login
Why is running slow better?
-
No new posts
|
 2009-06-26 12:08 AM |
Member 29  Waco, TX Area |  Subject: Why is running slow better?Everywhere I read it says to have low heart rate while running. The articles say to keep a pace where you can talk to another with out losing your breath. Reasons? to burn more fat and less chance of injury do to running tired, along with others |
| 2009-06-26 12:24 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Champion 7233   | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? its not that running slower is better, its that running more is really the only real way to get faster in the long term, and to run more, you need to run at a pace that allows you to repeat, and repeat often. if you are running harder, you'll get sore, more tired, and more than likely quickly injured. so we slow down our runs enough that it hopefully does not hurt anything, and sllows you to go out the next day, (or two days later, or whenever the next run is). You can only adapt to run training so fast, and until you have a high weekly milage under your belt, adding in harder running is for the most part simply asking for injury with little or no more training benifits than you will see from simply running at a comfortable pace. you dont need to be running so slowly that you are crawling, but it shuld be for the most part a pace than when you get done, you feel maybe a bit tired, but like you could have gone on that way for a while. once your body gets used to running like that, often, you can then add in another run per week, or add a bit of total time to your workouts. through time all of these runs will gradually get faster, and the 9 min mile you hold now (random number), will in a few weeks bee 8:45, and a few months be 8:25, all at the same effort level. i do consider the warmup as part of my run, and depending on the weather and how i am feeling it can last anywhere from 5ish min all the way up to 20 or so if its colder out. |
| 2009-06-26 1:07 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
| Master 2460 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Running slower is better only because it allows you to run MORE. Preferably a LOT more, for most triathletes. Volume is king in running. More miles per week is the single best way to continued improvement. Speedwork has a role, but is worthless without the mileage base unless you've got freak-show genetics. There's no such thing as running less AND running slower for improved running performance. Also, note that running fast for short periods of time does not give the same effects as running miles. You get different effects from doing 20 minutes of 5k race pace versus 2 hrs of easy aerobic training pace. Beginners will improve from nearly any training and may misinterpret that they can keep getting the same training benefit from short&fast runs as long runs, but you'll plateau out very quickly without the long slow mileage base. |
| 2009-06-26 7:04 AM in reply to: #2244325 |
Veteran 120 Milton Keynes, UK | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Also, note that running fast for short periods of time does not give the same effects as running miles. You get different effects from doing 20 minutes of 5k race pace versus 2 hrs of easy aerobic training pace. Beginners will improve from nearly any training and may misinterpret that they can keep getting the same training benefit from short&fast runs as long runs, but you'll plateau out very quickly without the long slow mileage base. Useful agarose2000, I am currently experiencing good increases in pace from regular short runs but I do no long runs. I guess soon I will need to change my training when I plateau. Thanks Edited by Bob the Trier! 2009-06-26 7:05 AM |
| 2009-06-26 7:09 AM in reply to: #2244299 |
Master 1853  syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? newbz summed it up perfectly |
| 2009-06-26 7:21 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? For new runners, running slow is better. Running slow allows you to run more, which gives your body a better opportunity to hypercalcify your bones and to strengthen your tendons and ligaments, which will prevent injury for when, once you have enough miles in your legs, you run faster. For runners who have been running for a long time...with many training years in their legs, running slow is many times counterproductive. Once your body can deal with the increased stress, getting faster means training faster. But, if you try that before you're ready, it's a recipe for injury. |
| 2009-06-26 7:30 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? HR, pace, effort ......... it all doesn't matter. They are simply a marker. For newer - or even experienced - runners just go by these simple tests: If you can easily talk when you run, then you are going easy. If it is challenging but not impossible to talk, you are going moderate. If talking is the last thing you want to do because you are too busy trying to get oxygen in, you are going hard. It is not necessary to over-complicate it. As everyone else said, running the majority slow allows you to come back and do it again the next day (or later that same day). |
| 2009-06-26 8:25 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? RW2 - 2009-06-26 12:08 AM Everywhere I read it says to have low heart rate while running. The articles say to keep a pace where you can talk to another with out losing your breath. Reasons? to burn more fat and less chance of injury do to running tired, along with others That partially correct hence IMo misleading. There is no reason physiologically speaking to limit running at lower intensities exclusively to maximize training adaptations for your body to use more fat as fuel. Yes at lower intensities our bodies fuel mix is greater % of fat and lesser of carbs however many things come to play for that diet been the main reason. Also, by doing training @ 80 >% of threshold pace/power one improves among others things glycogen storage and lactate threshold which in turn allows our bodies to rely less on glycogen (carbs) for fuel and more in fat. Yes doing exclusively trainging of 80% > of threshold can hinder the ability of the body to maximize fat utilization however a well thought plan with an adequate progression and intensity mix will provide a great environment for the body to constantly adapt. Edited by JorgeM 2009-06-26 8:38 AM |
| 2009-06-26 8:35 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
| Regular 408 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I am no expert but I seriously question if running slow is good. Guess it depends what you are trying to accomplish. I ran slow for years and I was slow. Last fall I started trying to run much faster for short distance at first. Ended up I was a lot faster than I thought. I was initally slow because I was always trying to run longer distances. This same logic is true with swimming and cycling. If you practice slow you will be slow. I also don't think running fast necessarily causes more injuries. Edited by bartturner 2009-06-26 8:36 AM |
| 2009-06-26 8:52 AM in reply to: #2244471 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Bob the Trier! - 2009-06-26 7:04 AM Useful agarose2000, I am currently experiencing good increases in pace from regular short runs but I do no long runs. I guess soon I will need to change my training when I plateau. Thanks why don't you just do some short hardish runs (threshold), some moderate run (distance and intensity) and some longish steady runs (notice I didn't say easy) to avoid plateauing at any time and keep on improving consistently? Just adjust your workload based on and your fitness, goals and time constraints... I still don't undterstand why it for some it has to be one way (volume) or the another (intensity). Chrissie Wellington said at an interview that when she was coached by Brett Sutton they had 3 speeds: steady, moderate and this F-ing hurts (not the exact words but something along those lines) and said that most sessions for all 3 sports had an element of all 3 intensities. Jack Daniels always has an element of intensity in his running programs (strides anyone?) and advice adjusting it based on fitness and goals. |
| 2009-06-26 9:00 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
| 569 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? This is great info.. I run way too fast. That is why I hate my 30 min runs... Exausted after... |
| 2009-06-26 9:01 AM in reply to: #2244651 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? bartturner - 2009-06-26 9:35 AM I am no expert but I seriously question if running slow is good. Guess it depends what you are trying to accomplish. I ran slow for years and I was slow. Last fall I started trying to run much faster for short distance at first. Ended up I was a lot faster than I thought. I was initally slow because I was always trying to run longer distances. This same logic is true with swimming and cycling. If you practice slow you will be slow. I also don't think running fast necessarily causes more injuries. really? |
| 2009-06-26 9:08 AM in reply to: #2244753 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? cusetri - 2009-06-26 9:01 AM what's your point? BTW, I agree with bartrunner. I also question if running slow is any good unless you are trying to recover from intense training (unload) or returning from injury; running steady pace (70% > of threshold)OTOH is another story. Also agree with his statement that intensity (i.e. running fast) doesn't necessarely causes more injuries than running slow but focusing on volume...bartturner - 2009-06-26 9:35 AM I am no expert but I seriously question if running slow is good. Guess it depends what you are trying to accomplish. I ran slow for years and I was slow. Last fall I started trying to run much faster for short distance at first. Ended up I was a lot faster than I thought. I was initally slow because I was always trying to run longer distances. This same logic is true with swimming and cycling. If you practice slow you will be slow. I also don't think running fast necessarily causes more injuries. really? |
