Z3 in hills, without accumulating too much fatigue, as long as I am eating a lot !
- Strength training is helpful in my case when I do not do enough steep hills with power hiking. If I just run a lot, I feel better with 1 strength training focusing on step up exercises per week, and 1 for upper body / core. If I do more, I can not train well !
- Cross training is key in my case as I am doing only ultra events. Sometimes you can feel really tired after doing 2/3 long days on the trails and the next day you can feel pretty good on your bike. It's like shifting the neuromuscular work helps me a lot, despite the same metabolic cost...
- Eating during training is also key. If I tried to play a bit and wait until I feel a bit empty before eating during training longer than 2h, I feel it the days after.
- Power Hiking in steep terrain with poles helps me also a lot to develop strength and muscular endurance. I do not feel the same effect working on the bike or running uphill. The higher the elevation gain weekly, the stronger I feel.
- I avoid to do VO2 max block. I can not recover properly if I want to keep training volume high. Instead, doing an anaerobic workout like 8 to 10 times 30s all out up hill gives me a big boost (every 7 or 10 days).
- For long event working on durability is key. I don't think it's as important for shorter event like the marathon. And for durability the stronger you are (in a broader sense) the more durable you are in my opinion...
- If I do not like the training I do, I am not improving. If I like what I do, do not follow a strict plan, and are flexible by listening to my body and mood, I improve way more.
This is what I can share about my experience !
thank you Alexandre! I can relate with a lot what you say here in terms of fueling during training, cross-training and volume, thank you for taking the time, really appreciate it
Great information in this article! Thank you for sharing.
I have a question! 🙋
I performed a heart-rate drift test, which indicates that 140 BPM is the top of zone 2 for me. I find running at this heart rate for an hour to be quite uncomfortable! I even find it hard to speak in complete sentences at a heart-rate of 130-135. My ventilatory indicators and RPE seem very much out of sync with my heart-rate data.
I’m not a strong runner (a 10 minute/mile pace will put my heart-rate at 140 within 10-20 minutes), so the phenomenon of fitter athletes needing to do more of their “easy” volume in zone 1 is very unlikely to be at play here.
Here is my question: I am a heavier person at 185cm, 90kg, sub 10% body fat. Could the increased mechanical load required to run at this body-weight be the reason that the top of zone 2 feels so hard to me?
It seems like the only way I can run at the frequency I enjoy is to do almost all of my runs—other than speed work—in zone 1.
In your opinion, should I do all my “easy” runs in zone 1, and push the pace in my medium and longer aerobic runs towards the top of zone 2, even if it makes those routine aerobic runs feel like fatiguing workouts? Or should I keep ALL of my volume work at whatever pace feels easy, even if it is very much below the top of zone 2?
thank you Ian.
I would first try to double-check the 140 bpm with other methods as possible (e.g. an actual lactate measurement after long steps like 6-8 minutes at low intensities and gradually increasing), or even simpler methods to see if it's ballpark accurate (e.g. if you know your heart rate max, see how far you get with e.g. 75% of it).
Then assuming the 140 bpm is correct, your reasoning makes sense to me (e.g. being heavier there is more mechanical load and it can be harder to run top end zone 2 with respect to zone 1). The training to do will depend on your history, goal race, etc. - for example, for 'general fitness' (e.g. you are not trying to get better at the marathon, but you use running to stay fit and healthy), then I would polarize training more (as you also suggest), e.g. spend your easy runs in what we can call zone 1, and then do your workouts at higher intensities, otherwise zone2 becomes a sorf of middle ground for you, fatiguing but not hard enough to give you the benefits of a workout (plus, injury risk might be higher).
If your goal was to run a marathon faster though, then it is likely that you'd need to spend time at that intensity as well, gradually over time, as training gets more specific (just an example, but you see what I'm saying here, the type of training depends on what you have done earlier, your current capacity and your future goals).
I hope this helps a bit and all the best for your training!
Hi Marco,
Your substack is fascinating, really informative. I had some lactate testing done in the lab but am not quite sure how to interrupt the results. Do you offer some type of review that could help me out?
thank you Peter, much appreciated. At the moment we offer consultancy services only for data collected with our tools (e.g. HRV related). If you have some generic questions, I could try to answer here. All the best in the meantime!
Hi Marco, thanks for sharing the plot of heart rate distribution!
Is this showing the average heart rate for each activity or does it take into account heart rate distribution within activities? (ex. a track workout with warmup + cooldown may have a 150bpm avg heart rate for the activity with spikes of high intensity that are not captured by looking at the average)
Thanks Johnny! I used only averages here, but I split my workouts in three activities on Strava, so the main set has high heart rate (I normally do relatively short and quick recoveries between hard reps). Still an approximation, with some underestimations, but a decent overview I think
Hi Marco, your Substack is really very interesting, congratulations for your extensive in-depth work. I observe and study your data with great interest but I reflected on the fact that I personally mainly participate in trail races and certainly the heart rate zones and metabolic responses are different from road races. Thanks a lot again !
thank you Leonardo! And indeed good point
Hi Marco, very interesting article, thank you ! Do you include only running activites in your total amount of training or also lifestyle trainings (commuting by foot or bike, hiking, swimming...) ? Is it important to track this lifestyle activites with wareables ?
Thanks! I log only training, which is mostly running and cycling for me (and strength training). The other activities are part of daily life, and the more movement the better, but I don’t track it and I don’t think it’s important to track it with a wearable.