My approach to steady state run training

 

It's odd that I've turned to explaining how to do things that I'm absolutely not an expert on lately.  Similar to drawing on 2 1/2 years of dabbling with fasting to ground a recent post, I've been running for the past 6 1/2 years, but have really only ramped up training to a significant level over the last 3 or 4.  Even then that relates to running 20 miles / 30 km a week at a moderate pace, when I'm more active, doing 10 minute miles or 6 to 7 minute kilometers.

The point is that I've changed practice organically, and have evolved to a form that works well for me, working around unusual limitations related to recovery issues (at 56 years old now).  Longer runs seem to provide a more complete workout, up to 12 km / 8 miles recently, which I first took up about 14 months ago, but I definitely can't sustain running that far even every other day.  So this spring I've been running every third day, mostly, and last year I tried out 3 runs over 5 days, with a 3 day rest cycle, covering an 8 day cycle.  Back in Bangkok I typically only run 10 km, since that's a lot, with heat stress as a factor.  Sometimes I'll run less, mixing in an 8 km run when I'm not feeling it, or the day is quite busy, but over the last six weeks I've mostly only ran that 12 km.

For everyone who runs a main underlying concern is the goal, or goals.  Most people would include health benefit, and for me that's essentially all of the point.  I don't run to compete in races, and it doesn't support some other sports performance or more specific fitness goal.

What is "steady state run training?"

I've seen a video not so long ago (a few months back) referencing the concept of weight training using the same weights and reps over a significant period of training time.  This opposes a much more standard approach to weightlifting, and athletic training in general, of using "progressive overload" to build up an exercise base, along with progressively increasing demand, which encourages your body to develop an adaptive response.  In the case of weightlifting this is probably muscle strength, or maybe hypertrophy (adding muscle mass), but in running it might relate to running pace increase or the ability to run further.

I think generally the same thing is something of a goal, when using this other kind of approach, to train to increase capacity in some sense.  It's just a counter-intuitive means to getting there.  I'm using the approach of not increasing running pace, or even volume, related to feeling like where I am for total pace and volume is fine, that it fulfills my goals.  And probably more importantly, it maxes out my recovery capacity, so that I can exercise at moderate intensity and considerable volume (for me), which isn't easy to escalate to more of either.

It's probably going to work better to explain what I've been doing, and then move onto why, in more detail, instead of laying out the entire theory first.  This approach evolved organically, and seems to work for me, coaxing my body to tolerate roughly as much training load as it seems comfortable with.  Intensity I could really bump, increasing running pace, if I used more short interval training, but that would involve some injury risk, and trade-off related to experienced volume.  Eventually I'll explore that, but for now since I only maintain these higher levels of exercise exposure for a couple months at a time, before something disrupts my schedule.  Then I build back up to the same level.  It kind of works.

A bit more background

It could seem like I'm going to conclude what type of training provides the most benefit, for a general fitness support goal, but as far as I know there isn't so much consensus on that.  One general recommendation is to get 3 hours of moderate intensity cardio exercise per week, which I definitely cover running 20 miles a week, at or just under 10 minutes per mile (200 minutes per week, leaving space for the annual average, since my long-term schedule includes plenty of lower volume weeks).  

Maybe that's higher intensity than is necessary, and related to even considering that breaking down exercise intensity is difficult.  I'll cover further here how most of that running is occurring between 135 and 145 beats per minute heartrate, but I never really do evaluate if that's a great goal for me.

Here's a very common version of that background guideline (running intensity in relation to heart rate), so universal that Google's AI answer sums it up clearly and accurately:

To find your optimum heart rate training zone by age, you can use the general formula of 220 minus your age to estimate your maximum heart rate. Then, you'll target a range of 50% to 85% of that maximum heart rate for moderate-intensity exercise. 

So I'm 56, leaving me with a maximum heart rate of 164.  That is roughly as high as I ever go; for maximum intensity over short periods it's fine to maintain 160, and 164 is pushing it.  50 to 85% of that relates to a range of 82 to 140.  Sounds low, doesn't it?  82 isn't so bad for a resting heart rate; how am I supposed to do much activity at the level?  Mine might drop to 60-some, or maybe 70, but it's not all that low, in comparison with people who run a medium amount.

