So why does run training at Z3-4 on intervals help an IM run?
Here' my question:
I also put this one Slowtwitch you for people's opinions:
So just finished IMFL and was thinking about this on the run:
I did IMFL marathon @ 4:52 (11:06m/m) Slower than Z1 for me (approx 10:00m/m)
My training was all Z1-Z2 for this one.
Most training plans (including ENs) call for some run training at Z3-4 (which is about 2-3min/mile faster than IM pace)
Question: when most of us will jog/shuffle at a pace that is likely Z1 (at best) or slower, why do we do any training at a pace that is 2-3 min/mile fast than IM goals. My question is: even though you're not training to improve you VO2 or LT pace when training for an IM, does this Z3-4 training make you IM shuffle faster?
Here's another part of the thread:
BTW I didn't bike too hard. I did 67% of FTP for a 5:24 bike. The bike did not feel that hard. I had plenty of energy at end of bike. My execution on swim, bike and nutrition, were fine. Im just wondering if using Z3-4 in training allows your IM run to be faster despite the fact that a IM run is "not fast".
Comments
"Question: when most of us will jog/shuffle at a pace that is likely Z1 (at best) or slower, why do we do any training at a pace that is 2-3 min/mile fast than IM goals.
[second] question is: even though you're not training to improve your VO2 or LT pace when training for an IM, does this Z3-4 training make you IM shuffle faster?"
The second question is where to start... Does it work? Yes, at least in my experience, and presumably that of most triathletes, otherwise coaches wouldn't recommend it. I suppose people could argue about that, but I'll skip right to, "OK, Why does it work?"
As I see it, there are three ways we can improve our run times: we can improve our metabolic efficiency/economy, we can lengthen our stride, and/or we can increase our stride rate. IMO, doing TP intervals (what I assume you mean by Z3-4, running at the pace you could hold all out for an hour) helps with all three. Seen from another perspective, the latter two (stride length and turnover) increase our "IM shuffle" speed. But even failing that, if we can reduce the amount of time spent walking, while running at the same speed, we've got a net gain, and the first helps there (it also helps with running faster.)
First, efficiency. This means you are using fewer inputs to produce the same result, or going faster with the same inputs. Input here means fat, carbohydrate (CHO) and oxygen (O2). We've all experienced during a 2-3 month training block seeing our HR for a given speed go down. EG, for me, when I start OS run training, I might see HR of 153 for the last lap of a mile repeat @ TP. By the end of the OS, same speed, HR of 143, or maybe even faster speed, and same (or even lower) HR. The HR is a proxy for O2 usage, here. What's happening at the muscular level, I presume, is that my muscles are able to generate the same work at an improved Fat/CHO ratio. Fat requires less O2 for a given contraction. For illustrative purposes, I may be going from a 20/80 ratio of fat/CHO to, say 40/60. I don't know much about muscle physiology at the cellular level, but what might be going on is both increases in the several types of fibers (I, IIa, IIb - slow vs fast twitch, etc), and an increased ability to recruit those ones which lean more towards CHO usage when the others get "tired". That might be why it feels like you're going at a 10 or 5K pace at the end of a marathon, even though your time is still shuffling along at LRP+. But at least you're running.
Next, stride length and frequency (turnover). Running is bascially a series of hops, or leaps, from one foot to the other. The more often and/or the longer those hops, the faster we'll go. Triggering all that is a result of coordinated work between the nerves/brain and the associated muscle bundles. Running "fast" requires us to recruit and use more quickly those nerve/muscle teams. That process is "learned", and it becomes easier to have a faster turnover/longer stride when "tired".
And, bonus, running fast demands the most effective, least disruptive motions possible. So you're learning how to improve your running form or style. Hopefully, that carries over into your IM marathon. Even though you're running slower, a more effective form results in lower energy usage - no wasted motion. Same principle applies to, say, high RPM spnning on the bike, or hard efforts swimming - can't do those without good form. Like learning to not sway your hips side to side when swimming, rotating along the vertical axis instead.
In simple terms, TP intervals help build endurance, leg strength, and enable faster turnover. I suppose you could do all those things without the hard work of the intervals, but it would take a LOT of LSD training.
I think this is the thread, but I might be mistaken.
http://members.endurancenation.us/Forums/tabid/57/aft/13557/Default.aspx
And the best way to push up your threshold pace is Z4 (threshold) mile intervals.
