Practice areas are particularly popular these days. Why?
- They make training much easier to manage.
- The effectiveness of training in these areas is often proven.
- It is a good idea to say: »I did x times in R1! "
On the other hand, I believe (and I am not alone) that the profits of the zones are overvalued.
I'll start by asking the training zone defendants a question: If, with your zone calculations, you never train to run at 4'40 ”per kilometer, but your goal is to run at 4'40. »Per kilometer how are you going to adapt to it? The first law of training, the one we repeat ad nauseam, it is that the body's adaptations to training are highly specific. What does it mean? By running at 4'40 ”per kilo, my muscles, tendons, nervous system, blood vessels adapt to this speed. This does not mean to always run at the same speed, far from it. On the other hand, I do not see how anyone could run a 10km at speed x if they did not do a reasonable amount of training at this speed (especially in the final preparation phase).
If you want training zones, here are zones for a person who runs a 10km in 50 minutes:
According to Jean-Yves Cloutier: R1 = 6'10 "R2 = 5'40" R3 = 5'00 "R4 = 4'45"
According to Jack Daniels:
| Easy / Long | E / L | 6:19 | ||||||
| Marathon | M | 5:26 | ||||||
| Threshold | T | 5:06 | ||||||
| Interval | I | 4:42 |
Surprise, these are not the same areas!
Yet if these are the "magic" areas that you get the most benefit from, they should be the same areas, right?
Matt Fitzgerald's PZI even advises up to 10 different zones:
Zones 2,3,4 :: 7:11 to 5:29
Zone 6: 5:13 to 5:03
Zone 8: 4:44 to 4:39
Zone 10 :: 4:26 and less
Once again, the zones are not the same… But why? If these are precisely magical areas in which to work and that the others are to be avoided, normally, we should have the same figures with all the coaches, right?
How did we get there?
Studies on runners are generally short-term and should focus on the study of specific parameters. This is why there are a lot of studies on training in Maximum Aerobic Speed (MAV). There are also many studies on lactate threshold training (the concept of threshold is heavily debated, but it is relatively easy to measure blood lactate). It is therefore normal that we have a lot of information on these thresholds and it is precisely at these thresholds that the coaches try to make you run. On the other hand, we do not know precisely the improvements which occur between these zones. It is not because we do not know the improvements that they do not exist!
Here are some great runners who didn't limit themselves to the concept of zones:
Paavo Nurmi, Emil Zatopek, Jim Peter, Gordon Pirie, Kip Keino, Frank Shorter, Haile Gebreselassie, Grete Waitz, and so on and on. By doing this quick little research, I haven't seen any elite runner who advises to frame very specific areas, although this research is not the most exhaustive.
From my point of view as a coach, there shouldn't be any training zones. All speeds require specific adaptations. It makes no sense to limit yourself to 3 different speeds for all workouts. If my goal is to run my 10k at 5min / km, how should I prepare my body for this effort? Sometimes running faster and sometimes running slower. The closer I will be to my race date, the more my specific training will be and will include 5 '/ k training. More on this in a future post on training periodization.
In addition, for 2 people who run 10km in 50 minutes, doing intervals at 4'45 ”will probably not have the same effect on both of them. You must first base your training speeds on the distance you are preparing for and your own weaknesses. It is usually by improving our weaknesses that we get the best results.
What I deplore is not so much the concept of zones as their extremely strict use. For the person mentioned above, I don't believe that running at 4'50 ”(speed suggested by any of the authors) will be particularly dangerous or particularly inefficient. One of the common denominators of great runners is variety!
Finally, I think the coaches created these zones to make runners' lives easier. However, by following areas as strictly as some do, don't we get the opposite effect?
If you found this information useful or at least entertaining, join us on Facebook, Twitter et Daily Mile.
Would you like to discover more myths about running? We have written a complete ebook on the subject. To download it, click here.
Yes, down with the zones! With zones, there is no possibility of progression.
