These past 10 days or so have been a real learning experience for me. It all started when I finally replaced the battery in my Garmin Heart Rate monitor.

Having decided that if I am going to get back into the swing of things and be race ready (and injury free) by spring, I’m going to have to do a lot of things differently – including listening to my own good advice.

Now, I have previously written about zone training using maximum heart rate (MHR) as a guideline, and anaerobic threshold (AT) as a benchmark. However, I’m going to tell you that I‘ve never really paid much attention to zone training – focusing instead on the typical approach of developing a good, consistent 20 mile per week base and then adding tempo and speed workouts to shave my split times.  Well, my eyes have been opened.

We all know that to be a decent distance runner, your weekly workout regimen must incorporate long, slow distance (LSD). But here’s the rub: what is the definition of slow?  And here’s the answer; there is no definition of “slow” – it varies for every runner depending upon her fitness level.

Fact is, most runners cannot gauge “slow” and most runners run their distance workouts too fast, myself included. If you do this you’re not going to maximize the benefit of your LSD work, which of course is building endurance.

So, where should you be running your long slow distance? Very generally, somewhere between zones 2 and 3 or between 60-75% MHR. To refresh your memory, here are the training zones:

Zone 1: 50-60% of max rate – easy sessions

Zone 2: 60-70% of max heart rate – training pace, improving performance, weight control

Zone 3: 70-80% of max heart rate for short speed focused work

Zone 4: 80-90% of max heart rate

Zone 5: 90-100% of max heart rate

I am still rebuilding my mileage and planned a long run (which for me is 7-8 miles right now), on Sunday. I strapped on my heart rate monitor and my Garmin and switched it to just show me my heart rate as I made my way through the hilly course. I spent the first 4 miles running at my standard long run pace, which I observed was at close to 80% MHR. On the return, I used the heart rate monitor to “control” my speed and effort level. This was harder to do than you think!

What I found was that I follow the statistical norm – that I am running my “slow runs” too fast out the chute…pushing my pace too hard to be gaining maximum benefit from my slow long runs. And here’s the interesting part. When I analyzed my 7.5 miles on Sunday, I found that I had actually run my splits faster on average than I ever had on this course – AND I did not feel completely exhausted that last 1.5 mile…I actually had something left.

I am very interested to know if anyone else has had this type of experience. I’m really excited because I feel for the first time that I may actually be able to control an aspect of my performance that hasn’t been in the mix before. I can’t wait to get to a decent base for a couple of weeks and add some speed workouts to see what happens as the mileage builds. If only I had changed that battery sooner!

Whoo hoo! Anyone ready for a spring half marathon?

• Currently 4.0/5 Stars.

Tags: LSD, long slow run, training for distance, distance runs, anaerobic threshold, maximal heart rate, garmin, heart rate monitor

Yeah, I can't believe how much difference it makes in terms of how I feel at the end of my runs, but it is sooo hard to "unlearn" my bad habits after so many years. If you ever do get a heart rate monitor I can highly recommend the Garmin 110 to you - very easy to deal with. And it sure is keeping me and my pace in line. Thanks for reading! Posted by: bmoore on Jan 18, 2011 at 01:03 PM

I don't have a heart rate monitor, but I am doing my long runs with the run/walk method and I find myself actually completing my miles faster than if I was just running the whole time. I am recovering faster and I am feeling amazing at the end of the run. Thanks for the article. Posted by: katykathjo on Jan 17, 2011 at 08:50 PM