Some of my peers are deep into running. I don’t get it. Running is sometimes fun for me but most often painful.
Then I overheard one of them (the fittest) say to a budding runner that he [should] do mostly easy sessions. Okay what’s easy to him? He said that so slow that it can feel awkward and unnatural. What?
Then I searched around and found out about Zone 2 and how you should do most of your work in that zone when building aerobic fitness. And that it is characterized by being able to hold a conversation, although strained.
I searched around and found atheletes like amateur ultrarunners say the same thing.
Then it hit me. I’ve probably been jogging a lot in Zone 3. Or higher? Because the harder you go the more benefit, right? That seems to be the basic logic for everything.[1] Relatively short, painful sessions. Have I been conditioning myself to associate cardio with more pain than is necessary for the average session?
So maybe I should just go on the stationary bike today, do a “conversatitional” (talk to myself) pace and listen to my audiobook for an hour? And try to not let my groin fall asleep.
[1] With nuances like go-to-failure for hypertrophy in weightlifting and more back-off-a-little for strength training.
I've been streak running (so running at least a mile per day with no exceptions, mostly 5ks during the week, 10-20k on weekends) for almost 8 years (2817 days). The single best tip I give to everyone is "slow down! run slow!"
Of course, almost no-one adheres to it unless they are already well practiced. It's just deeply ingrained in peoples heads that "only if it's hard or painful it must work". Then people check out of running because it feels like crap, which it does if you always push too hard.
In my opinion, three of the most important rules are:
- slow down! does it feel "too slow"? Great, that's the right speed for most runs
- small steps! feels awkward at first, but is sooo much more efficient and soo much better for your joints
- land on mid- or forefoot (that happens mostly automatically with small steps)
1. You want to land on the mid-foot. Heel-striking puts a lot of pressure up you leg and joints as you are basically braking with every step. Forefoot strike puts a lot of pressure on your calf and achilles as you have to 'bounce' on every foot-strike to support your body weight. A mid-foot strike is the most efficient transition of energy into and back out of the ground for forward motion. Small steps help you to find a mid-foot strike, large steps (over-striding) will create a heel-strike.
2. For lots of people taking up 'running' they (naturally) believe that they should run. But for many, running continuously will be beyond their zone-2 cardio. It's much easier to start with a jog/walk and build up. In the UK we have a brilliant app called 'couch-to-5k' which is a progressive build from essentially no fitness (walking some distance) up to being able to continuously jog for 5k.
I’ve never understood what a mid-foot strike is. My foot has an arch. My heel touches the ground, ball of foot and toes touch the ground. Mid-foot doesn’t.
To me its more like you should strike with the forefoot but with the foot almost flat (as opposed to running like on tiptoes) so it feels as if you are instantly rolling onto the mid part of the shoe. Or put slightly differently- the middle of the shoe is what catches the groud first as it moves backwards relative to your overall direction of travel. There was a whole huge thing about barefoot running but doing miles of it on grass really did help me retrain as a former heel striker.
Just behind the ball of your foot so as to load your arch in a downward motion. Your heel will almost definitely touch the ground. This, as opposed to a forefoot strike, where you're landing just behind your toes and loading in a rearward motion (think sprinting). Your heel probably will not touch the ground.
Both of these are hard to do in typical "running shoes" which build a significant amount of rubber into the heel, while also being fairly thin up front.
I've never understood striking guidance either. It seems that over long enough distances everyone is a heel striker too, it's just more efficient. So I'd assume that any advice you hear is more pace-dependent than it appears.
I definitely went on this journey with my running. At first I would run very short distances at very high pace(zone 4/5), but I fell out of it. I picked up running again last year and ended up more in zone 3/4, but for the last six months I've been aiming for zone 2 in most of my runs.
I've had some knee pain recently so I've not been running much, focusing instead on knee strengthening exercise. On my last run I discovered this weird phenomenon were my knees stopped hurting if I ran faster with longer strides, it felt like I was "rolling through" each step which seemed less demanding for my knees. Perhaps my slow running style is just poor.
Rucking. Get a back pack with a chest and waist strap, put in weights (increase over time) or buy a cheap weight lifting belt (Velcro fine) and attach a rope and something that drags (I use an old wheel).
