What's 'better' for improving fitness?
Discussion
Gin and Ultrasonic said:
It depends what you mean by 'fitness'.............
Running faster? And if running faster, for sprinting or endurance? Or burning the most calories?
Fast and slow runs both have their place in a structured training plan.
Either are much better than sitting on the couch!!
Hmmmm, interesting, not really sure what I mean by 'fitness' exactly. Running faster? And if running faster, for sprinting or endurance? Or burning the most calories?
Fast and slow runs both have their place in a structured training plan.
Either are much better than sitting on the couch!!
I'm certainly not looking to be a sprinter, and in the mountain climbing world I guess it's all about endurance, so for me I suppose I'm looking at that sort of fitness.
I don't really enjoy the running so I'm hoping I can run for 20 mins at high speed to get the same benefit of an hour at lower speed, but I guess it's not that simple
If you don't enjoy it then get it over quicker!
Seriously though, it depends hugely on what your goals are, and how you define 'fitness'. In reality there isn't much difference between 5 and 7km, and assuming you are in your 40s or early 50s (looking at your cars of choice!) there are better and less damaging ways to train.
As above though, anything is better than nothing, and spending too long looking for optimal rather than just getting on with it is, well, sub-optimal.
Seriously though, it depends hugely on what your goals are, and how you define 'fitness'. In reality there isn't much difference between 5 and 7km, and assuming you are in your 40s or early 50s (looking at your cars of choice!) there are better and less damaging ways to train.
As above though, anything is better than nothing, and spending too long looking for optimal rather than just getting on with it is, well, sub-optimal.
WH16 said:
If you don't enjoy it then get it over quicker!
Seriously though, it depends hugely on what your goals are, and how you define 'fitness'. In reality there isn't much difference between 5 and 7km, and assuming you are in your 40s or early 50s (looking at your cars of choice!) there are better and less damaging ways to train.
As above though, anything is better than nothing, and spending too long looking for optimal rather than just getting on with it is, well, sub-optimal.
Haha, well yeah that was my logic, running harder for 20 mins sounded better than 40 mins slower. Seriously though, it depends hugely on what your goals are, and how you define 'fitness'. In reality there isn't much difference between 5 and 7km, and assuming you are in your 40s or early 50s (looking at your cars of choice!) there are better and less damaging ways to train.
As above though, anything is better than nothing, and spending too long looking for optimal rather than just getting on with it is, well, sub-optimal.
I'm 41, so still at the stage where I think running is still my best option. My gauge is pretty basic, 8 or 9 years ago when I was training for my mountains I was doing a 5km in about 22 mins, 10km in about 45 and a couple of half marathons in 1:42 ish.
I just broke the 25 mins barrier for a 5km yesterday, 6km is the longest distance I've managed recently, so I am a long way off where I want to be.
I had a sore knee a few years back but wanted to keep cycling, and read about training in low heart rate zones. For a couple of months I pottered along in HRZ 2, at the time staying below 130bpm. This meant going up hills at walking pace while lycra-clad folks zoomed past. After a couple of months my knee was fine so I started blasting round faster. I set a load of PBs as apparently if you make you heart work at low revs it performs better at high BPM. Or something. YMMV. I am a fat b
d now, sadly.
d now, sadly. some bloke said:
I had a sore knee a few years back but wanted to keep cycling, and read about training in low heart rate zones. For a couple of months I pottered along in HRZ 2, at the time staying below 130bpm. This meant going up hills at walking pace while lycra-clad folks zoomed past. After a couple of months my knee was fine so I started blasting round faster. I set a load of PBs as apparently if you make you heart work at low revs it performs better at high BPM. Or something. YMMV. I am a fat bd now, sadly.
Well that's interesting......wonder if I could 'run' 10km easily at, say, 8km/h and see the benefit of that? Although it'll take a bloody long time! d now, sadly. Zone 2 training is useful, but a proper training plan will incorporate faster sessions too, even down to maximum effort sprints for really short (like sub 10s) durations. Intervals, hills, weighted. etc. All better than just plodding along and gradually stretching the distance.
Again, it entirely depends on what you are trying to achieve.
Again, it entirely depends on what you are trying to achieve.
I'm doing both at the moment. I'm trying to improve my parkrun time at the moment, and the suggested workout I've been given suggests doing a longer slower run on one day, then intervals faster than your 5k pace another day, then the parkrun itself.
So far it's working, so if you measure fitness as being able to run a set distance faster than you could last week, then that's good.
So far it's working, so if you measure fitness as being able to run a set distance faster than you could last week, then that's good.
mike80 said:
I'm doing both at the moment. I'm trying to improve my parkrun time at the moment, and the suggested workout I've been given suggests doing a longer slower run on one day, then intervals faster than your 5k pace another day, then the parkrun itself.
So far it's working, so if you measure fitness as being able to run a set distance faster than you could last week, then that's good.
I think I'm measuring it with a bit of both. I did 4km on the treadmill at 12.5 then the last km at 11, so overall a quicker 5km time in the last few months,. So far it's working, so if you measure fitness as being able to run a set distance faster than you could last week, then that's good.
Other times I'm trying to go further at a steady 11km/h.....6km my furthest so later today I might try and hit 7km.....
lizardbrain said:
Whichever you are more likely to do consistently
This is probably the most pragmatic answer and indirectly comes back to why a periodised approach might be helpful and is the most recommended approach.If all your runs are hard, you might get burnt out, injured or bored so adopting the classic 80/20 approach gets more volume of training (and therefore more fitness) overall) because it's sustainable.
Z2 trains cellular metabolism (mitochodrial density) and density of blood vessels in muscles so increases aerobic capacity. The ability of the muscles to cycle/use lactate as fuel is a fundamental building block for speed or power at Lactate Threshold which is where you are for race level efforts between a few minutes and an hour or so.
OP mentions mountaineering. I use z2 runs as a base for getting fit for ski touring. I work on the basis that something that is sustainable and is a little harder than skiing or walking uphill will make that activity easier. Seems to work for me. Another benefit of z2 is that it's good preparation when you move up altitude because you've developed the capacity to use oxygen efficiently.
The original idea came from work looking at the proprtion of time spent at high and low intensity in world class endurance athletes across a range of disciplines. It's debatable how much this applies to age group donkeys but for me it works.
lizardbrain said:
Whichever you are more likely to do consistently
I was watching a podcast recently discussing this and its actually the opposite (yes there are lots of differing theories out there!). Their theory was if you do a similar type of training at a similar time each day your body will prepare itself just before it starts - like it's priming itself for the effort it knows is coming. Problem then is you aren't improving as much because your body is in a state to handle the exercise better. Its a diminishing gain.Recommendation was HIT type training, mixing it up different times etc.
No idea if correct, but was interesting. I think it was one of the stephen Bartlett talks.
UTH said:
I think I'm measuring it with a bit of both. I did 4km on the treadmill at 12.5 then the last km at 11, so overall a quicker 5km time in the last few months,.
Other times I'm trying to go further at a steady 11km/h.....6km my furthest so later today I might try and hit 7km.....
4km on the treadmill feels like 10km in the real world, I hate treadmills. Other times I'm trying to go further at a steady 11km/h.....6km my furthest so later today I might try and hit 7km.....
If you don't really enjoy running then look at ways to make it more enjoyable. parkrun or a running club are a good way to turn it in to more of a social thing, and if you live close enough to work (or a station), run commuting is a great way to get a run in to your daily schedule without having to go out of your way to do it.
Entering some races give you a goal and some fun in running in places you might not usually go. Personally I find a trail run a lot more fun than tarmac, if you don't really enjoy the running part you can just think of it as a nice walk in the countryside but a bit quicker.
RizzoTheRat said:
UTH said:
I think I'm measuring it with a bit of both. I did 4km on the treadmill at 12.5 then the last km at 11, so overall a quicker 5km time in the last few months,.
Other times I'm trying to go further at a steady 11km/h.....6km my furthest so later today I might try and hit 7km.....
4km on the treadmill feels like 10km in the real world, I hate treadmills. Other times I'm trying to go further at a steady 11km/h.....6km my furthest so later today I might try and hit 7km.....
If you don't really enjoy running then look at ways to make it more enjoyable. parkrun or a running club are a good way to turn it in to more of a social thing, and if you live close enough to work (or a station), run commuting is a great way to get a run in to your daily schedule without having to go out of your way to do it.
Entering some races give you a goal and some fun in running in places you might not usually go. Personally I find a trail run a lot more fun than tarmac, if you don't really enjoy the running part you can just think of it as a nice walk in the countryside but a bit quicker.
I did used to run from Holborn to Fulham back when I lived there, 11km or so, perfect way to get the distance in the legs and get myself home, like you say.
Moved out to Surbiton now so commute is different, although I have considered running Holborn to Clapham Junction then train from there.
All some way off yet, need to be happy knowing I can do 10k without too much issue.
ozzuk said:
I was watching a podcast recently discussing this and its actually the opposite (yes there are lots of differing theories out there!). Their theory was if you do a similar type of training at a similar time each day your body will prepare itself just before it starts - like it's priming itself for the effort it knows is coming. Problem then is you aren't improving as much because your body is in a state to handle the exercise better. Its a diminishing gain.
Recommendation was HIT type training, mixing it up different times etc.
No idea if correct, but was interesting. I think it was one of the stephen Bartlett talks.
There are loads of things that are better … if you can keep it up all year. Recommendation was HIT type training, mixing it up different times etc.
No idea if correct, but was interesting. I think it was one of the stephen Bartlett talks.
If anyone cares, just got back from 5km on the treadmill at a steady 12km/h. First time in years I've done the full 5k at that pace, would have liked to have gone further but the distance tracking in my ears was quite a way off what the treadmill told me and I was getting annoyed!
Next run I think I'll drop to 11 km/h and hopefully get 6km+ done.
Next run I think I'll drop to 11 km/h and hopefully get 6km+ done.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff