Re: Benefits of running a long run slow

Welcome! Forums Running Forum Benefits of running a long run slow Re: Benefits of running a long run slow


danm wrote:
Ryan, I am not discounting your knowledge of the science of the sport but yours (or anyone’s) ability to guage it my feel. Feel is an imperfect, subjective science.

As magpie referred to, so is heart rate measurement.

danm wrote:
Don’t get me wrong (again), more people have had success with and will continue to have success going by feel. But if you had a tool to measure, precisely, what is occuring scientifically, and you had a coach who could interpret, precisely, what is happening at any point in the training phases, who wouldn’t want to use that tool? Especially if their main objective was to get better.

My first reaction was to ask you how knowing “precisely” where you are at any moment helps you become faster. However, I then realized that I know just as “precisely” where I am at any moment simply by monitoring my body’s signals and occasionally timing workouts and/or races.

danm wrote:
I see going by feel as a method that is based more on luck and guessing.

And I see going by feel/time as a method that is based more on real world variables, as do a number of high level coaches and athletes.

danm wrote:
I feel a tool, coupled with a coach who can evaluate the results of the tool would be a more precise way toward faster times with less “experimenting.”

And I feel a body’s signals are the best tools for this job, again as do a number of high level coaches and athletes. Notice a pattern here? If so, it’s because I base my beliefs heavily upon what those who have proven to know the most about the sport believe.

danm wrote:
By the way, on my quest towards success in speed skating, I was a category 2 bike racer. Cyclists train their aerobic systems and anerobic systems almost exactly like a long distance runner. There are long rides, intervals, tempos, fartleks, hill work, speed work, strength training not to mention the other facet which is much more important for cycling that in running such as; saddle height, bike geometry, wind resistance/drag/body position, pedaling cadence/motion. If Lance didn’t have access to the best coaches and science regarding the sport he would not have had the success he has today. Lance would be a great cyclist no matter how you slice and dice it but if you have ever watched OLN and seen what he goes through in such things as wind tunnel testing to acheive the absolute greatest aerodynamic position on a bike you would understand how science plays such a huge role in his success.

Are you trying to prove my point for me? You just showed how science can be used in cycling that is an unrealistic application for running as well as some of the variables in cycling that are much different, if they exist at all, in running. You also forgot to mention many of the training differences between running and cycling, such as the fact that one can recover faster in cycling because cyclists don’t have to worry about the high impact factors of the sport.

FWIW, I think it’s fair that you know you’re having this discussion with someone who has tried HRMs in the past. It’s not like I’m coming into this discussion not knowing both sides of the equation. I found the HRM to be useless and, at times, limiting.