Other/Mixed Splitting running volume within a week. How would you do it?
Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Bauer
Level 8 Valued Member
Thank you all for your input.
I am bit hesitant to believe the "only runs longer than 15/30/45 minutes count" statement.
Here is a study, comparing the effects of continous training (1x30 min.) vs. accumulated training (3x10 minutes). In this controlled environment, accumulated training was deemed superior to continous training.
link.springer.com
Even bouts of movement shorter than 10 minutes has been shown to be beneficial: Sustained and Shorter Bouts of Physical Activity are Related to Cardiovascular Health
For optimizing specific endurance, long sessions might be key (for example, to improve marathon times). For health, it might not matter, and might actually be less optimal, when total time and effort are matched.
--
Personally, I use walking breaks deliberately, as they lower the recovery cost of running while at the same time increasing my aerobic training (my HR stays in Z2 or Z1 during 1-minute walking breaks), and I like to spread my running volume somewhat, because this intereferes less with my main priority, KB-training. Both strategies decrease the stress of running while still yielding lots of health and performance benefits.
That being said, I am now in a phase where I feel the itch of improving my running times and training for a half-marathon. Therefore my idea is to
a) increase total running volume with more shorter sessions, as time allows,
b) stabilize this volume for some time (step progression), and finally to
c) start shifting my running volume by making one of the sessions longer, ever so slowly.
I am bit hesitant to believe the "only runs longer than 15/30/45 minutes count" statement.
Here is a study, comparing the effects of continous training (1x30 min.) vs. accumulated training (3x10 minutes). In this controlled environment, accumulated training was deemed superior to continous training.
Longer rest intervals do not attenuate the superior effects of accumulated exercise on arterial stiffness - European Journal of Applied Physiology
Purpose To examine and compare the acute effects of moderate-intensity continuous and accumulated exercise in three bouts with different intervals on arterial stiffness. Method Nineteen healthy young males (mean age = 24.7 years) were randomized to no-exercise control (CON), continuous exercise...
link.springer.com
Even bouts of movement shorter than 10 minutes has been shown to be beneficial: Sustained and Shorter Bouts of Physical Activity are Related to Cardiovascular Health
For optimizing specific endurance, long sessions might be key (for example, to improve marathon times). For health, it might not matter, and might actually be less optimal, when total time and effort are matched.
--
Personally, I use walking breaks deliberately, as they lower the recovery cost of running while at the same time increasing my aerobic training (my HR stays in Z2 or Z1 during 1-minute walking breaks), and I like to spread my running volume somewhat, because this intereferes less with my main priority, KB-training. Both strategies decrease the stress of running while still yielding lots of health and performance benefits.
That being said, I am now in a phase where I feel the itch of improving my running times and training for a half-marathon. Therefore my idea is to
a) increase total running volume with more shorter sessions, as time allows,
b) stabilize this volume for some time (step progression), and finally to
c) start shifting my running volume by making one of the sessions longer, ever so slowly.
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
Last edited:
Timo Keskitalo
Level 6 Valued Member
Somehow I think that arterial stiffness is a bit different thing than the amount of mitochondria you mentioned in the beginning, or the amount of hair veins inside the muscle and whatnot... Although I don't even know what that is.Thank you all for your input.
I am bit hesitant to believe the "only runs longer than 15/30/45 minutes count" statement.
Here is a study, comparing the effects of continous training (1x30 min.) vs. accumulated training (3x10 minutes). In this controlled environment, accumulated training was deemed superior to continous training.
Longer rest intervals do not attenuate the superior effects of accumulated exercise on arterial stiffness - European Journal of Applied Physiology
Purpose To examine and compare the acute effects of moderate-intensity continuous and accumulated exercise in three bouts with different intervals on arterial stiffness. Method Nineteen healthy young males (mean age = 24.7 years) were randomized to no-exercise control (CON), continuous exercise...
Even bouts of movement shorter than 10 minutes has been shown to be beneficial: Sustained and Shorter Bouts of Physical Activity are Related to Cardiovascular Health
For optimizing specific endurance, long sessions might be key (for example, to improve marathon times). For health, it might not matter, and might actually be less optimal, when total time and effort are matched.
