Running slower to run faster.

And this kinda goes back to something I've never figured out, and that being what is the cutoff point between slow running and just jogging or "waddling along?"

I've not seen it lately but in the past there were a lot of posts that running was "real running" meaning you had to be going at least a certain pace, and if you slowed up too much then you were just a "jogger" and that have negative connotations.

So, is there a certain pace per mile that is officially the dividing line between jogging and running, or does it really matter?  If one is slow enough that it really just looks like a Sunday "jog" through the park, does that still count as training?


Edited by klowman 2010-03-18 11:20 PM

Good post OP. In my own personal definition....if you are not walking than you are running, simple as that. Of course you would count "jogging" which is running to me as training. Many people count walking as training too. It's all personal. It's pretty much impossible to maintain a fast "running" pace for an hour when it's 110degree outside...when it's that hot i'm still running, but much much much slower...trying to prevent heat stroke.

Nope, there's no dividing line, and nope, it doesn't matter one bit. My 5K pace would feel like a super slow slog to lots of folks here, and my easy recovery pace would feel like an all-out sprint to others. The difference between jogging and running is entirely up to the individual.

I'm glad you started this thread, Newbz. For me, figuring out the "run slow" lesson was *huge* -- it helped me learn to love running, and it helped me get faster.

i think jogging is just a term, you are either running, or walking (or you could speed walk and through everyone off).

if your training run eans you need to slow down in order to not kill yourself, and its really slow, it happens.

I have some runs where i get passed by people WILDY out of shape, but that day that effort feels ok. If you are running and you need to slow down to be in the right range, thats ok, you are still getting a benefit from it.

sometimes I feel big benefits from just walking.
I think that just getting your legs out there will make you a tad better.
not saying walking makes you run faster. but I have never regreted a soft easy run.
nor have I felt that it made me slower.
good points OP.

If you are not sure if you are jogging or running, GO FASTER, you are probably jogging :p In my opinion if the run has a goal, it's a run. If not, then it's a jog.


Also to the OP, this is also something I am learning as well. After losing nearly my entire season in 2009 and having injuries prior to that even, I am now doing low heart rate training. Instead of going hard all the time I have slowed the pace down. This has kept me under control and hopefully it keeps my ITBS under control as well.

Well,

This is encouraging because right now after not being able to run since last October, I'm just into my 2nd week of running again and my pace is way off (and I was slow to begin with).

The thing is that I wasn't even breathing moderately hard or even slightly hard.  Don't have a HR monitor but by the way I felt I think my HR was around 120-125 the whole run, except for the tops of hills I think I would get around 140.

I ran 4.4 miles, took 1:01:30 hrs (a 13:59 min per mile pace) ... last summer my avg. pace for this same route was around 11:45 min/mile. 

Was wondering if I even got any cardio benefit - this is why I was asking if the pace is so slow it appears to be just a Sunday jog, is it really even training or worth it?

I guess I can answer my own question in a way because I did feel some benefit my my leg muscles and joints, they are quite sore.  Except for being careful and recovering from a left foot/ankle injury ... what is limiting my runs right now is the soreness of my leg muscles and pain in joints and feet.

I guess even this slow, slow pace is still beneficial in order to get that volume on the legs ... getting them adatped to handling the load for long periods of time all over again ...  but the cardio ... I dunno ... I started and finished the run in front of the YMCA, went inside and hopped onto the Elliptical machine and rode that for 35 minutes, kept my avg. HR around 142 bpm .... just to feel like I got a cardio workout this evening.

I"m starting to understand better the principal of longer, slower runs in order to get in volume, which will build leg strength and build "durability" and that will build greater durability over long distances/times ... so when it's time to race a shorter distance one should be able to maintain their race speed "potential" for the duration of that race.

It's just frustrating to be going at such a pace that I don't even feel like I'm working anything ... just pounding of the legs and feet and hobbling afterwards ... and having to pedal the hell out of an Elliptical machine after your run just to get your HR up for a while.

Edited by klowman 2010-03-19 12:11 AM

Mark Allen says that you want to run slow in order to "develop your aerobic/fat burning system".

Running slower does (apparently) teach your body to efficiently burn fat as a source of energy. 

