Mury
|
Re:Debating go long or keep it short - 2010/07/30 11:19
A lot of it depends on your goals and the timing of them. For example, if a race is imminent then faster runs become more important. If there are no race goals in the future at all then run more of what you like to run.
However, for long term training, almost everyone runs too little too fast. If someone wanted to run a 5K on up to a marathon or ultra, just getting miles in is the key. The way to get more miles in is to keep the intensity down.
Hard workouts take a toll on the body. If you run really hard one day, it's hard to do much productive the next time. If you run so hard as to kick it up to the anaerobic range you really pay a price.
Aerobic work takes years to develop, so many people leave so much aerobic potential on the table. In contrast, you can develop and regain your speed in a much shorter time. In addition, by building a solid base you can better tune your speed when the time comes. "Easier" miles not only build up the aerobic capacity but they help the body's muscles and connective tissues adapt as well.
Another way of looking at it is you can train really hard and see massive initial improvements, but there is a greater risk of injury, and more importantly you will hit the plateau much sooner. Results become sporadic.
If your goal is for doing the best you can in the long term, I'd say run as frequently as you can, up the miles safely, and keep to a *mix* of very easy up to harder *aerobic* paces. When you feel great run a bit harder. When you feel a bit worn out, keep it to very slow recovery paces. You'll get the most bang for the buck. If you have a goal race approaching, say in 2 months, then it's time to capitalize on that base with some more tempo work initially and finally some speedier stuff more toward the end.
Way too many people fine tune too much and leave way too much aerobic development on the table.
Just my two cents. I'm not sure what your goals are so do what suits you best.
|
