Slow Running - is there a purpose?
So I'm reaching out to the running gurus in EN on this one....
I was told by a local triathlon coach (not MY coach), that it's critical to do a run block that's supposedly WAAAAY slower than your normal pace to encourage the formation of more red blood cells, teach your body to burn more fat as fuel, to work on HR Zones 1/2, etc, etc, etc...and that he had an athtlete running 90sec/mile slower than normal pace for part of the winter and she came back to interval training to run way faster than she had the previous season...not sure I buy that.
I know that EN has some longer, easier-paced runs in the training plans, but what's the thought on purposely running slower throughout the course of a training block? Or at all?
My thoughts on this are mainly that running too slow compromises form, and I'm not sure how running slow gets you to run faster in the long run (no pun intended).
Any thoughts on this? Does it help to teach your body to run in Zone 1 or at slower paces?
Thanks!
Comments
Kori-
I think I have heard that and even read that somehwere.....maybe a Jeff Galloway book. It seems like that is for someone just starting to build there base for the first 6-10 weeks.
However it is true that runnning at you target heart rate or a little slower does burn the fat cells versus the glycogen stores, etc. When it comes to the pace though I am not sure what it would be such as 90 sec. I think it would be more by heart rate so you are sure to stay within the specific zone of fat burning.
Remember also it is for a block and when building and depending on the person that block could only be 4-6-10 weeks before moving to the next block which often is hills to then build up the leg and butt muscles in preparation for the 3rd block which often starts to include some interval work.
My 2¢:
Not sure if by "running 90 sec/mi slower than normal pace" they mean running 90 sec/mi slower than EP. If it does, than >>
Running slower than your natural EP, what I call my "all day pace", I think just messes up my running form. Going slower than EP, for me, just makes me go at too slow a cadence, or too short a stride, neither of which I want to program into my neruromuscular memory. As long as my HR is in Z1, I'm getting all those benefits noted. Specifically, fat-burning is basically an "on-off" switch. You are ALWAYS fat burning at the same level, even when running very fast. So there's nothing special about going slower as far as fat-burning. The two advantages I see of Z1/EP over going faster all the time are: you don't deplete your glycogen stores, and so do not interfere with you upcoming/downstream harder interval workouts, and you don't risk slamming your knees, feet, hips, and lower back so much. While still getting dome benefit within the muscles of mitochondria efficiency, benefits in a bigger, stronger heart, and benefits of improved neuro-muscular communication, all good for running faster.
But will running that much slower than EP magically help you run intervals faster? Only if you've never run intervals before, I guess.
And besides, it's just too boring.
I posted a similar question about this in the forums, based on an article I saw from Mark Allen where he said he goes back and forth between stupid-slow blocks of training, and super-fast. Here's the article.
http://www.markallenonline.com/maoArticles.aspx?AID=2
Basically, according to him, you go super slow so that you can become more efficient at burning fat for fuel. Then, once you've maximized the gains there, you go super-fast to work the muscles (kind of as we do here in EN).
As far as fat burning, as Al noted you are always burning fat - but at slower paces, a higher percentage of your required fuel is from fat, and as you go faster, the percentage of calories from carbs increases. So the workouts we do here in EN tend to be more carb fueled than fat fueled. One could make the argument that while it makes us faster in the short term, our bodies are not as conditioned to burn fat as efficiently as if we did blocks of really slow running. Just like the way to run faster is to run faster, the way to burn fat more efficiently is to.. go slow enough to train your body to burn fat more efficiently.
So while I"m not a guru or a WSM, that is my thought on the subject - that while doing threshold and fast running is great for getting speed, there is something to be said for teaching your body to become more efficient at burning fat as well, and that the speed gains aren't really gained from that directly, but rather because of the relatively larger tank of fuel your muscles will have to draw upon (since any endurance activity inherently puts you in caloric deficit) when you are working them.
On the other hand , as you have done an Ultra correct ? You know that everything changes when training for something like that. You will need lots of LSD cause you need to get use to spending more time on your feet.
Great topic, Kori.
In Daniels Running Formula, Jack Daniels also recommends a lot of long slow distance (LSD or E/L pace - these are synonyms). His argument is that you need E/L runs to get the volume that you need in order to build the endurance required to do the distance.