I still could circle back to original assumptions and goals, but let's follow this on to more details about my training, to see where those numbers are coming from.

For people more familiar with US / imperial unit pacing 6 minutes per km is equivalent to 9.7 minutes per mile, 6.5 relates to 10.5, and 7 equates to 11.3.

All of that pacing is inconsistent enough that to make sense of it I can explain what happens over a 12 km run, then get on to critiquing intensity and pace a bit.

I run less than 1 km before doing a warm stretch, sometimes using a park restroom at that same time.  To me it's all a part of the run, so often my first km time will be 9 or 10 minutes, with a couple of minutes of that not actually time spent running.  It throws off the pace average meaning much, but again to me it's part of the experience, and I'm comparing run to run, not trying for a certain goal.

The second kilometer is a relatively steep hill climb, up the south side of Diamonhead, even though that time doesn't necessarily reflect that it's the hardest part of the run (the 6:42 second km, here).  I take a short break at the top of the hill, as much to enable pushing harder going up it as anything, which is why the third km time is 7:20 (that day; all of these times vary day to day).  I think I wasn't really feeling the second uphill on the north side, and walked a bit more, leading to a longer 8:33 minute fourth km.  In general short rests are built into two places on the run, at the top of the first hill, and prior to the last 2 km stretch, and taking a third short walk break is really not typical.

the view from the top of that side of Diamondhead (at road level)

Diamondhead from the Ala Wai canal

the other side; it's a bit over a mile long

The 6:01 split relates to a downhill section, of course.  I cross an intersection as I'm moving from the Diamonhead area / Kapiolani park part on to out and back the Ala Wai canal; that cross-walk wait led to an 8:01 split.  I do a short walking break to catch my breath right at or after 10 km, but it doesn't show up as much delay.  I probably ran a 6:15 10th km, and walked for half a minute.

 

this total distance and time is an app glitch, but this shows the route

Back to goals, and the steady state theme

I'm running to stay in shape, and because I like to run.  Those km split times look to be all over the place but really I'm running between 6:15 and 7 minutes / km essentially all of the time, which is already a good bit of range.  But why at that pace?  Because it's comfortable; because that's what running at moderate effort works out to.

I will often ramp it up over the last km or two to run faster, bumping heart rate up to 155 at times, and pace up to 6 min / km.  It's odd that I can run at moderate effort for 6:20 or 30 pacing, then it really escalates speeding up just a little, but that's how it goes.

One might wonder if it's unsatisfying to not improve, to gradually drop km split times / pace from 7 minutes to around 6 1/2, then to get back "out of shape" during extended travel, or when I take time off to spend more of it with the kids.  Not so much.  I've been through very minor injuries before, and it's nice to be able to run 20 miles / 30 km a week at moderate intensity, and to almost never experience any of those problems.  3 hours a week of running between 135 and 145 bmp heart rate seems like a decent amount.

I've been swimming quite a bit lately too, a few times a week, for outings of 400+ meters in the ocean for a nice half an hour swim (or maybe 20+ minutes; I don't track that).  And I often walk the 10,000 steps in a day; errands and a busy schedule add up, and the kids and I use beach walks as a time to chat and check in.

flag 200+ meters out in the ocean (tourist for scale)

I do notice that I improve gradually, that slight increase in pace, and that it's most pronounced after I've been running consistently for about 6 weeks.  At that level of training burden (the 20 miles / 30 km) it seems natural to give it a break after a couple of months, or even earlier, to let the aches completely drop out.

Other approaches

It would be normal for people to use more frequent runs as a training base, adding 5 to 8 km easy runs on "recovery days."  Then also normal to use some shorter interval training to make it seem normal to run faster, to condition down to 5 minutes per km instead.  Running quarter mile intervals at much faster pace would help, or any number of varying approaches along that line.

Or maybe not?  According to this, which I don't really trust as universally accurate, people in my age group (55 to 59) run 5 k races at an average of 12:08 minutes per mile, or 36 minutes per 5k.  That doesn't sound right, does it?  I'm running 2 5k distances back to back, at 32 to 34 minutes each, aside from a stretching break, then another 2 km a bit faster, all relatively continuously.

If people are doing park runs without training all that much this makes sense.  It would be hard for me to train to break a 25 minute 5k time, no matter what I did, but if I shifted training emphasis to speed conditioning for that distance it would come, in time.  In "running circles" there is a lot more focus on the marathon than on a 5k distance, and 10k runs are often seen as fun-runs.  People more serious about moderate distances might use local 5k races to test out their current fitness level, running 15 to 17 minute times, but they would be an exception in a local event field.

From February 2024; I was a little more consistent then, even though that was in hotter weather, back in Bangkok.  The point here is that I'm not really pushing for long-term improvement.

I was more consistent about doing an escalating heart rate / gradually increasing running intensity back then too.

This has just been about passing on what has seemed to work for me.  And maybe the higher order theme that whatever suits your goals and experience preferences should be fine, for running, or other exercise forms, or any kinds of hobbies and self-expression.  I don't see these running stats as all that impressive, but then the point isn't really to impress anyone.

Tracking heart rate while running in Bangkok heat

 

I'm not sure who a run training update would be interesting for or helpful to, which is why I don't write these very often.  I'm not sharing results on Strava or anything like that either, racing, or running with friends, so I just keep doing it to exercise, as my own thing.

Trying out tracking heart rate is the newest thing.  I suppose what seemed like a minor injury back in October or so had been the newest thing earlier; I never knew what to make of that.  A knee issue seemed inconsistent, as if tendons were sore in different places, maybe moving around because the real cause of the problem was elsewhere, a glute or hip stabilizer muscle issue.  Who knows what it was.

After resolving that through rest and time off, and building moderate intensity weekly mileage back up, to about 30 km per week now, I tried out using a very basic heart rate monitor.  

It's not so uncommon for people to use low heartrate training as a main approach, to calculate some relative low-intensity optimum, and then instead of running miles or km at a set pace to keep heart rate consistent.  That was never the plan; I was mostly just curious what it was.  It seemed interesting to be able to see how heart rate varied with pace, and effort level, and if heat stress seemed to be affecting that factor.  Then later maybe it could be a factor in changing approach.

It all worked out as one might expect; a very moderate running pace corresponds to 130 to 135 bpm, and running at higher intensity and a faster pace tops out around 145 to 150.  It seems that related to pace the window spanning the two is not that far apart.  It takes me a lot of effort to run 6 minute kilometers now, even though I had trained to run some of them between 5:30 and 5:45 a year ago.  That was in Honolulu, Hawaii, where it's cooler, with some elevation change on my normal route.  There I could run the 11th and 12th consecutive kilometers at 5:45 on a warm afternoon along a flat course, and in slightly warmer local Bangkok weather now that would be hard.

running alternate intensity 10k at 30 C (86 F)

These both show a new form that I'm trying out, running an easy 5k followed without break by a higher effort, faster 5k.

There isn't all that much training theory behind that.  It combines easing into a session and sustaining some higher intensity running.  The humidity and temperature shift how that kind of thing goes; at a hotter and more humid time maintaining "low" heart rate (135) even at the moderate pace wouldn't work.  It's essentially always in the mid to upper 80s F / upper 20s C in Bangkok, unless you run at 6 AM, and since I'm not a morning person I just try to avoid the low 90s / low to mid 30s C.  I can show how that goes in another stats capture, but I'll add a little about how this workout version shown in graphs feels first.

Running at 135 bpm is fairly relaxed, if it's only 29-30 C, mid-80s F.  I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing; it's my impression that pacing depends on a base level of conditioning, which I'm not qualified to interpret.  It's probably not good or bad, instead just where you are at the time.

Running between 145 and 150 bmp isn't so stressful, but that's as far as I'd want to push it, and sustaining that general level for 5k seems like enough.  In the past I would feel a slight breakdown of my normal equilibrium, energy level, and breathing rate, right towards the end of what I had trained to easily do, and that often related to running 10k in about 1:01 to 1:02, a minute or two faster than using this approach.  That kind of minor difference stands out a lot; running a 30 minute 5k and a 32 minute pace is completely different.  That's the difference between a 6 minute km and a 6:25; it's vast.

I can switch the units, in case someone reading this runs at min / mile:  that's a 9:40 versus 10:20 mile pace (6 to 6:25 min / km).  Again whether that is fast or slow depends on someone's conditioning level.  Anyone routinely training in much cooler weather probably wouldn't tolerate the heat input part of it well, running at 85 to 90 degrees F, regardless of their normal pace.

I always thought it would be easier to train to run faster, much earlier on.  I could break 20 minute 5k race times in high school cross country, and I wasn't all that good a runner, and didn't train that much.  It turns out that running a 4 minute km / 6:26 mile isn't easy to do at age 55, without prior "training up" to that fitness level.  

I had been experimenting with running shorter intervals faster when that odd injury came up, which is probably no coincidence, so in order to avoid that experience I'll have to forego that most natural training approach to drop those times.  If I add some weight training I might become more durable, but I'm not eager to expand training range like that.  I had been walking and swimming more a year or so ago when I managed to push both intensity and volume past where it is now; maybe those really did help with recovery, muscle training, or general conditioning level.

heat impact example; running 7+ k at 31 C (88 F), in the mid-day sun

The other question I had related to the impact of running when it's hotter, when it's not in the mid 80s, but around 90 instead.  A recent outing tested that:

It really wasn't that hot; on that first run it was 30 C, 86 F, and on this second it was 31, 88 F.  The first was in the evening, after dark, and this was in mid-day sun, running between noon and 1 PM, and it really makes a difference.  Of course it does, as humidity level and breeze does (or lack of it), but I mean that you can have a completely different kind of experience, not that it's a noticeable slight change.  

47% humidity is on the dry side for here; I suppose that helped, but running in direct mid-day sunlight was a more problematic negative input.  Those temperatures I've cited are some central Bangkok measurement; I was probably experiencing a broader gap where I actually was, out on a running track / sidewalk environment.

On one running course I complete two 5k laps, with no second warm stretch, and on this route I do either 2 or 3 3.7 km segments, with a warm stretch after 1 km.  On that second heart rate dip (above, during km 6) I was walking to rest, to drop my heart rate, which had been pegged at or near 150 the whole time.  I think that tied to heat stress input, but I haven't fully sorted out other possible variables.  It's easy to write off having any rough outing as heat input, but there's probably more to it.

a track / path around the local royal palace

that running path at night, lit up for some holiday or memorial theme

what it looks like in the daytime

One might wonder, how is this informative or actionable, beyond prompting me to try out that split-pace approach?  I suppose it's not.  I could've felt that the second run described here wasn't going as well without a heart rate stat filling that part in, that I was hot.  I was averaging 6:15 km paces, just not on the two one-km splits with a stretch and walking break, so it wasn't really fast or slow, but it was taking effort to do that.  The second 5k of that earlier run was slightly faster, right on 6 minutes / km instead, at significantly lower heart rate, just below 145 average instead of close to 150.  You can feel that difference.

It's a different thing running against conditioning level versus pushing heat stress tolerance.  You feel a bit tired after an hour of medium intensity running, but that heat stress stays with you, even when only enduring 40 minutes worth of it.  I won't do hour long outings when the heat is getting to me; I could back way off a normal pace and tolerate it better (maybe; I never really try running 7 minute km pace), but it's habit to just stay in a normal pace range and call it a day early.  If I feel off I'll run 6:30 kilometers but beyond that I tend to just pack it in.

Trying out tracking heart rate was only ever about sorting out these patterns, which I had already experienced without tracking that.  I can run a 6 minute km, or 6:30, by feel, even with outdoor temperature input factoring in.  It's odd that the one is such a fast pace for me and other slow; that distribution could be broader.  I think with less heat-stress for running context, actually running when it's below 80 F / 27 C, I could train differently, and make better progress.

In Honolulu now, a daytime high of 78, breezy, with a chance of light rain.  Perfect!

the view running around Diamondhead; pretty nice