Remember that Ed is NOT training like most marathoners. He is running MUCH slower in terms of his training pace than almost all comparable performers, with MUCH higher mileage.
I had six cardio-conversions for A-fib between 2006-2011. None since I slowed my training pace, while still doing the mileage and alactic speed training. I also have eliminated grains and eat low-carb. If you want to run long in every sense, you have become a fat-burner. Every other marker of heath has improved also.
This definitely has me rethinking my retirement years training.
What about the studies that indicating going long and the associated heart inflammation can lead to damage or heart attacks? Seems that is more apt to happen in less fit marathons as I recall. Here is one such article:
Kind of think Ed is dispelling this, or is quite the exception?
Ah, there's an ultra guy in Savannah - Andrew Snope - who apparently trained himself to be a fat burner.
When you race after these far slower training runs, are you able to step up the pace considerably like Ed? Seems the running mechanics from so much slow running would be quite different from running a marathon at a far faster pace.
From my own experience, years ago I found something interesting. Doing 30 mpw with lots of speedwork and doing 60 mpw with less speedwork yielded similar times for the 5k. A bit slower at 60 mpw but the distance work was easier than the intervals. But I do like do intervals, guess it's the challenge of always wanting to work harder and to be able to see it.
Getting older, though, I don't want it to end until the end is near.
Are you running the same hours every day or does it vary?