| 2009-06-26 9:24 AM in reply to: #2244782 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? JorgeM - 2009-06-26 10:08 AM cusetri - 2009-06-26 9:01 AM what's your point? BTW, I agree with bartrunner. I also question if running slow is any good unless you are trying to recover from intense training (unload) or returning from injury; running steady pace (70% > of threshold)OTOH is another story. Also agree with his statement that intensity (i.e. running fast) doesn't necessarely causes more injuries than running slow but focusing on volume...bartturner - 2009-06-26 9:35 AM I am no expert but I seriously question if running slow is good. Guess it depends what you are trying to accomplish. I ran slow for years and I was slow. Last fall I started trying to run much faster for short distance at first. Ended up I was a lot faster than I thought. I was initally slow because I was always trying to run longer distances. This same logic is true with swimming and cycling. If you practice slow you will be slow. I also don't think running fast necessarily causes more injuries. really? sorry, he didnt define anything. my point is define something. what is running slow? what is running fast? I'm no expert either, but I think saying the OP should run by HR and plan a week based on specific zones gives him/her something to go off of and ask follow up questions. you took it up another notch and supplied more information for the OP to go off and dig deeper. saying running slow will make you slower could be true, but he didnt define slow. He may think slow is a trott down the sidewalk, where the OP may define slow as a zone 2 effort. I just felt his post answered little and I could not take what he said and apply it in any way, other than running fast to get faster. maybe I should have said all that.... |
| 2009-06-26 9:36 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
| Master 2460 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? As much as I respect Jorge's opinion on all things tri, I'm not sure it's entirely correct to encourage as much higher intensity as he does for optimal performance. Running at aerobic (slower conversational) paces is really, really important for continued improvement. Pfitzinger (one of the top running coaches of all time), Glover, and nearly all world-class running coaches have studies this in detail. In summary, they classify running training in 3 major categories to improve - VO2 (fastest, 5k pace) - Lactate Threshold (10k-HM pace) - Aerobic Endurance/efficiency (marathon & slower pace) VO2 / lactate improve the fastest - most beginning and low-mileage runners see these big improvements as newbies and get really excited about progress, since it's happening so fast. Then they plateau after 4-6 months of training, and it seems that no matter how much they increase intensity, gains are vanishingly small (<<1%). In fact, most VO2 studies show that it will peak out after 6 weeks (!) of serious training, and the maxpoint is in fact genetically determined. Aerobic endurance is only effectively trained by "going long." Pfitz suggests 90+ minute runs at a minimal to optimally affect aerobic endurance. This improves much more slowly than VO2 / lactate, but doesn't peak out. Sure, there are diminishing returns, but it does continue to improve well after the other two have completely peaked out. Thus, these long-slow runs have become the cornerstone of nearly all competitive runners. There's a reason why even hyper-fast world-class milers usually run 100+ miles per week. Even the world's fastest miler runs 70 miles per week, which is often viewed as ridiculously low by most competitive milers. Note that this aerobic benefit carries over into those shorter distances as well (anything over 800m, likely). I plateaued for 12 years at a 21min 5k until I ramped up running volume to double my original of 35mpw, and then crushed my 5k in one year of training at sub 18:20. And I trained ridiculously hard at times at 35mpw with 2-3 sprints per week sometimes. Triathletes are limited with time, but you really are shortchanging the foundation of your training if you avoid all long runs of 90+ minutes. Note that experienced athletes like Jorge, who have already done substantial distance training will likely benefit as much if not more from high-intensity training versus more mileage volume, since they're already doing a lot of volume at their baseline training. In summary - - Beginners, be happy with your new VO2/lactate gains. You'll improve fast, and nearly anything you do will work. In fact, you may improve fastest for a few months will shorter/faster work that gets your VO2/lactate up, but trust the research - it WILL plateau quickly. - Intermediate runners - Volume is king, especially if you've plateaued on running ability despite speedwork. If you're not hitting 90+ minute runs per week, that should be top priority if you really want to improve your running at all distances. - Advanced runners - You'll know if you're an advanced runner - you'll already know what works for you and long runs are routine for you. Speedwork and specialized training may give you that final edge, but even you know that volume is still critical. |
