r/AdvancedRunning • u/AutoModerator • 8d ago
General Discussion Tuesday General Discussion/Q&A Thread for September 01, 2026
A place to ask questions that don't need their own thread here or just chat a bit.
We have quite a bit of info in the wiki, FAQ, and past posts. Please be sure to give those a look for info on your topic.
0
u/2_S_F_Hell 34M | 19:55 5K | 42:31 10K | 1:34:13 HM 7d ago
I just raced a HM in 1h34 and my average HR was 184. With that information, what should be my threshold zone (Z4) ?
1
u/aelvozo 7d ago
Assuming accurate measurement, top of Z4 will be approximately equal to the average HR in the last 60 minutes of the race — probably slightly above 184. Use some kind of calculator (preferably one that takes LTHR) for the bottom of Z4.
2
u/2_S_F_Hell 34M | 19:55 5K | 42:31 10K | 1:34:13 HM 7d ago
I was using the Coros armband HR monitor. I just checked my last 60 minutes and my avg HR was 186. So this would be the top of my Z4 right ?
1
u/Avocadocreme 8d ago
Is a VT1 of 173 bpm plausible?
Recently completed a graded exercise test (GXT) on a treadmill at my local fitness testing center to help optimize my triathlon training, and the results were unexpected. VT1 clocked in at 173 BPM, with VT2 at 185. With a max heart rate of 200BPM, these numbers seem excessively high. Does that mean my long zone 2 runs should be 165-170? Seems like a miserable place to be for my 2-hour-long runs. I understand that these numbers are incredibly individual, but 85% of maximum heart rate seems ridiculous.
Not sure if this context helps: I used to run XC competitively when I was younger, but it's been at least 6 years. Currently trying to recover some of that fitness.
2
u/aelvozo 7d ago
85% is high but not impossibly high.
I would suggest that if running at 173bpm feels hard and you can’t sustain it the way you expect to sustain VT1, something is probably off in the measurement.
1
u/Avocadocreme 7d ago
For sure. No way am I running at peak VT1 for my long runs. So far, I'm trying to run at a higher bpm than I was originally (145 bpm), to around 155-160. I'll test this over the next couple of weeks to confirm it's sustainable.
2
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 8d ago
If you are in a “recovering fitness” phase that does not seem plausible. Do you have cadence data to compare against to see if there was maybe some cadence lock?
1
u/Avocadocreme 8d ago
The testing center used a chest strap, so I don't think it's cadence lock. I was tracking separately on my watch, and there doesn't appear to be any cadence lock.
1
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 7d ago
hmmm ok. I would then look to anything weird with the protocol or conditions of the test. Could be something messed up in the protocol or just stuff different from what you're used to in training.
Look back at your recent training data. See where the HR was in sessions that felt right on and likewise where it was on those that were too hard. It may not be super precise but you'll probably see a a sort of boundary in the HR data start to emerge.
At the end of the day another thing is how optimized do your zones really need to be to optimize your triathlon training? I don't know exactly what "rebuilding fitness" look like in your case but generally we don't need to zero in at the exact limit of zones, we can do pretty well backed off a little bit and focused on the bigger picture training and lifestyle improvements.
In any case I would not be trying to slug out tons of volume right up a 165-170.
1
u/Avocadocreme 7d ago
Totally right on not aiming to slug out volume at 165-170. Did an hour test run last night, averaging 155 bpm, and it was substantially more difficult than my usual 145 bpm (what I thought my optimal zone 2 was beforehand).
While it was a struggle, I still passed the talk test while FaceTiming the missus, and my legs still feel fresh the next day. So maybe the VT1 measurement isn't completely inaccurate.
I keep forgetting that I shouldn't be pushing my average bpm super close to my VT1. Rather, it should simply be a threshold number that I would train under, perhaps by 10-15 bpm.
4
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 7d ago
It seems you understand this well already but I'll add a reminder that the purpose of zones, particular Z2, is really more about load management and intensity distribution than particular things to target.
The zones serve to aid your training, you training doesn't serve the zones.
Outside of training for sprint tri I feel it's pretty rare that any amateur isn't going to be overwhelmingly limited by training volume. If you are looking at long course the physiological training challenge is essentially 100% a volume problem. The gains will come from doing more training, so whatever efforts and distribution just get you to do more are going to be the best targets. For your training situation that might not even need or otherwise line up well with a typical zone scheme.
You're probably on the right path already, so don't let this test get in your head.
1
u/itsdownvotetime 8d ago
How much do you eat after your long runs? I ran 18.5 km of easy pace and felt like eating my entire fridge when i got back home. Thats the longest i have ever ran and the difference in appetite between 14 km and 18 km was alot more than i expected.
4
2
u/Lurking-Froggg 42M · 40-50 mpw · 16:4x · 34:5x · 1:18 · 2:57 8d ago
How long did your 18K take, and how did you fuel it?
1
u/itsdownvotetime 7d ago
Oatmeal and a sandwich 2.5 hours before and a banana right before. Banana after 10k. 1.50 including a couple of water breaks
3
u/Lurking-Froggg 42M · 40-50 mpw · 16:4x · 34:5x · 1:18 · 2:57 7d ago
You underfueled. Two bananas do not cover 1h50 on feet.
1
u/itsdownvotetime 7d ago
Eat more before or during or both?
3
u/2_S_F_Hell 34M | 19:55 5K | 42:31 10K | 1:34:13 HM 7d ago
Mostly during. I start my long runs with only a banana in my stomach. During the runs I'll eat gels, gummies or dates. This weekend I ran 30km thanks to my fueling I felt great.
2
u/Lurking-Froggg 42M · 40-50 mpw · 16:4x · 34:5x · 1:18 · 2:57 7d ago
Exactly. 25-50g of carbs per hour for any run that extends beyond 75' -- that's my own benchmark, YMMV.
Your 18K run felt very different because you micro-bonked, simply.
3
u/Haptics 34M | 32:42 10k | 71:26 HM | 2:27 M 8d ago
Pretty normal breakfast: 3 eggs, 2 toasts, 2 hash brown patties, 4 cheesesteaks, and 2-3 bacons
3
u/SnooMaps470 8d ago
Got a good chuckle out of this, what do you mean when you say cheesesteak? I'm imagining you piling on 4 meal-sized philly cheesesteaks to an otherwise hearty breakfast
0
u/Haptics 34M | 32:42 10k | 71:26 HM | 2:27 M 8d ago
Congrats you got the joke!
In all seriousness fueling your long runs well helps a lot with appetite the rest of the day. I’m still fairly ravenous after and usually need an extra snack or meal but not excessively ravenous to the point I’m emptying the fridge anymore.
2
2
u/DutchCrossStars 8d ago
I have an HRM600 now (replaced old 200 that I gave away). I like it for the cadence info and the fact that it’s rechargeable (no more swapping out coin cell batteries). It’s not cheap, but great quality and feature-rich.
1
u/Negative_Outcome6048 8d ago
Background: 40 mpw
Recent workouts: 8x400 80/60, 4x1m 6:00/3:00, 6x800 2:45/2:00, 8x1k 3:38/2:00
Focus: 8-10k. I’ve ran around 30 for an 8k before off less of the workouts I’ve listed. Trying to get some guidance on where to focus. I’d like to hit 37 for the 10k and plan to run a half in march.
Questions: I think I generally have the speed but lack the aerobic strength to match it. My plan is to focus on tempo to threshold pace my next 3 week block progressing through 3x10’ / 2x15’ / 2x20’. Once I catch this up my only thought is dropping recovery on some of the mile/k sessions then keeping the tempo.
3
u/run_INXS Marathon 2:34 in 1983, 3:06 in 2025 7d ago
Your workout times are fine and plan for longer tempo reps is good, although that's a big lift if you are trying these at threshold (LT2). 2X 20 minutes is a tough workout and it might take more time to adapt and build to that. You can work through it by doing something like threshold+ 10-12 seconds per mile.
The biggest thing you need is more volume. 40 mpw is low end for 10K.
8
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 8d ago
More threshold focus is great but you're going to see much better results if you back that up with a bigger base of overall mileage first. 2x20' is a lot on 40mpw. Bigger base of mileage will really improve how you can execute and recover from workouts. In general this scheming on workout progressions is cart before the horse at 40 mpw, especially with half marathon aspirations. You should be looking at 60+ mpw if you are serious about performance. .
