UKC

This is basically a journal to myself but if anyone reads and responds or shares their experiences that's a bonus. 😊

I've set myself up a training plan for the first time, based on the book "Training for the uphill athlete". The goal is to run the Welsh 3000s in May/June, then perhaps a flatter c.80km route I've got my eye on a couple of months later.

Some background - I ran about 100 hours / 1000km each of the last two years, all completely unorganised random runs for enjoyment. The book says (paraphrasing) "if you've not consistently trained 400 hours+ pa then you're a beginner (as opposed to experienced athlete)", so I'm definitely a beginner.

My training plan is about 25 weeks, essentially 4 week blocks with 3 weeks of increasing mileage then a recovery week with less mileage. Each week run 5 times, 4 runs 15% of total mileage each, 1 long run 40% of mileage. Throw in 1 x hill sprints to one of the short runs, 1 x core workout and 1 x leg workout. There are some intense weeks near the end where you do long runs two days back to back (two weeks in a row), then recovery week, then repeat.

I'm on week 3 day 4 at the moment and it seems ok-ish. If I stick at it I'll have ran my 100 hours from last year within the 25 weeks training programme, so it's basically accumulating to double my previous running time. I started the 1st week's mileage at the same as my (as then) current weekly average, so I'm still sticking to only 10% increase per week (for 3 weeks, then 1 recovery week), so it should be sustainable.

My observations so far:

Positives:

- although it's definitely more than I ran before (in terms of runs per week), it feels manageable because the 4 x short runs are only about 5km at the moment and I never used to run this short of a distance before (always mainly ran 10-12km just for fun).

- the short runs are "easy" which I think they should be, but it means I don't dread them nor am I particularly fatigued after running them.

- it feels easy to manage my weekly running around work and family because I can look ahead at the week and see when to slot the various length runs around my other priorities for the week. And I can shuffle them about as needed.

- I think I can already see the benefit of the hill sprints and I've only done two sessions

- once I've found a route for my 4 short runs each week I can just do the same route 4 times that week which makes it easy to just go out and run without thinking about the route. Like Einstein wearing the same clothes every day! (if that's a true story). Also quite fun to see where you've gone faster than before etc.

- it's nice ticking each run off and knowing that theoretically in a finite number of runs time I will be much stronger and fitter.

- you've always got that recovery week to look forward to if it's starting to feel a bit much - so you can take it one chunk at a time.

Negatives:

- I feel slightly trapped that according to the plan I can't run a half marathon (something I'd do for fun when I had the time, before) until about week 9 or 10, although then I'll be running 1 a week and won't be able to escape them!

- I also feel trapped in that I can't go on a random long adventure run, say marathon length or so, because that won't fit into the schedule at all until the actual goal week.

- I should really be training for the ascent of the goal run as well (4000m ish) but I would have to run very contrived routes to achieve this so might be training a bit wrong in that regard.

- If I go for a strenuous walk in the peak district or something I don't know how to count this against the weekly mileage, because it's surely going to tire my legs out as much as running.

- I should also be doing nearly all my running in the lowest two heart rate zones, but for me that's so slow it would mean I was running about 20% - 40% longer and I don't really have the time for that! Hopefully this won't cause any issues down the line (I'm essentially 1 HR zone above where I should be).

- it doesn't feel great knowing I only have 2 days I'm "allowed" to not run each week, it can feel a lot to fit in, particularly in 15 weeks time when the short runs are getting up to 9km 4 x a week, then nearly a half marathon each weekend, but at least it's only for 3 weeks in a row.

Questions:

- Even though it's training for a 50km run, the longest run in the whole plan is only 28km (although you do run this distance twice on back-to-back days). This feels odd to me because the 50km is nearly double that length...

- I ran 50km last year in the Peak District and it took about 8 hours IIRC, the ascent was only 1/4 the Welsh 3000s though. Before that my longest run was a flat marathon. The fact I've done that distance before with no structured training makes me question what 25 weeks of rigorous training actually gives me - does it mean the Welsh 3000s will be less strenuous, I'll be faster and less prone to injury? Because I have a feeling I could probably just go and do it right now but it would just be a bit of a killer.

- once it's all done, if I finish it, if I just go back to my old ways will my new found endurance running prowess just fade away?

