How Slow Are You Able To Run And Still Aerobically Benefit?

I'm very rusty with my sports science, but basically aerobic fitness for running means 2 things:

1) mitochondria count which helps the efficiency in converting glycogen into energy (so you don't end up burning lean muscle mass) and

2) capillarization, meaning more efficient transfer and usage of oxygen to your muscles

There are different zones which provide the optimal range of developing these two, and there is some significant divergence of scientific opinion as to when the optimal zone occurs. Some say there is little difference between going from 55% of max HR to 70% of max heart rate, whereas others say 75% is the most effective. But then competitive running is all about the "little differences", meaning, even a 1% increase means the difference between a World Record and not even qualifying for a national championship, so I tend to believe closer 75% of max heart rate is the most effective.

Also, note that the zones for optimal mitochondria development is different for the optimal zone for capillarization, so you can't just pick one aerobic zone and stick with that.

ALSO, tying all your runs to HR is a bit dangerous if not bad for you, because your HR will be effected by environmental factors like heat, sleep, caffeine, diet, i.e., things that have absolutely nothing to do with the condition of your legs.

Very helpful. So we should mainly worry about how our legs and overral body feels rather than running by heart rate? I agree - but I thought HADD's whole principal was on heart rate?

Any of Hadd's runners run a 4 minute mile without microdosing?

helpmeout! wrote:

ALSO, tying all your runs to HR is a bit dangerous if not bad for you, because your HR will be effected by environmental factors like heat, sleep, caffeine, diet, i.e., things that have absolutely nothing to do with the condition of your legs.

If you goal is to put a certain level of stress on your aerobic system, shouldn't you still use your HR as your benchmark? Shouldn't you slow down your pace on a hot day? Just asking.

How long do you need to run at the HR to begin these benefits?

Will running 4 miles and 4 miles provide a similar benefit as running 8 continuous miles?

Walk 100 miles a week for a year and then run a race.

Well let's say you haven't run for 2 days and all the little tears in your legs have healed and your legs are very fresh. But you just drank a ton of coffee and you slept 5 hours the night before. Your HR will be artificially elevated and won't correspond exactly to the effort your heart needs to make to deliver sufficient blood and oxygen to your legs.

Vice versa, if you slept a whole lot but you have a sore hamstring, trying to run through the pain just because your HR is low wouldn't make much sense either.

I'm not that familiar with HADDs, although I have trained extensively with HR monitors. They are a useful guide, nothing more. There is no winning formula. Even on some of my "easy" days, if I didn't get enough sleep, even though I'm literally jogging at 9:00 pace (I was well under 3:50 for a 1500m and in the low 30s for a 10K in college), my HR would be spiking around 160.

I'm not a scientist, and I never asked any of our physios that question regarding slowing down on a hot day, but my understanding is this:

Environmental factors, like a hot day, WILL work your heart harder because your body generally will require more blood flow and oxygen to cool itself down, produce sweat, etc. That doesn't mean that the muscles in your legs are actually getting any benefit from that increased heart rate.

Imagine you sit at your desk all day, and you are introduced to all manners of stress - your boss yelling at you, or you're worried about studying or your GF is giving you crap. Your HR will be elevated, but does that mean your leg muscles are therefore benefitting from increased capillarization and that your mitochondria count is increasing? No. Obese people with naturally higher resting HRs, let's say they do nothing but lie in bed all day eating hamburgers - are they getting the capillarization and mitochondria benefit to their legs as a result of a higher resting HR?

You actually need to be using the muscles in question (your legs for running) to actually benefit from the aerobic benefits. That's why I think HR is a good guide, but it's not a perfect system for telling you precisely how much of a training benefit your legs are actually receiving.

One study said that 90 minutes is the optimal duration for capillarization. Mitochondria buildup may be more of a "linear" thing, meaning you get as much mito as you run, so there is no "optimal" time. I read somewhere else that HGH growth is something like 500% during your first 45 minutes of aerobic activity, and decreases to less than 100% for anything past 45 minutes.

That's why you need variation in training, since you're training all the different parts of your aerobic system at their various optimal levels, plus you also need to separately workout your lactate and Vo2max.

I am feeling so much smarter after reading this. Great thread so far!

Won't work wrote:

Walk 100 miles a week for a year and then run a race.

It looks like this thread has become more of "What is the optimal pace for an easy run to improve aerobic fitness?"

