General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Zone 2 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2017-07-03 3:54 AM


2

Subject: Zone 2
I am new to sport and am wondering what I do when I'm trying to keep in zone 2 (122-134) for me, when I run it goes above this level after about 300m am I meant to walk till it drops to 122 then run again???? PleAse help


2017-07-03 5:22 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5649
500050010025
Subject: RE: Zone 2

First thins to look at is how did you establish those zones. You want to be sure they are accurate.

Guys like Maffetone who is world leader in this field, would tell you to walk to bring down your HR and keep it in the proper zone. With time, you should need to walk less and less to keep it there and you should be able to run a long time in Z2.

The big question is how did you establish those zones because if they are too low it will be very hard to keep your HR there.

If you are off the couch, brand new to running, it is a safe way to get started.

How old are you ? Do you have athletic background ? Are you currently over the weight you would like to be ? ....


Edited by marcag 2017-07-03 5:33 AM
2017-07-03 6:07 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Zone 2
Taking regularly spaced and timed walk breaks from running is a specific training method preached by Jeff Galloway amongst others. For me, it is the method that keeps me, on an average, in Z2 for long runs (> 5 miles).
2017-07-03 11:03 AM
in reply to: dtrainrocks

User image

Elite
4583
20002000500252525
Subject: RE: Zone 2

You might check out the Maffetone method--basically 180-age is your target HR for majority of training.  You have to really check your ego because it will feel very slow and yes, if going uphill takes you out of that zone you walk until it recovers.  It is a process and takes time but it works.  I've been steadily getting faster while keeping my heart rate around 133.  

2017-07-03 1:27 PM
in reply to: dtrainrocks


1660
10005001002525
Subject: RE: Zone 2

#1 - Establish your zones correctly by TESTING, not with a calculator predictor vs age or other non-field test. HR zones vary a lot between individuals.

 

#2 - Once you're sure it's correctly established, sure, if you need to walk to keep your HR in z2, go ahead and  walk. I run marathons at close to 7min/mile, yet on the local trails with big hills, I don't hesitate to walk large sections of the climbs when I'm on a Z2 aerobic run.

2017-07-03 1:48 PM
in reply to: #5223574


2

Subject: RE: Zone 2
Thank you all for your responses, I have a training plan/online coach however he was away for the weekend and I was being impatient wanting to know what to do, they designed my heart rate zones, I am 43 years old in reasonable condition, I can run for over an hour, bike 3 hours swim 500m no issue. Just really struggle to keep heart rate down when I run no matter how slow I run.
Once again thank you for taking time to respond
Cheers


2017-07-03 2:48 PM
in reply to: dtrainrocks

User image

Expert
2852
20005001001001002525
Pfafftown, NC
Subject: RE: Zone 2
What are you training for......and why do you want to stay in Z2?
2017-07-12 9:15 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

DC
Subject: RE: Zone 2


If you are off the couch, brand new to running, it is a safe way to get started.



I have wondered, is this really a good idea? A "legit" LT test will push all of us to the limit. Shouldn't the person performing the test have several miles under their belt?

To the OP, there's a thinking on BT re run training which I subscribe to: Run lots, but at easy pace and rarely at hard pace.
2017-07-12 11:24 AM
in reply to: ingleshteechur

User image

Extreme Veteran
3023
20001000
Maryland
Subject: RE: Zone 2

Originally posted by ingleshteechur

You might check out the Maffetone method--basically 180-age is your target HR for majority of training.  You have to really check your ego because it will feel very slow and yes, if going uphill takes you out of that zone you walk until it recovers.  It is a process and takes time but it works.  I've been steadily getting faster while keeping my heart rate around 133.  

this method is not helpful, you need to do a LT test.

2017-07-12 1:44 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Extreme Veteran
1175
1000100252525
Langley, BC, 'Wet Coast' Canada
Subject: RE: Zone 2
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by ingleshteechur

You might check out the Maffetone method--basically 180-age is your target HR for majority of training.  You have to really check your ego because it will feel very slow and yes, if going uphill takes you out of that zone you walk until it recovers.  It is a process and takes time but it works.  I've been steadily getting faster while keeping my heart rate around 133.  

this method is not helpful, you need to do a LT test.




Could you expand on this thought, please? I enjoy reading your contributions to the forum, and wonder why you think this is not a helpful method, especially for someone off the couch.

kelly
2017-07-12 1:51 PM
in reply to: Porfirio

User image

Extreme Veteran
1175
1000100252525
Langley, BC, 'Wet Coast' Canada
Subject: RE: Zone 2
Originally posted by Porfirio



If you are off the couch, brand new to running, it is a safe way to get started.



I have wondered, is this really a good idea? A "legit" LT test will push all of us to the limit. Shouldn't the person performing the test have several miles under their belt?

To the OP, there's a thinking on BT re run training which I subscribe to: Run lots, but at easy pace and rarely at hard pace.