Per JD, if you're only going to run 5k's then E/L time becomes less important. But if you're going to run long then you need endurance, and you build endurance through volume, and you should get that volume at E/L pace because if you try to do your distance faster than E/L pace then you're either compromising your T, I and R work (Threshold, Interval and Repetition, for FT, VO2M, neuromuscular respectively) or you're increasing the risk of injury unecessarily.
I'd give you the exact percentages from the great JD himself but I loaned the book out to a colleague at work, but the long and short (no pun or confusion intended):
Most of your running at E/L pace to get the volume, then decreasing percentages of time at: threshold pace, interval (VO2-max) pace and repetition (neuromuscular) pace, respectively. Basically, the more intense the training, the less time you should spend doing it.
Jack Daniels, by the way, was not interested in people RACING long and slow. JD said that to race long and fast, you need to get in both your volume and your speedwork, and the best way to do that was to do your volume slow so as to not compromise your speedwork. There is an EN notion that running slowly teaches you to run slowly. JD said that most of your running should be slow, and the right amounts of it should be fast (threshold), faster (interval), and fastest (repetition).
Our EN plans do call for some z1/z2 running. There is E/L pace running in our plans. Presumably, this is so we can accumulate volume without doing damage that might impair the next workout.
The exact JD paces are in the VDOT calculator linked from the data-tool. JD also said to not train at MP because it's too fast to be slow (e.g. recovery too long for the gain) and too slow to be fast (e.g. not enough gain for the recovery time). We, of course, do have MP and HMP in our plans.
We are triathletes. As such, because we need to devote time to other sports, we sacrifice running volume in exchange for biking and in some tri circles, swimming. As you curtail volume for reasons other than running (e.g. other disciplines, life), you move away from the JD plan, typically by limiting the E/L time and constraining total volume.
Having read (and re-read, and re-re-read) the book, including the athlete-bios sprinkled throughout, a lot of his athletes would have considered a 100-mile week to be a rest week.
Note that I am not expressing an opinion on JD (although he did revolutionize training and a lot of the EN/RnP run plan is based on JD's work), and my monthly subscription fee should be considered an expression of my own opinion of the EN plan.
Hope this is interesting and useful to you.
If not, you just wasted a lot of time reading - apology extended.
So for anyone who doesn't truly have an "all day pace," I think it is beneficial to practice slower running (but still a high cadence) so that they can obtain it. Once you have that default, "go all day pace" down, I don't think you have to practice it anymore.
The only other time I run slower than this is practicing the +30''/mile slower than EZ pace in prep for the IM Run.
Why run slow, when it feels so good to run fast...
FROM MANUAL --
* Aerobic vs. Anaerobic exercise. Note that the body moves in and out of different energy-producing systems as more and different types of motor units are recruited to do more work. This does not happen at some definitive line, such as under the line equals 100% aerobic, but cross that line and it's 100% anaerobic.
* At lower intensities we are only training the muscles we are recruiting. By exercising at higher intensities, we recruit a higher percentage of both our slow- and fast-twitch fibers, forcing them all to adapt. At higher intensity we get all of the "go longer" adaptations while also accruing the "get faster" adaptations. If you want to ride fast, you have to ride fast. If all you do is ride slow, you'll get very good at riding very slowly!
Here's what I would think (with the qualifier that I am taking an educated guess with relatively little knowledge on the workings of exercise physiology as compared to someone who has really studied it in detail):
Burning fat vs carbs doesn't make you faster in a snapshot - your instantaneous speed is your instantaneous speed based on your muscle fitness. However, if you can train your muscles to burn fat more efficiently (which we as humans have a virtually unlimited supply of), then their need for carbs as fuel decreases. This makes the bodies storage of glycogen, as well as the consumption of carbs via gels, drinks, etc last longer. As a result, you have less of a chance of slowing down during an endurance event as a result of caloric deficit, which results in a faster finish time. So it's less about the actual speed, and more about the ability ot maintain that speed over the long haul. Note that there are a multitude of reasons why one would slow down in something like a marathon or IM - caloric depletion being just one.
Like I said, I don't know how true that may be - but thats the progression of thought my mind makes concerning the subject.
Warning: this post is somewhat technical (and starts using chemical acronyms), meant to provide background to the conclusion of the final paragraph.
