Question for runners about long runs

Your long runs, where you try to increase the distance week by week, should be pretty much the slowest runs in your plan. look at a site like McMillan running.com which helps you figure out pace ranges for various intensity and length workouts.

Not at all, pace doesn't matter as much as actually making the distance. But to increase pace and distance you definitely need to have a training plan that incorporates interval and endurance runs as well as long runs and tempo runs

mom2kateRH wrote: »

I'm trying to increase my mileage, and also trying to be smarter about my training. Today, I used a heart rate monitor, and paid attention to that, rather than pace. Since this was my long run for the week, I targeted a HR zone of 3 (aeroobic training, about 60% mhr, can still talk).

I ignored my pace, but felt slow. That being said, last week, I struggled to complete three miles. Today, I easily did 3.5, and could have definitely gone longer, but 1) had to pee 2) was getting super hot out

My pace, when I reviewed my records, was around 13 minute mile, when I've typically been running around 11-12.

Should I be disappointed in the pace, or is this appropriate for my weekly long runs where I'm trying to increase distance? I also do interval training once/week, and a run of a comfortable distance (right now around 1.5-2 miles) where I push the pace slightly.

Anyway, not yet training for anything specific. Hoping to get where I can think about a half marathon

Assuming you are a newer runner based on your mileage, be very careful with speed type training. There's no reason to push the pace for the first 6-12 months as your body adapts to the stress of running. Increasing distance along will make you faster.

Sounds like you are doing good so far.

Have you ever heard of the 180 - age formula?

https://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

This is good to improve your base aerobic fitness level. You can do it for long distances, and I have been doing this lately.

I also do trail running on hilly trails which keeps my heart in zone 5 (90 to 100 %) for almost an hour some times. And I do power walk / run intervals as well. In between intense workouts I do long power walk from 5 to 10 miles for recovery.

Another maffetone-ism. Put on a mask and run at night. Most of my training is done at 11-12 min miles. I ran a 9 mile event with almost 1000' of elevation gain and squeaked out like 8:45 min miles. I hadn't run that fast in a long time, I felt great and had plenty left in the tank.

I'm of the opinion most of us dont need such things as intervals, speed training and tempo runs.

mom2kateRH wrote: »

I usually get out early AM. I'm in NC, so summers do get hot.

I'm in Texas where the low temp at night is often in the 80s. The TM is not for everyone, but it works for me.

Philtex wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

Training and suffering in the summer makes the fall/winter/spring runs go awesome.

Sorry, but I run for fun and suffering isn't fun. I get the same bounce in the Fall when I get to run outside again.

Well, it all depends on your definition of suffering. I find the heat and humidity miserable... but at the same time, I'd rather not run than try to cover 10 miles on a treadmill, so i'll pick the heat and humidity version of suffering. Because not doing long runs in the summer isn't an option.

mom2kateRH wrote: »

I'm trying to increase my mileage, and also trying to be smarter about my training. Today, I used a heart rate monitor, and paid attention to that, rather than pace. Since this was my long run for the week, I targeted a HR zone of 3 (aeroobic training, about 60% mhr, can still talk).

I ignored my pace, but felt slow. That being said, last week, I struggled to complete three miles. Today, I easily did 3.5, and could have definitely gone longer, but 1) had to pee 2) was getting super hot out

My pace, when I reviewed my records, was around 13 minute mile, when I've typically been running around 11-12.

Should I be disappointed in the pace, or is this appropriate for my weekly long runs where I'm trying to increase distance? I also do interval training once/week, and a run of a comfortable distance (right now around 1.5-2 miles) where I push the pace slightly.

Anyway, not yet training for anything specific. Hoping to get where I can think about a half marathon

Don't use standard HR settings on such a watch! Only about 40% of people fall into the 220-age equation. That means, for 60 people out of 100 this equation does not work as their maximum heartrate is either higher or lower.