".. he told me to go to the track, strap on the heart rate monitor, and keep my heart rate below 155 beats per minute. Maffetone told me that below this number that my body would be able to take in enough oxygen to burn fat as the main source of fuel for my muscle to move. I was going to develop my aerobic/fat burning system. What I discovered was a shock.

To keep my heart rate below 155 beats/minute, I had to slow my pace down to an 8:15 mile. That’s three minutes/mile SLOWER than I had been trying to hit in every single workout I did! My body just couldn’t utilize fat for fuel.

So, for the next four months, I did exclusively aerobic training keeping my heart rate at or below my maximum aerobic heart rate, using the monitor every single workout. And at the end of that period, my pace at the same heart rate of 155 beats/minute had improved by over a minute. And after nearly a year of doing mostly aerobic training, which by the way was much more comfortable and less taxing than the anaerobic style that I was used to, my pace at 155 beats/minute had improved to a blistering 5:20 mile."

http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

I've taken to the run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard theme this year and so far it has paid off.

I've done 3 sprint distance tris - my 5k pace has been in the 26' range for all three, but I felt like I went all out. for those 3 races, running twice a week is all I did - a 3.5mile run and 4-5mile run for my long run.

Since January, I've upped to 3-4 runs a week, in January, I actually topped 50miles in the month, Feb was 44 and this month should be over 50.  For some on BT, these totals are nothing, but for me they are huge because running was something I did just to get through, but I've actually been enjoying myself more, especially on the longer runs - and it's because I've found various paces rather than just running. I run with a purpose.

And, in a few runs, I've actually carried what my race pace used to be and knew when I was done, I had a lot more to give.

so - run lots, mostly easy, but sometimes hard!

Nevermind, just read the article at the link in an earlier post, and just realized the above poster is not talking about his own personal experience but quoting from the article ....

Edited by klowman 2010-03-19 12:43 AM

Running slow but lots works wonders. Those long 60-90 minute aero runs give you aerobic benefits that hi-intensity short workouts cannot replicate. There are some lucky folks who have enough intrinsic VO2/running economy to just get by on short stuff at hi intensity, but for the vast majority of us, we need a lot of miles to get better.

 

Good post. Seems like a good place to put a question in my head. I've read Philip Skiba's books last week. He writes about training zones (uses Zones 1-5 in the same meaning as others, and adds a 6th one). He says that Zone 1 is not really training, it is something which we do just because we are restless when we are kept away from exercising (or something along these lines). So many people says here Zone 1 is perfectly OK and advisable zone to use for the run. So I suspect what he wrote is not entirely true.

You develop your aerobic system across a wide range of intensities and not just those that Allen (Maffetone) was talking about.  In HR zones, zones are aerobic up to 5a which few people would consider "slow" as it is faster than (or should be) 5k race pace.

The goal of running slow, as newbz points out, is to run more; when you get to the point that you can't add any more through volume and have plateaued in performance improvements, then you can start adding more through small doses of intensity. 

As you become fitter, your body will burn fat at faster and faster paces but not because you capped your HR based upon an arbitrary formula.  Rather, because you trained lots and became fitter, you can now sustain a faster pace at a lower relative intensity and this means that you are burning a higher percentage of FFA as fuel.

Shane

Well stated.

Agreed. 

For me the difference between walking and jogging isn't of pace, but form. If one foot is always in contact with the ground, then it is walking. If at sometime both feet are off the ground, it is jogging.

Yep.
I still use a Maffeton based aerobic run fitness test every few weeks as a basic gauge of my current aerobic run fitness, using a fixed HR as the target and then seeing where my pace is. It's not perfect and can be variable, but I have been doing it enough to find it usefull to my training.

You realize that this a very basic and widely accepted run training protocol that is all about effective pace/effort management in oder to facilitate more run training....that's run training, not interval or run/walk training.

Nice post, Newbz! I have a friend who did his first-ever triathlon, IMFL, and he trained at 10mm. Ending up doing the run in 3:30! Running slower = running more = running faster.

I always get a kick when someone says zone 5 is aerobic. Good luck staying in that zone for a couple of hours.

We actually had that debate a while back, I think it was one of Mike's threads about what counts as an aerobic race. The conclusion was that regardless of duration or pace, it's all aerobic, just not in the same sense as we use the word for long distance training/racing.

Well said Newbz

Does that mean a 5K, or a 10K is not aerobic?

Uh,oh...here we go....