So, from this view point, the best way to improve your IM run potential is to run Z4 mile intervals — along with other run durability sessions etc.
BTW, with an IM bike of 5:24, you could easily use an IF of 0.70 to 0.71 so you probably left some time out on the course from the bike.
I think the EN simplification of the above is something like "a higher TP gives you the right to run faster when running at a low % of that TP (i.e. LRP)" combined with "to raise your TP you need to run a lot at TP". The first part is "why raise your TP" and the second part is the "why z4 intervals work to raise your TP". The philosophy that a higher TP is better contrasts a bit with your statement "even though you're not training to improve you VO2 or LT pace when training for an IM". Ok, maybe you're not trying to improve it (that is the OS focus), but you sure want to maintain it.
What I find most interesting is that you seem resigned to the IM run as being a shuffle. The core EN philosophy of long course triathlon is quite the opposite -- it's to make people "10-minute superstars". Perhaps the most relevant questions are why you are running 11:00 miles in the IM run with a 10:00 LRP, and what training or execution changes could get your IM run closer to LRP. The answers to those could unlock a lot of performance gains. Perhaps the coaches would have ideas about that.
If you go by RnP tenets the only way to get to the precious Z1 run all day IM pace is too improve your vdot. I look at the vdot I need for a 4 hour IM Marathon run and say ok I need to improve my vdot by 8 points to have any chance at a 400 hour marathon. The only way to improve the vdot is to do exactly what the coaches prescribe..Z3-Z4 stuff. In order to go fast long you must go fast short first. Since joining EN I have never seen it so clearly! My entire focus run wise in the OS is to get moving towards my coveted shuffle pace of Z1 9:07!
BTW isn't it nice MJ the way people on this board respond versus the self proclaimed "experts" on ST respond?
@MJ --
It's a combination of all of the answers above, namely:
Now...I saw you post the same question on Slowtwitch yesterday and there you said you didn't do any Z3-4 running in your lead up to Ironman. I'm scratching my head at that one.
I'm also scratching my head at the fact that I've got 3x WSM's in your thread over here giving your kickass answers and you have yet to reply to them here vs your participation in your parallel ST thread.
Sorry, I'm just very sensitive to the effort and time these folks invest in helping their peers.
Thanks everyone:
the reason I didn't do alot of fast running was that my PRs on IMs, albeit slow, were done on primarily Z1-2 runs and working on biking fitness and speed and execution. I feel that now I have the bike thing relatively solid, I can now concentrate on my running IM speed.
I generally know the correct answer but wanted some confirmation that spending the effort and time running at Z3-4 would pay off in faster IM speeds. Everything else being equal.
I was just thinking this at IMFL while I was shuffling at 11:00m/m why did/would training at speed help this at all!
Everything else being equal -- It works because it makes you a faster runner. At all distances. For Ironman, as others have mentioned it moves up your easy pace. 11 min becomes 10. 10 eventually becomes 9'ns.
I'll give you an example -- Pre EN 2007 I ran the marine corp marathon on basically half ironman training plus a few long runs -- Ran a 3:48 -- basically because at that time, that was in the ballpark of my easy/long pace. 6 years later -- This season I Trained and peaked for Augusta 70.3, have improved my VDOT, and ran marine corp (again) on more or less half iron fitness plus a few long runs -- and ran 3:28. Mainly because my easy/long pace is now faster. And because I was running with my fast wife and trying not to get dropped for as long as possible!
I declined to speak up as I was shuffling (faster) past him.
One other thing to consider is that any thoughts during the run of an IM are generally not based on rational thought at that moment, but emotional distress as triggered by a world of hurt. I think of Patrick at the 4 keys talk when he mentions those thoughts on the bike about intentionally crashing into a ditch in order to end the suffering. Think of it this way--would you ever make a major life decision based on your thought process during an IM run.....I sure wouldn't
@Mark and @Scott
That's what I knew (just wanted some experiences). IOW Training to run faster than IM marathon, even though, will not be approached (or even feel like used) in an IM. STILL make the IM shuffles faster. IOW shuffling at 10min/mile instead of 11min/Mile with the same RPE and HR.
If you ever get a chance to read the Hanson Marathon Method book...the first chapter or two talk about the Physiological adaptations which occur with different types of training stress...ie. long run pace v tempo pace v interval pace..etc.
While the book is run focused...the learning on physiological adaptations ( ie. muscle fiber development and recruitment, O2 & fuel utilization etc. is interesting..