M pace wrote:
Can you prove that running M pace is better than running 90% M pace?
No you can't.
Again for the elites that 10% marginal error. So yes it does make sense to train at M pace.
For the rest, go 90% and get the same benefits.
I will try.
Your heart doesn't care how fast you run, but your muscles don't. Running at a marathon pace is not a mistake, if you have gained a base and the goal is already to stretch the left ventricle is not worth it, but if your aerobic base is insufficient, then it would seem that it does not matter at what pace to run, but no, running at a high pace you burn carbohydrates, not fat and all training costs you at a high price. That is, it all depends on what phase of the training cycle you are in. In cycling, for example, I almost never trained in the so-called "stupid" zone, this is 70-80% of HRmax (you burn a lot of carbohydrates, like you roll the base, and you don't load the muscles enough, and it's hard to recover after such training). In running, this stupid zone is 75-85% of HRmax, there is little use from it, fat metabolism is no longer trained, and the muscles are not yet loaded enough. For the construction of an aerobic base, it is better to run in the zone of 65-75% of HRmax, for the construction of muscles, run in the zone from a marathon and above.