Intensity- how low is too low for aerobic development?

Training Advice/Discussion Masters

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 10 of 10

1 9 10

Next Last

1 year ago 01/01/2024 10:03am EST

re: parkerjohn

I assumed you were coming at easy run pace and volume from that perspective, and that’s totally reasonable. I’d agree that if a runner is aerobically fit enough that 5km pace plus 2 minutes puts them around 65-70% MaxHr, then great, that seems we are saying the same thing but from a different description. However, if 5km pace plus 2 minutes has them pressing up on 75% MaxHr, I don’t see how backing off to a lower effort and maintaining or even being able to slightly increase volume as a result of that, knowing what research and experience suggests, is suddenly not beneficial?

Maybe drawing on the performance modeling approach, whether Training Peaks or Banister, that Sirpoc and Letsdoit! utilize. If the aerobic stimulus of an easy run is a function of speed and duration, whatever the actual function is that quantifies the stimulus, there would be a range of inputs that could produce the same output value. The idea being that your body recognizes that resulting stress and not that it was 45 minutes at 7:30 pace or 60 minutes at 8:30 pace.

1 year ago 01/02/2024 9:18am EST

re: parkerjohn

parkerjohn wrote:
It’s not arbitrary. It’s sub threshold, steady state running. And it’s not so slow that you will be running with altered biomechanics. That last point hasn’t been brought up yet but it’s just as important.
5K + 2 is not precise but it gets you in the ballpark. An elite male running 6:xx min easy pace has a ton of anecdotal precedent.
I’m not arguing that volume isn’t important or that those studies showing that volume of easy running is paramount are misleading.*
I’m arguing that volume should be viewed as function of both intensity and duration and that reducing intensity to boost volume is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The age grouper is faced with a conundrum. They’d like to run more miles because they’re told that miles make champions (even though that’s not exactly what Lydiard meant when he said that).
But they discover that in order to run more miles they have to REALLY slow down and once again, in Lydiard’s terms, end up putting the cart before the horse.
If today all you can handle is 2 miles at 8:00 pace before this easy run turns into a workout effort for you, so be it. That’s your starting point. That’s aerobic development sans sloppy biomechanics which can predispose you to injury upon returning to hard running.
Repeat that enough times and as fitness improves you will find that those 2 miles becomes 3…4…etc.
You might very well set a PR at a relatively low (for you) easy run mileage. If that occurs, bump your easy run pace. If not, bump your easy run volume until you PR. As Daniels would say, whichever occurs first.
I’d argue that there’s no need to increase easy run volume by more than 60-70 min per session and now we’re talking world class runners. It takes a lot more discipline to keep your volume low than it does to slow down in a world where volume is the badge of honor. If volume is king of any mountain, most runners would be better served by adding volume to their workout days.
*Keep in mind that physiologists and those who design the studies being alluded to are defining “easy” running on their own terms as well.

You are viewing easy running as steady state and sub threshold. Many do believe that non workout days should be steady, and truly easy runs should be very short and only for recovery after a race etc. Some don’t believe in very easy runs at all, and think if you have to run that easy, a rest day would be better.

Fair enough, but I don’t think this thread is about steady running.

1 year ago 01/02/2024 10:08am EST

re: parkerjohn

parkerjohn wrote:
It’s not arbitrary. It’s sub threshold, steady state running. And it’s not so slow that you will be running with altered biomechanics. That last point hasn’t been brought up yet but it’s just as important.
5K + 2 is not precise but it gets you in the ballpark. An elite male running 6:xx min easy pace has a ton of anecdotal precedent.
I’m not arguing that volume isn’t important or that those studies showing that volume of easy running is paramount are misleading.*
I’m arguing that volume should be viewed as function of both intensity and duration and that reducing intensity to boost volume is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The age grouper is faced with a conundrum. They’d like to run more miles because they’re told that miles make champions (even though that’s not exactly what Lydiard meant when he said that).
But they discover that in order to run more miles they have to REALLY slow down and once again, in Lydiard’s terms, end up putting the cart before the horse.
If today all you can handle is 2 miles at 8:00 pace before this easy run turns into a workout effort for you, so be it. That’s your starting point. That’s aerobic development sans sloppy biomechanics which can predispose you to injury upon returning to hard running.
Repeat that enough times and as fitness improves you will find that those 2 miles becomes 3…4…etc.
You might very well set a PR at a relatively low (for you) easy run mileage. If that occurs, bump your easy run pace. If not, bump your easy run volume until you PR. As Daniels would say, whichever occurs first.
I’d argue that there’s no need to increase easy run volume by more than 60-70 min per session and now we’re talking world class runners. It takes a lot more discipline to keep your volume low than it does to slow down in a world where volume is the badge of honor. If volume is king of any mountain, most runners would be better served by adding volume to their workout days.
*Keep in mind that physiologists and those who design the studies being alluded to are defining “easy” running on their own terms as well.

You are right on a lot, but workout volume should probably follow easy run volume, not come before it. This 60-70 mins of easy running is not going to be enough for a lot of runners. If 90-100 mins of easy running is boring, too bad. If you're going to do workouts like 6 x mile, 50 mins at half pace, etc. your workouts should be as long in volume as your easy runs when you include a warm up and cool down - not longer - thats where you get injured. And you shouldn't skimp the warm up either and probably not the cool down. I ran with a group of guys who liked to start tempo'ing after like half a mile to keep the volume of this run down to 7 or so (really to squeeze the run in on a weekday) - why not just add a couple miles to actually warm up. Squeezing training in should be done only if necessary and you should probably truncate the work, not the warmup, if you have to do that. I seem to get injured less frequently if I jog 1-2 miles after working out too - or rather keep the intensity of workouts low enough that I can run an easy 2 miles afterwards.

Easy runs should be with good form though. That is important. They also shouldn't really be that boring, at least not due to pace. For me like 90 mins is the sweet spot for easy running. But 60-120 mins is prob the ideal range for runners with a couple years experience. There comes a point where you'll need to be towards the upper end of that range just not to regress and adding more easy running doesn't lead to prs. Here consistent high mileage is important so that workouts do not destroy you.

This thinking that you'll just add volume to workouts doesn't hold water though except maybe for middle distance training in some situations. If you can't run easy pace after most workouts, you're training too hard and risking injury.

1 year ago 01/02/2024 2:25pm EST

re: Kvothe

Kvothe wrote:
You are right on a lot, but workout volume should probably follow easy run volume, not come before it. This 60-70 mins of easy running is not going to be enough for a lot of runners. If 90-100 mins of easy running is boring, too bad. If you're going to do workouts like 6 x mile, 50 mins at half pace, etc. your workouts should be as long in volume as your easy runs when you include a warm up and cool down - not longer - thats where you get injured.

This part I would respectfully push back on as I think it does not hold necessarily.

Injury comes about when we hastily increase the intensity, frequency, volume, or several variables at the same time. Too much too soon.

Workouts (like the 6 x mile as you reference) evolve over time. A runner can build up to 6 x 1 mile. An easy run for that runner might be no more than 30 minutes in duration. That’s not a recipe for injury, unless that runner jumped to 6 x 1 mile without a steady progression.

Intensity, in my opinion, is the principal driver of training adaptations.

Volume comes in as a subsidiary driver, to support that intensity and add an effect of magnitude which is not to be overlooked. Mileage works.

But volume by itself (at ridiculously slow paces relative to current fitness level) is an inefficient use of time/energy and an opportunity cost.

Page 10 of 10

1 9 10

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Intensity- how low is too low for aerobic development?

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Intensity- how low is too low for aerobic development?

Jump To A Page

Follow Hard2Find

Block Hard2Find

Follow Alfie

Block Alfie

Follow Kvothe

Block Kvothe

Follow parkerjohn

Block parkerjohn

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.