Wheeler Farm Loops

You'll have to post a review after you're done with the book.

How about I just link Rojo's review instead? :-)

http://goo.gl/1QYVMR

Its covers a lot of topics related to track/running, so obviously of interest there for most of us. But if you're a fan of athletics/sports in general, then its even 10X better. Some of the topics are really cool, especially if you are into science but are past the stage of wanting to read journal articles :-)

wow, we are on the same blogwavelength today.

I just read a review this morning... So I guess I ought to download it now since I am sort of waterlogged in Waterlogged.

Epstein is on like every relevant sports podcast this week too.

Good thing I decided not to pursue baseball... I'm not exactly approaching the theoretical upper limit of human eyesight.

Hmmm now after watching this trailer I'm bored with books...

http://goo.gl/PsiYId

Eat some freaking ice cream tonight dude! :)

So how many hours are you up to? This book made me want to go back and add up all of the time I have spent running. Very interesting read. Thanks for the recommendation.

That's right, we are building some aerobic beasts Jake!

What is really interesting (to me) is the variability in regards to practice time... some people can achieve world class status with barely any practice (he gives a great example in high-jumping), while others have to devote FAR more than 10,000 hours... an entire lifetime, to achieve the same results. That number was never suggested to be any sort of rule by the original authors... and it probably would have been lost to common knowledge if it wasn't for Gladwell and Outliers.

I'd say I have another 20,000 hours to go, at least :-)

Jake, you commented a while back (maybe in a race report?) about going back to 8min/mile easy runs. I was wondering how you perceive the benefits of running uber slow (for you) when that pace will surely not raise your heart rate to an aerobic range. Is there still an aerobic benefit? Or is it just about strengthening your muscles/tendons/ligaments etc., with the added mileage but much reduced injury risk?

What does "aerobic range" mean in this context? To me, 6, 7, 8, 9 minute miles are all aerobic running and have a cardiovascular benefit. I've never worn a HR monitor, so I don't know what mine gets to on an easy run, but I'm 100% certain I'm doing a lot more than strengthening my connective tissue.

The 4-5 miles easy afternoon runs are more about promoting recovery and reducing injury risk, but if I go out and run 12 miles at 7:45 pace (something that happens often!), I really believe I am getting something out of that. Otherwise I probably never would have gotten any good in the first place.

Andrea and I were talking last night about pace calculators, etc. I think the last time I used one for any sort of guidance was mid-2011. After than point, I started to get a good feel for how fast to run my workouts. And I don't believe a chart can ever tell you how fast to do easy/recovery runs. In my opinion, that has to be a totally intuitive thing. I'm sure they would say my slower recovery runs are worthless, but I figure my own sense of training knows better than a javascript app :-)

My recovery run pace does vary. I would guess I wear a watch about half the time and ~7:30ish would be an approximate average currently. But I do know I pretty much never get below 7:00 pace on easy days.

Jake - you should wear the HRM this afternoon on your run...see if you get in the "aerobic" heart rate range on 8 min miles. I have to think it does.

Deal. I'll experiment with it the next couple days.

Penny - I thought about your question a little more. When you are saying "aerobic" I get the sense you are referring to what I call the "high end aerobic" or "aerobic threshold" range - the effort you could hold for 2-2.5 hours... essentially marathon pace type running for me. I was thinking "aerobic" more in terms of low-intensity, "fat-burning" type running. The 8:00 pace stuff.

Anyways, I wore a HR monitor for my run this afternoon (Aug 8). I did 6 miles at an average of 7:45 pace, and my avg HR was 117 bpm. So your original comment was definitely true - when I'm doing my easy runs, I'm not coming anywhere close to the upper end aerobic running. I'm just jogging around :-)

I'm tempted to wear the HR monitor a little more just because I'm curious now. Maybe the next experiment will be to take it up to Alta next week, and see what my HR is running a similar pace at 9500 feet.

Yeah, I guess I was referring to a range above around 60% of your max heart rate... which I think is generally considered aerobic. And I think I read that the high end of that is around marathon pace, I guess around 80% MHR, so easy runs definitely should be below that.

So my question is that if you're well below that lower end (for me below 60% would be like 9:30-10 avg pace or something), are you still developing aerobic fitness? I ask, because I have read elsewhere that easy runs and XT should be in that range for them to develop aerobic fitness, as distinct from the other benefits of slow running, such as strengthening, recovery, shaking out your legs etc.

And thanks for experimenting. Its kind of fascinating!

By the way according to this chart I looked up, I think 117 is around 60% of your MHR, given your age (which I estimated as mid 20s?) and gender. So that is probably the perfect pace to get the aerobic stimulus but have the benefits of slow running.

I'm 29 and if you guessed MALE, then you really are right on the money! :-)

I think your question is a tough one to answer (beyond my pay grade!), and actually its quite complicated because its impossible to really isolate one variable (or even group of variables) in something as complex as running.

My hunch is that even if you are running slow, under that 60% threshold, you're getting *something* aerobic out of it. Capillarization, etc. Or maybe it isn't truly increasing aerobic capacity in a measurable way, but there metabolic/strengthening/etc benefits that indirectly affect your aerobic ability. I also would guess it varies a lot between individuals... as the same stimulus will create a slightly different response in all of us. 60-80% as aerobic might apply to the center of the bell curve, but for me maybe its 55-80% or for someone else its 65-83%. Its so varied and complicated!

As much as I hate to reference letsrun, there are a couple of good threads discussing this stuff.

http://goo.gl/ZSjngq

http://goo.gl/70DKck

jaguar1 is Camille Herron, who does a lot of HR training and may be a valuable resource if you email her (she is very good about answering questions).