Porfirio, are you suggesting not to do a test as a person coming off the couch? If so, my reading of what Marc posted is that he agrees with that... it looks like Marc is saying that the Maffetone strategy is a good one for beginners...


kelly


2017-07-12 3:12 PM
in reply to: triosaurus

User image

Extreme Veteran
3023
20001000
Maryland
Subject: RE: Zone 2

Originally posted by triosaurus
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by ingleshteechur

You might check out the Maffetone method--basically 180-age is your target HR for majority of training.  You have to really check your ego because it will feel very slow and yes, if going uphill takes you out of that zone you walk until it recovers.  It is a process and takes time but it works.  I've been steadily getting faster while keeping my heart rate around 133.  

this method is not helpful, you need to do a LT test.

Could you expand on this thought, please? I enjoy reading your contributions to the forum, and wonder why you think this is not a helpful method, especially for someone off the couch. kelly

Because it has no physiological basis.  It generally gives you a heart rate that is well below the top of zone two, and many people, especially newbies, won't be able to run in that zone.  A LT test gives you a real HR number to work off of.  My zone 2 tops off at 162 bpm, well off of this "rule of thumb"

A real new person shouldn't really even need to pay attention to this anyway.  If you're just getting into running just run!  5 days a week, don't exceed 10% increase from week to week, and run at a pace where you can have flowing conversation.  Don't even think about track workouts until you have a solid base.  and LB yes this doesn't apply to genetic freak children.

I say the same thing to people who just start cycling and ask about power meters.  Until you're comfortable on the bike and riding 100+ miles a week...just ride your bike.  Mostly hard, sometimes easy.

2017-07-12 4:14 PM
in reply to: triosaurus

Master
10208
50005000100100
Northern IL
Subject: RE: Zone 2

Originally posted by triosaurus
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by ingleshteechur

You might check out the Maffetone method--basically 180-age is your target HR for majority of training.  You have to really check your ego because it will feel very slow and yes, if going uphill takes you out of that zone you walk until it recovers.  It is a process and takes time but it works.  I've been steadily getting faster while keeping my heart rate around 133.  

this method is not helpful, you need to do a LT test.

Could you expand on this thought, please? I enjoy reading your contributions to the forum, and wonder why you think this is not a helpful method, especially for someone off the couch. kelly

Maffetone isn't too different from others like the 220-age and others in that it works with a bunch of averages and come up with a very simple formula that has a tendency to be ok for a number of people. So it's not terribly surprising that a number will report that it does well for them, like some of the other formula based ones do. But there will be a fair percent that the numbers will be off for, too high or too low because all of them try to work with averages and don't have much in the way of standard deviation, or variation from that average.

The LT threshold testing tailors the effort levels to the individual based on their own physiology. It can take a few times going through the test, but they'll get there. I've seen people my own age 15-20 bpm below my own, and they have a decent idea of how to work. My HR just runs higher than average, but have also seen some who run a bit higher still. Under one of the simple formulas, all of us would operate at the same HR, but with the LT testing it will become specific to us.

From what I've seen of maffetone, it tends to be 100% easy, not just mostly easy. That can be fine for awhile, and should be how one starts out, but some faster work is a part of getting the most out of ones training.

2017-07-12 8:07 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Official BT Coach
7365
500020001001001002525
Indianapolis, Indiana
Gold member
Subject: RE: Zone 2

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by triosaurus
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by ingleshteechur

You might check out the Maffetone method--basically 180-age is your target HR for majority of training.  You have to really check your ego because it will feel very slow and yes, if going uphill takes you out of that zone you walk until it recovers.  It is a process and takes time but it works.  I've been steadily getting faster while keeping my heart rate around 133.  

this method is not helpful, you need to do a LT test.

Could you expand on this thought, please? I enjoy reading your contributions to the forum, and wonder why you think this is not a helpful method, especially for someone off the couch. kelly

Because it has no physiological basis.  It generally gives you a heart rate that is well below the top of zone two, and many people, especially newbies, won't be able to run in that zone.  A LT test gives you a real HR number to work off of.  My zone 2 tops off at 162 bpm, well off of this "rule of thumb"

Originally posted by brigby1

Maffetone isn't too different from others like the 220-age and others in that it works with a bunch of averages and come up with a very simple formula that has a tendency to be ok for a number of people. So it's not terribly surprising that a number will report that it does well for them, like some of the other formula based ones do. But there will be a fair percent that the numbers will be off for, too high or too low because all of them try to work with averages and don't have much in the way of standard deviation, or variation from that average.

And you're immediately dismissing this method because?

Perhaps because Mark Allen only won 6 Ironman World Championships?  Mark Allen himself gives much of the credit for those victories to the Maffetone Method.

https://philmaffetone.com/alleninterview/

As Mark Allen says in the above article - "I also think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding to his training philosophies. When you have a partial understanding about training your aerobic system and people say ‘How can you race well if all you do is train at the slow and steady stuff?’ First off, it is not about training slow. Second, he recognizes that you have to do speed work. That is part of what he tells you to do. People often miss that part of it. They are arguing against an incomplete picture. That is a classic example of what happens when people look at an isolated number and fail to see the whole picture. What Phil did was to see the whole picture. "

Dr. Maffetone has performed DECADES of field research to validate this method.  He has nearly 40-years of clinical experience and research in Sports Medicine.  While controversial, his methods are accepted worldwide.  He has published countless articles and research papers in virtually every medical journal out there - all of which were peer reviewed. With all due respect, I submit you might want to educate yourself on the Maffetone Method before you ridicule the program.

https://philmaffetone.com/method/

2017-07-12 9:40 PM
in reply to: k9car363

Master
10208
50005000100100
Northern IL
Subject: RE: Zone 2

Originally posted by k9car363

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by triosaurus
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by ingleshteechur

You might check out the Maffetone method--basically 180-age is your target HR for majority of training.  You have to really check your ego because it will feel very slow and yes, if going uphill takes you out of that zone you walk until it recovers.  It is a process and takes time but it works.  I've been steadily getting faster while keeping my heart rate around 133.  

this method is not helpful, you need to do a LT test.

Could you expand on this thought, please? I enjoy reading your contributions to the forum, and wonder why you think this is not a helpful method, especially for someone off the couch. kelly

Because it has no physiological basis.  It generally gives you a heart rate that is well below the top of zone two, and many people, especially newbies, won't be able to run in that zone.  A LT test gives you a real HR number to work off of.  My zone 2 tops off at 162 bpm, well off of this "rule of thumb"

Originally posted by brigby1

Maffetone isn't too different from others like the 220-age and others in that it works with a bunch of averages and come up with a very simple formula that has a tendency to be ok for a number of people. So it's not terribly surprising that a number will report that it does well for them, like some of the other formula based ones do. But there will be a fair percent that the numbers will be off for, too high or too low because all of them try to work with averages and don't have much in the way of standard deviation, or variation from that average.

And you're immediately dismissing this method because?

Perhaps because Mark Allen only won 6 Ironman World Championships?  Mark Allen himself gives much of the credit for those victories to the Maffetone Method.

https://philmaffetone.com/alleninterview/

As Mark Allen says in the above article - "I also think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding to his training philosophies. When you have a partial understanding about training your aerobic system and people say ‘How can you race well if all you do is train at the slow and steady stuff?’ First off, it is not about training slow. Second, he recognizes that you have to do speed work. That is part of what he tells you to do. People often miss that part of it. They are arguing against an incomplete picture. That is a classic example of what happens when people look at an isolated number and fail to see the whole picture. What Phil did was to see the whole picture. "

Dr. Maffetone has performed DECADES of field research to validate this method.  He has nearly 40-years of clinical experience and research in Sports Medicine.  While controversial, his methods are accepted worldwide.  He has published countless articles and research papers in virtually every medical journal out there - all of which were peer reviewed. With all due respect, I submit you might want to educate yourself on the Maffetone Method before you ridicule the program.

https://philmaffetone.com/method/

Careful lumping mine in with Dave's, and after lopping off a fair bit of what I said. I agree with the idea of going mostly easy, and that the easy is going to be slower than what people think it should be. Even with going 100% easy for significant periods of time. This is a really big thing that aspiring runners need to get.Maffetone probably does have a better regression line through his data than the other formulas for the easy running. Especially once putting in some other variances that often get left out. I've had difficulty in the past finding anything beyond running easy for it though. Well, sometimes strides are mentioned, but what else does he have? Mark Allen does speak of this, but seems this was in discussions directly with Phil more so than being put out with the formula. I'll be glad to work it into my thinking as it's felt like something was missing, but there are also other pretty good readings that haven't been as difficult to find. For example, the first ~15 entries in searching for it right now returned only variations of the 180-age, some mentioned the extra tuning, some mentioned strides.

2017-07-13 6:34 AM
in reply to: dtrainrocks

User image

Master
1367
10001001001002525
Dirt Road
Subject: RE: Zone 2
Zone training is definitely an ego check. When you are young you can get away

with high zone training but the older you get the more it becomes helpful in preventing injuries.

It took me three years to slow myself (and walk) to stay in proper zones.

No injuries is the key!


2017-07-13 10:06 AM
in reply to: dtrainrocks

User image

Pro
6579
50001000500252525
Melbourne FL
Gold member
Subject: RE: Zone 2

Originally posted by dtrainrocks Thank you all for your responses, I have a training plan/online coach however he was away for the weekend and I was being impatient wanting to know what to do, they designed my heart rate zones, I am 43 years old in reasonable condition, I can run for over an hour, bike 3 hours swim 500m no issue. Just really struggle to keep heart rate down when I run no matter how slow I run. Once again thank you for taking time to respond Cheers
Did you ever get a response on how your "coach" figured a 122-134 range was good for your Z2 running range? 

Being you are reasonably fit, IMHO, you should do the field test (read this BT article) to find what your actual zones are.  It may take more than once to get it right but it will be worth if.  The number of times I did a field test from 2005 to 2014 my results were always within 3 bpm of one another.  But if I were to follow any on the xx0-age formula's I would have always been below my LT based Z2 range.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Zone 2 Rss Feed