Do Long Miles at Low Heart Rate Build a “Better Engine”?
Here’s a summary of a question from Chris D.: I overhear an accomplished triathlete (HI Ironman) giving advice to people who want to run a marathon to spend months running below a certain heart rate to “build a big engine”. “It’s all about aerobic capacity.” He states you will get faster and faster at that heart rate. Even if you are out in the heat (which as you know will elevate the heart rate), keep your heart rate low by walking if you have to. But keep it below the magical number. You can do speed work but only in the last 2-3 months before the marathon. He advocates no more than 40 miles per week but this is all directed at decently accomplished half-marathoners (sub-2:00). What exactly is the training effect of running at a low heart rate for several months doing say 30-40miles/week? Does it indeed build a better engine? I know it won’t help you run fast, but will it help you run a marathon or Ironman or similarly long distance event where you need to remain relatively deep in the comfort zone?
If I were to take the analogy of a big engine as posed - then 16-wheelers would be the fastest vehicles on the road. To take another angle, let’s say he is building a bigger “gas tank” with his advice. Again it fails because he may have a 15 gallon tank and I may have a 12 gallon tank but if he only gets 10 miles per gallon and I get 20 then he will get 150 miles on his tank and I will go 240.
Let’s start with some related research data on world-class marathoners:
The best correlation between finishing times and training was - average training workout pace.
That means that the runners with the fastest average overall workout paces ran the fastest marathons.
The fastest marathoners run up to 30% of their miles at about 10k pace or faster each week.
And for everyone who is not elite here is one tidbit: VO2max is a poorer predictor of actual performance (race times) than lactate threshold, vVO2max and even sprint times (50-300 meters depending on the research study) for distance runners!
Slow training at distances shorter than the marathon teach you to run slow for less than the marathon. Miles of training improve your ability to process oxygen (VO2max). However, VO2max is a poor predictor of performance. Heart rate is a worse predictor of performance - almost no correlation to running times. The critical training ingredients need to train you neuromuscularly (specific to distance and pace), improve lactate threshold and improve efficiency.
So, here is what needs to happen in your training. Teach your muscles to fire powerfully and economically (use less energy/oxygen); and improve your lactate threshold (LT) and vVO2max (good predictors of performance at most distances 800 meters and longer). The research is pretty good on the LT topic. You have to run faster than your LT to improve your LT, not at that pace or slower. vVO2max is a better predictive measure than VO2max (it includes efficiency elements). Improvement in power and race pace economy are attained through goal paced running (not slow jogging) and high powered paces (just a bit slower than 10k pace up through sprinting). Powerful muscles developed through high quality running and running specific plyometric type training which yields more muscle cells (not bulk). This means less cells are needed to maintain given paces. Strength gained at specific speeds is generally transferable to slower speeds but not vice versa.
To answer your specific questions: Running as an exercises (like cycling and swimming and aerobics) generally reduces resting heart rate and as you get in better condition your heart rate may end up lower for a given effort. There is no such thing as a magic heart rate number. Your marathon “comfort zone” will be improved through the process of conditioning. Yes, if you go from sedentary to moving, you will improve greatly at first just from running - easy OR fast. However, the more seasoned you become the less this is true and the key to improvement is in WHAT you do with the miles (increased percentage of quality miles) more than how many miles you run. Therefore, his advice is way off base for these sub-2:00 HM runners.
So let’s sum up how you get faster at the marathon (or half marathon):
1. Lactate threshold - a good predictor of performance - is improved through faster than LT pace.
2. vVO2max - a good predictor of performance - is improved through high quality training.
3. Efficiency is gained through progressively higher percentage of goal paced running (your actual target marathon pace).
4. Efficiency is gained through high quality running which flows down to all slower speeds.
5. Efficiency is gained through powerful muscles which is gained through fast running and plyometric type training.
6. Long runs improve your ability to run the distance.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = overall high quality training yields faster marathon times.
PS
Those long runs only have to be done every 2-3 weeks NOT every week!
Filed under: Races, Running, Science & Running, Training Effectiveness
The folks I typically propose this approach (low HR training - see - http://formationflier.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0) often do not suggest low mileage but HIGHER mileage.
Additionally (and let me disclose, I am not fully sold on this low HR, aka MAF approach), the thought is that you are building your aerobic system (which is 99 percent utilized in a marathon) with these low HR runs - instead of the anaerobic system.
The biggest proponent of this approach was Ironman legend, Mark Allen. Supposedly at the start of his base (or what he called his patience) phase he’d hold an aerobic run (sub 150 HR) at slow paces, but towards the end of this phase he’d get it to 5:20 mile pace. The thought is if you can build that base aerobically, then you will have a large foundation to build upon anaerobically.
Comment please!
GZ
George,
The higher mileage thing does not compensate for quality running and never will. I addressed the issue of aerobic (VO2max) in the original post. Line up runners in order of VO2max; run a marathon; your finish results will not be reflrected in that measure. On the other hand, line ups of LT, vVO2max and sprint times will be more representative of the finishing order. That just happens to be what the research says - many times over. Therefore, bottomline is building this VO2max engine is simply less effective (not totally useless mind you) way to train.
Of course no single run exists in a vacuum - i.e. ONLY improves VO2max, ONLY improves LT. Any running improves all systems but in vastly varying degrees depending on the pace. To optimize training, quality is the hands down scientifically supported way to train. Of course you need your long run for marathon training - it’s race specfic.
Your linked article is interesting. The science doesn’t fully support what is posed. Something to make the issue perhaps conceptually clearer is something like this: If you can run a specific distance (5k, 10k HM or marathon) then the issue isn’t endurance. You can indeed “endure” your race distance. If you want to go faster the issue is stamina - pace over distance. The most efficient way to improve times is quality training. Even beginner runners will progress faster with doses of quality instead of the old fashion “build a base lots of miles” approach.
The heart rate thing is nice for very beginners to use as a biofeedback tool to learn about efforts and their bodies (I even have one and use it occasionally). But it is absolutely a fact that there is no heart rate that corresponds to a marathon pace or time. Cardiac drift confounds this further. So, by strictly following a HR approach you automatically advise your runners to slow down as the race progresses. How can this make sense?
I like the way you worded your comment saying “the thought is…” The problem with some training programs is that they have developed anecdotally - “if it made Mark Allen that fast it must be the right way…” or “if an Olympian like Jeff Galloway says so it must be true.” I have nothing against sharing training approaches. There are as many out there are there are people. My stance when I hear these things from “elite athletes” is - yes, but I wonder how good you could have been had you trained on a scientfic approach? We’ll of course never know.
For my money I’ll put it on scientifically based approaches. As research discovers more… I’ll change with it. It is futile to argue a “belief”. On the other hand, scientific facts are fun to debate - not everything is black and white even in science.
I found another fine tidbit to consider in this debate. A study of adolescent Kenyan runners were compared with same aged Caucasian counterparts they ran at similar percentages of their VO2max. However, adult Kenyans ran marathons at a higher percentage of their VO2max than the Caucasions. “…close studies of Kenyan runners reveal that a key difference in their training… is the higher average intensity of each workout rather than the daily or weekly volume of training. Higher Average intensity builds stamina at higher intensities producing the situation in which Kenyans can cruise all their miles at a higher fraction of max (VO2).” Owen Anderson PhD.
Thanks Dean, this is uber helpful for me being someone who is looking to improve his marathon time.
Hi Dean,
As a newbie into the Mark Allen training scheme, I would like to add my two cents. For background, I’m a 11 time Ironman veteran and former age group world champ in Hawaii. I wanted to add to your commentary by stating that Mark Allen is training long distance TRIathletes…i.e. he’s training people for success over a 10-hr duration, not just a 3hr marathon. So, with his approach of building the aerobic engine, his athletes are dialed in to preserve glycogen and burn fat for fuel, thus helping them survive to the end of a 10+hr event. Plus, as soon as that aerobic engine has been properly developed, he loads you up 3 times a week (1 in each discipline) with supra-threshold high intensity work, and encourages all-out running races as a component of the build for an Ironman. I just don’t want your readers to think his methods are faulty, because from what I can tell, they are pretty darn good! My next race will tell the truth…I can’t wait to see what happens : ).
Great to hear from you Diana. I understand the premise of his training. It’s the same basis as was in the 1960s of developing long slow distance (LSD) base then adding quality work later on. I never called his methods “faulty”. They do get results. My emphasis however is on cutting edge research based training. His does not fall within what is currently found within research.
Of course, you need a high level of endurance to “endure” 10 or 12 or more hours of competing. The research overwhelimingly shows that you’ll get there faster, and with fewer miles/hours with quality running infused fromt he start. The research is also showing similar results for cycling and swimming! So as for being a TRIathlete, it doesn’t hold water with the research.
My best example is of a friend and colleague who followed the traditional triathlete approach. At the end of his 11 hour Ironman, he told me very simply - “I wish I had listened to you, I could have run the marathon at least 30 minutes faster … but I listened to the heart rate like I was warned so many times and as I had trained… I ended up slower than what I was c apable of.”
I know this is only one, anecdotal example, but it is exactly what the research has told us. No more, no less. Again, it doesn’t mean you won’t get results with that appraoch. The point is and my emphasis is to be efficient with your training so that you can reduce the volume AND maintain the same OR BETTER results since VOLUME of training - NOT intensity is the number one predictor of injury.
My hat is off to you endeavoring to conquer the Ironman! I love it!
Hi Dean,
This is the second post that has been linked by Runner’s World online editors (ironic given the name-change experience you mention elsewhere). Many, many posters on the discussion board there scoff at your assertions (I think without reading your complete post) regarding LSD. The situation becomes like arguing religion, where people are so devoted to their point of view they become blinded to a contrary finding, evidence notwithstanding. I would assume that you do not advocate eliminating LSD from training cycles, rather the studies you have read suggest that it should not be the central component. What does LSD accomplish, then, in your opinion–particularly for experienced runners?
Adam,
You hit it on the head it’s like arguing religion. I will never convince LSD advocates… and that is ok. (I read some responses - they bore me. I heard every argument back int he 70s and early 80s when I actually believed it too. You see, I’ve been there and done that… 100+ mile weeks… Lydiard-ho!)
You are also right, they haven’t kept everything in context. There should indeed be longer slower runs for marathoners about every 2 to 3 weeks. That is exactly how you gain endurance. On the other weeks you infuse goal paced long runs that are slightly shorter than those LSD runs. If you race distances then you should have long runs as part of your diet - seasoned runner or novice for general endurance, connective tissue strengthening as well as aerobic conditioning. The big differences are the fact that “base” training is no longer just a bunch of mindless miles as once advocated… i.e. those 1000 mile summers. And, speed work (in varying forms) is advocated year round. And finally the percentage of quality is far higher and faster than previously advocated. Forms of quality running have been found to improve measures formerly solely atttributed to distance running - like VO2max.
I like the one comment about my not quoting all the sources. He’s right. I don’t Why? Space and readability. I would just say - go read Bilat, Rusko, Anderson for a few… their research tell sit all. I try to simplify the research from respected sources.. not repeat what the research states verbatim.
Any disparaging remarks about Owen Anderson I take exception to. He is dedicated, thorough, unbiased, balanced in his research reviews and assessments. He has no agenda (like selling a product). It is unfortunate that because someone disagrees with a point of view OR interpretation of research that a personal attack would be made.
Coach Dean
Hey Dean. Interesting post on building a better engine. I’ve got your website linked to my high school team’s XC running website and hope they read some of your stuff. As for building a better engine … what about summer training for fall XC season. I tell all my athletes (and write them out a formal plan) that 90% of your summer miles should be slow and easy. I usually offer up one hard day a week in June and mid-July, leading up to two hard days per week in late July through August. Racing season here in Michigan begins in September leading up to the state finals in the first week of November. I’ve had luck with this approach and had great success, but am i getting the most from my athletes with this philosphy? Should I be pushing more hard days in the summer training regimen??
Preparing for x-c is unique. It requires strength and power as well as varied terrain. Just adding more miles isn’t the most effiecient way to do this. Decrasing the percentage of speed work is ok this tie of year. The trade off should be increasing speed-strength and hill work. High school x-c is no longer than 5k and at this age, lots of miles and lots of long runs are not indicated. Though this is a time to relax and recuperate from spring track you’ll still want to keep up-tempo runs - do not make the mistake of letting runners lose all that wonderful speed they gained during track!
So, here is what I recommend - trail running (even slow) will build x-c specific strength. Infuse into the summer training - hill work (uphill reps AND downhill reps); use circuit training (400 @ 5k pace then a set of 4-5 different exercises between and then repeat 4-8 times without rests between) and each week or even every other week some kind of quality work. Finally as I’m sure you’ve found, it’s really important with this age group to keep interest with variety. I like to camoufalge quality runs within games (tag, Indian lines, follow the leader lines, etc.).
Thanks Dean. I’ve often pushed for a “break” after track season (of course I”m the track coach too) of 2-3 weeks but I’m seriously re-considering it. We focus on trail running even in track to reduce the pounding and stress and I rarely have injured runners. so, like you said, “don’t lose all that wonderful speed they gained.” As long as its lower key running, I’m not pushing a break after track season this year for my experienced runners. I also like the 400’s with core strength stuff. And, of course variety always plays a role with the youngsters - obstacle courses, treasure hunts, etc… fun stuff. Thanks again.
I’m excited, but I seem to have a mental block in putting all this into a exercise program. For me, running is my morning devotional time, 7.2 miles non-stop in the early morning darkness. I want to qualify for Boston, 50 miles a week should be enough, right? So now I’ve got to figure out what it is that you are talking about and make a training schedule out of it.
Karl,
The answer of course is maybe yes and maybe no. Just doing miles each day will not get you to Boston. Just doing a progressively longer long run will not get you to Boston. Creating schedules that work and that are customized can be daunting. I guess that’s why there are so many coaches out there… including myself. If you need some help visit my coaching page for some details - I’ll be happy to help you out.
You’re looking for answers and that’s a good thing. Have fun and good luck on your road to Boston.
Coach Dean,
I think the other part of this and any advice to a runner is you have to look at what type of runner you are dealing with. If you were to give Tyson Gay a plan to get to marathoning it would look very different than the plan for Ryan Hall. Tyson Gay might need an LSD type plan since he thrives on a real high kick/lactate threshold probably where as Ryan Hall probably needs speed work as his stamina is more than equal to the task. Obviously these are straw men to be knocked down but I think a blanket training program even one with science behind it needs a lot of modification to the skills mental and physical of the individual athlete.
Joshua,
You are correct that ALL programs need to be tailored tot he individual. That is why runners who want to really make all they can of their programs consult or hire a professional coach.
There is absolutely no such thing as a blanket program that works for everyone. That is my main knock on all these download-16-week-marathon-miracle programs - unless you have quite an extensive background on HOW to tailor them - they are not all they are cracked up to be.
On the other hand… there are scientifically supported approaches that work for all… even if the workouts themselves differ. But something to note… the research has not been kind to LSD approaches regardless of the athlete - experienced, sedentary or otherwise. It continues to be anecdotal evidence that supports it.. So, even for Tyson… I would approach it differently.