Importantly, drive speeds are a continuum with different demands for each speed. There is no magic speed that will make you improve faster. It's the consistency of the program that you can improve, not constantly running in a target area.
Hello,
I may hang on a very specific sentence that is taken out of context (because I agree with the entire article, with the exception of this sentence): "It is generally by improving our weaknesses that 'we get better results'. Far from me the idea of launching a debate which would not deal with zones and it is for this reason that I will not develop more, but the opposite is rather true, that is to say that, if it is necessary being aware of our "weaknesses" (a word I hate) makes it much more effective to focus on our strengths.
Interesting, we can have a debate on this next, that would be fun!
Peter Coe or David Martin (I can't remember which one) had that to say: “Every athlete is an experiment of one. "
Very good point!
Well, in my opinion, following training that targets certain areas, but covers them all, I have to take issue with it.
Indeed, it is necessary to work all the zones, but the more one increases the volume of training of a relatively beginner person, the more it is important for this one not to exhaust itself by accumulation and thus to adapt to the. addition of output by choosing an area that allows it not to require too much muscularity in order to give it time to integrate this addition.
In addition, those who advocate training zones, never indicate not to make changes of pace, or fartlek. If you are training for a first race, you have to go according to heart zones in the absence of a speed target, but during training with a target, they integrate outings in AS10, 21 or 42 depending on the type of race. Making long runs without paying attention to the core endurance zone is a go-to exhaustion ticket for the inexperienced runner.
Training in the fundamental endurance zone allows you to absorb the quality sessions done previously. The beginner runner has every advantage to allow time for his capillary system to increase by recommending sessions where the muscles are less used and creating less lactic acid, leaving the heart and vascular system time to develop.
However, it is obvious that to run 5 '/ km you have to practice this speed, as well as higher speeds to facilitate the 5' / km afterwards. But running 3-4 runs per week without respecting training zones, always running in active or hard endurance is certainly not going to help a beginner.
Thanks for your interesting blog.
Have a good day
Well, I realize, after a rereading, that we are not talking about the same area. I cannot comment on the types of zones described in your post.
Jean-Yves Cloutier's interval rhythms work according to the times obtained (Ex. 45 ′ or 42'30 at 10km). However, it is possible that someone did 44'15 in the 10km. In this case, to personalize the training it would be theoretically possible to do a linear regression and correct the rhythms according to the last result obtained (in this case the R1 becomes 5'15 "instead of 5'3"). In this way, we can clearly see that the zones are not static but become a customizable continuum according to the needs of each one. In addition, it is possible to modify certain zones by basing them on criteria other than the running speed (for example zones of% of heart rate) which is effective in particular for training in fundamental (R1) and which allows to take into account his instantaneous state of fatigue (bad night, virus, etc.). It will also be possible to operate in% of MAS to determine the zones in order to further personalize the program. But the zones will always be there as beacons for his exits and they should not be considered as static or as a brake on progress, on the contrary! As for the differences in the value of the zones between the authors, it all depends on how the zones are used during the training program. The zones are defined in a semi-arbitrary way in order to set up a program with percentages of training time in each zone and not as absolute zones where an instant physiological change appears ... Whether or not you like the principle of the zones they will be. always present because they are basically just an arbitrary division of the training intensity continuum. You may not pay attention to the intensity and duration of your workout, but you will still be in one zone or another but not know it… and your workout may be negatively affected.
Thank you for your comment. I understand your point. Okay, you're always in one zone or another, if your zone system encompasses all training intensities. On the other hand, some zone systems will make you work in specific zones and make you avoid certain zones. For example, a coach might suggest training from 5'30 "to 5'15" (fundamental endurance), then 4'45 to 4'30 "(threshold) and around 4'15" per kilo (VAM) . For me, this is what should be avoided. To be based on more or less evaluated physiological parameters and to work the zones which work these physiological parameters. It is not because a zone does not correspond to a physiological parameter (for example, 5'10 "to 4'50" in my example) that it is not a "paying" zone in terms of improvement. .