3) 10 hours week is worse for your health than running 5. If you want to give health for a marginally faster 5k go for it
This is false. Everyone who makes this claim is a quack. People keep proposing theories for how it could be true, and failing to find evidence in mortality data. The people who run 5-10 hours per week are all very healthy on average.
I have an easy pace ceiling but some days it just ends up being much slower. Close to 9:00 sounds about right for you, but some days that might feel hard and it’s ok to go slower.
Maybe it's not how physiology works but it's how running can work. You start running something like 8:00 pace for a bit. You get tired and walk. You feel better and run something like 8:00 pace for a bit more and keep doing this. Eventually you'll adapt to the pace and won't need to walk. It's actually a form of interval training.
No one was a stronger advocate for slow running than Ernst van Aaken. Before he lost his legs he and his son ran 10 km after work each night in an hour. But his son told me they did not run a steady 6:00 km/10:00 mile pace. They ran faster than that and stopped to walk slowing the overall time to an hour but with all the running being faster than that.
The thing is a lot of people running 21 min 5ks don’t need easy runs. They are running <35 mpw and at that low volume you can go out and do steady runs every day and recover. And on a per min basis you get better results by running up around the aerobic threshold than much slower. See a school like American Fork who basically does this as there afternoon run every day. Or read what Bakken recommends for people doing minimal training.
People like to pretend that everyone is out trying to max their 5k time and come up with plans where people should spent 12+hours/week running. In the real world most people want to maximize the 5 hours they spend running and not have it be there life. There aren’t close to maxing out their recovery.
And yes it is funny how easy pace has gone from 6:30 to people now wondering is 8 mins is too fast in 20 years. And people focusing on Kipchoges first couple KM of the run that is 6min/km and ignore the last 10 that are sub 4…. Or nick willis saying kids ran to fast cause he wanted to run at 6:40 pace and they were doing 6:15. And some how that justifies them wanting to run 10 min miles….
i
1). Plenty of people running 21min 5ks do more than 35 mpw.
2). "On a per min basis you get better results by running up around the aerobic than much slower". Wrong. It might "work" on a very short-term basis for fit 17-year-olds with talent, but then again, most training approaches make fit 17-year-olds with talent faster. For anybody else, this is a moronic way to train.
3). In the real world, people should train at least 10 hours per week. Not for race performance, but for health and longevity. If they can't find time for that, they better figure out how to restructure their life. It's literally killing our population via cancer, heart disease, etc., but you already knew that.
4). No one here says Kipchoge or Willis should run 6:00/km. That's talking about Olympic Champions (Willis is the rightful winner due to Kiprop being a doper) who can run 4:25-4:35/mile pace at under 4mmol lactate. They are probably comfortably in Z1 at 6:30/mile though it could be noted that even Willis argues against 6:15/mile especially for runners slower than him. We are discussing 20:00 5k runners whose 4mmol pace is likely not too far under 7:30/mile. Should they run 6:40 pace with Willis and Kipchoge? That's a race for them.
Yeah, in the real world everyone should run at least 1.5 hours a day seven days a week.
More evidence that the internet is professional wrestling. 😂
This post was edited 19 seconds after it was posted.
3) 10 hours week is worse for your health than running 5. If you want to give health for a marginally faster 5k go for it
This is false. Everyone who makes this claim is a quack. People keep proposing theories for how it could be true, and failing to find evidence in mortality data. The people who run 5-10 hours per week are all very healthy on average.
and are the people who ran 10 hours/week healthier than the ones who only did 5? Nope… the gap is in the difference between 0 hours and 3 hours. Notice between 5 hours and 10.
It is the same logic that goes if running slow is good, running even slower is better. That isn’t how reality works.
I run easy 8:30-8:50 this pace is ok but I wouldn't call it always “easy” I can talk but for me it's not always “comfortable” It's not the kind of pace where I have 0 effort but 3-4
Would it be better to slow down, e.g. 8:50-9:20?
