Agree and disagree as someone who’s ran about a 9:15 equivalent.
Is that a super easy pace for a 9:30 guy? Yes. I stay conversational until probably about 5:50 pace.
Is it garbage pace? Absolutely not. The way I got to my 3k ability was very consistent 7:00 +\- 20 second miles day in and day out. My teammate who has ran 8:1x for 3k swears by doing his easy running at 7:00+ per mile.
27 downvotes so far really shows a lot about the lack of knowledge on this board, but also confirms why i tend to bail for a year or two at a time, come back for a month then leave again. similar to renato really. like talking to a wall, or worse usually.
anyway, yeah i feel what you are saying about EASY runs at 7:00 per mile or whatever, for sure. if you need an easy day/s, running at any slow pace is honestly fine. just got to get the blood flowing and keep your body in a rhythm.
my point was/is that doing one's LONG RUN at or even slower than the low end of what would be considered "easy" is garbage time. i 100% stand by that. easy/recovery runs are the time to run easy.
a long run should not be wasted by turning it into a long slog at easy/recovery pace, though. and again, even 6:40 down to 6:20 pace for one's long run is not fully taking advantage of the situation, although it's much more acceptable than 7:00+ pace the entire time.
I’d still have to argue against that. With my current understanding of physiology, any aerobic effort lasting more than about an hour has a strong effect on capillary size and density, mitochondrial efficiency etc. This process happens when the heart rate is about 130, for someone with a max of 200. Maybe I’m an outlier but at 7:00-7:30 pace I’m usually ranging between 135 and 150, with my max heart rate measured at 203. I’m about 15 seconds faster than 9:30 as well.
Increasing the effectiveness of how blood flows in your body, and how much oxygen that blood carries is essential for distance and middle distance running. I think too often people get wrapped up in the idea that just because it doesn’t feel difficult, it doesn’t mean you aren’t gaining adaptation. Stretching and doing mobility isn’t difficult, nor necessarily straining, but it gives a lot of adaptation. Think of these easy long efforts as stretching for your aerobic system.
I don’t think people disagreeing with you should instantly make you cry “lack of knowledge”. Whether you are right or not, having this attitude stops you from learning or admitting you are wrong. I don’t think canova takes breaks from these boards because people disagree with him, he takes breaks cause he probably doesn’t care a whole lot about Letsrun.
27 downvotes so far really shows a lot about the lack of knowledge on this board, but also confirms why i tend to bail for a year or two at a time, come back for a month then leave again. similar to renato really. like talking to a wall, or worse usually.
anyway, yeah i feel what you are saying about EASY runs at 7:00 per mile or whatever, for sure. if you need an easy day/s, running at any slow pace is honestly fine. just got to get the blood flowing and keep your body in a rhythm.
my point was/is that doing one's LONG RUN at or even slower than the low end of what would be considered "easy" is garbage time. i 100% stand by that. easy/recovery runs are the time to run easy.
a long run should not be wasted by turning it into a long slog at easy/recovery pace, though. and again, even 6:40 down to 6:20 pace for one's long run is not fully taking advantage of the situation, although it's much more acceptable than 7:00+ pace the entire time.
I’d still have to argue against that. With my current understanding of physiology, any aerobic effort lasting more than about an hour has a strong effect on capillary size and density, mitochondrial efficiency etc. This process happens when the heart rate is about 130, for someone with a max of 200. Maybe I’m an outlier but at 7:00-7:30 pace I’m usually ranging between 135 and 150, with my max heart rate measured at 203. I’m about 15 seconds faster than 9:30 as well.
Increasing the effectiveness of how blood flows in your body, and how much oxygen that blood carries is essential for distance and middle distance running. I think too often people get wrapped up in the idea that just because it doesn’t feel difficult, it doesn’t mean you aren’t gaining adaptation. Stretching and doing mobility isn’t difficult, nor necessarily straining, but it gives a lot of adaptation. Think of these easy long efforts as stretching for your aerobic system.
I don’t think people disagreeing with you should instantly make you cry “lack of knowledge”. Whether you are right or not, having this attitude stops you from learning or admitting you are wrong. I don’t think canova takes breaks from these boards because people disagree with him, he takes breaks cause he probably doesn’t care a whole lot about Letsrun.
all good man, we can agree to disagree on whether or not it makes sense to use one's long run as an easy paced day.
but it's not just people disagreeing with me that makes me cry "lack of knowledge", it's reading what other people write more than anything. i've been at this now for over 30 years. it has been my life. i'm very heavy on the science/physiology side of things, but have also had a career as a professional and coached other professionals, as well as plenty of amateurs. and anyway, if most people here agreed with and understood what i write, i wouldn't be an outlier with near the success i've had so in that sense i guess i should be thankful.
sounds like you have a good head on shoulders. i appreciate the civil discussion. keep searching.
So running aerobically is about nothing but stroke volume, huh?
There is a lot more to aerobic running than stroke volume. However, on non workout days, when you are just running mileage that is the emphasis. Other pieces of the aerobic puzzle come from different training intensities. If a runner were to do a tempo run, that would be a greater aerobic benefit than the 7:00 - 7:30 run. In the example provided, the alternative is 6:20-6:40 pace. This is a gray zone for a 9:30 runner because they have not yet reached the intensity that triggers different adaptations from the adaptations they get at 7:00 - 7:30. If they were to run tempo pace, which I would suspect would be around 5:30-5:45, they would "unlock" a whole new set of benefits unrelated to stroke volume.
Benefits such as lactate clearance, increased efficiency at pumping blood and oxygen circulation.
Since these benefits aren't really being effectively touched at 6:20 - 6:40 pace we can only compare the adaptations that are happening. The adaptations at these paces, you guessed it, are based on stroke volume.
I was being facetious, as you were completely ignoring many other benefits and seemingly saying stroke volume is all we care about with the stimulus described by OP in both A and B
I’d still have to argue against that. With my current understanding of physiology, any aerobic effort lasting more than about an hour has a strong effect on capillary size and density, mitochondrial efficiency etc. This process happens when the heart rate is about 130, for someone with a max of 200. Maybe I’m an outlier but at 7:00-7:30 pace I’m usually ranging between 135 and 150, with my max heart rate measured at 203. I’m about 15 seconds faster than 9:30 as well.
Increasing the effectiveness of how blood flows in your body, and how much oxygen that blood carries is essential for distance and middle distance running. I think too often people get wrapped up in the idea that just because it doesn’t feel difficult, it doesn’t mean you aren’t gaining adaptation. Stretching and doing mobility isn’t difficult, nor necessarily straining, but it gives a lot of adaptation. Think of these easy long efforts as stretching for your aerobic system.
I don’t think people disagreeing with you should instantly make you cry “lack of knowledge”. Whether you are right or not, having this attitude stops you from learning or admitting you are wrong. I don’t think canova takes breaks from these boards because people disagree with him, he takes breaks cause he probably doesn’t care a whole lot about Letsrun.
all good man, we can agree to disagree on whether or not it makes sense to use one's long run as an easy paced day.
but it's not just people disagreeing with me that makes me cry "lack of knowledge", it's reading what other people write more than anything. i've been at this now for over 30 years. it has been my life. i'm very heavy on the science/physiology side of things, but have also had a career as a professional and coached other professionals, as well as plenty of amateurs. and anyway, if most people here agreed with and understood what i write, i wouldn't be an outlier with near the success i've had so in that sense i guess i should be thankful.
sounds like you have a good head on shoulders. i appreciate the civil discussion. keep searching.
You do realize your initial post reads like broscience and not "30 years of physiology research" right? I mean what benefits are you claiming a faster long run does?
Anyway, I would be inclined to agree with you on this situation mainly because a 65 or 72 minute run isn't a long run. It's a moderate long run, and should be run faster. A true long run typically starts at 80 to 120 minutes
I’d still have to argue against that. With my current understanding of physiology, any aerobic effort lasting more than about an hour has a strong effect on capillary size and density, mitochondrial efficiency etc. This process happens when the heart rate is about 130, for someone with a max of 200. Maybe I’m an outlier but at 7:00-7:30 pace I’m usually ranging between 135 and 150, with my max heart rate measured at 203. I’m about 15 seconds faster than 9:30 as well.
Increasing the effectiveness of how blood flows in your body, and how much oxygen that blood carries is essential for distance and middle distance running. I think too often people get wrapped up in the idea that just because it doesn’t feel difficult, it doesn’t mean you aren’t gaining adaptation. Stretching and doing mobility isn’t difficult, nor necessarily straining, but it gives a lot of adaptation. Think of these easy long efforts as stretching for your aerobic system.
I don’t think people disagreeing with you should instantly make you cry “lack of knowledge”. Whether you are right or not, having this attitude stops you from learning or admitting you are wrong. I don’t think canova takes breaks from these boards because people disagree with him, he takes breaks cause he probably doesn’t care a whole lot about Letsrun.
all good man, we can agree to disagree on whether or not it makes sense to use one's long run as an easy paced day.
but it's not just people disagreeing with me that makes me cry "lack of knowledge", it's reading what other people write more than anything. i've been at this now for over 30 years. it has been my life. i'm very heavy on the science/physiology side of things, but have also had a career as a professional and coached other professionals, as well as plenty of amateurs. and anyway, if most people here agreed with and understood what i write, i wouldn't be an outlier with near the success i've had so in that sense i guess i should be thankful.
sounds like you have a good head on shoulders. i appreciate the civil discussion. keep searching.
Honesty I think the only reason your post got hate was that many people think that 6:40-6:20 isn’t super easy pace for a 9:30 guy. In the responses a lot of your reasoning has been solid and well thought out
I'd say runner A. I was taught that more time running was better than less for building aerobic system. Run a bit slower so you don't beat the crap out of your legs. If runner B ran with A he might be faster than 9:30 for 3200m.
So all the hobby joggers should actually be at the Olympics??
I'd say runner A. I was taught that more time running was better than less for building aerobic system. Run a bit slower so you don't beat the crap out of your legs. If runner B ran with A he might be faster than 9:30 for 3200m.
So all the hobby joggers should actually be at the Olympics??
Building the aerobic system is only one piece of the puzzle. Stay on topic.
I'd say runner A. I was taught that more time running was better than less for building aerobic system. Run a bit slower so you don't beat the crap out of your legs. If runner B ran with A he might be faster than 9:30 for 3200m.
So all the hobby joggers should actually be at the Olympics??
Sam, Sam, Sam, it's not very often when I get a reply to one of my posts that makes me do a face palm. Your reply made me do a double face palm. Hobber Jogger/Olympics? Where did you read anything in my post referencing that? I'd suggest, in a friendly way, and with all due respect, to stop trying to read between the lines. You're not very good at it.
Assuming Runner A and Runner B are identical in their physiology the question becomes which zone were they working in (every other individuals will differentiate slightly or greatly in physiology from these identical runners- zone training is highly individualized).
If we are assuming Runner A is working in Zone 2 and Runner B is working in Zone 3 or higher because Runner B is faster then Runner A would get a greater Aerobic benefit. However, if Runner A is going slow enough to be in Zone 1 and Runner B is working in Zone 2 then runner B would have the aerobic benefit.
Zone 2 is where aerobic capacity is built because it is when mitochondrial fat metabolism occurs. Once glycogen is tapped into and lactic acid is produced we are not purely aerobic. I believe this varies slightly for diabetic individuals.
Dr. Peter Attia's "The Drive" podcast explains this process well in several different episodes. I think #85 has a great breakdown.
I'd say runner A. I was taught that more time running was better than less for building aerobic system. Run a bit slower so you don't beat the crap out of your legs. If runner B ran with A he might be faster than 9:30 for 3200m.
7:30 down to 7:00 is basically garbage time for a 9:30 3200 runner. I mean it's fine for a gradual warmup the first few miles of a long run, absolutely, but the entire run?
Even 6:40 down to 6:20 is very easy for a 9:30 3200 runner.
A long run at 6:20-6:40 is not difficult for someone in 9:30 shape. It’s hard to believe 37 people disagree with that.
7:30 down to 7:00 is basically garbage time for a 9:30 3200 runner. I mean it's fine for a gradual warmup the first few miles of a long run, absolutely, but the entire run?
Even 6:40 down to 6:20 is very easy for a 9:30 3200 runner.
A long run at 6:20-6:40 is not difficult for someone in 9:30 shape. It’s hard to believe 37 people disagree with that.
It's not that 6:20-6:40 pace is difficult for a 9:30 runner. It's just not necessary for easy/recovery runs. A poster on the first page thought the extra 7 minutes runner A ran as opposed to runner B wasn't of any value. But over a years time that works out to an extra 45 1/2 hours of running. I realize that 99.9% of runners don't do easy/recovery runs every day. Just throwing that out there for those interested in developing their aerobic system without trashing their legs. If you disagree, well it's a free country. Do your own thing if it works for you. There's a formula for proper run/race training. However it's not a "one size fits all" proposition. There's tweaking and fine tuning involved for some runners. Trying to put 2 lbs. of poop in a 1 pound bag might work for a few, but for the rest the results might be crappy.
all good man, we can agree to disagree on whether or not it makes sense to use one's long run as an easy paced day.
but it's not just people disagreeing with me that makes me cry "lack of knowledge", it's reading what other people write more than anything. i've been at this now for over 30 years. it has been my life. i'm very heavy on the science/physiology side of things, but have also had a career as a professional and coached other professionals, as well as plenty of amateurs. and anyway, if most people here agreed with and understood what i write, i wouldn't be an outlier with near the success i've had so in that sense i guess i should be thankful.
sounds like you have a good head on shoulders. i appreciate the civil discussion. keep searching.
You do realize your initial post reads like broscience and not "30 years of physiology research" right? I mean what benefits are you claiming a faster long run does?
Anyway, I would be inclined to agree with you on this situation mainly because a 65 or 72 minute run isn't a long run. It's a moderate long run, and should be run faster. A true long run typically starts at 80 to 120 minutes
"def runner b" reads like broscience? or maybe it was my second post, but i guess to me it's such an obvious answer i didn't think it would require any science to back it up.
i was taking it at face value that it's this person's longest run of the week since most people tend to do one long run per week. personally prefer a "true long run", as you put it, once every 10 days, which is prob also why i'm not really down with super easy long runs.
and once someone can handle the volume i totally agree it ought to be closer to that 120 min mark. essentially, you want to go long enough to deplete the glycogen reserves. granted, once you start doing that and are taking on fluids/fuel (~1g carbs/kg/hr) the muscles, liver etc. store more glycogen and it gets more and more difficult to run long and hard enough to really crack.
to make it simple though, i might just say one's long run ought to be long enough for them to crack/bonk/etc. and then go another 10 minutes and call it a day. at recovery pace that'll take damn near forever if in decent shape and not starting the run in an already depleted state.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.