login
Why is running slow better? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-06-26 10:25 AM in reply to: #2245049 |
Master  1853     syracuse |  Subject: RE: Why is running slow better?Daremo - 2009-06-26 11:14 AM Sigh ............ To quote the great and venerable Scout. Just run. Slow most of the time, medium some of the time and fast a little bit (mainly in races). Throw the HR training out the window and just run. You don't need to know your zones and HR training is not any more rewarding/efficient than pace training or RPE training. It is just a different approach. I can absolutely GUARANTEE that the vast majority of the people on BT are not running enough (or riding enough, or swimming enough) to really have any of that stuff make that much of a difference. If you aren't running at least 30+ miles a week, the only thing you should be worrying about is how to fit in more workouts. If you are only running twice a week??? Then running slow isn't better or worse than anything else, because you are barely going to make any headway to begin with. I think your repsonse has to do with your presonal preference for how to train than anything else. |
| 2009-06-26 10:26 AM in reply to: #2245053 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? trix - 2009-06-26 11:17 AM i just want to get faster that is all....  Don't we all!  good news is....from my first sprint in Feb to June I had moved from a 24:30 to a 22:30. which makes me happy in my pants....although i got to say i would rather see a 20:00 on the board. Congrats on your success!! Don't forget that a triathlete's ability to run solid times off the bike has just as much (if not more) to do with properly pacing and training the bike than just run training. I see the most gains in my running when I start doing 4 or more runs a week with one long session and a mixed bag of other ones (recovery, tempo, general aerobic, or speed). Since I've got two marathons and an ultra relay within a 4 week span, I am ramping up my running again so expect some good gains. You want to run faster? Train like a runner ...... |
| 2009-06-26 10:27 AM in reply to: #2245049 |
Master 2167 Livonia, MI | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Daremo - 2009-06-26 10:14 AM Sigh ............ To quote the great and venerable Scout. Just run. Slow most of the time, medium some of the time and fast a little bit (mainly in races). Throw the HR training out the window and just run. You don't need to know your zones and HR training is not any more rewarding/efficient than pace training or RPE training. It is just a different approach. I can absolutely GUARANTEE that the vast majority of the people on BT are not running enough (or riding enough, or swimming enough) to really have any of that stuff make that much of a difference. If you aren't running at least 30+ miles a week, the only thing you should be worrying about is how to fit in more workouts. If you are only running twice a week??? Then running slow isn't better or worse than anything else, because you are barely going to make any headway to begin with. This theory doesn't seem to apply to me. I went from running 4-5 times/week without paying attention to my HR and was making little to no progress. Once I got a test to determine my AT and learned how to apply it to my training sessions using all the zones, I was finally able to gain speed......running only twice a week for 5-10 miles/session, sometimes less. IMO, it was because I was training smarter not longer. Not everyone can devote more than a few days per week to running. Why not find a way to increase your speed with that volume? I know I did, and it was relient on using my HR. |
| 2009-06-26 10:32 AM in reply to: #2245095 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:27 AM Daremo - 2009-06-26 10:14 AM Sigh ............ To quote the great and venerable Scout. Just run. Slow most of the time, medium some of the time and fast a little bit (mainly in races). Throw the HR training out the window and just run. You don't need to know your zones and HR training is not any more rewarding/efficient than pace training or RPE training. It is just a different approach. I can absolutely GUARANTEE that the vast majority of the people on BT are not running enough (or riding enough, or swimming enough) to really have any of that stuff make that much of a difference. If you aren't running at least 30+ miles a week, the only thing you should be worrying about is how to fit in more workouts. If you are only running twice a week??? Then running slow isn't better or worse than anything else, because you are barely going to make any headway to begin with. This theory doesn't seem to apply to me. I went from running 4-5 times/week without paying attention to my HR and was making little to no progress. Once I got a test to determine my AT and learned how to apply it to my training sessions using all the zones, I was finally able to gain speed......running only twice a week for 5-10 miles/session, sometimes less. IMO, it was because I was training smarter not longer. Not everyone can devote more than a few days per week to running. Why not find a way to increase your speed with that volume? I know I did, and it was relient on using my HR. Yes, it does. You may have applied it poorly. If people want to limit the amount of work they want to do (for whatever valid reasons), they will limit their potential. It's that simple. |
| 2009-06-26 10:33 AM in reply to: #2245087 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? cusetri - 2009-06-26 11:25 AM I think your repsonse has to do with your presonal preference for how to train than anything else. Or based on the fact that there are umpteen-million coaches out there all with their own training philosophies with all separate approaches that can all point to successful results in athletes they've trained ranging from pace, rpe, or HR to voodoo witchcraft and equipment choices. I've used all the mainstream approaches and they all worked the same - it was just semantics and what "number" you were supposed to pay attention to. You go to me, I'll give you a well thought out and organized plan using pacing. You go to someone else, you'll get HR zone training. You go to another, you'll get RPE based workouts. But with every single one of them, if you do the work that coach prescribed (assuming they are even remotely competent), you will improve - regardless of method! There is no one single approach that works. But they ALL have one thing in common. Get your azz out there and train!! People try to overcomplicate things WAYYYYYY too often, especially triathletes (and in some respects cyclists). Run. Run lots with a proper approach to building your mileage. Rest, eat right, sleep, rinse and repeat. It really is that simple. |
| 2009-06-26 10:36 AM in reply to: #2245114 |
Master 2167 Livonia, MI | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? JohnnyKay - 2009-06-26 10:32 AM noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:27 AM Daremo - 2009-06-26 10:14 AM Sigh ............ To quote the great and venerable Scout. Just run. Slow most of the time, medium some of the time and fast a little bit (mainly in races). Throw the HR training out the window and just run. You don't need to know your zones and HR training is not any more rewarding/efficient than pace training or RPE training. It is just a different approach. I can absolutely GUARANTEE that the vast majority of the people on BT are not running enough (or riding enough, or swimming enough) to really have any of that stuff make that much of a difference. If you aren't running at least 30+ miles a week, the only thing you should be worrying about is how to fit in more workouts. If you are only running twice a week??? Then running slow isn't better or worse than anything else, because you are barely going to make any headway to begin with. This theory doesn't seem to apply to me. I went from running 4-5 times/week without paying attention to my HR and was making little to no progress. Once I got a test to determine my AT and learned how to apply it to my training sessions using all the zones, I was finally able to gain speed......running only twice a week for 5-10 miles/session, sometimes less. IMO, it was because I was training smarter not longer. Not everyone can devote more than a few days per week to running. Why not find a way to increase your speed with that volume? I know I did, and it was relient on using my HR. Yes, it does. You may have applied it poorly. If people want to limit the amount of work they want to do (for whatever valid reasons), they will limit their potential. It's that simple. Call it what you will but if I'm getting faster by running twice a week, what's the point of trying to force another run in there when I could be biking/swimming/doing other fitness/having a life intead? I'm getting faster!  |
| 2009-06-26 10:37 AM in reply to: #2245114 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Am I correct in saying, when executed properly, a weeks schedule of running based on RPE or HR will yield the exact same results. If so, it really doesnt matter-- do what is easiest for you to follow. |
| 2009-06-26 10:40 AM in reply to: #2245095 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:27 AM This theory doesn't seem to apply to me. I went from running 4-5 times/week without paying attention to my HR and was making little to no progress. Once I got a test to determine my AT and learned how to apply it to my training sessions using all the zones, I was finally able to gain speed......running only twice a week for 5-10 miles/session, sometimes less. IMO, it was because I was training smarter not longer. Not everyone can devote more than a few days per week to running. Why not find a way to increase your speed with that volume? I know I did, and it was relient on using my HR. Because knowing your HR doesn't make a frickin' lick of difference!!!! Let's say you are a 25 minunte 5ker. What is the difference between having a plan that says go run 5 x 800 at Z5 HR and one that says go run 5 x 800 with 4:00 splits??? They are both using the same basis (5k effort for a 1/2 mile). Assuming an athlete does them, they will reap the same benefit. AND ......... (don't get me started) ........ you CANNOT use HR for true speed work!! Why??? Because it takes you anywhere from 30 - 60 seconds for the HR to catch up with the effort level and when you are doing repeats that only last 2 - 3 minutes, almost half the time the HRM shows the wrong gawddamn information! Does anyone consider that there is a reason almost all of the NCAA division 1 track coaches want nothing to do with HR monitors?????? I think they know what they are doing with their athletes, don't you? Edited by Daremo 2009-06-26 10:41 AM |
| 2009-06-26 10:41 AM in reply to: #2245120 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Daremo - 2009-06-26 11:33 AM cusetri - 2009-06-26 11:25 AM I think your repsonse has to do with your presonal preference for how to train than anything else. Or based on the fact that there are umpteen-million coaches out there all with their own training philosophies with all separate approaches that can all point to successful results in athletes they've trained ranging from pace, rpe, or HR to voodoo witchcraft and equipment choices. I've used all the mainstream approaches and they all worked the same - it was just semantics and what "number" you were supposed to pay attention to. You go to me, I'll give you a well thought out and organized plan using pacing. You go to someone else, you'll get HR zone training. You go to another, you'll get RPE based workouts. But with every single one of them, if you do the work that coach prescribed (assuming they are even remotely competent), you will improve - regardless of method! There is no one single approach that works. But they ALL have one thing in common. Get your azz out there and train!! People try to overcomplicate things WAYYYYYY too often, especially triathletes (and in some respects cyclists). Run. Run lots with a proper approach to building your mileage. Rest, eat right, sleep, rinse and repeat. It really is that simple. I think the funny part in us chattin' is we actually agree but disagree at the same time...  I'm very analytical in nature, and training in RPE would drive me nuts....not because it doesnt work, but because i'm analytical. so in the end, though easier for some, would be more difficult for me. I actually keep things very simple. 45 minutes, zone 2. not much easier than that. for you, that may be, 45 mins, RPE 3-4. we both just walk out the door and run, same effort.....
|
| 2009-06-26 10:42 AM in reply to: #2245134 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:36 AM Call it what you will but if I'm getting faster by running twice a week, what's the point of trying to force another run in there when I could be biking/swimming/doing other fitness/having a life intead? I'm getting faster! For now, since you're doing more work. Congrats. |
| 2009-06-26 10:44 AM in reply to: #2245140 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? cusetri - 2009-06-26 11:37 AM Am I correct in saying, when executed properly, a weeks schedule of running based on RPE or HR will yield the exact same results. If so, it really doesnt matter-- do what is easiest for you to follow. Not really. Because HR zone "definitions" are not always described well from one person to the next and HR in any given workout can be influenced by too many outside factors. Also, if you are following a prescribed plan from a competent coach that works with HR and has some rhyme and reason behind it, then yes, you will see benefits as that coach will put you in different zones for different periods to work on specific things. If you walk out the door and go "I think I'll run Z2 all day long" then there is really no reason to use HR in the first place. Edited by Daremo 2009-06-26 10:46 AM |
| 2009-06-26 10:45 AM in reply to: #2245165 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? cusetri - 2009-06-26 10:41 AM Daremo - 2009-06-26 11:33 AM cusetri - 2009-06-26 11:25 AM I think your repsonse has to do with your presonal preference for how to train than anything else. Or based on the fact that there are umpteen-million coaches out there all with their own training philosophies with all separate approaches that can all point to successful results in athletes they've trained ranging from pace, rpe, or HR to voodoo witchcraft and equipment choices. I've used all the mainstream approaches and they all worked the same - it was just semantics and what "number" you were supposed to pay attention to. You go to me, I'll give you a well thought out and organized plan using pacing. You go to someone else, you'll get HR zone training. You go to another, you'll get RPE based workouts. But with every single one of them, if you do the work that coach prescribed (assuming they are even remotely competent), you will improve - regardless of method! There is no one single approach that works. But they ALL have one thing in common. Get your azz out there and train!! People try to overcomplicate things WAYYYYYY too often, especially triathletes (and in some respects cyclists). Run. Run lots with a proper approach to building your mileage. Rest, eat right, sleep, rinse and repeat. It really is that simple. I think the funny part in us chattin' is we actually agree but disagree at the same time... I'm very analytical in nature, and training in RPE would drive me nuts....not because it doesnt work, but because i'm analytical. so in the end, though easier for some, would be more difficult for me. I actually keep things very simple. 45 minutes, zone 2. not much easier than that. for you, that may be, 45 mins, RPE 3-4. we both just walk out the door and run, same effort.....
