Wow, Bor trained with zero intensity for the a race that requires zero intensity. LMK when you guys are discussing an event where the training isn't a boredom competition.
Woah watch out people, we got a tough guy here. 4:4x/mi is zero intensity according to you...
I think professional runners understand more than most that they have nothing to prove by rushing the warmup. Paul Tergat and Rob DeCastella both allegedly covered the first mile of every run in around 9 minutes. To my mind, running your first mile much faster is the equivalent to wearing lifts in your shoes.
Yes, and by the second mile they were probably running at 6:30 pace.
Wow, Bor trained with zero intensity for the a race that requires zero intensity. LMK when you guys are discussing an event where the training isn't a boredom competition.
Woah watch out people, we got a tough guy here. 4:4x/mi is zero intensity according to you...
By definition, endurance running excludes intensity. If you can run 26 miles at whatever pace you run it at, it is not intense. The marathon is a joke, it does not matter to me how fast you run it. Every top marathoner is a failed distance runner, old, or they're chasing a bag.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Woah watch out people, we got a tough guy here. 4:4x/mi is zero intensity according to you...
By definition, endurance running excludes intensity. If you can run 26 miles at whatever pace you run it at, it is not intense. The marathon is a joke, it does not matter to me how fast you run it. Every top marathoner is a failed distance runner, old, or they're chasing a bag.
Right. It doesn't matter to YOU so it doesn't matter.
Am I wrong? What's the benefit of running 8-10 minute pace for him?
He can run way more without getting injured or as fatigued.
These numbers are totally made up, but I'll use them to illustrate a point: by running 30 secs/mile slower on your easy runs, you're probably still getting 95% of the benefit you would at the faster pace, but the fatigue cost is probably 25% lower.
Therefore, from a cost/benefit analysis, if you slow down, you can run a lot more - and yield a much greater return.
You can't illustrate a point when your numbers are made up
When you run too slow you get basically 0% of the benefit. Not "95%." There's no benefit to 9:00 pace when you run marathons at 5:00 pace.
Coach Canova: As for runs at a speed that is lower than 80% of marathon speed, they will certainly not influence performance determining factor in athletes who have already achieved a good condition.
I took at look at his profile and a lot of the running is more challenging than you’d think.
He runs on the north side of town a lot towards the Palmer Divide or Falcon close to or over 7k elevation. Hilly as well. Especially the loops in the black forest. That trail is awesome but super hard and rolly.
He’s also kinda old. He graduated college like 12-13 years ago. That’s a solid 20 years or running. Probably need some chill pace.
My kids play soccer where the group runs a lot. Always cool to see them out there.
Woah watch out people, we got a tough guy here. 4:4x/mi is zero intensity according to you...
By definition, endurance running excludes intensity. If you can run 26 miles at whatever pace you run it at, it is not intense. The marathon is a joke, it does not matter to me how fast you run it. Every top marathoner is a failed distance runner, old, or they're chasing a bag.
That's just categorically incorrect. By definition a great distance runner is someone who is able to sustain a higher relative intensity to their max than others. World class marathoners are running close to 90% VO2max the entire time.
And if guys like Kiplimo are failed distance runners, what does that make you - who probably can't even pace them for 10k?
That's just categorically incorrect. By definition a great distance runner is someone who is able to sustain a higher relative intensity to their max than others. World class marathoners are running close to 90% VO2max the entire time.
And if guys like Kiplimo are failed distance runners, what does that make you - who probably can't even pace them for 10k?
Not everyone on this forum is a distance runner. 90% of VO2 Max is not intense. You're a joke.
It's not that his easy runs are too slow, it's that his workout are too fast. You can still overtrain even if you take your easy days easy.
Agreed with poster above that 2:10 was an underperformance in NYC.
Difference between fitness and execution. Fitness was there, but he ran a tough course too aggressively and paid for that. Look at his head-to-head vs Mantz to see that fitness isn’t the problem. He also beat Dever by 24 seconds at the NYC Half.
Hillary Bor started NYC with a compromised hamstring... hit him on the hills in Central Park
Hillary Kipkoech is a runner using Strava. Join Strava to track your activities, analyze your performance, and follow friends. Strava members can plan routes, participate in motivating challenges, and join clubs. Get started...
Any run you do is beneficial unless maybe you're aggravating an injury or illness. Arguing that some other kind of run might be more beneficial is one thing but arguing that any kind of run has 0% benefit is just silly.
The pace is very slow at the start of aerobic development and gets faster as fitness improves, but it always feels like the same effort. The pH of blood is normally between 7.35-7.45, slightly alkaline. Development of mitochondria must be in that alkaline range, so any work done that produces lactate would inhibit that development, according to what Kevin Livingston writes.
He can run way more without getting injured or as fatigued.
These numbers are totally made up, but I'll use them to illustrate a point: by running 30 secs/mile slower on your easy runs, you're probably still getting 95% of the benefit you would at the faster pace, but the fatigue cost is probably 25% lower.
Therefore, from a cost/benefit analysis, if you slow down, you can run a lot more - and yield a much greater return.
You can't illustrate a point when your numbers are made up
When you run too slow you get basically 0% of the benefit. Not "95%." There's no benefit to 9:00 pace when you run marathons at 5:00 pace.
Coach Canova: As for runs at a speed that is lower than 80% of marathon speed, they will certainly not influence performance determining factor in athletes who have already achieved a good condition.
I'm not sure if you see the irony here, but your numbers are made up too.
And sure I can - I'm making up the numbers, because I don't know the exact figures (nor does anyone). But the point still stands, there's a tipping point where the reduction in fatigue outweighs the benefit of the faster pace. And if you run enough, you make up for any loss and then some.
I took at look at his profile and a lot of the running is more challenging than you’d think.
He runs on the north side of town a lot towards the Palmer Divide or Falcon close to or over 7k elevation. Hilly as well. Especially the loops in the black forest. That trail is awesome but super hard and rolly.
He’s also kinda old. He graduated college like 12-13 years ago. That’s a solid 20 years or running. Probably need some chill pace.
My kids play soccer where the group runs a lot. Always cool to see them out there.
Add to that, unless it's a pancake flat course without buildings, the GPS is usually far from accurate. I usually do my easy runs at a measured loop. When I run at 8:30-9:00 pace, it sometimes (|like a lot of times actually) would tell me I'm running 10:00 or even 11:00. So I wouldn't read into it too much.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