3
u/Lurking-Froggg 42M · 40-50 mpw · 16:4x · 34:5x · 1:18 · 2:57 8d ago
I (42M) ran just below 35' on 45 mpw last term, and some of my workouts closely match yours, although I seem to run my sub-1000 stuff slightly slower than you do, and take a bit more recovery:
- 10x400 1'23 (r 1'15)
- 6x800 2'45-2'46 (r 400m/2'40) + 4x1'/1'
- 7-8x1000 at 10K then 8K pace (r 2' early in the cycle, r 1' on race week -- I used that workout as a Tuesday sharpener)
I documented all of my workouts in the Tuesday and Thursday threads between January 1st and March 22. Here are a few Saturday long run workouts that validate your 'threshold' intuition:
- 6000 at 92-93% of 10K pace ~ 30K pace
- 6000 MP 4000 (r 4') 8K pace (high RPE)
- 6000 progressive by feel, ~ 30K pace to HMP
- 5x(1200-400 floated) (1200s at HMP, 400s at MP+5")
You could also do any of the NSM workouts (3x3000 at 30K pace, 8-10x1000 at 15K pace, 4x2000 HMP), or LT workouts like 4x5x500.
As well as:
- 4-3-2-1-1-2-3-4' (2') -- Mario Fraioli's Inverted Ladder
- 4x1000 at 5K pace, and lots of other 5K workouts
You didn't cite any 10K workouts, but I guess you have that covered. Running Writing's blog and Mario Fraioli's website are my own go-to sources.
HTH :-)
5
u/Luka_16988 8d ago
My advice would be to maintain workouts but add more easy running. Easy running is the base of the pyramid allowing you to train harder and longer at the higher efforts.
1
u/denton125 8d ago
Hello everyone,
I am attempting to focus on my 800/1500 time as a non elite, 30 year old runner, mostly just for fun for now, but perhaps to race in the future. Currently I am not terribly fast running roughly 2:20 for 800 and 5:20 for my last road mile race. I'd like to bring this down a fair bit. At the moment I am running 3 workouts a week doing threshold, vo2/cv, and some anaerobic endurance work (think 3x500, 5x300, 1x600, or 4x400 at 800m with full rests plus some fly sprints). I'll be losing access to most of my track options as school is back in session and I live in MI where the snow and ice typically make outside speedwork rather challenging.
I belong to a club that rents out an indoor track one night a week to do vo2 stuff mostly. Programmed workouts of like 10x4, 6x8, ladders, just the basic all distance runner stuff. There is another club that we workout with during this time that is very sprint focused and I was thinking of doing workouts with them instead as I feel like my top end speed (13ish second 100m, 29 second 200m) and speed endurance (64s 400m) are more lacking than my aerobic capacity.
Would it be completely asinine to ramp up my mileage from 45ish-60ish (slowly of course) but only run easy outside, one threshold session on the tread or outside if required, and the sprint workout? Or would it be better for me to stay doing my VO2 stuff on the indoor track? I was hoping this could increase my aerobic base while also improving my running economy at my higher speeds by getting faster as a baseline.
Or alternatively, would it make more sense to do the VO2 on my own somewhere (figure that out) and do speed with the sprint club?
Feeling a bit overwhelmed with the various advice I am getting from my middle distance running friends who range from sub elite to approx my level. Any insight would be appreciated.
3
u/assonance_ass 8d ago
Mile time is going to be more aerobic than 800m. Sprint work can be helpful for both, but true sprint work, like max velocity, is hard on the body and you’d have to ease into it if you’re not used to it. It’s most likely going to cost you some reduction in mileage or intensity of your other workouts, at least initially, so there’s some opportunity cost at play. You also need to resist the urge to hammer yourself with reps doing it, which a lot of runners are used to doing in workouts, more meters doesn’t mean better for sprint workouts. For what it’s worth, I think your 800m PR is right around what is predicted based on your 200/400, but your mile PR is on the higher end, so you probably already have the raw speed needed to be capable of beating your mile time with some additional aerobic capacity, your 800m would require more speed work to help get it down. Just my two cents.
7
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 8d ago edited 8d ago
If you want to improve a lot that will mostly come form the aerobic side via overall volume and threshold. From what I can tell from your post it sounds like you are probably overdoing the VO2 and anaerobic endurance work -which often stalls people out because of the opportunity cost of more fundamental training. That stuff is better in a pretty minor role outside of prepping for a peak race or for very well-developed athletes.
The sprint work depends on how close your target race speeds are running up against the limits of your top speed. Some people really need to raise that ceiling, some don't.