Low impact, good for core strength. Zone 2 approved.
If you are wealthy they make specific back packs or I bought a tacti-cool one on Temu for cheap.
Outlive by Peter Attia is pretty good for more ideas on how to lengthen the mobile portion of your life.
I've noticed that, too. This video is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9ZgQgQvBk and might explain some of it, but I also think that the kinematics of your legs works better at higher speeds (or at walking speeds) - jogging seems the worst for joints!
The youtuber "knees over toes guy" seems to be largely acknowledged by The Internet as having a novel, free and effective way to strengthen and injury-proof your knees. Worked very well for me.
Should add that with serious running training it is hard and painful, but more on aggregate. Even when I'm just base building, and maybe doing 1 or 2 'kinda hard but not all out' sessions a week, the accumulated load feels hard.
One way to easily achieve those three rules is to switch to barefoot-style shoes. They force you to slow down and take small steps. Don't have to go full 5-finger shoes either, just something with zero drop, a flexible sole and minimal cushion. I did this and my shin-splints and knee pain went away.
There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]).
Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel instead of glucose, avoiding lactate accumulation during the process [3].
In between, in zones 3 & 4, you get a little of both those ends of the spectrum, it's still helpful to a degree, but it's not really optimized: that why it's deemed preferable to spend the bulk of your training time in either your zone 2 or zone 5.
The ideal composition of a training period seems like 90% zone 2 and 10% zone 5, and going for more than 1h of zone 5 per week seems not that interesting. Also, mixing zone 2 and zone 5 in the same training session is not ideal, it's better to stay focused on one thing at at time.
A lot of pop-celebrity-educator types like Attia or Stephen Seiler say that. Then you look at how the professionals train and you see pyramidal distribution almost universally. Something like 85% below first lactate threshold, 12% in "sweet spot" and 3% in "zone 5".
I've spent a lot of time reading a lot about opinions and then looking at logs of professional athletes [1] (in cycling as I am most interested in that). My conclusion is that training comes down to:
1)do a lot of volume, the more the better
2)do some "hard stuff" - if those are hard intervals, longer "sweet spot" intervals or a a mix of those (like 5 minutes at threshold and then 15 seconds sprint, repeat n times) matters little
3)at pro level do some training specific to what you are going to do a lot in racing
1)is by far the most important and the most reliable predictor of overall fitness
[2]https://www.youtube.com/@sportscientist - Stephen Seiler's youtube channel; he has done work on analyzing how pro athletes train but his conclusions are very simplified and it seems made to sell "polarized" training idea. When you look at the details in the data no one trains like that, the final distribution is almost always pyramidal, not polarized
From my experience about jogging (=regular running for your health, without a specific sport goal):
- get good shoes! this is probably the only piece of equipment you need (with a wind/rain jacket). Go to a shop when you can get advice. For me, flat soles is the way to go but I know there is debate on that question. Change them after 1000km at max (I've seen 500 km recommendation)
- follow the advice above zone 2 / zone 5 training. If unsure, slow down !
- avoid pain as much as possible otherwise your body will associate pain and run and you end up giving up (maybe not today, not tomorrow but one day for sure)
- buy a jumping rope and practice (you'll be amazed on the resulting spring effect while running)
- prefer solo session (group sessions are good if you want to talk but the most important thing is to run at your very own pace). you are better with some music or interesting podcasts
- vary the routes as much as possible. Even if you have only one route, start it from time to time on the other direction. There is no better training than on a route you don't know. Always running the same route is part of the reason you may quit.
- start your chronometer at the beginning of the session and try to forget it.
- find a friend and do some bike and run session from time to time (one run, one on the bike for like 20 minutes and then you change). It allows you to make longer run and recover while on the bike.
/!\ Just an opinion here, I'm not a specialist, just a +/- 20y regular runner
For someone who doesn't like running and isn't a runner... I'd advise them to try a different exercise ;-)
Seriously, I have a friend who assumes that exercise == going to the gym... and she hates the gym. But she keeps trying to force that round peg into a square hole!
I've tried asking her, "well, do you like tennis? Dancing? Rock climbing?" But apparently those don't count.
This is a fair and, as far as I can tell, accurate response. There's a huge difference between new runner strategy and optimized runner strategy. Any optimized fitness/habit plan should be just complex enough that you will maintain it, and that's different for everyone.
Another way to look at this: "ideal" has different definitions depending on whether it's maintainable for any given individual, as well as a definition for "what's the best way to do this if you take willpower out of the equation?"
Slightly tangential, but getting an e-bike has got me doing way more miles (by probably an order of magnitude) than I have ever done before - and way more total exercise overall.
Since you can dial in the assist, it basically turns a regular bike into an exercise bike. Or conversely, an exercise bike that actually rides around outside. If I want to fry my legs on a hill, I can drop the assist and really feel the grind. If I want to take it easy on the hill back home though, I can boost the assist so that it takes practically no effort.
It's just this amazing tool that reliably will trick your brain into working out. You take the ebike out because it is so effortless to ride, but inevitably you end up lowering the assist to feel the burn a bit on your rides.
> I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment
Biking to work using Strava is like this for me.
It gamifies exercise in a very addictive manner. Getting a PR, being quickest on a segment or becoming a local legend.
There is always someone or something to beat.
I had to back off that and instead do other games (ie, wandrer.earth gives you points for "new miles") because I got a bit too competitive and borderline dangerous.
Besides, I got records and fastest times when e.g. wind was at my back or the lights all went my way - so I knew it wasn't just my effort & just happenstance.
I still use Strava - mostly as a personal blog of my efforts & take a picture of wildlife or crazy videos to share with others sometimes.
Ha I had to stop tracking my bike commutes because I was going way too hard for Strava times on them. It got to the point where it was sorta dangerous... Love the app for my fun rides tho!
You sacrifice a segment then go like a mad thing for the one you need to win. And you curse if a dog walker gets in the way, sort of encouraging antisocial behaviour. But if you can get past that stage it’s pretty rewarding to ignore segments and go for longer records (eg 20km, 50km etc).
Yes. That's why I march quickly with a heavy backpack. That should be zone 2.
Then occupationally I try to do sprints uphill, walk down. Get ready for another uphill sprint. I have been lazy on that unfortunately.
There is also a lot of evidence that sprinting is really good. I mean if you look at the bodies of Olympic sprinters vs Olympic runners, what do you want to develop?
A part of become a good runner is letting go of expectations. There is a lot of quasi meditative written on the topic, but even if that’s not your thing: even if you walk/jog/walk to retain a constant, middle to low heart rate you could easily have the same effort as a trained runner doing some great mileage. The humbling part is part of the experience. Stay away from anything with speed for the first thousand miles. It will only lead to injuries. The good thing is, both condition and speed will improve very fast and the happy run feeling isn’t based on speed or distance. It’s being outside, alone, in silence with sounds and weather while doing something actively (but not overly). Did I mention I miss running? (Alas I am now missing some necessary cartilage.)
I never understood why people are chasing some stupid numbers, constantly comparing to each other, and then are unhappy or push themselves into injury. Such an unhealthy mindset for life overall.
That's really the opposite of what sports are supposed to be for 99.9% of the people. Who cares how life and training of some fastest guy in XYZ category looks like? Go at your pace, progress slowly also at your pace, also good strategy for life overall. You also don't take tips for driving in traffic from top formula 1 driver, do you, sorta worse than useless.
I do naturally push myself a bit when I run alone, to the point when even say 5-6km run makes me tired and drenched in sweat, but certainly not first 10-20 runs after some lull (like now broken foot, starting gently next week). And running is really just training for other more adrenaline sports for me, not chasing kms and preparing for races. But never pushing beyond whats OK for my body, and with experience one knows oneself very well in this regard.
I first trained to run long distances using a run-walk method for equal distances, which I then shortened – it took some convincing from an experienced runner that I wasn't "cheating", but when I realized that I was able to run at enough overload to train no matter what, it then clicked: it's about staying in motion; it's running, not sprinting, which are two different things indeed.
I now cycle for the same reasons as you do, although it's not as consistently intense as I would like.