Ryan has the general idea above. A key concept is the word "efficiency". Without going into the molecular details of muscle contractions, what's going on when we train at different speeds is really all the same thing. We are increasing all the elements necessary to make muscle contract. More small blood vessels to carry oxygen. More mitochondria to create the adenosine tri-phospate (ATP), needed for muscle contraction, from either glucose/glycogen (CHO) sources or fatty acid sources. More muscle fibers themselves, with more nerve connections so they brain can oversee things.
So what does efficiency mean? It does not mean that one molecule of fat (or CHO) will start producing more ATP - that amount is limited by the chemical pathways involved. What it does mean is that more fat molecules can be used as fule source per unit time, because there are more vessels delivering O2, and more mitochondria to convert the fat to ATP.
Fat and sugar are not two different systems for generating muscle contraction. They operate in the same pathways, using the mitochondria to produce the "energy pellets" - ATP - which make muscle contract. The big difference: fat >> ATP requires oxygen, and generates ATP at a constant rate. The amount produced is limited by the oxygen available. CHO can generate ATP much faster, without needing O2.
Bottom line: if you become more efficient (see first two paragraphs for what this means) at using fat for fuel, that efficiency will bleed over into more efficiency at using CHO, and vice versa. But a key concept is, training in the zones which require more CHO turbo charges the development process. There is much more stress on this system when going anaerobic, so growth of blood vessels, mitochondria, and muscle fibers happens both faster and to a greater extent. This is why training at faster speeds will make you better at running for longer times at slower speeds.
But the reverse is not true, as least to as great an extent. Fat burning rate is limited by the availability of oxygen, and so it can't stimulate as great a growth in the elements of muscle contraction as anaerobic metabolism. A (flawed) analogy is weight lifitng. A body builder wanting to get bigger muscles would be much more likely to suceed by using very high weights, stressing to failure, than by lifting endless repetitions of light weights.
Running longer at slow speeds will eventually get you more efficient, but it takes a lot more time, and has a lower upper limit, than running at fast speeds. The reason we don't run lots of time, all the time @ fast speeds is due to the high recovery cost. Explaining what's happening during recovery, though, is fodder for another thread/post, so I'll stop here.
@Al - great post.
So - actual physiological adaptations from training - more mitochondria, more and larger blood vessels, more efficient and faster blood flow in and out , more fuel for combustion, faster clearing of waste products that can get in the way, larger muscle fibers capable of more contractile force, possibly some tougher tendonds... and most of this we get from the high-intensity intervals and subsequent recovery...
So let me ask you this - is there a purpose or a value to the z1 and z2 running we do?
And is there such a thing as "Endurance adaptations"?
What does it mean for us to "build far under fast"?
So, quesion 1: Short answer - YES. Value to Z1/2 running. In addition to the (hopefully) obvious value of the warm-up and cool-down, there are some indeed benefits. To restate what I wrote above: ALL RUNNING we do triggers our body to build (or at least maintain) the plumbing, muscle mass, nerve-muscle connections, and micro power stations needed for muscle contraction. Also, we can add the value of stress on ligaments, tendons, and bones which trigger strengthening of those important parts of the architecture. FASTER running will increase the stimulus so the system is triggered to build more of the above (up to our genetic maximum)with the added benefit of getting better at burning CHO for fuel.
If we tried to rely solely on faster running to get better, though, we could probably not get enough running in to do the trick. Since hard workouts drain our glycogen stores and create more micro injuries which must be healed, we simply can't get enough stress in without breaking down or becoming chronically fatigued. (I'm leaving out a whole other area of longer-term stress and growth in areas such as hormones, kidneys, sweat glands, etc, where the same principles apply). So the idea is to do the maximum amount of harder running which we can reproduce day after day, week after week, and add to that slower running to "top up" the training effect.
E.g., this week I ran 23+ miles. 7 of it was @ TP pace (1 and 2 mile intervals), 1/4 @ IP (strides), and about 3 or 4 @ HMP. About 50/50 "easy" running vs "harder" running, which is a usual ratio for me, and probably for many HIM and IM training athletes, as well as HM and marathon runners.
Question 2: Short Answer: YES. What is "Endurance adaptations"? Humans are probably hard-wired to be able to exercise for long periods at about 60-75% max capability. Everything in the body has to "adapt" to do that, starting with the heart's ability to get bigger and keep beating, the gut's ability to absorb fluid and fuel, to all of the other things I mentioned above. The fact that modern humans can get off the couch and in many, if not most cases, train themselves to run a marathon or finish an Ironman shows our bodies are designed (pick your method, intelligence or evolution) to work this way. To me, that phrase Endurance Adaptations merely means we are returning our bodies to their natural capabiities which are stunted by our modern lifestyle.
Question 3: Short Answer: We build far on top of fast. EN Kool-Aid is First Build Fast, Then Far. The logic behind it has to do with timing of training for an IM or HIM. If you first focused on far, then tried to add fast, you would lose some of that far stuff in the 2-3 months before your race, if you only did OS type stuff. If you try to do both... well six weeks into the OS isn't it evident you would not be able to do both long runs and rides several days a week along with thel evel of "fast training" we are doing now?
For example, consider the following logic when laid bare:
1) It is important in ironman racing to be able to use mainly fat as much as possible.
2) When exercising at low intensity, you use mainly fat and not much glycogen in your energy metabolism.
Therefore
3) Therefore need to exercise at low intensity a lot to "teach" yourself to use mainly fat.
The fact is that #3 just doesn't follow from #1 and #2! It's just an assertion. Now there may be good reason to train at low intensity, but I tend to think (assert?) that is has more to do with what Al talks about - building endurance adaptations that are hard to do at high intensity...and not BECAUSE you use more fat, etc.
Similarly, the anecdote you share may have more to do with the person being well rested than it being causal that she is somehow faster because she ran slowly. It could be that this was just a way to pass time during the winter without burning out but still staying in ok shape. We don't know how well controlled her baseline was. Intensity is great, but it's hard to keep up all year long!
@ Al now that's an awesome explanation that a nerd just like myself can get into. I think I might have to take chemistry and biology again though! Haha. Actually, when our muscles hurt its more "blood vessels" being built or mitochondria being built? I know th mitochondria are the power house of the muscles, so essentially that's what we're doing on long runs right? The fasters workouts... Help build more capillaries for better oxygen and nutrient carrying capacity? So... As you can see. I may have to read your post again.
Cory
@Al - thanks again for such a thorough response.
Sounds like TP and up is all about energy systems - increased vascularization and mitochondria, while the Z1/2 is all about structural systems - tendons and ligaments and bones.
I'm going to keep doing my z1/z2 then, in my actual z1/2, when the plan calls for it.
@Cory - my understanding is that the pain comes from swelling inside the muscles, which in turn come from the micro-tears, which are fundamentally structural. As your body recovers from structural damage, it tends to build stronger, which is why the work-recover-work-recover-work-recover pattern allows your body to tolerate more work over time.
I agree with the statement that the slower stuff builds your body's ability to sustain efforts for longer while the faster stuff creates the speed you want to ultimately carry over a distance. I heard alot of discussions among other tri coaches about intentionally doing that one long run every week at a significantly slower pace. I see that we have HMP and MP runs, but we don't go into EP very often other than during RR's closer to race day (if I remember correctly). I wanted some clarity as to whether adding more EP running into an IM build would be beneficial
Sounds like my conclusion from this is that some EP is necessary but more isn't necessarily better?
Here's the other half of my thinking on the whole thing:
There are two camps - one on the EN side of things that says to go faster you have to bike/run faster, and the other camp is steadfast in its long slow volume approach. Both sides have anecdotal evidence claiming their virtues, along with more scientific reasoning to try to explain why one is better than the other. However, it seems that most times in these discussions, one important potential factor is almost always left out - the individual.
This is another place where I may be wrong, but I believe that some people just respond better to one type of training than another. My current theory is that it has to do with the genetic proportions of fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers a person has - but I have no real evidence to back that up. I've tried the volume approach and the running 5x per week. I found that at the time (just starting getting back into running) that it didn't help after a certain point, that it made me more prone to injury, and that it was more of a chore to get out and run that much. When I started doing speed work, I responded more favorably - my times improved and my enjoyment went up.
However, I've also spoken with people who were the exact opposite - they injure during speedwork, and have much better success doing the long slow distance approach. They say I'm wrong, I say they are wrong - but neither of us are about to believe the other when we have personal evidence that supports out own individual belief
I also believe there may be somethign to be said for going back and forth between the two. One could argue that constantly doing faster paced runs eventually fatigues you, and a period of slow, easy running is beneficial to recharge your mental batteries and give your body a break from the demands of the intense workouts while still providing physiological benefits. We sort of do that here in EN during the final portions of an IM plan, just not to the point of doing a lot of Z1/Z2 work until then.