In reply to elliot.baker:

I've got the book, read it, enjoyed it/found it interesting but haven't seriously implemented anything.

I do normally put together an annual training plan (I used Training Peaks for a couple of years but have gone back to a spreadsheet) where I highlight key goals/races and split everything into blocks just like you're doing anchored around the races. I do a 3-week cycle rather than 4.

I think the 400 hours thing is a bit harsh especially for recreational athletes. I've been peaking at around 250hrs/2500km for the last few years and have knocked off all sorts including hilly hundred milers and I wouldn't put myself in 'beginner' category. 

I know what you mean about feeling trapped by the plan, so I tend to allow myself to go off piste a bit. My big goal last year was the UTMB so this year I'm focusing on a shorter local ultra I've done before but with an aim to finish fast - so my training will be different as a result. 

The biggest issue with distance running is staying motivated so if you feel it not being fun any more treat yourself to a random adventure. I sometimes feel annoyed going for a hike, snowshoe, XC ski etc instead of a run but then remind myself that cross training helps a lot. 

Good luck - sounds like a great adventure. Are you in the UKC Strava Club? 

In reply to elliot.baker:

Basically, you have to decide why you want to run. Are you running because you enjoy it or are you running because you feel the need to hit a certain goal (like the w3k)? If it's the former, then you should treat the 'training' (a loaded word today) as something to be enjoyed as much as any event (which itself is double edged) - i.e., you shouldn't feel 'trapped' by the rigour of your training plan. If you enjoy running half marathons, the throw the occasional one in. If you enjoy a good long walk, then that's fine too. You might be degrading your 'training' effectiveness by perhaps 1% but does that really matter? Anyway, the appropriateness of any give 'plan' to your specific fitness, capabilities and aspirations is probably only optimal to +-20%, so your more varied pragmatic training-with-fun is as likely to be more as less effective.

If on the other if you are total goal-driven then you probably are missing out by not getting some proper personalised training assistance (i.e., not just something generic out of a book). The training then is just a means to an end. Enjoyment is optional.

In reply to elliot.baker:

I have used the same resource to organise my training for the cancelled Cheviot Goat for the last 2 years! That might help to contextualise my experience.

To answer your questions:

Q1: Back to back 28km runs are easily long enough to get a beneficial training experience. Second day you are back out on the hills with some recovery but it will replicate the middle kms of the 50 km run, or thereabouts. I really enjoyed those back to back runs and they are great at building up your confidence. 

Q2: I feel the training is worthwhile. Lots learnt to help make progress towards other future goals rather than falling off a cliff when the post event euphoria hits.

One important observation: I would strongly suggest getting the required ascent in each week. Using a good quality hike towards your weekly mileage and ascent is reasonable and sensible as most of us will have to fast hike significant sections on event day anyway. Make your training as race/event specific as possible. 

Lastly: Do enjoy whatever you decide to do.

PS: Get a foam roller and use it!

In reply to elliot.baker:

Welsh 3000s is eminently bodgeable, point 1. You can get round without becoming a slave to the plan. So instead of being trapped by the plan, meet it halfway. Be disciplined but don’t let it browbeat you. Bend it to suit.
 

I did my first Half off a longest run of 8.5 miles, first marathon I’d got to about 16, first ultra after a couple more 20 milers. Same with the 3k, recced it in 2 overlapping halves. You can do it, you can enjoy it. It’ll be an adventure whatever happens.

In reply to elliot.baker:

Do you mean moving from Z1-Z2 to Z2-Z3?  I would be wary of this because the extra training load at Z3 adds a lot more fatigue than Z2 stuff without any of the benefits of Z4 work. I fell into this trap until I got an HR monitor 2 years ago. With the HR monitor I discovered I was spending a third of my rides at Z3 ( its a fun pace) and never getting much fitter.  Switching to 80:20 polarised training I finally broke the cycle of getting overtrained and fatiguing by early summer. I had no idea that the night sweats, cramps and crap sleep were because I was overdoing it.  Now I avoid time in Z3 as much as I can.

I'm primarily a cyclist so I do all my high intensity stuff on the bike. I started running by accident 2 years ago as my daily walk got faster and faster. Its a 6.3km circuit with 80m elevation on the way out and downhill all the way home. I keep it entirely in Z2 once I've walked for 5 minutes to warm up, this does mean that sometimes I still have to walk the steep bits, but I've still seen my pace get faster by 1:00/km within the last year for the same heart rate.

I used Intervals.icu to check my stats and in 2021, I did 100hrs walking (this does include very gentle ones with the family.)  32hrs running, and 186hrs on the bike, which by zone breakdowns like this.

Z1 176hrs 57%

Z2 64hrs   21%

Z3 16hrs   5%

Z4+ 70hrs 17%

In reply to elliot.baker:

This is exactly where you don't want to be (If you are following the book's style of training.. otherwise feel free to ignore) as you will be training in the 'dreaded' zone 3, which gives short term gains but doesn't give you any long term benefits as you are neither training your aerobic system (Long, easy runs) or anaerobic system (Short hard intervals / reps etc) specifically. See Chapter Five in the book for more info about this.

Most runners tend to fall in to this trap (me included) as it feels good because the pace is nice and feels like you are getting something out of the run. I would suggest just finding a nice flat route that you can nail in your Z2 all the way round for your base period then move on to something a bit more hilly that you can still cope with in Z2 if you want to see long term benefits. If you keep your strenuous running to just an interval session (and make sure you go all out) you will find this will train the two systems much better than constant Z3 running. 

I am in the process of training for an ultra too although a bit less ascent mind you, but my loose training plan is basically 4x7km easy flat loops (Z2 Max), 1x10km hilly/interval session (All out hard on the hills) and a long run/hike/ski/etc (±20km / Z2) on the weekend to get some elevation in. 

In reply to elliot.baker:

Make sure you do some downhill training - much higher shock loading on your quads.

I did the Welsh 3k when I was fairly (road) running fit, did it as a walk on uphill, walk/jog on level & downhill. By the end my quads were painful jelly.

In reply to denis b:

Thanks for the comments - I have invested in a foam roller! And it is good! It does feel like a poor man's massage from what I can tell.

I've looked at my weekly ascent and it's been 850m per week and rising steadily with mileage, this means by the end it would be about getting up to about 1600-1800m ascent per week. Under half the W3K. 

Do you think that's enough? Belper is very "hilly" but there is a big difference between hills and mountains! You can do 1100m ascent in a 10k at Snowdon.... you can't in Belper!

In reply to Garethza:

I hear ya.... I know I should be slowing down to Z2 running. I did that aerobic threshold test when I started this (that you referenced in the other HR thread, I think) and it's about 143bpm for me, so really I need to be under that most of the time, but I often look down and find myself up at about 155-165, my Lactate threshold is 172 according to my Garmin watch - so I am smack bang in the no-man's land of Z3 aren't I.

I'm doing my long run tomorrow morning, 16km, so will really try to stick to Z2. I might sprint up the big hill or something to get some Z4 in then pause at the top. I just can't bring myself to walk, I know I should, I'm being stupid.

I haven't seen a way to look at my weekly accumulated HR zones, is there a way with Strava or Garmin? Or do I need to pay for something, I think Veloviewer for Strava can do it? But I don't know if my Strava HR zones are matched to my Garmin ones, which are updated to my aerobic and lactate threshold.

Thanks for the pep talk Coach! 

😂

In reply to Michael Hood:

Ah yes, how could I have forgotten! Training to cope with long steep downhills is (IMHO) one of the hardest things to do if you don't have long steep downhills locally. There just doesn't seem to be any effective proxy training (that isn't a significant injury risk).

The route of the Crich Monument Race isn’t far from you. I don’t know the total ascent off the top of my head but it’s quite a bit.

In reply to Jon Greengrass & Garethza:

I'm a bit confused with heart rate zones. As I understand it there are 5 zones? 

These are classed as very light, light, moderate, hard and maximum?

Garmin watches strangely mark Z1  as “No zone”, Z2 as “Easy”, Z3 as “Aerobic”, Z4 as “Threshold” and Z5 as “Maximum”.

I've assumed my watch showing “Aerobic” for 80% of the time was the “80:20” optimum. Have I got that wrong, and doing that is actually putting me in the “dreaded Z3” (which I'd never heard of until this thread) most of the time?

Confused of West Cumbria

In reply to elliot.baker:

​​​​​​That is absolutely standard, you don't need to do anything like the total distance in one go in training. This is because your training works on the cumulative effect and doing the full distance or close to it would be difficult to recover from.

Charlie Ramsay's Round is about 60 miles and I reckon my longest individual training run for it was about 25 miles and peak week about 60. All the training was on similar terrain to the round though.

In reply to Ridge:

Just bear in mind that your heart knows nothing about 'zones' either. Nor did most Olympic gold medalist runners. They are a fiction - albeit a sometime useful one - invented by the training industry.

5 zones? You can have as few or many as you like. At the end of the day there's a continuum of effort/power/heart-rate (choose one) from minimum to maximum. How it gets divided up just depends on what 'plan' you are trying to sell.

If you do what people have done for decades/centuries - i.e., do some long, slow runs and throw in some short fast ones, you get 90% of the benefit of any modern multi-zone plan - particularly any that isn't specifically tuned to your fitness/aspiration/physiology.

In reply to elliot.baker:

If your goal is to get round the Welsh 3000ers then just forget all that zones and heart rate stuff and spend some long days out in hilly terrain. It's time on your feet in the hills that counts for long hill running challenges.

In reply to Ridge:

Have you set your zones on your garmin watch or are they set based on your max HR (220-age)? Are you using a chest HRM? Personally I would just discredit what your garmin says as it’s all a bit wishy washy..
 

As another person said you can have as many or as little zones as you want depending on what training methodology you persue.. five is normal though.

In reply to Ridge:

Yeah agree with what you and the other person said about zones (as in they are just a model you can have as many as you like). The book training for the uphill athlete has:

recovery - which is more Than 20% below aerobic threshold (basically very light effort like walking)

z1 10 - 20% under aerobic, very easy to easy

z2 is 10% below aerobic up to your aerobic (which they say is basically the top of your conversational easy pace)

z3 is aerobic up to lactAte threshold (which they say is the max you can run at for about an hour at a decent pace, can’t talk in full sentences)

z4 is lactate threshold up to max 

z5 is just maximum possible effort can only be maintained for 8-60seconds 

basically the argument of the book is: z2 and below is good for aerobic training that you can then maintain a good pace for hours or even 24hours +. 
 

z3 they say kind of doesn’t train your anaerobic system very well, or your aerobic- and makes you more fatigued over time so is less sustainable. So should be avoided. But it’s also the most fun pace. So…. Kind of a catch 22 😂 

In reply to Marek, Garethza & elliot.baket:

Thanks for the responses. I've tweaked my garmin 'zones' a bit, but Marek's comment about the heart not recognising these arbitrary limits to heart. Particularly when doing hill work, pushing hard uphill gives a (wrist based) HR that tells me I'm in Zone 2, doing a 'comfortably fast' downhill the watch tells me I'm in Z4 or Z5.

As elliot said, Z3 just seems to feel a 'good' pace, that takes a lot of breaking away from.

In reply to elliot.baker:

Your stated goal was just to finish the W3K wasn't it?  For that, what you're doing will be ample.

However, for big hill running challenges there's a pretty good argument for basing your training on ascent rather than distance. When I was running regularly my weekly distance might only have been 60k but the ascent was almost always 3000m+. I'm not saying you should do that but more focus on ascent and less on distance is helpful.

I live in a place where that's easy to do, I'm not sure about your location but find the biggest hill and lap it!

In reply to DaveHK:

Agreed, but I would go even further (forgive the pun)...

If you think you are reasonably fit for running on the flat, don't make the mistake of thinking you're fit for training hills. Treat this as a new activity and start EASY otherwise you're quite likely to pick up all sorts of annoying injuries, particularly if you push any downhill running. And yes, if you want to be fast in the hills you have to learn how to run fast down steep hills - it takes strength, technique and a clear head, something you have to learn with caution.

In reply to Ridge:

I wonder if part of that is, for me anyway, running at around 8 min/mile (5 min/km) or faster makes it easier to run with good running form whereas slower speeds are harder and I can fall into a shuffling posture so it just doesn't feel as nice.

