Curious
Curious
Same distance is covered but I would say the guy who took longer(if it is equivalent to their abilities and both are giving same effort.) Time spent running = more aerobic development. Eluid Kipchoge could do a 10 mile training run at his easy pace in 60:00(idk just a guess). I could do the same at my easy pace and finish in 80 minutes. I gain more benefit, not only because I am far less aerobically developed or because 10 miles for him is a morning fun run. It is because I am putting in more time running.
Is it the same runner? A workout is a mix of intensity and duration, not so much of distance. 8 miles in 50 minutes is low intensity for some people and 8 miles in 70 minutes is high intensity for others.
Jack Daniels would answer with a question. What is the purpose of the workout?
50 minutes.
It's pretty obvious.
As a stand alone run the 50 minute run. However you can't do that every day so it's the balance of both that counts in the long run.
Short term? 50
Long term? Depends
no single run matters much wrote:
As a stand alone run the 50 minute run. However you can't do that every day so it's the balance of both that counts in the long run.
That is 8 miles at 6:15 pace. There most definitely are runners who can do that every day. Probably half of the NCAA could do that every single day and be glad their daily workout is suddenly so much easier than it used to be.
Faster vs. Longer Duration. I would think faster benefits your heart and lungs more. Better for speed and stamina. Running a mile is more strenuous than walking a mile even if it takes 1/2 the time. And most importantly, you have more free time! Why do you think so many people run sprints?
Considering the effort is the same for each, I pick the guy running 8 miles in 50 minutes because that's less time on your feet (recovery), and if the goal is to run more, he can add miles to get to 7 minutes.
*70
sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:
no single run matters much wrote:
As a stand alone run the 50 minute run. However you can't do that every day so it's the balance of both that counts in the long run.
That is 8 miles at 6:15 pace. There most definitely are runners who can do that every day. Probably half of the NCAA could do that every single day and be glad their daily workout is suddenly so much easier than it used to be.
,
Maybe but that's not really what the thread is about.
R. Dole wrote:
50 minutes.
It's pretty obvious.
^this
People are stupid. Faster is always better if you can recover.
If they are two different people and assuming the effort level is the same in each case the slower guy has a much harder workout - he is holding the effort for much longer. Which is why Lydiard, for example, in his more recent books talked in terms of time spent runnijg rather than miles covered.
and if it's the same guy, then 50 min is a better training stimulus.
John Utah wrote:
Jack Daniels would answer with a question. What is the purpose of the workout?
The only correct answer.
joho wrote:
John Utah wrote:
Jack Daniels would answer with a question. What is the purpose of the workout?
The only correct answer.
All workouts have the same purpose.
The issues are time spent and effort more than actual distances covered. If the level of effort is the same then the 65-70 minute guy is getting more benefit because he's running for a longer time. But if the 50 minute guy is running 50 rather than 65 minutes because he's putting in more effort then he's probably getting more benefit. bit even that needs to be qualified As someone else said, it really depends on what you're trying to do with the run. You cannot evaluate any run on its own. There needs to be a context.
They're both on an easy run
to improve wrote:
joho wrote:
The only correct answer.
All workouts have the same purpose.
Overall they do but not on an individual basis.