--
Personally, I use walking breaks deliberately, as they lower the recovery cost of running while at the same time increasing my aerobic training (my HR stays in Z2 or Z1 during 1-minute walking breaks), and I like to spread my running volume somewhat, because this intereferes less with my main priority, KB-training. Both strategies decrease the stress of running while still yielding lots of health and performance benefits.
That being said, I am now in a phase where I feel the itch of improving my running times and training for a half-marathon. Therefore my idea is to
a) increase total running volume with more shorter sessions, as time allows,
b) stabilize this volume for some time (step progression), and finally to
c) start shifting my running volume by making one of the sessions longer, ever so slowly.
Some people claim that everyone will benefit from a long run. But I would think that it is not the most efficient way to train. If one's weekly mileage is around 25 one could start thinking of 8-10 mile long run.
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
They have the best pockets.
But yeah, I was all about VFFs and Xero sandals... Then I started spending time in the mountains and found out that rocks require a more supportive footwear if I'm going to do any distance. The first time you run into lava rocks you figure it out quick.
I still wear minimalist shoes day to day, but when I'm going for a long hike I prefer trail runners or hiking boots.
Georgiaoutdoors
Level 5 Valued Member
Typically I recommend that your long run be around 25% of your weekly mileage.
Singlecoilquack
Level 3 Valued Member
This seems to be the golden era of running footwear. Maybe try something stable with good cushioning. Topo Athletic shoes have a wide toe box like Altra if that's what you're into but have a non-zero heel to toe drop. The Topo Specter has cushion for days (35mm at the heel) and a minimal 5 mm drop. Might help with your foot issues. You can mix in Altras and other minimalist shoes on occasion.
I like to think about cushioning like easy days in a training plan. Sometimes it's nice to give your feet a break regardless of other variables like pace, effort, and distance.
I like to think about cushioning like easy days in a training plan. Sometimes it's nice to give your feet a break regardless of other variables like pace, effort, and distance.
Last edited:
It depends on what your goals are. Certainly one can argue that, for health benefits, the combination of shorter efforts might match a single longer effort, but if your goal is to run a 10k then you'll want to practice actual distance running for both physical and psychological reasons, IMHO. And then we could discuss whether the person who can run 10k at one time is "better" than the person who runs only short distances, and my argument would be that yes, they are somehow better overall.
-S-
Bauer
Level 8 Valued Member
Yes, of course, there is some specifity. I just think that from a health perspective, this all marginal compared to being sedentary. I often see people dismissing shorter efforts, exhibiting an all-or-nothing approach. At the same time, there are a lot of "too much, too soon" injuries in the running world.
The literature that I have seen clearly indicates, that accumulated training is equal in most measure and actual preferable in some cases. A harder session might actually lead to less adaptations, because your body's ability to recover from the stimulus is the bottleneck.
I am not saying that accumulated training is "better" - I just think the "only sessions above X minutes count" statement is flawed and that "easier" training (also GTG, long rests, AGT, etc.) is often dismissed without reason.
Last edited:
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
I sort of agree as well. But… following this line of thought… (and I’m sure you can see where I’m going to go here…) The marathon runner would be ‘better’ still, and the ultra-marathon distance runner even more so. Better of course is vague at best. Very context laden.
That’s a good point. In my days as a runner, anytime, I had a layoff from running for whatever reason, I would always return by running quickly, twice a day for a very short distance, and then gradually building up my distance because I’m not someone who ever tolerated a lot of distance very well. I settled on running 5K and 4 mile races when I lived in the city 10 K was too much for me on any kind of regular basis and although I managed the Philadelphia half marathon three times that was also too much for me in the long run (long run, no pun intended).
True. For me, the ability to run for 20-40 minutes continuously is what my mind says qualifies as “distance running.” After that it becomes something else again.
-S-
Georgiaoutdoors
Level 5 Valued Member
I think it all depends on your goals and desires.
That being said, I think feasibility is a bottle neck depending on your goals and training plan. If your plan calls for 90minutes or more of easy running one day, it would be tough to do that in 10-15minutes blocks spread out through the day for most people.
This is probably subjective depending on your needs and goals. For the average recreational athlete (not necessarily a runner), 60-90 minutes is probably plenty for a long run. But for a half marathoner and up, runs of 2-3hours are pretty common. Ultra runners are know for doing 4hour and longer runs for their weekly long runs.
There’s some interesting research that shows long easy runs where the pace is quite easy but the time duration is long, lead to both body and brain based adaptations that improve fatigue resistance. So if you want to start going into longer races (arbitrarily defined as 10k and up) you’ll want some long runs for this reason.
In the case of running a very important adaptation is running economy, which develops by time on feet. So it seems feasible that if you split up the running into lots of shorter runs, you may still be able to improve running economy and improve even if you don’t gain some of the other benefits of long runs.
That being said, I think feasibility is a bottle neck depending on your goals and training plan. If your plan calls for 90minutes or more of easy running one day, it would be tough to do that in 10-15minutes blocks spread out through the day for most people.
I think it’s pretty well documented that most recreational runners (those that enjoy running and/or are typically training for a race) make several mistakes. They often run their slow/easy runs too fast, and their fast runs to slow - leading to a lot of moderate running that is actually quite taxing on the body. Also they tend to have a less than great ratio of easy intensity to moderate intensity to high intensity. Lots of recreational runners come in at near 50/50 split with half easy and half moderate and hard. Ideally, you want mucho more easy volume, probably more like 70-80% easy volume, and sometimes closer to 90% depending on training phase. Easy runs (determine by pace/hr) done right are not particularly taxing until you get into significant long runs or accumulated volume. When I do a true easy run of 45minutes I don’t fee particularly fatigued and I’m not currently in great running shape.
This is where good resources are important to the recreational runner. Online programs, in-person coaches, books, etc. I think a lot of the poor training for runners comes from the fact that people think, because anyone can run, that's the end of it. And here I'll repeat my oft-mentioned advice to read "Running Formula," a book by Dr. Jack Daniels - for me, it gave such good guidance about how to handle different running paces that I was able to set a lifetime 5k PR at age 45. (Note to self: "age 45" was 23 years ago ...)
-S-
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
Exactly….
Georgiaoutdoors
Level 5 Valued Member
I’ve also benefitted from reading:
“Cool Impossible” by Eric Orton
“80/20 running” Matt Fitzgerald
“Training for the Uphill Athlete” by Steve House
mrwhy
Level 5 Valued Member
I do want to point out......
The problem with most recreational runners has less to do percentages and more to do with intent.
Most recreational runners (self included) are just slow. Just like most recreational powerlifters/strength athletes are weak.
Because we mistake the difference between running for effect vs. running for results.
If you want to run for health, heart rate, etc. that is one thing. (easy effort 30 minutes).
If you want to run for performance that is another. (RUN FAST.)
Most recreational runners hear "runners run most of their miles slow!!!" And then they go out and run a lot of 13 minute miles. Until you find out these "slow" miles were 7 minute miles and these fool can crush a sub six mile for a half marathon........
The problem with most recreational runners has less to do percentages and more to do with intent.
Most recreational runners (self included) are just slow. Just like most recreational powerlifters/strength athletes are weak.
Because we mistake the difference between running for effect vs. running for results.
If you want to run for health, heart rate, etc. that is one thing. (easy effort 30 minutes).
If you want to run for performance that is another. (RUN FAST.)
Most recreational runners hear "runners run most of their miles slow!!!" And then they go out and run a lot of 13 minute miles. Until you find out these "slow" miles were 7 minute miles and these fool can crush a sub six mile for a half marathon........
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
This is why I don’t like or use the term LSD; preferring LED. Long EASY Distance.
Easy doesn’t have to be synonymous with slow.
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
I feel attacked with these 13 minute mile remarks.
Singlecoilquack
Level 3 Valued Member
How does a person overcome their slowness to address the point you're making? For example, let's say a person is a recreational runner using the MAF method and logging most of their miles in the aerobic zone. They're relatively healthy,have low body fat and maybe even BMI (i.e., not having to overcome excess mass, even lean mass), practice good form and mechanics, and run enough to have a very good relative aerobic base that is not a limiting factor. Let's say their easy pace is 9:30/mi and middle distance race pace is 8:00/mi (maybe even sub 8:00).
This isn't fast by most standards. Speed work may improve those times marginally, but probably not much. So what do you mean by "intent" for this person? Where's the crossover between intent and genetic potential? Your comment is interesting, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean.