Capped my hilly run this morning doing 3 reps up & down a localish - I had to cycle to it - hill. Managed to keep HR down apart from when I ran past the house with the slobbering, bear sized rottweiler. First 10 km was…
31/01 65:19 @ 139 icy road & 603mtrs climb
Last time I did it was…
17/01 72:34 @ 137 clear roads & 603mtrs climb
57:05 @ 142bpm
Depressing. Is there a drop off you should expect from your 10k at max?
Been trying to run slower since last August - still feels completely unnatural, unenjoyable and seeing zero gains (either finding running slower easier, or getting back to a pace I used to be able to run at top end).
You sure you’re not missing 2-3km???
Soz pal 
I think the drop off is what we are trying to find.
Just how less useless you can be at far far less effort.
So say 170bpm is a 36min 10km
Then a 40min 10km at 140bpm is an absolute win!
I’m thinking of being able to cycle harder and run a bit slower, as giving time away knowingly in the run to gain on the bike is totally fine.
But that’s a pretty fine balance.
I feel my drop off is massive.
PB is 39.15 I think (not ran many 10s). Currently only seem to be capable of 42ish (well back in Nov/Dec - done a bit more speed work since so maybe bit faster).
I just dont find running slowly easy… never have. So I then just default to what feels best effort for pace.
On many treadmill ramp tests with gases, my CO2 consumption is less at ~5min/km than at ~5:30/km despite my heart rate being higher - ie I’m a considerably more efficient runner going a little bit faster (still in fat burning areas here), the HR of this challenge puts me in my inefficient zone, so my pace will be slow, and it won’t be conducive to a better ironman run if my legs hold out (since I’ll need to provide more calories than if I’d run it more efficiently)
Obviously, being inefficient in that zone, I could probably see big improvements in my efficiency by training at it! But the more efficient zone is already below my marathon heart rate, so it’s not a lot of value in improving my efficiency there unless I want to do very long events (and even then run/walk might be a better strategy)
I don’t run slow either, it’s not enjoyable, it’s unnatural, because the form changes totally, I do think running 57 minute 10km’s when you can run 42 is not particular good return on time, unless you’re doing a lot of volume, so I think the calculations aren’t working for you to get a good number.
It’s this paragraph for me.
If I’m running slower than 5s I can feel my form changing and it doesn’t feel for the better. It feels stuttered and unnatural. I also believe that unless you’re doing really big volume, it’s not going to do much to an already fit person.
Yeah I feel I’m shuffling rather than running. I keep being told to stick with it - but I really want to see some kinda progress soon.
I’m far from big volume; 20-25 a week over 3 runs.
Glad its not just me then.
I hated it as well, but I’m going to give a month or so & I’ve started quite enjoying the discipline it forces on me. I think I run a similar mileage to you.
well I was originally given a range of 5:10 - 5:50 to run in…which felt weird enough coming from 4:15-4:40.
After constantly nudging against the 5:10 end of that spectrum - it was pushed out to 5:30-5:50 which I found nigh on impossible. Watching HR rather than pace oddly made it a bit easier to go slower. But I’ve been at this since August and feel just as inefficient as run 1 back then.
No-one is listening to my fucking crackpot advice about breathing in for 4 steps & out for 3 
. Try it for a mile, it may give you something else to concentrate on.
Is that km or miles per week (20-25?)
Your drop off is identical to mine.
You’ve ran a 42min 10km and can do an aerobic one in 57 minutes (~35% increase)
I’ve ran a 36:34 10km recently and did my aerobic 10km in 49:38 (~35% increase)
5:00/km doesn’t feel slow or fast, it’s just a simple pace to run at.
5:30/km is laboured.
6:00/km and I’m shuffling.
That’s about it?
Do you have any run metrics, cadence/ground contact time/stride distance etc. ?
But I’ve only run a 42 minute 10km recently and 5:00 is laboured, 5:10 and I figure I’m better of at home, certainly much harder to run at 5:10 than 4:40. I could not do a 57 minute 10km other than as a run walk.
Oh I used to do that when I started running @Doonhamer - not felt the need of late… tho barely breathing once Ive settled down.
Ok thats interesting @Poet … still sounds cr@p tho doesnt it 
Might just stick to zwift cycling 
I did a 14km run walk on Saturday.
9:1 - 4:56/km for 140bpm average.
HR maxed at 154bpm (top Z2 is 158bpm)
10km was 4:57/km for 140/152.
I can go faster using a run/walk method for the same HR (ave and max cap) than I can running.
Not sure what that says or if I have a point 
@Poet thats miles btw. 1 shortish run, 1 long (both at slow pace) then either tempo or intervals etc.
Todays run;
5k @ new years
10k in Nov
Cant find any other stats. Dont normally wear Chest strap which I think is needed for GCT isnt it?
I pay zero attention to them
To be fair, I rarely look at pace or HR either.
Just for this challenge and on long runs.
Can talk = easy
Can talk, but have to pause for breath = mod-easy
Talking is on its way out = moderate
Breathing is hard = hard
Cannot breathe = 400 repeats
That seems like quite low cadence for a flat out 5km. Don’t really know what that says, or if it’s just an observation!
I forgot to pen my thoughts yesterday actually on my run. I was thinking how i disagree with the much derided zone 3 running. Again, if you’re doing high volume stuff, then i agree. It’s neither recovery, base buliding or hard enough to be pushing your various systems (depending on how hard).
But for me, z3 running is core to what i do when i’m running as infrequently as i am now. 10-30km a week i guess. If i ran in z1 or z2, then i don’t think it would make any difference to my running. But if i just run once a week, like i did yesterday, and popped out a sub 90 half (or thereabouts) firmly in Z3, then that keeps me topped up quite nicely. I don’t lose fitness from that point, but i’m at a level where i can up the game - volume and intensity - for a few weeks and start to get some improvements ready for a target.
So as with all things tri related, the answer to most questions starts with ‘It depends …’.
Right, so assuming the other two were reasonably hard, and todays was the easy, your shortened stride is significant here - this is limiting your peak force requirements (less of a “jump” on each take off) so saving your muscles. So that is presumably what your body is optimising here internally - but your metric is all about HR, so exactly opposite to what the body is optimising for.
If you could lengthen your stride, I imagine your heart demands won’t change much, especially if you can drop a couple of steps, so you’d see a much faster 10km for the same HR - as I said above I can’t see the point - but try a run where you focus on longer strides whilst the HR stays down, that may give you big improvemnt.
5k PB many years ago (18:13) cadence was at 190.
Looking at some interval stuff… did some 2k stuff into 500s. The 2k was also at 180s and the 500s started above 190 but fell to mid 180s.
Im finding speed endurance really lacking at the minute and I do think I start to overstride when I’m chasing pace a bit. So I do think if pace ever comes back, the cadence will naturally increase with it.