The topics of training hard and the benefits of incorporating easy running have both been discussed on Fast Running before, so what did the wearable tech company learn from analysing data of 45 million runs from April 2017 to March 2018?

The analysis started by separating runners based on their data, that included heart rate, into three distinct groups; ambitious, regular and intensives.

‘Ambitious’ runners trained on average of nine hours a week and included professional athletes. The group ‘regular’ trained four hours a week on average, as did ‘intensives’, but as the name suggests, everything the intensives did was at a higher effort level.

After analysing the data it was concluded the intensive runners were missing out on key physiological adaptations. They were not doing the slower work to develop their aerobic base, thus more at risk to injuries and fatigue. On top of this, they were also less efficient than the other groups.

Basically, the regular runners saw better results than the intensive runners, even though both groups averaged four hours a week. It may seem counter-intuitive but those including easier running actually showed the greater improvements.

This is down to an increased aerobic base from training in lower heart rate zones and increased efficiency. Run too fast all the time and you miss these benefits of training.

The graphic below shows the heart rate zones that the runners were working in.  

Studies and research on polarisation from the likes of Stephen Seiler and Jonathan Esteve-Lanao concur with the findings of the data analysis. 
To make running efficiency and VO2max easier to understand, Polar developed a Running Index score, which is calculated using heart rate and speed data. A higher score indicates a person can run faster with less effort.

Polar data supports that incorporating effective heart rate training results in better running efficiency (but they may have a bit of bias with that one):

Ambitious: The average running index score for ambitious athletes is 54. It comes as no surprise that, given their much higher weekly volume, Ambitious runners get the top score for Running Index. However, these more dedicated runners also spend a dramatically higher percentage of their running time in zones 1, 2 and 3 than do the Regulars and Intensives.

Regular: Regular runners have an average score of 50, four points better than Intensives. The key difference is that Regulars spend significantly less training time in zones 4 and 5 and significantly more time in zones 2 and 3.

Intensive: Intensive runners have an average score of 46, supporting the notion that although they train as often as regular runners, they do not experience the same benefits. While it may seem non-intuitive, these runners, who push themselves significantly harder than the Regulars, under-achieve when it comes to Running Index score.

The data in the graphic below shows regular and intensive runners are training at the same volume, but are experiencing very different results.

The analysis concluded: “Regular runners are training at lower intensities and slower paces, but are developing a better Running Index, even though intensives seem to be working ‘harder’.

“This indicates a major difference on race day: the regular runners can perform significantly better with less effort than the intensive runners, simply by incorporating data-based heart rate guidance.”

The post Running data reaffirms the benefits of ‘easy runs’ appeared first on Fast Running.

In a previous article the performance level of British marathoning dropping from the 1980’s was discussed, and if you spoke to any top runner from that era it does sound like they blasted every single run and six-minute miling was just a way to get left behind.

One of the great research papers in recent years was written in 2009 by Stephen Seiler and Espen Tønnessen. It highlighted a common factor in elite level endurance sport of having an 80:20 split for easy and hard running (or below and above lactate threshold), with the polarisation of training being a key element.

Another study, by Esteve-Lanao, highlighted that even when recreational runners were given polarised training plans aimed at comparing the 80:20 split (actually figures aimed for were 77-3-20% & 46-35-19% with the zones being below 2 mM, 2-4 mM (Lactate Turnpoint) and Lactate Threshold over 4 mM) in training they actually had ratios of 65-21-14 % & 31-56-13 %. They went too hard in a study to look at the benefits of running easy.

This could just be down to the time and mileage being put in by elite runners, with a 6 x 3 minute session being a much smaller percentage of a 100 mile week than it is a 50 mile week, but the results were consistent across a number of endurance sports such as rowing, cycling and cross country skiing, where total hours training had a great variance.

Matt Fitzgerald took the 80:20 ratio and even wrote a book on it, with plenty of useful articles out there on how to polarise your own training, but is the issue we’re not getting the ratio right or just that the majority of us just go too hard on those easy runs.

The best way to determine the correct training zones is a V02 Max or lactate threshold test. The test can be conducted in a sports laboratory or even using heart rate zones or blood lactate level to set effort in training. However, going off the idea of 60-75% of Max HR or even VO2 Max, many of us will be end up going too hard, especially if you live in a hilly area like myself.

The method of 220 minus your age has long been used as another option to gauge your Max HR – once you do that figure out what 60-75% of it actually is. Many would be surprised by the results – but do note this is only an estimate of your max heart rate.

The question you need to ask yourself is what do you gain by going 30-60 seconds faster on your easy runs? In the short term they may be slightly more improvement in lactate threshold, but surely that’s what your specific lactate threshold sessions are for?

Going 30-60 seconds slower per mile when going easy might make you look a little slower on Strava (Tip: you shouldn’t give a shit) but the potential gains are huge, even beyond the obvious that the easier load on the body means you’re more likely to keep consistently training over weeks, months and years with a healthy body.

Another study took endurance rowers (it’s still endurance physiology) and compared 12 weeks solely at low intensity and a mixed group of 70-30 % low/high intensity and there were larger gains across the board, VO2 Max, Power at 2-mM lactate and Power at 4-mM lactate. This isn’t to say that you should just be running easy, but it shows the benefits, which could be mechanical as well as physiological, are still there from easy running and it should not just be seen as a wasted run.

One interesting point raised recently in a chat I had was the benefits of increasing running efficiency may not be felt for 5000m or slower runners as effort level for easy running would mean a running style too dissimilar to racing style, therefore one of the potential benefits of easy running is missing, which could be an area for future research.

Interestingly Adharanand Finn’s “The Way of the Runner” highlights one potential downfall of Japanese distance runners is too much hard running, and that could be the reason their marathon record sits at 2:06:16 when 5 Kenyans broke 2:06 at Amsterdam marathon this year (it could also be a whole host of other factors, such as the focus on the National Ekiden races, but you’ll have to read the book to get a wider story).

So how do you know if you’re working too hard on your easy runs if you’re not using a HR monitor and don’t know your blood lactate levels? Can we self-regulate? Some can, some can’t, and although many would point to a male : female divide in the world of pacing, in ultra running at least, I know plenty of female athletes who smash those easy runs to the detriment of the rest of their running.

Ultimately what do you have to lose by going 30 seconds a mile, even a minute a mile slower on those easier outings? If you’re a 1500m runner then steadier running and lower mileage may be more appropriate, but if you see yourself as an endurance machine then it’s something we can all work on.

Just do the maths, 220 minus your age and then multiply by 0.6 and 0.75. This is your easy running heart rate and just see how often you creep out of it on an easy run.

Each session should have a specific purpose, are your easy runs losing theirs? Could you be hitting those quality sessions even better?

The post How easy should your easy runs be? appeared first on Fast Running.