| 2009-06-26 9:47 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Elite 3315 Miami | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? how do i best find out what my SLOW HR should be? so far i have been using a very simple formula....180 bpm subtract my age (i am 31) so 150 bpm and i run exactly at that range for all my runs. |
| 2009-06-26 9:54 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
| Master 2460 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Also my opinion for the OP (since we've gone way off topic from the original question) - I don't think you should artificially slow yourself down. If you feel comfortable and conversational at a pace, go ahead and run it - it's plenty slow for aerobic pacing. There won't be any benefit from trudging to a crawl and feeling like you're going nowhere. Of course, you should do your best and go LONG at that pace. Most HS track n field runners are shocked when they say "I could run 9 min miles ALL DAY since I run a 19 min 5k (sub 6:20 pace)" and then when they actually enter a marathon, they find themselves walking after 18 miles. You'll adjust your pace naturally and accordingly once you realize how hard it is to go long (90+ minutes.) Give it a try, and you'll find that you may automatically slow yourself down once you try and save energy to go the distance without a huge slowdown. Unless it was an explicit recovery running day, I never felt that my long, slow runs were "too easy." I had the weekly mileage volume jacked up enough that even 9:30 min/mile felt like a reasonable challenge. (And I run a marathon at near 7min/mile.) |
| 2009-06-26 9:54 AM in reply to: #2244941 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? trix - 2009-06-26 10:47 AM how do i best find out what my SLOW HR should be? so far i have been using a very simple formula....180 bpm subtract my age (i am 31) so 150 bpm and i run exactly at that range for all my runs. IMO, you should do a field test. you can also find someone who will do this on a treadmill for a nominal fee, usually around $50. I found paying someone to do it was best as I didnt want to screw it up. I just called Syracuse University Exercise Science Department, and they were more than happy to do it. I also had a local cycling coach do a test on a computrainer to define my HR zones and power zones (although I dont use power). I can tell you my zones were much much different after the tests than using the formual you descirde and I had the same felling you did after using it...this feels "too slow." And it was. |
| 2009-06-26 9:55 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
| 569 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Now I am confused. I am a beginner. Should I br running faster for shorted periods or slowed for longer? |
| 2009-06-26 9:56 AM in reply to: #2244977 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Thaitri - 2009-06-26 10:55 AM Now I am confused. I am a beginner. Should I br running faster for shorted periods or slowed for longer? little bit of both |
| 2009-06-26 10:04 AM in reply to: #2244973 |
Master 2167 Livonia, MI | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? cusetri - 2009-06-26 9:54 AM trix - 2009-06-26 10:47 AM how do i best find out what my SLOW HR should be? so far i have been using a very simple formula....180 bpm subtract my age (i am 31) so 150 bpm and i run exactly at that range for all my runs. IMO, you should do a field test. you can also find someone who will do this on a treadmill for a nominal fee, usually around $50. I found paying someone to do it was best as I didnt want to screw it up. I just called Syracuse University Exercise Science Department, and they were more than happy to do it. I also had a local cycling coach do a test on a computrainer to define my HR zones and power zones (although I dont use power). I can tell you my zones were much much different after the tests than using the formual you descirde and I had the same felling you did after using it...this feels "too slow." And it was. x2. Once you determine your AT via field test, you can determine your actual HR training zones. 180-age absolutely doesn't cut it, especially for fit people. Almost everyone I know who works out consistantly has a drastically different HR than 180-their age. There are benefits to working out in all the zones, aside from zone 1 which is usually reserved for warm up/cool down. You're training your body to use fat as it's fuel source and how to buffer lactic acid. Most of us cannot accomplish this at or above AT without building a substantial base from zone 2/3 training. |