Now, determining your maxHR is very difficult if you're not fit enough yet. And it's still very difficult for experienced runners. What I would do is this:

slow run: you can still talk in full, coherent sentences or sing along to music (provided you have a bit of fitness already)
intermediate run: you can still talk
fast: talking? You're trying to breathe and keep on going!

with this in mind you can calibrate the watch to your specific heartrate zone. You will also notice that if you repeat your run a while later at the same pace your heartrate will likely be lower. Such a watch is great for observing trends!

mom2kateRH wrote: »

I'm trying to increase my mileage, and also trying to be smarter about my training. Today, I used a heart rate monitor, and paid attention to that, rather than pace. Since this was my long run for the week, I targeted a HR zone of 3 (aeroobic training, about 60% mhr, can still talk).

I ignored my pace, but felt slow. That being said, last week, I struggled to complete three miles. Today, I easily did 3.5, and could have definitely gone longer, but 1) had to pee 2) was getting super hot out

My pace, when I reviewed my records, was around 13 minute mile, when I've typically been running around 11-12.

Should I be disappointed in the pace, or is this appropriate for my weekly long runs where I'm trying to increase distance? I also do interval training once/week, and a run of a comfortable distance (right now around 1.5-2 miles) where I push the pace slightly.

Anyway, not yet training for anything specific. Hoping to get where I can think about a half marathon

For $30 a year the app Endomondo is great and creates custom training plans based on your needs and current weekly mileage. It also links up with MFP which is a plus

yirara wrote: »

bcalvanese wrote: »

Sounds like you are doing good so far.

Have you ever heard of the 180 - age formula?

https://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

This is good to improve your base aerobic fitness level. You can do it for long distances, and I have been doing this lately.

I also do trail running on hilly trails which keeps my heart in zone 5 (90 to 100 %) for almost an hour some times. And I do power walk / run intervals as well. In between intense workouts I do long power walk from 5 to 10 miles for recovery.

Sorry, no, it's not! A substantial amount of people will have such a heartrate when just walking. you don't build running endurance when walking as the movement and way to use your muscles, tendons and other parts completely differently. Those people are not sick, they just have a high maximum heartrate. On the other hand, a substantial amount of people have a very low natural maximum heartrate. They'd need to sprint to get there. Sorry, but Maffeton completely ignores the natural variation in maxHR.

It sounds like you are arguing variations in max heart rate invalidate Maffetone's "180 formula." I would argue that max heart rate doesn't matter. But, which TYPES of muscle fibers you are training does matter. And I think Maffetone and his "180 formula" covers more than a majority of the population if you feel there is benefit to working out your slow twitch muscle fibers.

If you have a high heart rate when walking that means you haven't really trained your slow twitch muscle fibers. That can range from people who live a very sedentary life to crossfitters. Think about the variation in max heart rate between those 2 types of people! Or even within each example.

yirara wrote: »

ronocnikral wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

bcalvanese wrote: »

Sounds like you are doing good so far.

Have you ever heard of the 180 - age formula?

https://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

This is good to improve your base aerobic fitness level. You can do it for long distances, and I have been doing this lately.

I also do trail running on hilly trails which keeps my heart in zone 5 (90 to 100 %) for almost an hour some times. And I do power walk / run intervals as well. In between intense workouts I do long power walk from 5 to 10 miles for recovery.

Sorry, no, it's not! A substantial amount of people will have such a heartrate when just walking. you don't build running endurance when walking as the movement and way to use your muscles, tendons and other parts completely differently. Those people are not sick, they just have a high maximum heartrate. On the other hand, a substantial amount of people have a very low natural maximum heartrate. They'd need to sprint to get there. Sorry, but Maffeton completely ignores the natural variation in maxHR.

It sounds like you are arguing variations in max heart rate invalidate Maffetone's "180 formula." I would argue that max heart rate doesn't matter. But, which TYPES of muscle fibers you are training does matter. And I think Maffetone and his "180 formula" covers more than a majority of the population if you feel there is benefit to working out your slow twitch muscle fibers.

If you have a high heart rate when walking that means you haven't really trained your slow twitch muscle fibers. That can range from people who live a very sedentary life to crossfitters. Think about the variation in max heart rate between those 2 types of people! Or even within each example.

I've been running for a substantial amount of years now. My slowest run HR is around 165, rising to about 170 after a while. That's just what it is for me, yet Maffeton would give me 140 max. That might not be quite walking for me, but lets me honest: I walk an awful lot, and it has zero influence on my ability to run. Been there, tried it. Yes, I agree that my maxHR is very high, but that's just what it is. I mean, I can do a sprint at quite a bit over 200. On the other hand there are ample papers that show that only about 40% of all people fall into +/- 10 heartbeats within the 220-age equation.

On the other hand a friend of mine only reaches a heartrate of around 145 when going full out. Following this method she'd need to go pretty much full out on every long and slow run, considering she's 39.

So, have you read Maffetone's book? Nothing has changed since the early 90's and you can get his "training for endurance" pretty cheap. There are many other books you could read including an old physiology text book from a medical school.

It's fine if you want to train a different way, but you shouldn't blatantly state something should be ignored based anecdotal evidence.

yirara wrote: »

mom2kateRH wrote: »

I'm trying to increase my mileage, and also trying to be smarter about my training. Today, I used a heart rate monitor, and paid attention to that, rather than pace. Since this was my long run for the week, I targeted a HR zone of 3 (aeroobic training, about 60% mhr, can still talk).

I ignored my pace, but felt slow. That being said, last week, I struggled to complete three miles. Today, I easily did 3.5, and could have definitely gone longer, but 1) had to pee 2) was getting super hot out

My pace, when I reviewed my records, was around 13 minute mile, when I've typically been running around 11-12.

Should I be disappointed in the pace, or is this appropriate for my weekly long runs where I'm trying to increase distance? I also do interval training once/week, and a run of a comfortable distance (right now around 1.5-2 miles) where I push the pace slightly.

Anyway, not yet training for anything specific. Hoping to get where I can think about a half marathon

Don't use standard HR settings on such a watch! Only about 40% of people fall into the 220-age equation. That means, for 60 people out of 100 this equation does not work as their maximum heartrate is either higher or lower.

Now, determining your maxHR is very difficult if you're not fit enough yet. And it's still very difficult for experienced runners. What I would do is this:

slow run: you can still talk in full, coherent sentences or sing along to music (provided you have a bit of fitness already)
intermediate run: you can still talk
fast: talking? You're trying to breathe and keep on going!

with this in mind you can calibrate the watch to your specific heartrate zone. You will also notice that if you repeat your run a while later at the same pace your heartrate will likely be lower. Such a watch is great for observing trends!

Although some people have a different max heart rate than the 220 - age formula, the vast majority of the population fall within a few beats per minute of the formula. And it is certainly a good starting place for the majority of people.

mom2kateRH wrote: »

I'm trying to increase my mileage, and also trying to be smarter about my training. Today, I used a heart rate monitor, and paid attention to that, rather than pace. Since this was my long run for the week, I targeted a HR zone of 3 (aeroobic training, about 60% mhr, can still talk).

I ignored my pace, but felt slow. That being said, last week, I struggled to complete three miles. Today, I easily did 3.5, and could have definitely gone longer, but 1) had to pee 2) was getting super hot out

My pace, when I reviewed my records, was around 13 minute mile, when I've typically been running around 11-12.

Should I be disappointed in the pace, or is this appropriate for my weekly long runs where I'm trying to increase distance? I also do interval training once/week, and a run of a comfortable distance (right now around 1.5-2 miles) where I push the pace slightly.

Anyway, not yet training for anything specific. Hoping to get where I can think about a half marathon

Bet you didn't think you'd open such a discussion with your question, eh? You'll get as many different answers to your question as there are runners.

My suggestion is to invest in a running book/program written by a knowledgable author. Jeff Galloway and Jack Daniels are my two favorites. Galloway has a variety of books available covering a variety of different distances and programs. Galloway is a former Olympian, has a very down to earth style and speaks from years of experience in running a variety of distances.

Daniels' Running Formula is in its 3rd edition and is excellent as well. Daniels has substantial experience in running, coaching runners and researching running and its effects on the body. He can get a bit more technical than most people care to read, but has some great information and programs for those just starting out to seasoned marathoners.

FWIW, my Easy runs, while I don't really pay attention to pace while I'm running, end up being about the same as yours in distance and pace. I also use an HR monitor and run according to what it reads, keeping my hr between 65-75% of my max.