Do easy runs even do anything?

Karma Police wrote:

"built up your aerobic system" - really? You don't efven puff that much. A tough swimming session, without the shorter resistance stuff, would do more for you aerobically

Take an Ex Phys course buddy. Aerobic activity means the pace is slow enough that oxygen is available to conduct aerobic metabolism in the mitochondria. More specifically, if you're working the weight bearing muscles you use in running (~easy running, even walking), you work the slow twitch fibers in those muscles, which upregulates aerobic metabolism in the mitochondria, more mitochondrial development, increased blood capillarization around the muscle fibers being worked, and increased blood volume. It's easier to get blood lactate clearance if you have more capillarization, and of course more oxygen to the working muscles. This is HUGE for a middle distance runner! The 800m is about 'who slows down the least', and that largely comes down to aerobic development.

Easy runs really do take some stress off of my vagina muscles most of the time if I'm on my period or if I'm resting from

XFIT STYLE SPRINTS

readist wrote:

It's called "specificity".

You guys will never, ever, ever be as good as you could possibly be by eschewing the easy runs.

If you're fine with that or past the age where you think it matters, then by all means forget about them. If your goal is to maximize your improvement, though, then you WILL have to do them. No other way around it.

I've debated addressing this, but life is short (as I've become increasingly aware) and I really don't want people to be left with a false impression.

In what sense are "easy" runs specific to racing? Are they, in fact, "specific"? Specific to what?

Easy runs--pretty much by definition--do not match the pace of any racing distance (except ultras, maybe), and often do not match the stride pattern of any race. So how, exactly, are they specific training for racing? They're not.

If we were *truly* going to stick to the SAID principle (specific adaptation to imposed demands) then our training should be nothing but race-paced efforts--ideally at racing distances. In fact, if SAID is applied really rigorously, it's hard to understand how anyone can ever PR at a distance s/he's run previously!--because, after all, as training effects we could only receive *exactly* what we've done before.

Okay, that's extreme, and silly, reasoning. We know it's silly, because we *do* PR at familiar distances. But how do we do so? We do *some* specific training; we do *some* fairly-similar training; we do *some* vaguely-related training; and we do some training for which it's hard to spot much specificity at all. It's the *combination* of those that results in PRs.

Running seven-minute miles is certainly running, but it's a long stretch to consider it specific training for four-minute mile pace. It can do something to strengthen the skeleton and connective tissue; it can strengthen the heart; and it can strengthen one's love for running.

For some individuals, at least, it can also *weaken* the skeleton and connective tissue (experience speaks), and weaken one's desire (or ability) to continue running, if injury layoffs result. (Inconsistent training also keeps people from being as good as they could be, no?) Meanwhile, there are many other aerobic activities that can strengthen the heart and make the circulatory system more efficient.

Different things work for different people. The blanket statement that *every single runner* will "never, ever, ever" be as good as s/he could be, by replacing (some or even all) easy runs with other activity, is ignorant and false.

Karma Police wrote:

I've always wondered why distance runners don't do more swimming. It's a good recovery thing because the water supports your weight. It lets your muscles recover.

But it's great aerobically. Fantastic general aerobic fitness without extra strain on your legs.

You're still getting the running fitness as well.

I don't get the easy run either. If it's easy, I don't see that you get a huge amount of aerobic fitness out of it. And shy does a base mileage have to maintained? What's the point of long, easy, plodding runs that aren't really testing your breathing? Toughening up your body or putting extra wear and tear on it?

Because it does nothing to develop mitochondria in your muscles in your legs, which is what moves you forward.

It looks like you have no grasp of physiology.

You shouldn't have bothered because all you've done is demonstrate how little you know about physiology and running.

That statement is absolutely, 100% correct. NO runner will EVER be as good as they can be without committing to a COMPLETE training program that includes EASY RUNS.

No debate, no question, no retort. You cannot refute that and any attempt to do so will do nothing more than continue proving how ignorant you are about the subject.

I am performing a concert at Carnegie Hall, coming up in about 2 months. I was thinking instead of practicing the piano every day for 2 hours, that I would only practice 4 days a week, really intensely for 1.5 hours, and practice the trombone the other 3 days a week. What do you guys think?

A lot of what has been written in this thread reminds me of the late 80s. There was a strong push to eliminate "junk" miles...everyone was focused on quality miles only. Unfortunately, that generation of runners failed miserably because they did not develop their aerobic capacity properly.

an injured runner wrote:

If we replace some of the easy runs with cross training such as swimming, elliptical or stationary bike, how much of benefit do we lose?

(I have been suffering from recurring injury recently, and I wonder if limiting the mileage might be the answer to avoid injury.)

It's pretty much guaranteed that repeatedly taking time off because of injury is a huge negative "benefit". If substituting cross training keeps you off the disabled list then I'd consider it benefit gained. It's certainly worth trying.

readist wrote:

That statement is absolutely, 100% correct. NO runner will EVER be as good as they can be without committing to a COMPLETE training program that includes EASY RUNS.

Unfortunately this cannot be proven or disproven. We can never know the upper limit of someone's talent, so we never know how close someone is to being as good as they can be. We can never test your hypothesis, so it is just a theory. You may have anecdotal evidence to back it up, but it's still just a theory. That's why they say coaching is part science, part art.

readist wrote:

No debate, no question, no retort. You cannot refute that and any attempt to do so will do nothing more than continue proving how ignorant you are about the subject.

This statement however is definitely false. I believe I've already provided a reasonable retort.

Developing the aerobic capacity of your shoulders and arms is a negative for running. Look at swimmers and look at all the deadweight they have developed in their upper body from their choice of exercise. Even something like cycling (lot closer to the right muscles) has the same issue. The real solution is to spend the money and get the alter-g.Personally I think clearing out the waste products is a load of crap. More blood flow for repair has a little more science behind it.Without knowing anything about the OP, the question could be was he doing his easy days too hard (i.e. running 60 mins when he should have done 30. At 6:30 instead of 7:30)? Who knows. I don't know if there was any science behind it but at least 1 coach has postulated that a 60 min run puts like 4x as much stress ont the ligiments and tendons as a shorter 30 min one. The theory was that as the muscles get tired, more stress is applied to the rest of the body. That sort of fit my experience.

Karma Police wrote:

ScottDye wrote:

Easy runs do alot of things. They built up your aerobic system, the strengthen muscles, ligiments and tendons, all in preparation for harder running. And when training at harder paces, easy days help to keep blood flowing to the muscles at an accelerated pace to help clear out waste products and heal the damage.

"built up your aerobic system" - really? You don't efven puff that much. A tough swimming session, without the shorter resistance stuff, would do more for you aerobically

"the strengthen muscles, ligiments and tendons" - or put extra, unnecessary strain on them. Depends on the person and your point of view.

"And when training at harder paces, easy days help to keep blood flowing to the muscles at an accelerated pace to help clear out waste products and heal the damage" - Can't comment on that.

- Increase lung capacity

- Improve the ability of the muscles to absorb oxygem

- Increase the number of oxygen carrying blood cells

- Increase V02 max

- More effort utilization of fat as fuel

Easy runs provide the above benefits with less stress on the body than interval/speed/tempo workouts and help avoid burn out.

Ask yourself this question if you had a to place a bet on one of these two runners which would you take for the upcoming track season?

Both finish the previous track season having run 15 minutes for 5000 meters off of the same training of 60 miles a week.

Runner A keeps running 60 miles a week through the cross season.

Runner B builds up to 80 miles a week through the cross season by doing easy second runs.

mostly right, increased cap density doesnt get "more" oxygen to the muscles. Capillarization is strictly a delivery mechanism. It will increase difusion rate but just because you have more capillaries doesn't mean you're talking in "more" oxygen. That's more ventilation and you can't do much to improve that. Which however isn't a big deal because ventilation is very rarely if ever a limiting factor to aerobic exercise.

ScottDye wrote:

That might work for you, but replacing with other activities in contrary to the concept of specifity. You might stay in shape, but not as good running shape.

Thanks for your answer.

I know I get some running specific fitness gain from easy runs that I cannot get from cross training. But I have to weigh that against the injury risk.

ex phys wrote:

mostly right, increased cap density doesnt get "more" oxygen to the muscles. Capillarization is strictly a delivery mechanism. It will increase difusion rate but just because you have more capillaries doesn't mean you're talking in "more" oxygen. That's more ventilation and you can't do much to improve that. Which however isn't a big deal because ventilation is very rarely if ever a limiting factor to aerobic exercise.

Re-read what I wrote. Increased blood volume too, which means greater oxygen binding capacity to RBCs.

Certainly weigh the costs and benefits, but you should move towards running more as your body is able to handle it. As a runner for 18+ yrs I have had injuries (as I am sure we all have) and during that time had to do cross-training/strength training/stretching to try and stay fit, but it has never been the case that this has made me more fit for running than the actual act of running. I would say if you are often injured you aren't running easy enough. Lots of examples (but this one i read just recently...2:37 marathoner saying she runs 8-10 min miles sometimes on easy days

http://camilleherron.com/training-2/

) of how to properly run easy, but most runners, especially young and mid-distance (which I was) ran way too hard and didnt realize it. And if you don't run them correctly, just like running too many workouts or doing them incorrectly, fitness suffers. Running easy runs too hard has ruined many a runner.

As to the poster saying you can't 'prove' that running more is better for running, they are called controlled experiments and yes it can be proven. How many people actually would submit to this protocol though? As someone in the health sciences fields now, I can assure you it is very difficult to get people to sign up and then adhere to an experimental design that would allow us to show this as no one wants to or has the time (and in the scope of priorities..not so important).

Good luck.

Tend to think volume will not directly improve performance, but over a longer time frame make one's body more resistant to fatigue.

In the scope of performance running then, to be able to endure long workouts or a frequent series of work at or above threshold, a base of volume may contribute there.

In the short term, perhaps volume may not directly contribute to performance gains, in fact too much may be deleterious if it interferes with the meat of the workouts. I believe timing and planning mileage ramp ups is significant.

While an important season or race is on the horizon, best keep focus on the meat and not overdo the "easy run" in as they may take away performance, but this base of volume is trainable and for someone who has put long months of mileage in the bank may benefit from that training.

skeet skeet skeet wrote:

readist wrote:

That statement is absolutely, 100% correct. NO runner will EVER be as good as they can be without committing to a COMPLETE training program that includes EASY RUNS.

Unfortunately this cannot be proven or disproven. We can never know the upper limit of someone's talent, so we never know how close someone is to being as good as they can be. We can never test your hypothesis, so it is just a theory. You may have anecdotal evidence to back it up, but it's still just a theory. That's why they say coaching is part science, part art.

readist wrote:

No debate, no question, no retort. You cannot refute that and any attempt to do so will do nothing more than continue proving how ignorant you are about the subject.

This statement however is definitely false. I believe I've already provided a reasonable retort.

No you haven't. All you've done is create a strawman.

Which is a failure.

Which I already said would be the result of disagreeing with the statement.

Easy runs don't do anything for me. Competing makes me worse. I want and need to only be a happy, long-term jogger.

Here is the dealio - I am by nature tenacious and determined. I have part of my grandma in me. She was one of the first u.s. female racecar drivers:D When I get into a competitor mindset I am not pretty and not at all nice. I'm all or nothing. But I hurt people in the sport so it is best if I don't compete at all, especially in relationships with people. You want to compete with me but then I give it a little gas and I ran you over.

This is why I've been saying that this competition stuff is going to wreak things. If you don't want happiness, I don't know what to say because I can't give you competition without running you over.