In reply to DaveHK: And don't think the opposite as well - don't think running up and down hills makes you fit for dead flat courses as well   No downhills to rest on, just relentless suffering

In reply to wbo2:

What do you mean 'downhills to rest on'? Downhills should be just as hard as uphills if you're racing - but in a different way, I admit. Harder to pace too: Go too fast up hill and you slow down. Go too fast downhill and one lapse of concentration and you're a-over-t in the rocks (I'm thinking fell running here).

In reply to Marek:

I know this from experience,  Christmas 2020 I realised I was just shy of two Everest’s ascent in the year so I thought I’ll just lap the hill opposite my house for a week. Did about 3 sessions of just up down x5 and did myself a knee injury that lasted about 3 months! Thought it was permanent at one point.  
 

This morning did my long run of 16km, 437m ascent and managed to keep in z2 or below for 74% of the time! Easy on the flats and downhills but on the hills had to walk and occasionally stop to keep below z3. Got harder to keep HR down as I got towards the end. 

In reply to elliot.baker:

With respect to ascent "The Book" suggests training to about one third to half of the ascent of your goal event in the first week if you are a beginner and that your programme should work up to completing your goal ascent on at least 2 weeks in late stage training. The usual caveats apply to increasing distance/time and ascent to ensure you don't overdo it. In practice, I have found the ascent targets manageable. Like all training, it just contributes to making the goal event more achievable.

Well worth staying out of training zone 3, if you can!

In reply to elliot.baker:

"When it comes to basic aerobic training (Zones 1 and 2): If you can't do the same workout you did yesterday again today, and tomorrow and the day after for days on end, then you are doing too much. You are doing too much volume or too much intensity for your current regimen to be considered an aerobic base-building program."

Taken from the book - I think this sums up the aerobic base side of things quite well

In reply to Garethza:

Agree from a purely aerobic point, but there are some caveats. Being able to perform well at long distances is not just down to aerobics, there are other factors which determine how well you'll do. Psychological (knowing how to keep going when the going gets tough - because it will) and physiological (strengthening ligaments, tendons, skin). If you stick to the above advice, then your first race is going to come as a shock because you've only trained one aspect of the complex requirements that'll be put on your body. The above advice works OK if you race regularly (e.g., at least once a month), but then the 'racing' is arguably part of your 'training'. Otherwise you really need to supplement you long Z1 and Z2 can-run-like-this-all-day runs with a monthly (approx) run that's going to expose you to race-like stresses. One classic example of this is to throw in a couple of harder (but still long Z2, e.g., 15-20 miles at a bit less than race-pace) back-to-back runs - the first day will be OK, but the second is likely to be a bit 'character-building' if you aim for negative-splits (2nd should be as fast or a bit faster than the 1st). Abbreviation-merchants would probably label this as LIIT (Low Intensity Interval Training).

I haven't written a book, but base this on plenty of experiences - both mine and others'.

In reply to Marek:

This is, I think, similar to the book's approach. For a 50km "beginnger" training programme, it recommends 3 x 4 week "base building" blocks, with 3 weeks of increasing mileage and 1 recovery week. Then after these 12 weeks there are the "intensity weeks" which are 2 consecutive weeks of back-to-back long run (like you said), then recovery week, then repeat that. Then 1-2 weeks taper than "race day" (which for me isn't a race just a personal goal with no pressure other than to get back to the car!).

There's also weekly hill sprints and leg strength training.

I added an extra 4 week block to the beginning so that I could move from my existing weekly mileage to the mileage of the 1st book week smoothly. 

In reply to elliot.baker:

Yes, that sound sensible. I used a simple hard-week/easy-week pattern year round and made sure that at the end of the hard week I was looking forward to an easy week (around 10-20% down in mileage/effort).

In reply to Marek:

Thinking about it a bit more (sad, I know), I'm not sure 3-weeks-hard-1-week-easy makes much sense unless you are training for something like the Dragon's Back or the Spine. Without very careful pacing, the last hard week is likely to be a damp squib. I did try middling/hard/easy weeks for a while but wasn't convinced it was worth the complication compared to just hard/easy (I was generally training for either long single days or 2-3 day events max).

In reply to Marek:

What is the difference (mileage or effort wise) between your hard and easy weeks though?

The book's 'hard' weeks only seem to have about a 10% increase in mileage between them so that seems pretty achievable, as long as you are starting at a reasonable number ! 

...

I wrote the above then saw you mentioned 10-20% difference in between hard and easy weeks.. rather than the 40-50% drop in milage you would need for a proper recovery week. The book emphasises modulation as the key to seeing gains, hence the 3 weeks of stressing the body and 1 week of recovery. I would assume that the length of this cycle is proven to be the most beneficial but obviously, everyone is different so you have to find what works for you!

In reply to Garethza:

Yes, the "10-20%" is inevitably vague since it covers mileage and effort. I might a 10 mile run in Z3/4 in a hard week and the same run in Z1/2 in the following easy week. No change in mileage but much easier in perceived effort and physiological stress.

In reply to elliot.baker:

I think this thread is great, thanks for posting.

"Will my new found endurance running prowess just fade away?" 

Yes, but you will know how to get it back, and if you want to do a similar event next year you will be able to do so - but if you want to do a similar event a few months later, it will be easy to tune your fitness for it and keep the 'prowess'.

I'd suggest not being a slave to the plan with your experience.  If you want to go for a long walk or do a longer run one day then do so.  You are very unlikely to have written an optimal plan - you aren't a professional coach with years of experience - so sticking in a longer walk or longer run or missing a day might make things better or worse - it's a case of being adaptable and seeing what works and building your experience of what works for you.

Make sure you are enjoying the process.  I have friends who have gone from being less fit than me to winning big races and taking records, they have followed well structured training plans.  I don't regret not following the same course.  I have other priorities and run for my own enjoyment, not to win races or break records - when I do win stuff, that's great but it's not the main objective.  If you aren't enjoying it, or it's getting in the way of other stuff then sack it off - you aren't a professional and it's most important that you are enjoying it, that way you will keep it up.

In reply to elliot.baker:

Like a couple of other people I’ve been inspired by this thread and others like it to try paying attention to heart rate zones when I’m running. Two immediate observations:

• I need to dress more warmly when I’m going to be running more slowly. I was cold all morning after my zone two plod today. 
• I feel very self-conscious running slowly or even walking up hills when there are other people about. It took me forever to overtake a dog walker the other day. 

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

I'm exactly the same! I can almost hear the thoughts: "Look at the state of that old bloke doddering along, why's he even bothering with the running kit?" - "I knew it! He can't even run up hills".

I blame PE teachers from 40 years ago...

In reply to Ridge:

Exactly. I might wear my suit and carry a briefcase in future, to give the appearance that I’m just in a mild hurry to catch a bus. That would also solve the problem of being cold.

In reply to Ridge:

I find the self-consciousness of going slower is reduced by giving a hearty “hello” to those you meet. I imagine them thinking “wow, he’s barely out of breath. That other runner we saw looked like they were on the brink of a heart attack.”

The reality is more likely that they literally couldn’t care less how fast I’m going, how fit/unfit I look, or what I am wearing. And even if they do care, chances are I’ll never see them again anyway. 

edit to add: my personal experience from trying to stay in z2 almost exclusively last summer was that over a few months my z2 pace on the flat went from around  6.30min/km to around 5min/km. Race pace definitely improved too despite doing almost no speed work. 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I found the same result from doing loads of running on the flat. This 'extra speed' on the flat has translated to being able to carry more speed/intensity on the uphill, so being able to jog bits that I havent been able to do before because I would immediately be skyrocketing out of my Z2.

It seems you need to be a proficient runner on the flat to be able to have the aerobic capacity to be able to run up hills without your heart rate going mad, or at-least that is my personal finding!

In reply to Garethza:

I think it is quite personal. I was to opposite - rubbish on the flat (no leg speed, short stride), but could burn off fast runners when we hit the hills.

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

Isn’t that how fartlek was invented?!

(OP: I’m another one finding this thread inspiring - thanks.)

In reply to elliot.baker:

I think I'd be tempted put the book down as soon as I read that bit.

Strava records state that I ran for 146 hours covering a total of1099km last year. That included two 100km mountain races in Europe and 104 miles in 25 hours at the Suffolk Backyard Ultra.

Maybe I am a beginner in the eyes of the author but I suspect that they may be talking out of their arse