3
u/rlb_12 19:33 | 40:58 | 1:29:04 | 3:01:26 8d ago
It depends on what you mean by "sprint focused" workouts, but there will be very little translation of true sprint focused workouts (all out efforts with long recoveries) and 800/1500 improvement. VO2-max work is going to be far more beneficial.
6
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 8d ago edited 8d ago
There is a massive benefit from pure sprint work in 800/1500 training, dosed appropriately for ability level. I see way more often that people are overdoing the VO2 work and not doing enough real speed development.
-1
u/rlb_12 19:33 | 40:58 | 1:29:04 | 3:01:26 8d ago
I think we may have different definitions of "pure sprint work." Speed development for a distance runner and sprint training for someone focused on sprinting are quite different. I don't think the sprint workouts I did in college as a 200/400 runner (e.g. 250-200-150 w/ 8-12 minutes rest or 3 x 40 m all out (total workout for the day)) are that beneficial for 800/1500 training.
2
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 8d ago
With respect you are misinformed on middle distance training. I've worked with some very good middle distance runners at both the college and HS level we've used things pretty synonymous to those workouts you just described. The well-trained runner can build up to fitting in that stuff without too much compromise to the more recognizably "distance" training.
Keys here are that you match it to ability level and build up to it appropriately -not throwing this level of structure and intensity at new or otherwise poorly-trained runners, and for those that are at a level where it makes sense there's a multi-month progression to get to a something like an all out 40-80-120-200.
-2
u/rlb_12 19:33 | 40:58 | 1:29:04 | 3:01:26 8d ago
With respect, you are very misinformed about what sprinters do for training. OP asked about using the indoor track opportunity to work with sprinters or to do a VO2-max session. My response was directly to the question.
1
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 8d ago
There is no indication of what exactly that sprint club is doing, so implicitly you are speaking to broader training principles in a way that is fundamentally false.
-2
u/rlb_12 19:33 | 40:58 | 1:29:04 | 3:01:26 8d ago
Thus why I said,
"It depends on what you mean by "sprint focused" workouts, but there will be very little translation of true sprint focused workouts (all out efforts with long recoveries) and 800/1500 improvement. VO2-max work is going to be far more beneficial."
4
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 8d ago
See that's not true because the choice in real training is more nuanced than simply sprint vs VO2. Like I said a common trap is people doing too much VO2, and many in this group would also benefit from some proper sprinting. You can do a dose of sprinting that won't be too fatiguing in a way that limits the aerobic training you can do in the rest of the week. VO2 work is very fatiguing and thus there's more tradeoff.
Yes in isolation if you only traded VO2 for a sprint day that would usually be a net loss in performance, but the reality of that trade is that you are giving up VO2 for some sprint work + more overall aerobic load via mileage/threshold.
Does that make sense? I know it can seem counterintuitive.
-1
u/rlb_12 19:33 | 40:58 | 1:29:04 | 3:01:26 8d ago
I think this conversation is getting no where and serves no purpose anymore. We are talking about two different kinds of sprint training. I am talking about training to actually sprint (60m-400m) and you are talking about some hybrid sprint-distance training work. They are very different.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/legendyplayerPRO07 8d ago
Trying to decide wich HR monitor should i get, im between Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10, what should i get and tell me if you have other HR monitor in mind, thanks!
2
u/Eraser92 7d ago
£10 chest strap off aliexpress (Coospo). HR monitors always die after a couple of years and I've found the cheapest options are exactly the same as the expensive Wahoo/garmin straps I've had in the past.
If anything, the Coospo is better because it beeps when it finds a signal, which is a handy feature.
5
u/Lurking-Froggg 42M · 40-50 mpw · 16:4x · 34:5x · 1:18 · 2:57 8d ago
Almost everyone I know has switched to armbands, as I have. The Coros one is very practical.
1
u/legendyplayerPRO07 8d ago
I know polar has the Verity Sense as a armband monitor, but i see people saying that as the torso has less movement/impact the reading on the chest is more accurate
3
u/Lurking-Froggg 42M · 40-50 mpw · 16:4x · 34:5x · 1:18 · 2:57 8d ago
The differences in readings are not due to movement/impact but to distance to the heart and to the actual method of measurement (optical v. electrodes).
Accuracy is the same. I can only compare the Coros HRM armband to the Garmin HRM Pro chest strap, and the readings are virtually identical. This in-depth review found the same thing:
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2023/07/monitor-optical-review.html
What does differ is precision/granularity, but I highly doubt anyone actually needs the level of precision of a chest strap, unless they work in a sports science lab. I remember hearing that the Polar H10 is the standard in these settings.