You do this long enough and you can throw away the HRM. I wear mine for recordation purposes (which may satisfy your analytical nature), but can pretty much tell you what my HR is within a couple bpm just based on my effort. On the bike and on the run. |
| 2009-06-26 10:45 AM in reply to: #2245140 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? cusetri - 2009-06-26 11:37 AM Am I correct in saying, when executed properly, a weeks schedule of running based on RPE or HR will yield the exact same results. Yes, as long as you realize that HR can fluctuate for reasons outside your effort level and adjust accordingly on those occasions. But generally, it's not the measurement you are using but the simple idea to run more--which is best achieved by mostly 'easy', sometimes 'harder'. |
| 2009-06-26 10:47 AM in reply to: #2245134 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:36 AMCall it what you will but if I'm getting faster by running twice a week, what's the point of trying to force another run in there when I could be biking/swimming/doing other fitness/having a life intead? I'm getting faster! For now only. That will not last long. Not trying to be a d-ck, just telling you the flat out truth. |
| 2009-06-26 10:48 AM in reply to: #2245186 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Daremo - 2009-06-26 11:44 AM .cusetri - 2009-06-26 11:37 AM Am I correct in saying, when executed properly, a weeks schedule of running based on RPE or HR will yield the exact same results. If so, it really doesnt matter-- do what is easiest for you to follow. Not really. Because HR zone "definitions" are not always described well from one person to the next and HR in any given workout can be influenced by too many outside factors. Also, if you are following a prescribed plan from a competent coach that works with HR and has some rhyme and reason behind it, then yes, you will see benefits as that coach will put you in different zones for different periods to work on specific things. If you walk out the door and go "I think I'll run Z2 all day long" then there is reallt no reason to use HR in the first place. the same drift you talk about can be applied to RPE and paces.... Also, I said, "When executed properly."
|
| 2009-06-26 10:51 AM in reply to: #2245200 |
Master 2167 Livonia, MI | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Daremo - 2009-06-26 10:47 AM noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:36 AMCall it what you will but if I'm getting faster by running twice a week, what's the point of trying to force another run in there when I could be biking/swimming/doing other fitness/having a life intead? I'm getting faster! For now only. That will not last long. Not trying to be a d-ck, just telling you the flat out truth. This is experience over about a decade............ |
| 2009-06-26 10:59 AM in reply to: #2245220 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:51 AM Daremo - 2009-06-26 10:47 AM noelle1230 - 2009-06-26 11:36 AMCall it what you will but if I'm getting faster by running twice a week, what's the point of trying to force another run in there when I could be biking/swimming/doing other fitness/having a life intead? I'm getting faster! For now only. That will not last long. Not trying to be a d-ck, just telling you the flat out truth. This is experience over about a decade............ Hey, if your progress is keeping you happy then all the more power to you. Again, congrats. |
| 2009-06-26 11:24 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Veteran 318 Indianapolis | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I find this thread very informative. I am a complete newb to running, or jogging as I don't want to offend the runners. Anyway, I am following the BT 1/2 plan and it is RPE based. I have found that I really don't like running. However, after reading all of this I think "Ah hah! I may be doing it all wrong" As a total newb how do I know what rpe 5 is to me? I know I can listen to Daremo and go by the can you talk method. Or I can go have a study done and learn my zones. I never gave any thought to HR zones prior to reading this thread. I think it is important to do what works for you, which is probably why all the seasoned ones on here really have different opinions on what works. I like to see things in black and white, so I think HR zones may work for me. I know when I am running I tend to go too hard apparently because I know I could not carry on a converstation during any run I've done. Hence, I often kill my legs. I guess I never thought about it. So now, I am actually looking forward to my 2 hour run tonight. I may have judged running too quickly. I also agree with Daremo that it should be simple, but I don't think figuring out what works for you the best way is simple, I think that takes years. That is why I love this stuff so much, you try something, if it works you keep it, if it doesn't, try something else. |
