So a friend asked me a question about run pacing today
He wondered what would be harder/more exerting: running at a steady pace (let's use 8:00/mile pace for argument's sake) or running repeated 7:00/mile pace for a mile, followed by 9:00/mile pace for a mile. Ultimately, the run would average 8:00/mile pace either way.
I didn't have an answer for him. I assume the steady 8:00/mile pace would be less exerting but I really didn't know. I told him I would ask the gurus.
0
Comments
I would just rather run all of them at 7:00 so as not to get too bored
Let's say a person can't hold the faster pace for the entire race....
or Chris G. can choose the 6:00/8:00 alternating miles or 7:00 steady.
My 2 cents its easier to run a steady pace, I know from my experience that once I dial in my body get used to it.
While I am no WSM, IMO the answer is that it would be more taxing to run at 6 min mile then 8 min mile paces, compared to just running at 7 min mile pace.
On the bike, the physical cost of riding rises at a greater rate than the power squared (in other words the realtionship between physical cost and power in non-linear) — which is why the higher the VI, the higher physical cost — which is why we try and minimise the VI in a race.
While I have no proof, it seems logical to me that a similar non-linear relationship holds between the physical cost of running and pace — which is consistent with our run pace race strategy of estimating our pace capability and trying to execute that pace for the majority of the race.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Don't we do this every week when we do interval training? I mean, I go out for 20 minutes at my warm up pace of just under 9 min/mi, then do 4-6 miles alternating just under 7 for a mile, then easy for a mile, rinse and repeat.
Or another example, compare long runs the way the "other guys" suggest - slog along at EP/LRP for 2+ hours, or do what we do, warm up, then 20-30 min @ HMP, LRP for 20-40 min, then finish @ MP. Which is "easier"? Check the TSS scores for these two types of runs, same distance and time, but the EN way has a higher TSS.
What's the point of hte question - is someone looking to race that way, or wanting to know how to train, or just confused about what "work" is?
I do that run walk all the time during races and training. I find it to be very helpful, I know that I have a break coming up which helps mentally. I also am able to get my fluids and nutrition in properly. One key though is not to walk to long.
That would be an idiotic way to race. Ask the folks who start out running too fast in HIM's, IM's, open marathons etc. how it works out for them. Even runnign a couple miles 30 seconds too fast can be a disaster. One minute "on" and one minute "off" would digress into all the time "off" within a few miles. The Galloway stuff is walking for like 30 seconds every mile, or 10 minutes or something which is essentially like walking through aid stations as suggested in the race day guidance. They are not remotely the same thing.
If he wants to try that in a race make sure that you bet something good on the outcome.
Have you ever placed yourself wrong at the start of a running race and find that your stuck behind a couple miles of slower runners? You basicly end up spending the whole race running side to side and surging ahead to get around the mob of people to a clearing where you can settle in and run. Compare that experience to one where you had a starting corral with like paced runners who have proved they can hold at least X pace.
Night and day.
My sentiments exactly.
Regarding walking short periods in a race: the longer the race, and the slower the runner, the more it helps. There is no question that my overall time in races longer than 2 hours is FASTER if I keep a steady pace while running, and walk while getting my fluids in an aid station. The same thing is true on longer runs in training. BTW, this also holds true for me for the running portion of a triathlon lasting longer than two hours.
In practical terms, this means I do NOT walk in a stand-alone 5k thru half marathon distance, but I DO walk during triathlons, Olympic distance or longer.
Yes, the same non-linear relationship exists in running too. Remember, there's nothing unique about the bike. Power or pace, it doesn't matter.
So, the overall pace in the two examples Bob provided might be the same but I guarantee that the physiological cost of the two is NOT the same. Yes, the steady 8:00 pace would be less exerting. Any time there's a non-linear relationship you will not get back (by running slower) what you put in (by running faster). This statement assumes somewhat reasonable pacing applies.
This is one big reason why I'm not a fan of walking during the IM run. I fully realize there's a whole mental piece you have to consider too. However, if your goal is to finish as fast as possible given a finite amount of physiological resources then you should train your body (and mind) to run as consistent as possible, relative to terrain, imho.
Thanks, Chris
I have never tried that workout but it sounds like a challenge.
Now why would you post something like that in here? R&P don't need any new ideas!
In truth, I wouldn't mind some different run workouts.
Sorry this got a tad OT - in re-reading the original post I know better understand the original question posed...