I read on once that runs of multiples of 30 are most effective. An example would be a run of 30 minutes and a run of 60 minutes are much more effective than a run of 28 and a run of 56, even though the extra time spent running is small. Does anyone have any proof of this or a link to a study?
i thought it was 31 minutes and 18 seconds. i read a study at some point that stated the optimum possible running time was 62:36. Thats only for men though i think for women it was different due to their different body structure.
When a study is conducted and shows that something is better than something else (or even equal to something else), the researchers pretty much have to pick a few things among which to make comparisons. So if 30 minutes proved to be better than some other amount of time, certainly doesn't mean that 26 or 33 or some other amount isn't just as effective. They just don't have the time and subjects to make unlimited comparisons. Naturally this leaves the door open for someone else to follow up on the original study and test some new hypostheses
It's probably just a mental thing. 30/60/90 are just nice round numbers for the mind to wrap istelf around. Ditto for 100 miles or 150k. Your body doesn't really care. 32 minutes is just 2 more minutes of effort.
Alan
I only run for 19.2 minutes.
That is 19 minutes and 12 seconds.
No more, no less.
I triple every day, if not more.
Only reason it sucks is becasue I always feel bad around the 3 mile mark of every race because my body wants to stop running.
My coach in high school had this theory and it just stuck with me.
There's no way this is a serious question. Do you really think that your body understands manmade concept of minutes?
^the manmade...
I kind of doubted it, but that's what I read somewhere. That's why I asked.
"Do you really think that your body understands manmade concept of minutes?"
Your question is stupid if you think about it. The body doesn't need to understand anything. The association of time is based on the body not the other way around.
I've found my best runs to be 50 minutes.
The first 10 minutes are slow warm up, and then I get into the desired pace.
That lasts for 30 minutes, and then I slowly cool down for the last 10 minutes.
I always feel my best at exactly 40 minutes into the run, and that is almost without exception.
This '30 minute thing' is IMHO meaningless.
The "30 minute" idea sounds kooky to me, but has been advocated by none other than JK. See this thread:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=1356862&thread=1356398
A sample JK quote: "It is not entirely known why easy run lengths in multiples of 30+ min. have such significant effects vs. runs of other lengths, but running economy (at submaximum aerobic speeds) is without doubt in part a "step function" of the length of regularly performed easy runs, as opposed to a linear function. Thus, 55 min. is better than 35 min., but 65 min. is far better than 55 min.!"
Well that's not saying the same thing as the original poster. He said you must hit 30 on the dot for greater effectiveness while JK says that passing each 30 minute step is more effective. Still interesting.
-- wrote:
Your question is stupid if you think about it. The body doesn't need to understand anything. The association of time is based on the body not the other way around.
No, it's not stupid. Your body is not going to respond to an EXACT interval of time perfectly (well, it does, but not based on handy 30-minute multiples), as opposed to something very close to that. It's impossible that exactly 30/60/90 minutes are the perfect lengths of time to run. Your body doesn't say, "Oh, we just clicked over from 29 minutes to 30 minutes, better stop right now, before we get to 31."
Actually, I take Kellogg to be saying exactly what the original poster described. On what other basis is 55 minutes only slightly better than 35, while 65 is much better than 55? The only basis for that distinction, and indeed the one that Kellogg makes explicit in that article, is that there is something magical about 30, 60, or 90 minutes.
55 minutes is 20 minutes better than 35 minutes
65 minutes is ten minutes better than 55 minutes.
i dont see whats to argue about. its all abotu the amount of time you spend with you're heart rate and breathing elevated
jk told me he thought the half hour segment deal was mostly a time management issue where you sort of get a stable metabolism doing the same length runs with regularity... also might be something of a mental milestone every half hour. i think you probaly do get more benefit from a 30 plus minute run than from shorter runs just because it takes over 30 to get everything stimulated long enough to have a real effect. i know i feel like 30-35 minutes is the shortest run i can do that i think does me any good aerobically. less than 30 is okay sometimes, but it just feels like a loosening out run instead of a real workout... 2 hours really does seem like a perfect distance for a long run. things like depletion definitely do start to happen after a certain number of minutes of running, so your body isn't just a linear machine. i think different processes do start to kick in at specific times but it all might depend on your daily pace and your experience...
i thought that about 35 minutes into a run your body started to rely on fast twitch fibers as fatigue set in, and started burning some fat. in other words, there is a point where each step you take after a certain time period does accomplish more.
35 minutes?
Try 2 hrs plus. If it happens at all.
No, there is no specific point at which your body starts to use fast twitch muscle fibers. It depends on the percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers you have, and the pace at which you're running. Also, you don't have to completely drain your slow twitch fibers for your FT to activate. It certainly does not take 2 hours of steady running before any of your FT fibers are recruited.
Just run baby