| 2009-06-26 11:29 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Champion 10471 Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? |
| 2009-06-26 11:35 AM in reply to: #2245189 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? the bear - 2009-06-26 11:45 AM cusetri - 2009-06-26 10:41 AM Daremo - 2009-06-26 11:33 AM cusetri - 2009-06-26 11:25 AM I think your repsonse has to do with your presonal preference for how to train than anything else. Or based on the fact that there are umpteen-million coaches out there all with their own training philosophies with all separate approaches that can all point to successful results in athletes they've trained ranging from pace, rpe, or HR to voodoo witchcraft and equipment choices. I've used all the mainstream approaches and they all worked the same - it was just semantics and what "number" you were supposed to pay attention to. You go to me, I'll give you a well thought out and organized plan using pacing. You go to someone else, you'll get HR zone training. You go to another, you'll get RPE based workouts. But with every single one of them, if you do the work that coach prescribed (assuming they are even remotely competent), you will improve - regardless of method! There is no one single approach that works. But they ALL have one thing in common. Get your azz out there and train!! People try to overcomplicate things WAYYYYYY too often, especially triathletes (and in some respects cyclists). Run. Run lots with a proper approach to building your mileage. Rest, eat right, sleep, rinse and repeat. It really is that simple. I think the funny part in us chattin' is we actually agree but disagree at the same time... I'm very analytical in nature, and training in RPE would drive me nuts....not because it doesnt work, but because i'm analytical. so in the end, though easier for some, would be more difficult for me. I actually keep things very simple. 45 minutes, zone 2. not much easier than that. for you, that may be, 45 mins, RPE 3-4. we both just walk out the door and run, same effort.....
You do this long enough and you can throw away the HRM. I wear mine for recordation purposes (which may satisfy your analytical nature), but can pretty much tell you what my HR is within a couple bpm just based on my effort. On the bike and on the run. i would agree with that 100%. |
| 2009-06-26 11:38 AM in reply to: #2245371 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? shad01 - 2009-06-26 12:24 PM I find this thread very informative. I am a complete newb to running, or jogging as I don't want to offend the runners. Anyway, I am following the BT 1/2 plan and it is RPE based. I have found that I really don't like running. However, after reading all of this I think "Ah hah! I may be doing it all wrong" As a total newb how do I know what rpe 5 is to me? I know I can listen to Daremo and go by the can you talk method. Or I can go have a study done and learn my zones. I never gave any thought to HR zones prior to reading this thread. I think it is important to do what works for you, which is probably why all the seasoned ones on here really have different opinions on what works. I like to see things in black and white, so I think HR zones may work for me. I know when I am running I tend to go too hard apparently because I know I could not carry on a converstation during any run I've done. Hence, I often kill my legs. I guess I never thought about it. So now, I am actually looking forward to my 2 hour run tonight. I may have judged running too quickly. I also agree with Daremo that it should be simple, but I don't think figuring out what works for you the best way is simple, I think that takes years. That is why I love this stuff so much, you try something, if it works you keep it, if it doesn't, try something else. I will say that I used HR for much of my first 3 years of running and it was useful for me. I realize I SHOULD have been able to use the 'conversation' test, but my ego wouldn't allow me. When I had a number staring back at me and a beeping that wouldn't go away until I slowed down, it worked much better.  However, I would say it is probably best not to get too 'attached' to the HR and the 'zones'. Constantly work on developing a 'feel' for what the numbers indicate and you will find that running can be quite simple. And probably the BEST way to do it is not to try to run 3x/wk like many triathlon plans have you do. Try to run 5 or 6 or 7 times per week (after building to it, of course). If you struggle to get out the door, you have been running too hard and will have to back down or cut out sessions. Also, I would not get the 'study' done. You can determine your zones through simple field tests you can do on your own whenever you want for zero cost (zero monetary cost, anyway ). |
| 2009-06-26 11:42 AM in reply to: #2245049 |