Certainly I wouldn't recommend walking as a substitute for all your running, but if you walked 20 mpw + ran 80 mpw, I'd reckon you'd be better than just running 80mpw and resting the other time.

Consider this:

Is it better to run continuously at an easy pace for 90 minutes

OR

Alternate running and walking, 20 min easy pace run, 10 min walk for 110 minutes? Only 80 minutes of running, but an extra 20 minutes on your feet and at a somewhat elevated heart rate.

Walking advocate wrote:

Won't work wrote:

Walk 100 miles a week for a year and then run a race.

It looks like this thread has become more of "What is the optimal pace for an easy run to improve aerobic fitness?"

Certainly I wouldn't recommend walking as a substitute for all your running, but if you walked 20 mpw + ran 80 mpw, I'd reckon you'd be better than just running 80mpw and resting the other time.

Consider this:

Is it better to run continuously at an easy pace for 90 minutes

OR

Alternate running and walking, 20 min easy pace run, 10 min walk for 110 minutes? Only 80 minutes of running, but an extra 20 minutes on your feet and at a somewhat elevated heart rate.

Would this outweigh recovery tho?

Yea, but wrote:

Walking advocate wrote:

It looks like this thread has become more of "What is the optimal pace for an easy run to improve aerobic fitness?"

Certainly I wouldn't recommend walking as a substitute for all your running, but if you walked 20 mpw + ran 80 mpw, I'd reckon you'd be better than just running 80mpw and resting the other time.

Consider this:

Is it better to run continuously at an easy pace for 90 minutes

OR

Alternate running and walking, 20 min easy pace run, 10 min walk for 110 minutes? Only 80 minutes of running, but an extra 20 minutes on your feet and at a somewhat elevated heart rate.

Would this outweigh recovery tho?

If you followed that line of thinking, then you start to get into the infamous Alan Webb "counting your steps" situation. The idea being that any extra activity during the day is detrimental because that is time that your body could be recovering.

Someone smarter than I will have to answer this one. We should get Ross Tucker on it.

Walking Advocate wrote:

Yea, but wrote:

Would this outweigh recovery tho?

If you followed that line of thinking, then you start to get into the infamous Alan Webb "counting your steps" situation. The idea being that any extra activity during the day is detrimental because that is time that your body could be recovering.

Someone smarter than I will have to answer this one. We should get Ross Tucker on it.

Lol what?! Webb would count his steps??????

White Fox wrote:

What pace? I feel like my recovery and even some regular runs pace is too slow.

This is a great topic, White Fox.

I can tell you one thing.

It's better to begin with the first 6 weeks too easy than beginning with the first 6 weeks too hard. If you begin too hard, say 80-90% of HRmax, you will develop your cardiovascular system, but you'll do a poor job of developing a BIG aerobic engine. You'll end up with a (automobile comparison) 1.5 liter engine that can be wound up to a high speed, but it will be very uncomfortable doing it! On the other hand, if you begin more patiently, say 65% HRmax the first 6 weeks, and gradually, incrementally move into 70%, 75%, then ultimately months later to 80-85% efforts, you will develop a BIG 3.0 liter aerobic engine that can run at high speed and be very comfortable doing it. Imagine 1.5 liter's sound is high pitched ZING ZING, while 3.0 liter's sound is a deep, throaty VROOM VROOM. Bigger and more plentiful mitochondria and greater and greater enzymes action throughout your body add up into one BIG satisfying engine experience. And I can tell you that it's worth it.

In the beginning, an athlete may only be able to run aerobically at, say a HR of 135bpm, so will have to run maddeningly slow and walk up hills. But he may develop his aerobic capacity so well that he may be aerobic at 180bpm. That's a BIG 5.0 liter engine that takes patience and perhaps 10 years to develop. It's really remarkable when you think about it.

As your aerobic system develops, the speed you can run while still aerobic will increase. And also, gradually you will find that training at a higher heart rate will optimize your aerobic development. So you may begin your aerobic journey at 65% HRmax, and develop to training aerobically at 80% HRmax.

Here's a good way to monitor your progress. Find a a smooth, flat field, dirt path, or track, no more than 1 mile for a loop. This is your control setting for performing test every 3-4 weeks. Note your morning HRresting, and the Temperature, Humidity %, and Dewpoint. Also wind direction and speed. Warm up very slowly for 15 minutes minimum. You may see your HR spike initially, then smooth out (easy to see if you have a watch/HR monitor that allows you to produce computer graphs, such as a Garmin). The warm up is critical. Next, begin a 5 mile run (or shorter, per your current condition) staying strictly in a tight aerobic window (a 5-beat window is good). As you keep running, you will have to slow down to stay in your window. This is normal. Your speed may be perhaps 30 seconds/mile slower for the 5th mile than your 1st mile. Record you data.

If you are training way too easily, you won't see much progress at all every 3-4 weeks test. If you train too hard, you will see your progress go backwards. The fun part is finding YOUR optimal aerobic stimulation training zone. You're the only one who can do it, and you get all of the credit.

By the way, this type of testing is called Maximum Aerobic Function testing (or MAF testing), a term coined by Dr. Philip Maffetone (he's published a couple of good books). Google him to get a better feel for the value of his system. Many people get frustrated in the beginning stages of his type of training. I used it because I felt I was training hard, but thought "I should be able to go faster." Over 3 fall-winter seasons, I patiently developed myself aerobically for 5 months each fall-winter. When I began a HR of 168bpm was VERY uncomfortable. When I was done and running my first spring race, I was cruising at 190, 200bpm and feeling "This feels great; I want to go faster!" After 3 races, my racing HR settled down a bit, but I had 3 fantastic seasons. In the last 2 seasons, in the same hilly 10 mile race, I recorded a HRmax of 212 and 216 respectively. Incredible. I sold myself, I sure did. By the way, my age was 52 and 53 for those two seasons. It's two years later now, I've had two easy, low key years, and am just base-building again this summer (winter was brutal this year).

I should tell you that when I am base building, I run mostly on grass and soft trails, and alternate hilly days with flat ground days. As my aerobic capacity improves during base building, I use smooth downhills to run with a faster leg speed while keeping my HR within my optimum aerobic training window. And during my runs I try to keep a snappy steps tempo while keeping an aerobic HR.

That's a lot of reading! But you sound well-motivated, so I am happy to pass on my knowledge. Best wishes.

Fogrunr

That was according to Robby Andrews a few years back:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4598677

Fogruner,

Just to clarify, can you actually shift your aerobic zone/lactate threshold/Vo2Max upwards? I always thought aerobic zone, anaerobic zone and Vo2max were set percentages of your max heart rate?

That you can go faster in these zones through training, but that once you hit a certain percentage of your max heart rate, then no matter how fast or how slow you are going, you will cross into the anaerobic zone, and then to the Vo2max once you cross those HR thresholds?

I guess what you're saying is the inverse of what I believed. Which is that as I get into better shape, whereas running a 6:00 mile pace would have my heart rate at 165, 6 months down the line I would have to run a 5:30 mile pace to get my heart rate at 165. What you seem to be saying is, is that you can go from the 6:00 mile pace @ 165 to a 5:30 mile pace @ 175 and essentially "feel the same", that even at 175 you won't cross your lactate threshold accelerating lactate buildup and glycogen depletion?

Yes, this is precisely what Hadd's training is about. Squeezing your lactate threshold upwards so that it occurs at a higher and higher percentage of your HRmax. This means that running at, say 83% HRmax at the beginning of your training cycle feels quite tough, but with the right training you can run faster at that pace but also further. This is where the real gains are to be made. You want to get to a point where your maximum pace at steady state (where lactate is being dealt with as quickly as you produce it) is 90%+ and you can hold that pace for an hour without hurting. Interestingly Steve Magness, in his book, reckons some of the very cream of the elites have got their steady state so high that it corresponds with their 5k/10k pace for portions of a race - I can't vouch for that but it's an interesting claim.

I think the idea that threshold pace simply occurs at, say 90%, and that if you run your tempos just slower than that then you'll be fine, is a big trap that a lot of runners fall into. If the lactate turnpoint is occurring quite a bit lower - say 85% - that means you are then running too fast on your tempos which leads to all sorts of bother. That said, I think this movement in the threshold is something that tends to affect fast-twitch or more speed-oriented runners more than others because it is easy for them to draw on anaerobic capabilities and allow their aerobic conditioning to deteriorate.

fred wrote:

Any of Hadd's runners run a 4 minute mile without microdosing?

^this

Hadd training and, even worse, MAF training are the biggest crocks among hobby joggers.