So will more EP be beneficial? Depends on the person, I'd say - I don't think there is a clear-cut answer.
What I've been trying to say with all the tecnobabble is that ALL running triggers MOST of the changes needed for running better/faster/longer. But slow running does NOT do a lot for improving the anaerobic pathway (different enzymes are needed to create the ATP), while fast running DOES keep the stress on the fat-burning pathway. So the big question is, how much faster running does one need? The answer ,,, as much as you can tolerate without breaking down, but at a minimum, even something as little as 10-12 strides 2-3 times a week may be all that is necessary. Without that additional CHO capacity, maximum speed capacity over long distances will be lower than if you have that additional turbo or electric motor to supplement the gas engine.
Pain is another interesting question. In a very real sense, ALL PAIN IS IN THE BRAIN. It is our conscious mind trying to make sense of altered nerve impulses coming from somewhere else. It may be nerve fibers have been cut ("Micro tears"), it may be swelling, squeezing on the nerves, or "toxins" (breakdown products of all the chemical reactions going on) irritatingthe nerve endings. Hard to tell the difference among them, and which are dangerous signals and which just irritants.
If you want to do the latter, you need to run more. Probably not just a little bit more...
If you want to run more, you probably need to do it at a lower intensity than most of your runs now.
Therefore, the advice becomes "you should run lots at a lower intensity"
If you 'only' have 2-3 hours a week to give to running, ignore the above. Running slower for 2-3 hours a week will get you nowhere. But, if you're looking to add mileage/hours, the best way to do it is to keep the intensity low.
BTW, the same is absolutely true when doing "intervals" (ie. what most people outside EN think of as intervals, or Z5+ efforts). Interval sessions are usually fairly short. To keep up the total volume of training, the time spent not doing "intervals" should be pretty easy, so that you're recovered for the next one.
The whole "fat-burning" thing is a coach/athlete's attempt to explain to someone else why they should do something that they know works. The explanation doesn't need to be right, the fact that it works needs to be right. It often takes years or decades for sports scientists to catch up to explain "why" something works after athletes and coaches have figured out that it works.
I was just lurking without much to add.
I now know that should I want to do more running, I should only add EP/Z1 intensity.
I was just lurking without much to add.
I now know that should I want to do more running, I should only add EP/Z1 intensity.
I've been following this thread, but don't really have much more to add. Mike basically sums up all of my thoughts on this.
I do feel that there is value in "slower" running, but in the context of being time-crunched triathletes (and not stand-alone runners), doing that probably isn't the best ROI for a lot of us. Personally, I would like to add more run volume to my training, as I feel that's something that I haven't really tried yet and I think I might be bumping up against my max gains from doing lots of low volume, high intensity stuff. I definitely have the time to do so, and I think I've built up enough durability for more miles. My guess is that the OS probably isn't the best time for adding volume like that though, so I'll just have to wait until I'm on a race plan?
Great discussion!
My notes:
In my experience, how to accomplish running improvement can be very individual. Or rather, from A to B there are common principles that work well for most anyone. But as you bank more and more years of training, focus on getting faster, bump up your distance goals, we all start to bump again personal strengths, weaknesses, injury histories, etc that need to be accounted for.
I could list a long list of parameters and "things" I personallly have to manage. On the opposite side of that page I can make a long list of stuff I know does and doesn't work for me. So my own run training is largely about managing, in real time, the requirements and constraints of both of those lists.
How to do _that_ is part of becoming a better self-coached athlete, which is largely about paying close attention to smart folks and NOT following a training plan into a brick wall.
...but to contribute to the original question...running slow(er) enable running more often which builds running durability and resistance to injury. When I'm on my game I want to run 5x/wk and I manage the variables of running intensity + volume, cycling intensity + volume, swimming whatever (homie don't swim much
) with timing of workouts -- this on Monday, that on Tues, this AM, this PM and on top of _that_ framing all of this within a...framework...that reduces my mental cost. For me, that means having a squad of go-to training partners and Strava KOM's / courses that I can plug into for most of my sessions. I do MUCH better, mentally and phyiscally, when I compete against something pretty much every time I suit up.
But rather than purposely running slowly, I have about 3 runs per week (ie, 5 minus the long run and interval run) that I run at the intensity and volume that works within all of that mess above
Best I've gotten is within 10seconds/mile.