New user 70 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Daremo - 2009-06-26 8:14 AM If you are only running twice a week??? Then running slow isn't better or worse than anything else, because you are barely going to make any headway to begin with. I am not chiming in on the HR theories presented here, but I have a good friend who is a multiple All American and been to Worlds who swims/bikes/runs twice a week in each sport. I would stack his run against most anyone in his age group. So, kind of disagree with the fact that twice a week won't help... I am sure that if you can handle it, more frequency is better. This is a fun thread to read, though. For me, I had to find a method that I respond to, which will make me fitter AND healthier, and not burn me out. I cooked myself (or had a coach who did so) a few years back and have not raced in 3 years... hoping to get back into the swing this year... ken |
| 2009-06-26 11:47 AM in reply to: #2245419 |
Veteran 318 Indianapolis | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? JohnnyKay - 2009-06-26 11:38 AM shad01 - 2009-06-26 12:24 PM I find this thread very informative. I am a complete newb to running, or jogging as I don't want to offend the runners. Anyway, I am following the BT 1/2 plan and it is RPE based. I have found that I really don't like running. However, after reading all of this I think "Ah hah! I may be doing it all wrong" As a total newb how do I know what rpe 5 is to me? I know I can listen to Daremo and go by the can you talk method. Or I can go have a study done and learn my zones. I never gave any thought to HR zones prior to reading this thread. I think it is important to do what works for you, which is probably why all the seasoned ones on here really have different opinions on what works. I like to see things in black and white, so I think HR zones may work for me. I know when I am running I tend to go too hard apparently because I know I could not carry on a converstation during any run I've done. Hence, I often kill my legs. I guess I never thought about it. So now, I am actually looking forward to my 2 hour run tonight. I may have judged running too quickly. I also agree with Daremo that it should be simple, but I don't think figuring out what works for you the best way is simple, I think that takes years. That is why I love this stuff so much, you try something, if it works you keep it, if it doesn't, try something else. I will say that I used HR for much of my first 3 years of running and it was useful for me. I realize I SHOULD have been able to use the 'conversation' test, but my ego wouldn't allow me. When I had a number staring back at me and a beeping that wouldn't go away until I slowed down, it worked much better. However, I would say it is probably best not to get too 'attached' to the HR and the 'zones'. Constantly work on developing a 'feel' for what the numbers indicate and you will find that running can be quite simple. And probably the BEST way to do it is not to try to run 3x/wk like many triathlon plans have you do. Try to run 5 or 6 or 7 times per week (after building to it, of course). If you struggle to get out the door, you have been running too hard and will have to back down or cut out sessions. Also, I would not get the 'study' done. You can determine your zones through simple field tests you can do on your own whenever you want for zero cost (zero monetary cost, anyway ). Great suggestions! Thanks! |
| 2009-06-26 11:52 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Another good, albeit old, conversation on HR training. I have nothing to add...except. Most posts pro or con one methedology over another seem to allow that they are al effectivel as long as you get out there and run, but a few posters then turn around and attack HR training showing a clear bias. I think we all are better served, and the beginner community in general, if we stick to the idea that no one protocol is superior than another and the bottom line is that training more results in longer term better results. |
| 2009-06-26 11:53 AM in reply to: #2245437 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Ken in AZ - 2009-06-26 12:42 PM I am not chiming in on the HR theories presented here, but I have a good friend who is a multiple All American and been to Worlds who swims/bikes/runs twice a week in each sport. I would stack his run against most anyone in his age group. So, kind of disagree with the fact that twice a week won't help... I am sure that if you can handle it, more frequency is better. Where did he start? Did he always run twice a week? Could he be faster still if he ran more? The fact that somebody is "fast" does not mean that it is a direct result of they way they currently train. This is a problem many people miss when they try to emulate what "successful" people do. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK