Author: Sergey Roussakow, MD, PhD (0000-0002-2548-895X) This blog reconsiders the traditional point of view about the training effect and physiological mechanisms of easy running and low heart rate training. The Miracle of Lo...
I thought this recent blog post for the British Journal of Sports Medicine was a very interesting read, with some serious allegations against a style of training that is all too popular. Your thoughts on the matter are of course welcome.
I think the whole study is based on a premise that most people don't really subscribe to. Few people actually say all you need to do is run slow to race fast. I think the whole point of running easy miles is that it enables you to train and race fast, not that it makes you fast. The blog post agrees. The paragraph below is a nice summary.
"This does not mean that low heart rate running is useless. Its good tolerance allows for higher volumes of running, which results in increased basic endurance, from the muscle recapillarization, strengthening of muscles, bones, joints and ligaments to dilated myocardial hypertrophy and brain and fatigue resistance, but increased myocardial contractility is not in the list. This means that you still have to run fast to race faster, so, in my opinion, the marketing slogan “run slow to race faster” is misleading. Rather, it seems to me that Peter Coe was right when he said: “Long slow distance makes you a long slow runner.”
Agreed, I never thought stroke volume was high on the list of things that long slow distance was supposed to enhance. Seems like the author is misrepresenting the supposed benefits of LSD training so he can knock it down.
I DGAF what any of these studies say. As long as the beat runners in the world are doing like 75% or more of their training as easy running, and a high volume of it, then everybody else should be too.
Agreed, I never thought stroke volume was high on the list of things that long slow distance was supposed to enhance. Seems like the author is misrepresenting the supposed benefits of LSD training so he can knock it down.
Just recently, I had a conversation with someone who literally told me that since stroke volume plateaus at a low heart rate, there is no cardiovascular benefit to training at a higher intensity. It's part of a constant shell game where I simply ask someone about specific adaptations of low heart rate style training that are not found in a higher dose at a higher intensity, only to have them try to duck it or make an appeal to accomplishment fallacy like I really think DGAF just did, mentioning elites despite the fact that they typically do ~40+ km a week of moderate and high intensity on top of 100+ km of low intensity, which would break all the hobby joggers still holding on to their 70s Lydiardian ideals and all the Runner's World pop-sci articles encouraging them to go slow to get faster, like it's some type of cheat code.
For my next trick, I will go talk to a bunch of alcoholics and tell them why all the articles stating that alcohol is actually good for you are misleading. Surely no one will get their nose out of joint after their sacred cow gets slaughtered.
Phoning up Kiptum to tell him the bad news, he could've broken 2 if he dropped 160km a week
Kiptum's schedule is something like:
Mon AM 25-28km easy (easy = 3:40 pace) | PM 12km easy Tues AM Fartlek | PM 12km easy Wed AM 25-28km easy | PM 12km easy Thu AM 30-40km hard (sub 3:00 pace) | PM rest Fri AM 25-28km easy | PM 12km easy Sat AM Fartlek | PM 12km easy Sun AM 30-40km hard | PM rest
If you think that is the same as your training because you happen to have an 80/20 distribution or less at a fraction of the weekly volume, I have a bridge to sell you as the chief member of the cargo cult.
How many posters on here have stated twenty five to thirty five years ago was an awful era, U.S. running? We are reminded, how few sub-9 3200m kids from that era. Same posters don't want to admit how many collegiate and pro sub-1:45 800m runners were produced from the same era.
I DGAF what any of these studies say. As long as the beat runners in the world are doing like 75% or more of their training as easy running, and a high volume of it, then everybody else should be too.
These are all basically from the first page of Google, I'm not close to scraping the depths of this popular claim that is now being denied because it has become inconvenient.
I thought this recent blog post for the British Journal of Sports Medicine was a very interesting read, with some serious allegations against a style of training that is all too popular. Your thoughts on the matter are of course welcome.
I think the whole study is based on a premise that most people don't really subscribe to. Few people actually say all you need to do is run slow to race fast. I think the whole point of running easy miles is that it enables you to train and race fast, not that it makes you fast. The blog post agrees. The paragraph below is a nice summary.
"This does not mean that low heart rate running is useless. Its good tolerance allows for higher volumes of running, which results in increased basic endurance, from the muscle recapillarization, strengthening of muscles, bones, joints and ligaments to dilated myocardial hypertrophy and brain and fatigue resistance, but increased myocardial contractility is not in the list. This means that you still have to run fast to race faster, so, in my opinion, the marketing slogan “run slow to race faster” is misleading. Rather, it seems to me that Peter Coe was right when he said: “Long slow distance makes you a long slow runner.”
This. Lower intensity higher volume is mainly about mitochondria and capillary bed building...as well as fat burning, building structural integrity in the skeletal muscular system, and getting the blood flow going.
Any decent coach or runner worth their salt already knows (from common sense mainly!) that there must be some workouts with higher speed and higher intensity to induce those last fractional changes in things like Vo2max, fast-twitch muscle fiber engagement and improvements in lactate clearance.
Build specific running economy around the demands of race paces.
I DGAF what any of these studies say. As long as the beat runners in the world are doing like 75% or more of their training as easy running, and a high volume of it, then everybody else should be too.
Why would you copy beat runners?
Rhythm maintenance. It's in all the exercise physiology journals nowadays.
As much workload as an athlete can reasonably handle given the confines of their schedule, mental state, and physiology, with a particular emphasis on subthreshold work, so non-polarized by both session intention and time in zone. This isn't however relevant to the thread, it is my personal belief, I'm not a two-bit coach, and I'm not making the claim it is superior to all the other training methods, unlike the volume before all else cultists who have repeatedly played up many advantages that aren't based in scientific fact and go out of their way to discourage healthy skepticism, including by literal experts like the person who wrote the article.
Just recently, I had a conversation with someone who literally told me that since stroke volume plateaus at a low heart rate, there is no cardiovascular benefit to training at a higher intensity. It's part of a constant shell game where I simply ask someone about specific adaptations of low heart rate style training that are not found in a higher dose at a higher intensity, only to have them try to duck it or make an appeal to accomplishment fallacy like I really think DGAF just did, mentioning elites despite the fact that they typically do ~40+ km a week of moderate and high intensity on top of 100+ km of low intensity, which would break all the hobby joggers still holding on to their 70s Lydiardian ideals and all the Runner's World pop-sci articles encouraging them to go slow to get faster, like it's some type of cheat code.
For my next trick, I will go talk to a bunch of alcoholics and tell them why all the articles stating that alcohol is actually good for you are misleading. Surely no one will get their nose out of joint after their sacred cow gets slaughtered.
You missed a golden opportunity to coin the phrase, “70s Lydtardian ideals.” I suspect you may have inadequate stroke volume.
Author had a misconception about a specific training adaptation to training and we all had to suffer reading through that because of her misconception.
