80/20 running - too slow? Garmin says "Non-Productive" (Read 163 times)

Hi - I'm a 59 year old runner recreational runner -  did a marathon in 3:43 10 years ago, and a hilly 27:00 5k a month ago, with the longest runs training for that being 5K, I pretty much just ran the race to train for it. I pretty much just started back to running as a dedicated activity 3-4 months ago, after taking about 5 years off  /embarrassing/. Fenix 5S Plus.

My max HR is 178 BPM (a true max HR, measured during the sprint at the end of a 3 mile run).

A few weeks ago I started on Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 program, and I'm kind of questioning whether it is right for me. It's really hard to keep my HR under 135-140 BPM on those 5-6 mile "easy days" without feeling like my mechanics are way off. This is especially true on hills ... to keep the HR so slow, I'm almost march-walking rather than running up those hills!

I had more or less convinced myself to stick with the 80/20 despite the misgivings about the mechanics (I am barely tired at the end of my 5 mile "easy day" runs at 140 BPM max, though to be honest my body cheats and my averages are closer to 150 BPM) ... but then yesterday Garmin reported my long run as Unproductive!!

Is maybe this 80/20 thing just not meant for me, and I should look for a different training method?

Thanks for any advice!

As I understand it Non-Productive status means that you are likely working too hard for your recovery status.  This is below the "Over reaching" status.

Not sure how long you've been using that particular watch, but it needs about 4 weeks of data to be helpful.

I've used Fitzgerald's 80/20 plan before.  Turned out it was the most miles I put in for training and (at the time) the best trained I'd ever been.  It does really depend upon having your heart rate zones set correctly and I've used HR almost exclusively as the basis to train.  I use a thirty minute test to set HR zones but that is a slightly different topic.

 

Fitzgerald's is actually not too dissimilar from Pfitzinger's  plan. And yes, the mechanics can be off if it is too slow (seems like Fitzgerald references that somewhere in his book).  Both plans focus on a mixture of easy running with specific hard runs on specific days in the training cycle.

 

So here's the deal with Garmin's use of First Beats to determine how to classify a run...it get's confused.  On the whole, over the course of the plan, you should see it show that your performance is "productive."  You'll also see times of "Unproductive", "Maintaining", and "Recovery."  Haven't seen an "Overtraining" yet.  Doesn't take too long to get to detraining if you miss several runs in a row.  If you're sticking with the plan, I wouldn't worry so much about how Garmin (First Beats) classifies it.

 

There is one other thing that needs to be mentioned about these watches with the dropping temperatures of autumn (I have a Fenix 5X).  They can also be fooled by the cooling effects and the difficulties of reading wrist based HR compared to chest-strap HR.  I will occasionally run with the chest strap HR operating at the same time as the wrist-based for direct comparison (Unpair the strap-based monitor and used the auxiliary HR program from Connect IQ.  It will automatically "see" the ANT+ chest-strap HR monitor and read both simultaneously).  On average, the wrist-based HR is approximately 1 bpm higher than chest-strap readings, but they can diverge wildly over short periods of time.

Thank you everyone for your awesome answers! Gsaun039, your info is really especially helpful,  sounds like you have some history with Garmin/FirstBeat. I do disable the wrist monitor and use a chest strap while running. Fenix 5S Plus.

I think I'm still deconditioned/not in real running shape, and that's why my heart rate is so high on even the easy runs. On top of that, it jumps 20 BPM just by going from lying down to standing, which makes my running HR as a % of max HR hard for me to understand.

I also did take a week off, which at this early stage of my retraining was probably too much.

So the only thing I'm worried about is that my mechanics feel different and awkward at the slower pace of the 80/20 runs. Is that bad? I could speed up till my mechanics stop feeling weird, but would that mean I'm not really getting any 80/20 benefit?

Thanks everybody!

And to address your last question:  I'd also recommend running at a pace that feels smooth and efficient regardless of HR.  It is possible to injure yourself running too slowly.  Take note of what your HR is when you feel like you're running easy but comfortably without fatiguing.  It will be interesting to see how far off from the 135-140 zone it is and how consistent it is.

You're welcome!

Don't be so sure that there is something "wrong" with your equation, lol.  I have a similar conundrum:  my HR can easily slip into the 160s on an "easy" run.  I'm 33.  That's technically threshold effort by the books.  There are so many factors that can affect data like, too.  Are you overtired?  Did you have more/less caffeine than usual?  Are you annoyed or stressed by work?

I know Matt personally and feel comfortable surmising that he wouldn't have an issue with running by perceived effort instead of adhering to the numbers.    I like his approach to training because it allows for deference to real world heuristics.  If you feel weird running at 140 bpm, then maybe running that slowly isn't for you and it's that simple!  But yes, as you build miles and gain fitness, watch for trends.

Honestly I tend to ignore whatever Garmin says and just trust my coach.  A lot of the Garmin performance/training measures work off the VO2 estimate that some Garmin watches have, which is an estimator only and not that accurate - if I'm running a lot of hills, or in warmer temps, my VO2 will go down, and if I'm running track, or in colder temps my VO2 will go up!

Thank you everyone for your awesome answers! Gsaun039, your info is really especially helpful,  sounds like you have some history with Garmin/FirstBeat. I do disable the wrist monitor and use a chest strap while running. Fenix 5S Plus.

 

I think I'm still deconditioned/not in real running shape, and that's why my heart rate is so high on even the easy runs. On top of that, it jumps 20 BPM just by going from lying down to standing, which makes my running HR as a % of max HR hard for me to understand.

 

I also did take a week off, which at this early stage of my retraining was probably too much.

 

So the only thing I'm worried about is that my mechanics feel different and awkward at the slower pace of the 80/20 runs. Is that bad? I could speed up till my mechanics stop feeling weird, but would that mean I'm not really getting any 80/20 benefit?

 

Thanks everybody!

My HR jumps quite a bit  by going from resting to moving, but once I get moving (running) the HR comes up "to speed" rather quickly and then settles in.

Before I had a Garmin, I had a TomTom (Spark/Runner 2) and they employed a limited set of FirstBeats metrics into their watch.  And before that it was a Zephyr (I had both the BT and BTLE models) chest-strap monitor.  Before I ditched the chest-strap nearly all together, I did side-by-side comparisons of the data to determine from both wrist-based and chest-strap based HR to become convinced that they were at least comparable.  Once I did that, I set my HR zones into the watch and the rest was "history."

The difference with the Garmin is that I've allowed it to make adjustments to the HR zones, LTHR, lactate threshold pace, and VO2max periodically.  Here's what I've found with 5 years of running and HR data (I started my data set at age 59 and I'm now 65).  Your maximum HR is pretty much set and may decrease as you age simply because you don't necessarily want to push your HR into fibrillation range.  I've also noted that my HR zones haven't changed all that much.  What has changed is the pace associated with a given zone and that tends to increase as my training progresses toward a key race.

Even in my current undertrained condition, I'm pretty competitive in my age group in the 5k race distance and maybe at 10K.  I missed out demonstrating that a month ago in a race because I needed to go and take care of my dad (who broke his leg).

Every person I know who has transitioned from what feels easy to what the HR zone says is easy has discovered that, yes, you slow down initially.  But you also don't spend all your time being exhausted from running.  And the thing about Fitzgerald's plan that was surprising to me was as my conditioning approved, my mileage really increased dramatically as well.  There were weeks where I was getting in more than 60 miles before the taper.  I had a couple of months where I was well over 200 miles.

So, with Fitzgerald (whose HR zone plan is also time based for all but the longer runs), I would slow down to stay within zone even if it meant that I slowed to a fast walk for about 30 seconds to keep or lower my HR back into range.  That didn't last long.  Soon enough, I was running all the time and within zone.

You might ask how I did in the marathon after that training.  Okay and then great.  I was really well trained and felt good on a very cold race day.  Hit the wall at mile 23.5 (never had that happen before).  I felt great at mile 20 and picked up the pace (as planned) right at the the 20 mile marker.  Left the group I was running with in my rearview mirror as I ran over a high bridge.  They never caught me after I hit the wall, but my pace really suffered for that last 2.5 miles.  Had just enough left to make the finish look good for the pictures (but I was spent).  What looked like a great PR was just mediocre.  What happened?  Ran the first three miles too fast before I got into rhythm.  I paid for that in the last three miles.

I ran another marathon just a week later with only two easy shakeout runs of three and six miles, relying upon my Fitzgerald training.  This time under even colder and worse conditions, I managed to keep my pace under control at the start and throughout the race.  And this time I waited until mile 23 before I dropped the hammer by picking up the pace by 30 seconds per mile on each of the last three miles and sprinted the last 200 yards and blew my PR away by more than 11 minutes.  I used these back-to-back weekend marathons as qualification for Marathon Maniacs.

Lesson: if you don't run a smart race after all that training, you might not get the results you trained for.