Where did you read that aerobic benefits kick in after an hour?
VTrunner wrote (see)
Dr. Dan. That looks like a solid plan to me. The only potential pitfall would be the splitting up the runs for in/home days. It might limit the your aerobic base as you'll lose the continual time on your feet. I seem to recall reading in several places that the true aerobic benefits kick in around an hour to 1.5 hours. Either way though, 60 miles per week is solid and will net you solid results. Good luck with the upcoming race (and repress the last speed session from memory). It just tells you that you are still human
I feel VERY human thesedays, don't worry!I agree that longer is better for aerobic development .... but also think that you get more aerobic "bang for the buck" by doing slow miles on tired legs. The reason longer is better, when going slow, is because you need time to fatigue the initial muscle fibers so you can get to the later/deeper fiber sets and start training them ... but if the earlier ones are still fatigued from a recent run, you'll get to them more quickly on the 2nd run later that day. I'd suggest that 2 x 5 miles is probably worth a single 8 miler in aerobic terms (I admit that is a total guess) ... but for me it would be more time efficient to do 2 x 5 mile commutes than to drive and try to fit in 8 miles at lunch (I can get in early and do a couple of longer lunch runs in a working week but it's not feasible every day).
Dr. Dan, very interesting view on the benefits of splitting up a run into two segments or just doing it all at once. Your explanation rings true. I had forgotten about the requirement to fatigue the muscles to get to the other fibers. It's all mechanism in the end. I'm a scientist and you would think the science of running physiology would be straightfoward, but it's actually fairly complicated. It's part of why I enjoy it so much...I enjoy learning and testing!
Spen, I think i read that in one of Hal Higdon's training pages (not scientifically tested but I assume the man knows his stuff). I'm pretty sure I've seen it eslewhere but am blanking right now. Below is some text from his webpage:
Run Slow: I know this is tough for you. You want to go out on those long runs and BLAST! Don't! Normally I recommend that runners do their long runs anywhere from 30 to 90 or more seconds per mile slower than their marathon pace. This is very important, particularly for advanced runners who do speedwork during the week. Listen to what the Coach is about to tell you! The physiological benefits kick in around 90-120 minutes, no matter how fast you run. You'll burn a few calories and trigger glycogen regenesis, teaching your muscles to conserve fuel. Running too fast defeats this purpose and may unnecessarily tear down your muscles, compromising not only your midweek workouts, but the following week's long run. Save your fast running for the marathon itself.
Vt Runner - I can see what your saying BUT that is for long runs only!
Andy, that is a brilliant progression. Really good to hear how this has worked for you. Any chance of some more detail - how long you were running at this pace / frequency / distance before you noticed improvements. Did the improvements come on slowly or suddenly? Do you think the track work is responsible for the impromvemnts? Have you done any races or anything speedier to see how your HR has improved at faster paces? Cheers.
For anyone interested, Minni has posted this Lydiard link on another thread. Intersting views on muscle fibres.
Well, regardless of the benefits of time on feet at one stretch or two, today's run was good. Legs felt fresh again. Put in 11 and felt nearly as good at the end as the beginning.
Also, not sure what you guys wear for shoes, but I've been running mostly in the Kayano18s. Have been trying out the 19s and after about 50 miles not sure that I like them. They are about 0.5 oz lighter than the 18s, but they don't have the same cushion. I think they took too much good stuff out. I am 6'1" and 165 lbs and my legs just feel kind of beat up when I run in them.
Out of choice for long runs I'd like to use Asics Nimbus but they are pretty expensive. I recently got 2 pairs of new Asics Cumulus 13 samples off Ebay for less than half price, and a third of the price of a pair of Nimbus. Tthey arn't as good as Nimbus for cushioning but as I'm only 5'6 and 138 lbs I can't really justify the extra expense for something I don't really need.
For whatever reason, my feet are really tender (my Dad is the same way). I think that's way I need the ultraplush. The cost of shoes is really outrageous. I typically get really good deals from roadrunner sports several times a year. Typically get the shoes for about 2/3's normal price. Have tried the Nimbus 13s and 14s. I like them better than the kayano19s, but they are less cushioned than the 18s. And the 14s are lighter, which is nice.
I try to find a good deal and buy 2 or 3 pairs at the same time. Being quite light I seem to get a lot of miles out of my shoes as well, I had a pair of Asics Enduros last year with well over 1000 miles on them.
I've got 2 pairs of Nimbus. An old one which I use for shorter runs and a newer pair for LSRs. Just before my target marathon I buy a new pair and do one LSR in them before the race - then post race down grade each pair and chuck out the oldest.
Although expensive, they are nothing compared to my previous sport of cycling.
Sorry VTrunner I was not having a go!
My tenditis is playing up again! Trying to get to the bottom of this.
Andy - I am thinking about seeing if I can get my easy days down to 65%. Maybe half of my miles at this pace. Would like to know if we get any benefit from this.
Blimey, the HADD thread is in lift off mode Nice to see some new names, welcome to all
Interesting chat about length of run and benefit ... i read in either P&D or HAL HIGDON that 30mins is a guide. So less than 30 isn't worth doing ( even as a recovery ) ? I would imagine this will be dependant on the runner's stage of development though ? ie for an overweight beginner a few minutes will do some good.
In general though, surely max time on feet for any particular run within the correct (aerobic) HR range is the aim, and 1 run of 10M is better than 2 of 5M or even 2 of 6M ...... waffling ......
Anyway i was gonna post up some detailed stats but Brian's gone off somewhere so i feel it would be wasted
I've decided to structure my week along Brian's advice ( as it hasn't let me down yet ) and this week's mileage has gone like this ...
M 5 recovery ( 50mins )
T 10 (90mins)
W 7 ( 63mins)
T 5 ( 45mins)
F 10 (95mins)
Apart from Monday @ 65% max , everything else has been around 70%ish max
Tomorrow will be a welcome rest day ( i could feel in my legs this morning that this week was my biggest week yet, hence it was a bit slower ). Sunday just 13M needed to break 50M for the first time ... i feel only getting run over by a bus will stop me
Blimey, lots of brilliant posting and even more brilliant running Andy, that is a truly amazing result. How long have you been doing Hadd stuff?I work in ks but for you I convert them into miles - running by time doesn't do enough for the OCD side in me Mon: 6 @ 70Tue: 10 @ 80Wed: 5 @ 70Thu: 6 @ 75Fri: 10 @ 80Sat: 5 or 6 @ 70Sun: something between 9 and 12 @ 75. Will probably extend that to about 15 by xmas so the first long run in Jan. won't feel completely impossible Finally nailed a decent 10 miler today in 8:20 average. Still windy, still slightly erratic splits due to the wind but I have a feeling that I'm getting closer to where I want to be . 80% runs have started to feel easy again and the pace is improving too.
chick' - 37M as well Mon-Fri .... very similar mileage breakdown but you're working harder, nice running. Will be another 4 weeks at current mileage until i chuck in some sub-LT stuff.
you got me thinking there mace - I may drop one of the 80% runs again. After all, I'm still recovering, well, sort of ...
I'm still a way away from 2 80% runs a week. I would probably do them if I dropped my overall mileage but I guess that would defeat the object of the exercise a bit?
I am not planning any 80% runs until after Xmas - unless I can see that I can run @ 75% for 1hr without any HR drift.
I love it long, hard and slow
I'm I get no drift after an hour at either 75% or 80% but the 80% run is just too hard on my legs to do twice a week during a 65 mile week.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2014 |