| 2009-06-26 10:04 AM in reply to: #2244973 |
Elite 3315 Miami | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? cusetri - 2009-06-26 9:54 AM trix - 2009-06-26 10:47 AM how do i best find out what my SLOW HR should be? so far i have been using a very simple formula....180 bpm subtract my age (i am 31) so 150 bpm and i run exactly at that range for all my runs. IMO, you should do a field test. you can also find someone who will do this on a treadmill for a nominal fee, usually around $50. I found paying someone to do it was best as I didnt want to screw it up. I just called Syracuse University Exercise Science Department, and they were more than happy to do it. I also had a local cycling coach do a test on a computrainer to define my HR zones and power zones (although I dont use power). I can tell you my zones were much much different after the tests than using the formual you descirde and I had the same felling you did after using it...this feels "too slow." And it was. thanks for the tip. that is great to know. Edited by trix 2009-06-26 10:05 AM |
| 2009-06-26 10:14 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? 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. |
| 2009-06-26 10:17 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
Elite 3315 Miami | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? thanks rick. yoru responses are always appreciated. i just want to get faster that is 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. Edited by trix 2009-06-26 10:18 AM |
| 2009-06-26 10:18 AM in reply to: #2244877 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? agarose2000, Where did I exactly specifcy any sort of intensity which you could consider "much higher"? My exact words on my OP were: "Yes doing exclusively trainging of 80% > of threshold can hinder the ability of the body to maximize fat utilization however a well thought plan with an adequate progression and intensity mix will provide a great environment for the body to constantly adapt" hence I didn't suggested any particular workload mix. And simple because the work load I use for my athletes changes from one to the next based on their specific needs. Do you think doing training @ 70-100% of threshold is intense? In particular after you quoted Pftzinger who considers VO2 pace a major category for improvement which is higher than 100% of threshold? Anyway while VO2 marks our protential and it is for most part genetically defined it is trainable to a degree. Yes VO2 max improvements happen fast and plateau in a relatively short term (up to 6 weeks of optimal training), still there is no reason to not address it at some point in a program depending on goals. Threshold pace (as used in endurance sports which is more related to MLSS) is probably the most important aspect in an edurance training program as it is an excellent tool to predict performance, assess fitness and develop training programs. Becasue of this *I* place such a big emphasis towards improving this, the closer you can get your threshold power/pace to your VO2 power/pace, the closer you'll be to achieve your endurance potential. The training improvements for this type of intensity are not short live nor happen on a short period; you can succesfully train your threshold pace/pace for many weeks, months and even years. So I am confused why would you think I encourage much higher intensity or you would think I don't agree with Pfitzinger (or Daniels, or Skiba, or Sutton) that those 3 intensities are very important for endurance training HENCE I always debate whether limiting training intensity to running (or biking) to just 'easy' training is wise to begin with as a general advice for most AGers. The OP was about the question: "Why is running slow better?". And many suggested or believe it is while I don't, at least I don't if it is the exclusive stimulus on a training plan because the evidence available and physiology doesn't justify such approach unless you have a lot of time for training (not to mention the ability to handle such load) and still, the gains and adaptations will be greater if the athlete mixes his/her workload. That is do some long steady runs, do some short threshold/VO2 runs, do some mid distance tempo ones. (surprise, surprise: those include all 3 major intensities...) Unlike those who advice limiting training to x or y intensity and cite reasons such as "improve fat utilization as fuel" or " reduce risk for injuries" I am a big believer in training at the adequate training work load mix for each athlete. For some athletes focusing more on volume might be more important than intensity as their workload mix given their needs, goals, schedule, etc. while for other might be the opposite, yet for all the total workload will have a mix of it all: volume + intensity. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK