A note on my improvements from ‘Easy’ running
May 19th 2008 06:00
I’ve been thinking a bit about my last post (My improvements). Specifically about the fact that ‘Easy’ running gave me 2-5 times the performance improvement of hard running.
It wasn’t ‘til I actually wrote that blog entry that I realised I’d run twice as many runs at an ‘Easy’ pace as I had at a hard pace. When I did, I thought readers would probably say, “So what? You got twice the improvement, but you had to run twice as much to get it!” That’s what I would have said.
But that’s not actually true.
To begin with, if I’d been running hard, I wouldn’t have been able to make myself run 64 times in 77 days. The proof’s in the pudding: I was just as dedicated to my running when I was running hard, but I was still only able to manage 32 runs in about the same length of time.
And even if I’d been able to motivate myself to work so hard, I would surely have injured myself. (Injury through running too hard, too far or too often is one of the most common reasons novices give up running.)
What’s more, when you run hard, your body needs more time to recover afterwards. Without that recovery, the physiological adaptations that lead to performance improvement don’t occur. So even if I’d managed to push myself through the hard, hard work, without injury, and run 64 hard runs, I probably wouldn’t have improved much more than I already did with 32 runs.
I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons, but these are just some off the top of my head.
When it comes down to it, though, the most important thing to remember is that I got 2-5 times the improvement WITHOUT knowing I’d run twice as much. That’s got to be a telling fact.
‘til next time – happy running!
It wasn’t ‘til I actually wrote that blog entry that I realised I’d run twice as many runs at an ‘Easy’ pace as I had at a hard pace. When I did, I thought readers would probably say, “So what? You got twice the improvement, but you had to run twice as much to get it!” That’s what I would have said.
But that’s not actually true.
To begin with, if I’d been running hard, I wouldn’t have been able to make myself run 64 times in 77 days. The proof’s in the pudding: I was just as dedicated to my running when I was running hard, but I was still only able to manage 32 runs in about the same length of time.
And even if I’d been able to motivate myself to work so hard, I would surely have injured myself. (Injury through running too hard, too far or too often is one of the most common reasons novices give up running.)
What’s more, when you run hard, your body needs more time to recover afterwards. Without that recovery, the physiological adaptations that lead to performance improvement don’t occur. So even if I’d managed to push myself through the hard, hard work, without injury, and run 64 hard runs, I probably wouldn’t have improved much more than I already did with 32 runs.
I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons, but these are just some off the top of my head.
When it comes down to it, though, the most important thing to remember is that I got 2-5 times the improvement WITHOUT knowing I’d run twice as much. That’s got to be a telling fact.
‘til next time – happy running!
| 328 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