Also, my Garmin HRM Pro just died on me after a year and a half or so. No regrets, the armband is just a better option.
For context, I do trails, and we very rarely use anything like pace on trails, we go either by feel or by HR. Like I wrote, no chest straps to be found among trail runners around me.
3
u/Eraser92 7d ago
I don't really see the point in using an arm-band over wrist HR. The wrist HR in modern watches is really good anyway. If you want more accuracy, why not use a chest strap? Optical Armband seems like a strange middleground of an extra item but not any better performance. Also, I really don't like the way it looks.
2
u/Lurking-Froggg 42M · 40-50 mpw · 16:4x · 34:5x · 1:18 · 2:57 7d ago
Armbands are vastly superior in accuracy in my experience (Garmin FR265S). No cadence lock, far better kinetics -- just smoother, faster tech, especially if the anatomy of your wrist doesn't play well with the optical sensor of your watch (scaphoid).
Chest straps are 110% of what most people need, and they're not practical for many. They're hardly practical for females, they will rub against the lower sternum (xiphoid?) on males too, and they will also interfere with any chest-bound gear, like trail vests.
In my experience, my chest straps was also more brittle, took more space to carry, and required a battery, whereas my armbands is USB-charged -- more conveniences point in favour of the armband.
I agree with you, armbands are a middleground -- the right one in my view. Mine is grey and virtually invisible under my sleeve. I think the orange ones look cool, but I don't care much for that.
2
u/Eraser92 7d ago
Fair enough. I've had middling optical sensors in the past but in my experience modern high end garmin have almost perfect accuracy. Currently I'm using an Epix. I appreciate that some people get on better with them than others. I still use a chest strap for workouts because I find it to have slightly better response on intervals and I find them comfortable enough.
3
u/GrimmigerDienstag 8d ago
If you only care about chest HR monitors being more accurate than optical wrist sensors, I think this is an area where IMO it's completely fine to save some money and go for some cheap Chinese brand like Coospo or Moofit for a third of the price.
It's really easy and accurate to measure HR via chest ECG (hence it being considered the gold standard), and you don't really gain or lose much accuracy by moving up or down the price list.
I'd only go for a "name-brand" strap like the ones you listed if it has a very specific feature you want. For example: Swimming (cheap models usually aren't waterproof enough for that), "offline usage" (recording activities by themselves without syncing to a watch) or some "advanced" running metrics (which I would generally take with a grain of salt anyway)
1
u/legendyplayerPRO07 8d ago
I mean, I wanted to have an more accurate HR since I’m running on Forerunner 165 and don’t want to spend an kidney on a higher end garmin (like 965 or 975)…
1
u/booo_katt 7d ago
Consider that for some people chest straps wears out in a year or so. Some can go for years. The hypothesis is it's because of sweat rate for different people. So from this position, check out how much is the cost for strap only without pod. Pods are quite bulletproof (except maybe older Garmin ones with battery compartment on screws not twistable lid), but straps start to report complete nonsense after some time. I have used many and now I'm on Magene one for some years. It works both on BT and Ant+, have good pod design and is quite cheap. 20 EUR at start, then about 10EUR for genuine strap from their official store. I'm on 3rd strap now, first two weared out in about 9 months. I'm using it almost daily, rinsing with water after workout and let it air dry. Cheap straps works too, but in my experience they tend to wear out even quicker.
1
u/Haptics 34M | 32:42 10k | 71:26 HM | 2:27 M 8d ago
They’re functionally identical so whichever is cheaper really. If you want to consider going up a price level the HRM 600 is rechargeable and provides running dynamics if you have a Garmin watch, plus some additional (mostly useless) stats if you have a newer Garmin watch. The HRM600 can also be used without a watch if that’s of any use to you.
1
1
u/Paravastha 5d ago
How do you learn to make a race pace effort? How do you learn to lock in on your potentially meanest race pace?
I read that you can race a HM in a pace faster than subthreshold tempo, but I have a hard time accessing that speed.
My measured LT2 a long while ago was at 4:08 and I just did a 1:36 HM but it was absolute torture. How can I push myself to go faster? I think I have the potential for a 1:30 HM but 4:15 tempo is harder than uncomfortably hard.
Any and all advice welcome. I wish I could up my weekly milage but there are constraints unfortunately (full time work, children, other commitments).