3/10. Rule of thumb, add 2 minutes to your rp. Start at 8:20 and pace accordingly. If it has to be closer to 9, then so be it.
I may get downvoted to oblivion for saying this but I don't think anybody should be running slower than 8:00/mile.
If you're a decent runner and 8:00/mile is easy for you then great.
If 8:00/mile isn't easy for you then tough luck, keep running at 8:00/mile or faster until you improve and it becomes easy for you.
I agree.
As I said in an earlier post I ran similar time to OP for 5k when I was 65-years-old (19:45).
I was barely doing 30 miles per week. but in between interval sessions I would would do recovery runs of 3 to 4 miles between 8-8:15 per mile.
In my mid-50s I would do a 1 hour 40 min run between 7-7:30 per mile. and still recover enough to do interval sessions.
A lot of this gets confused with what elites do in the way of supplemental miles with their second run of the day, and even then not all of them would shuffle around. For example Steve Ovett in base phase would often run 10 miles twice in a day, and both were under 6:00 miling.
This is false. Everyone who makes this claim is a quack. People keep proposing theories for how it could be true, and failing to find evidence in mortality data. The people who run 5-10 hours per week are all very healthy on average.
and are the people who ran 10 hours/week healthier than the ones who only did 5? Nope… the gap is in the difference between 0 hours and 3 hours. Notice between 5 hours and 10.
It is the same logic that goes if running slow is good, running even slower is better. That isn’t how reality works.
This is true. If you want to chase times you have to run a lot but if you’re after general health 3-4 ~45min runs is all you need.
You guys clowning on the 10+ min mile easy runs need to realize that no one is suggesting only doing these types of runs in your training. I run at sub 70% max HR (which generally is 10-1030 pace) so that I can recover and fit 3 sub t sessions in a week. Without that effort, I wouldn't be able to recover for those sessions. It's the SESSIONS that matter, not the slower easy pace. Speeding up the easy pace unreasonably will only lead to taking away from what matters, the SESSIONS.
I'm around the same 5k time and easy is never faster than 12:00/mile. You guys must be in a lot better aerobic shape. It's actually a problem running that slow for most of my miles because my legs feel fatigued even running 9:00 pace. Running 5k pace feels barely any harder. So I only have two modes. Fast or slow. Anywhere in between that feels way too hard to the point that it makes no sense to even do it.
I'm around the same 5k time and easy is never faster than 12:00/mile. You guys must be in a lot better aerobic shape. It's actually a problem running that slow for most of my miles because my legs feel fatigued even running 9:00 pace. Running 5k pace feels barely any harder. So I only have two modes. Fast or slow. Anywhere in between that feels way too hard to the point that it makes no sense to even do it.
So, your 5K pace is 6:20, but you can’t hold 9min easy pace?
Like I said earlier, the internet is professional wrestling.
I'm around the same 5k time and easy is never faster than 12:00/mile. You guys must be in a lot better aerobic shape. It's actually a problem running that slow for most of my miles because my legs feel fatigued even running 9:00 pace. Running 5k pace feels barely any harder. So I only have two modes. Fast or slow. Anywhere in between that feels way too hard to the point that it makes no sense to even do it.
So, your 5K pace is 6:20, but you can’t hold 9min easy pace?
Like I said earlier, the internet is professional wrestling.
No, I can't hold a 65% max HR at 9:00 pace. Not even close. For me that would be around 125 beats/minute. In the Florida summers I'll be at 165 within 10 minutes at 9:00 pace. This is why I believe most people don't really know what easy is and they're blasting zone 3 all the time just because it's not hard. "It's not hard therefore it's easy!"
I can do 6x800m at 7:00 pace with 2-minutes rest and stay around 165hr. Or I can run 9:00 steady state at the same heart rate. Doesn't seem worth it. 9:00 isn't too hard, it's just too hard for "easy".
You guys clowning on the 10+ min mile easy runs need to realize that no one is suggesting only doing these types of runs in your training. I run at sub 70% max HR (which generally is 10-1030 pace) so that I can recover and fit 3 sub t sessions in a week. Without that effort, I wouldn't be able to recover for those sessions. It's the SESSIONS that matter, not the slower easy pace. Speeding up the easy pace unreasonably will only lead to taking away from what matters, the SESSIONS.
Yeah when you run a 2:30 mins off your 5k pace, there is absolutely no way you can recover enough to run some subthreshold workouts. Got to be taking some EPO to handle such brutal sessions….
So, your 5K pace is 6:20, but you can’t hold 9min easy pace?
Like I said earlier, the internet is professional wrestling.
No, I can't hold a 65% max HR at 9:00 pace. Not even close. For me that would be around 125 beats/minute. In the Florida summers I'll be at 165 within 10 minutes at 9:00 pace. This is why I believe most people don't really know what easy is and they're blasting zone 3 all the time just because it's not hard. "It's not hard therefore it's easy!"
I can do 6x800m at 7:00 pace with 2-minutes rest and stay around 165hr. Or I can run 9:00 steady state at the same heart rate. Doesn't seem worth it. 9:00 isn't too hard, it's just too hard for "easy".
For reference, what is your heart rate when are running 6:20 5ks in that same heat? Seems weird that you can run almost 3 mins faster and only go up like 25 beats (I assume you max HR is like 200). I will also assume you are using a chest strap so you actually have accurate data.
I run easy 8:30-8:50 this pace is ok but I wouldn't call it always “easy” I can talk but for me it's not always “comfortable” It's not the kind of pace where I have 0 effort but 3-4
Would it be better to slow down, e.g. 8:50-9:20?
A 19:40 runner with more endurance than speed who runs a 40:30 10k and 1:30 half marathon might indeed have an easy pace in the 8:30 - 8:50 range.
However the aerobically less fit 19:40 runner would likely feel like they are working reasonably hard at that pace for one hour easy runs, and up to 9 - 10 min pace could still be appropriate.
I'd guess that at 45 miles per week, you should be sub 41:30 for a 10k. And such a person should probably be targeting 8:50-9 pace.
Your easy pace changes based on your fitness level, and can vary quite a bit between 19:40 runners.
From what I've read, it seems people who are very aerobically underdeveloped have a big pace range in the top-end of their heart rate. The heart rate spikes harder at lower efforts and relatively less the harder it gets.
The longer the duration, the harder the spike gets if it's not truly easy. And at a certain duration medium effort blends awfully close to race effort heart rates. I can be at 180hr without working anywhere near a hard effort.
I'm only running about 12 miles per week though. 4 30-minute easy runs and a couple workouts. The weight room and sprints/workouts are carrying me hard.
I'm only running about 12 miles per week though. 4 30-minute easy runs and a couple workouts. The weight room and sprints/workouts are carrying me hard.
Other than doing like 5k 4x/week all out, you can do whatever training you want at 120mpw. You are so far from any limits that it doesn’t matter.
Iholnly running about 12 miles per week though. 4 30-minute easy runs and a couple workouts. The weight room and sprints/workouts are carrying me hard.
Other than doing like 5k 4x/week all out, you can do whatever training you want at 120mpw. You are so far from any limits that it doesn’t matter.
If I run my easy days any faster I'm not recovering and just digging a deeper hole. So there is a limit.
If I didn't do any track workouts or lift weights I would probably agree. There's not much volume to hurt yourself doing only 2-3 hours of running a week but it's enough to get hurt if you're not recovering from the hard stuff in your routine.
I would like to run easy days faster but I can't or I just end up running my hard days slower. Maybe removing "hard" entirely would be the best way and just do a lot of easy and threshold runs so recovery wouldn't be as needed.
any fit adult male should be able to run 5/6 times per week and be able to run under 17mins with 6 months of consistent training (if starting from ground zero), 3 months if a regular runner
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
why u clowning this? its solid advice for the PB of 95% of letsrun keyboard warriors.
spend less time masturbating over Valby workout vids, get outside your mums crib and run off some of your beer belly