I’ve been doing ultra marathons now for over a decade and the key is slow. Walk a lot at first if you have to. Some key resources getting started are Jeff Galloway and his run walk method. Once you build up to mostly running just mix in a few “strides” a week: pick two workouts and run 5x 30s at a “not quite sprint” speed. That’s it. Anything else you mix in (tempo, intervals, progressions, blah blah blah) is the last 10% and completely optional.
Your zone 2 speed will change over time. I do most of my training in zone 1 now, and that’s like a 9 minute per mile pace. When I started more than 15 years ago a 9 minute mile felt like death. Patience. This takes a lot of time.
I always hated running, but I had always been doing it for exercise. Perversely, this meant if I moved inefficiently and made the movement harder, I was doing better. I characterized running as "competitive suffering". No pain no gain, right? And like you, I always did more than felt good, and figured that meant I was doing it right.
But I don't think that way now. I want to enjoy moving. I want to move playfully and powerfully and efficiently. Exercise until it feels good, not until it feels bad. Love the body you have and take care of it and build it up, rather than hate-exercising to change it.
I went through the same paradigm shift with cycling. I used a cheap bike that was slow and heavy because higher efficiency wouldn't allow me to get exercise any faster. Then I got a nice road bike, and it's so much more fun to ride, so I'm riding a lot more.
I've recently come to the same realization. I've always considered myself a more short-distance athlete, having been a sprinter and played more "burst" sports in high-school like football. My wife is a more long-distance runner. I've never understood why people like her were able to run for miles and miles without stopping. I could maybe keep up with her for the first mile, maybe 2, but then I was toast.
It's only recently when I learned about Zone 2 training that I came to understand that my training approach has always been backwards. I have always indexed my pace on what has always been a "respectable" mile time, on the assumption that if I run at that pace over and over, eventually I'll be able to go for longer at that pace. And that kind of is true, but not ever to the extent I can keep up with my wife.
Now, I am attempting to approach my running from a "time spent running > speed", and I'm finding that I indeed can run for 40+ minutes straight with no stopping, at a much lower pace than what I had been, and that it is much easier to make progress by running slowly for 40 minutes and gradually increase my pace over time than it is to run quickly for as long as I can and gradually increase the distance.
Yes, most of experienced runners' running is at a conversational pace, often literally (this is why running groups are popular).
To explain why harder isn't better: improvement in running comes only a little from muscular strength, so that mental model is bad.
Improvement is primarily based on aerobic development of the cardiovascular system. This is your body's ability to burn mostly-fat with oxygen, deliver the energy (ATP molecules) to muscles, and remove waste products. So you develop more capillaries, your heart gets literally stronger, and this fat-burning pathway gets more efficient.
Going too hard pushes into the anaerobic zone (burning sugar without oxygen). This is good training in some ways, but it can be counterproductive to aerobic development and, most important, it's too hard to do very much volume so the amount of stimulus is limited. By keeping it easy, you can do a higher volume of purely aerobic stimulus.
I have been exclusively an anaerobic athlete for the past two years and my aerobic fitness has dropped to a shockingly low level. But I am oddly comfortable at 180-190bpm
I am slowly building in more aerobic cardio into my training but man cardio is just such a chore for me. It's always the first to go so it takes constant maintenance and it's time consuming...
I’ve seen this happen. We call it having great cardiovascular fitness but not so great metabolic fitness. One of the reasons that zone 2 or maintaining aerobic fitness seems to have such an impact on longevity is that it requires and reinforces metabolic fitness.
When I was a kid I loved long-distance walking because it was "me-time". I have some introvert genes and I really needed to be on my own, away from people, and going for a walk was the only way I could achieve that.
Then I moved to a bike-friendly country and I started biking all the time. 30 minutes commute one way, 30 minutes back. I live right next to subway but god I hate public transport, and owning a car in this city is a massive headache.
Often I go for a small one-hour ride in the evening. I put on some music, start cycling, and thinking about things. I feel like I get into some kind of trance. When sitting at home I constantly feel "now what now what now what now what", but while cycling, I get into a rhythm and often; not always, but often; I get into a state where my thoughts kinda flow more easily, I can just think about something happy and focus on it, or maybe listen to the music. I live in a low-density area with biking lanes separated from most car traffic, so sometimes I get drunk or high and go cycling, which feels amazing - I have to focus and make it through one intersection, and after that the worst thing that can possibly happen is falling off the bike and getting a few bruises.
Sometimes I go for longer whole-day trips. When I reach the point of complete exhaustion the part of my brain that constantly worries about getting fired or possible WW3 shuts down and it's like being high but without drugs. I plan these trips so that I fight against the wind on my way "there" and then enjoy the help of the wind on my way back which becomes almost efforless. When I come home exhausted, the body experiences relaxation in ways impossible to achieve in other ways.
If you want advice, from my experience:
1. Stationary machines are a scam, 90% of pleasure comes from being outside.
2. Do exercise at a pace "I could keep on going like this forever" and then after an hour "oh not anymore"
3. Get something that keeps you entertained but doesn't require your attention. I don't recommend audiobooks because you need to keep actively listening. I recommend music or radio because if you zone out and stop listening, nothing bad happens. And sometimes try not having anything at all, just watch all the things around you.
This is absolutely true, when I started, I didn’t have a zone2 while running and running is just suffering.
But gradually I could hold a lower heart rate while running and now my zone 2 runs are actually faster than my fastest pace I could hold a year ago. Now I enjoy running more than cycling (though my fitness are still probably mostly derived by cycling).
I watch all streaming shows on a rowing machine with not-so-high speed and not-so-high resistance. The show keeps me entertained and sometimes I even forget that I'm rowing. Previously I did that with an iPad 12.9" next to the machine, but I've just started watching shows on the Quest 3 and that's way better.
Doing this with a treadmill is honestly a gamechanger if you can't or don't want to do cardio outside (e.g., safety issues, heat, bad weather, etc.)
Even just walking on an incline can get your heart rate into the right zone so you get cardiovascular benefits while being so low in fatigue that you can get a lot of volume in.
Eventually your fitness will increase such that you'll run out of incline and speeds you can walk and you'll have to jog to stay in the zone.
I didn't try exercising with it, but, Quest 2 was getting too hot for me even after a short while playing Beat Saber for example. Quest 3 is much better in that aspect. I can actually keep it on for long durations, and heat isn't a problem at all.
I've heard the same thing, but for cycling. However I wonder if that is not mostly for people who train much more than a normal person, like a pro or your ultra marathon friends.
I understood the idea was that by running / cycling mostly in zone 2, you can put in more distance / time as you can recover more easily. It would not be possible to bike 30 hours in a week in zone 3, you would trash yourself.
But for someone like me, biking like 6-8 hours a week, I could easily do a lot of higher intensity, recovery time is not a bottleneck, other obligations in life are. So I really wonder if that still applies if you're only running / biking a few hours per week?
If you don’t like running, find an exercise you do enjoy. Running isn’t the only cardio out there. If you’re jumping through hoops to force yourself to enjoy it, try a few other activities. Me, I can only get myself to run if I’m engaged in sports.
Or, if you're like me, find the one that you have to tolerate least. I find no exercise to be enjoyable. I tolerate a couple things like rowing or walking.
Are you carrying excess weight? I've been overweight most of my life. For a while in my 40s I hiked a lot and my BMI dropped into the normal range. When that happened, I became a runner. It felt amazing. I would run 5+ miles and felt like I could keep going forever. Once I put the weight back on(new relationship with someone who liked to eat), I couldn't run. It hurt and didn't feel good.
I don't know what the current research says, but I believe jogging is pretty hard on your joints vs running. I'd recommend hiking and fast walking as an alternative if you're looking to transition into running.
Unless you have actual mechanical problems with your joints or you're, as you said, heavy or out of normal BMI, then running is actually healthy for your joints. One caveat is the surface you run on. Running on softer surfaces than asphalt can be easier on your legs and feet.
Most injuries from running come from repetitive motion overuse and are muscular. People go out way too hard then discover that their muscles are weak for running (especially hips and glutes). Easing into running and doing some weightlifting or bodyweight exercises to supplement can usually keep you injury free and running well into old age. Some research shows it actually reducing the onset of osteoarthritis.
That is why strength and conditioning is so important. A lot of knee pain is not from the impact on the joint but because of the repetitive twisting and rolling because glutes and other muscles are not able to hold knees and other joints stable, especially when tired.
There isn't some hard and fast distinction between jogging and running that suddenly makes jogging bad for your joints and running not. "Jogging" just a name for a pace. The vast majority of people run "easy" pace runs at a jog. Jogging is running, but sprinting is not jogging. Sprinting and jogging are both running. Both are perfectly fine for your joints.
I'm 6'2" ~265 lbs (pretty fat) and around 30 years old. I started running to train for a 5k with some buds and found that I can comfortably run in zone 2 for about 1 hour with only mild soreness and minimal joint pain.
I've only really been getting into it in the past ~6 weeks or so, so still a beginner. Just wanted to chime in and say that running while fat is totally doable and you just gotta ease into it and try to avoid pain! Discomfort might be a part of the process, but running slowly in zone 2 has become quite relaxing and a great part of my day, despite having hated running when I was in the best shape of my life.
I used to only run in zone 4-5 because I focused on speed and just assumed misery was a necessary part of the running experience. It's been a total blessing to learn that it doesn't need to be like that at all!
Hope you can find a good balance for what works for you as a heavier person. Listening to your body and knowing your limitations are super important. Just wanted to share my experience as a heavier guy too.
These two things go together. I'm almost 50 and in my experience you're not going to want to do this after 40 but it depends on many factors (shoes, joint health, body mechanics, what you run on..).
Absolutely! I'm definitely not trying to minimize the impact that aging has on our bodies, just add another data point to the discussion :)
I've just seen people my age and younger suggest that running while fat is too hard and give up on it but I've started to enjoy it for the first time in my life despite my weight.
I love running and doing it consistently over ~10 years, always longing to get out again.
I'm the only one among my friends that do this, and I find this to be highly correlated with my running style: Really comfortable pace 7-10km through local forests, only (I tend to do more 10km more than 7km as I like it so much).
I learned this one time when I ran on a threadmill and realized the enormous difference between a slight variation in speed (from 11 to 9 km/h in my case, but the exact numbers don't matter), where I realized with this slight change I could go on indefinitely instead of being quickly exhausted.
This has been the biggest game changer for me. People often think they need to push it hard and they quickly fatigue, burn out and hate going running. The trick is to do a 80% of your running sessions in zone 2 and 20% in high intensity to increase VO2 max. If you are at the start that means sometimes walking on hills and that is ok. There is a great book about this: https://www.amazon.com/80-20-Running-Stronger-Training/dp/04...
It took me some time to readjust my brain to stop aiming at extremes and focus at ~harmony. Doing exercise that don't burn you most of the time. Maybe later my body will be able to take a bigger hit, but in the mean time I'll take the slow maintenance mode.
Another trick was to focus on the whole body, I had a bad back but ran all my life like this, I now do light deadlift to restore better posture and better range of motion. Bad posture will make your muscle shrink and impede your running too.
I think conventional wisdom is "zone 2 for fitness / endurance, zone 3+ for performance." The interesting thing about this meta-analysis is it's discussing "baseline cardiorespiratory fitness" which - as I understand it - does correlate with vo2max.
As I understand it you can increase vo2max with exactly the type of training you are describing. Long efforts at zone2 can improve vo2 max, but the best improvements involve training at higher zones.
I certainly remember all the stories / headlines "walking is as good as running for cardiovascular health" etc which support the "just train zone 2" approach, but this study seems to me (a layperson) to contradict that.
Can anybody who is more versed in the research chime in? Does this study suggest that HIIT could reduce all cause mortality by improving vo2 max which improves baseline CRF (which is the value this the meta-analysis actually examined)?
V02 max is correlated with good health outcomes precisely because it's a proxy for cardiovascular health and fitness. Seeking to improve V02 max with hacks for health benefits is like trying to improve grip strength (a proxy for strength) to improve health.
You can sustainably improve your cardiovascular health by just slowly increasing your volume of work done at 120-150 bpm over time. Say start with a program like Couch to 5k, then slowly add a day of light jogging here and there, adding 5 minutes here and there, until you're jogging 30+ miles per week.
If you want to more "optimally" improve your cardiovascular fitness, after building an aerobic base as above for 12+ weeks, you can introduce a high intensity session to get some of the unique benefits of those, but your low intensity steady state zone 2 stuff should remain at least 80% of your time spent endurance training.
I had a very similar experience years ago, I tried to start running and I hated it. I went and got a heart rate monitor and found that after I was going for a while where I started to hate it, my heart was up at 180 or so. I started doing alternating run/walks so that I was averaging more like 145, and it was actually enjoyable and I'd get in the zone sometimes. After a while I managed to get up to half marathon distance. I'm a little skeptical about the zone 2 craze that's hit recently, but definitely, if you're just starting out, it's very easy to try to run like the other people you see on the trail and exhaust yourself. A heart rate monitor is very useful to help keep yourself in a reasonable range that's actually enjoyable and sustainable.
I too hate to run. And I do it everyday. To me it's the time I get to be alone with my podcasts for an hour. Now I look forward to it every morning. I'm not sure in what zone I usually run, but my pace is usually around 6min/Km.
6min/km is an average pace, so I do wonder why you still hate it? Have you looked into your cadence? Are you steps too long or the shoes too hard? Or do you have to run through post-apocalyptic ruins?
I'm not sure. It's not that I feel a huge discomfort or that anything hurts. It's just kind of pointless I think. I love martial arts and parkour, though. Maybe because the exercise is not the thing itself, but a byproduct of the activity?
It's very much not pointless. It can be difficult, initially, to reason about and iterate on activities that don't confer immediate feedback. These types of activities build effects over long periods of time, but everything we know says they're good for us. For example, it's hard to regret being overly winded during occasional martial arts or parkour when you're not.
I think the oft missed bit about zone 2 is that the goal is to increase volume. If you simply reduce intensity without increasing volume, you'll get worse, not better.
If you only run 30 minutes once a week, you won't see as many gains if you do it in zone 2 than zone 3/4. But you also can't run 10h/w zone 4/5, so that's where the zone 2 comes into play. It allows to increase volume without increasing fatigue/risk of injury too much.
No need to run even, you can stay in Zone 2 via walking. Incline on a treadmill makes required speeds quite low (2-3mph for most people).
I prefer it since it's at a pace where you can easily use your phone/browse the web at the same time.
Walking is also far more practical given that you walk 99% of the time in modern society. Might as well train for the thing you actually functionally do
I do love running and indeed it's better to jog slowly for longer time... though, to avoid injuries - please do exercises before and after because you can easily injure your (lower-)back and knees (talking from experience, chronic lower-back pain after ~20y of running…)
This type of talk is harmful. The risks of not exercising absolutely dwarf the risks of exercising, and telling people that they are going to injure themselves by “doing it wrong” makes them less likely to exercise.
It also makes them more likely to feel pain, since pain has biological, psychological, and social inputs.
There are no exercises that restore joints which are degenerating. Most likely you would have gotten 5-10 more pain-free years without the running, but it would have come anyway at some point. The increased cardio health and bone density does help sweeten the terrible deal though.
Just a note to encourage you to see a physical therapist, before deciding that there's nothing to do. I've been a jogger since 1971, started having back pain all the time. A physical therapist gave me 15 minutes worth of exercises everyday. Pain gone. Good luck!
Many, many people have such mechanical abnormalities and never experience pain. Many people without such abnormalities do experience pain. There’s surprisingly little association between them.
Yeah, that's another thing that neurologist and neurosurgeon told me... all in all last year changed my perspective on medicine and how much we actually know about our bodies :D
For cycling you don't need the talk test, it should just feel easy. My breathing isn't elevated, my legs can feel there's resistance but there's no strain. Feel free to go 25 minutes on 5 minutes off, that really helps with the saddle comfort.
> Then it hit me. I’ve probably been jogging a lot in Zone 3. Or higher? Because the harder you go the more benefit, right?
That's unfortunately not fully how it works. For maximum benefits, you would want to train your aerobic energy system, and to do that without risking injury, zone 2 is the recommended zone. The claim is that pain is gain, but more often than not, pain is your body telling you you are over the limit. By the description of your running experience, you were possibly closer to zone 4.
Of course, the body gets lazy, so you will want to vary your training. Repeat the same type of load, and your body will get efficient operating at that load, meaning your fitness gains will eventually stagnate. That's where the other zones come in.
At the zone 3/4 threshold you start using your anaerobic energy system more, with a stronger build-up of lactic acid as a by-product. Training in that range means your body will get more efficient at faster-paced work. Of course, as you build-up lactic acid, it also means that it is not a pace you can sustain.
But if you do short bursts of exercise at the lower-end of the anaerobic zone, you are actually contributing to making you aerobic energy system more efficient, without over-straining your body too much. And it's exactly the type of exercise variation your body needs to not get into the "lazy" mode.
The traditional way of approaching that is to have a base of zone 2 days (say 80% of your runs), and a few days of zone 3/low 4 days (say 20% of your runs), so that you alternate your loads.
Another approach with similar benefits, especially if you train less often, is the Fartlek approach, developed in Sweden in the 1930s. That's a type of training where you mix-up the load intensity during your runs, in about the same proportions. Fartlek means "speed-play", and it describes the method well. It's generally about approaching your training as you feel it that day. At some point during your run you might decided to increase the pace for a short time. Or you see a small hill that you can decide to attack at a faster pace, thereby changing your training zone. It's all about having fun and making your trainings less boring.
There was this belief in some circles until not that long ago that if you would enter a zone 3 or zone 4 training load during a zone 2 training day, you would mostly destroy the benefits of a "pure" zone 2 training. (Or the other way around, having some zone 2 stretches on zone 3/4 days). That turned out to be nonsense.
All in all, for good progress, and against boredom, Fartlek is the way to go, all the while keeping the bulk of your training in zone 2.
As I understand, aerobic-only training increases your anaerobic threshold (you can do more without going anaerobic) while anaerobic training improves your anaerobic tolerance (you can continue to function with more lactic acid buildup)
Some schools of training were maintaining for a long time that the process was fairly black and white, and that both systems should be trained separately, or else you would loose the training benefit of either.. Nature is rarely so stubbornly segregated, and, as it turns out, mixed training is perfectly fine.
Aerobic training will help you increase your anaerobic threshold, but training slightly above the threshold can be more efficient at increasing that threshold, if you are fit enough to recover from the lactic build-up before your next training. (Or if you have the luxury to increase your resting period so that you are fully recovered before you train again)
Anaerobic training will improve your anaerobic tolerance, but a good aerobic base will also help you improve your anaerobic tolerance, as your body will become more efficient at recycling the lactic acid back into ATP, delaying the moment when your muscles will be too saturated to function at the required level.
In general, while exercising, your muscles are using both ATP production means, aerobic and anaerobic. So, once more, you can see that by going slightly above your lactate threshold (but still with a good aerobic energy contribution) you are also contributing to improve your anaerobic tolerance, by staying longer in a range where your body needs to work harder to deal with the excess lactic build up. (Longer than a "pure" anaerobic training that cannot be sustained)
I was "forced" into biking a few years ago (had an injury that prevented running) and had the same problem with the groin. I thought it was a natural thing with biking, but it can actually be quite bad for you in the long run, and it's very fixable! Sitting position and saddle makes a huge difference. Ofc position is the cheaper thing to fix, but saddle is easier.
Go to a bike shop and explain the problem and they'll help you find a saddle that fits you, don't go on with getting your groin numbed.
I'm a cyclist, 100km without much effort, but a year ago I started running and it was super hard. The muscles are used differently, the body get impacted with every step and it takes some learning to find the right speed to reach whatever your target is. Pain kills the fun, the only way to succeed is to start slow and on short distances.
My goal was strengthening hip (one side has a three plates and a few screws in it) and knee mobility, with losing weight being an extra that I only reach this spring due to diet changes. I did find my Zone 2, where I can chat with a running buddy, and slowly extended the distances I run: Now 5km at 5:40m/km are the norm and 10km is just as possible. Injury-free so far and no ambition for a Marathon. The thing I now have to work at is the cadence which I (at 193cm) had trouble with on the bike as well, but shorter strides at a higher cadence are important to prevent knee injuries.
Whatever you do, I think sticking to it at least three times a week so you look forward for the next run, feel well during it and keep healthy. This is more important than beating records or running insane distances. Those goals are for those with the right genetics.
You don't have to really run for good cardio fitnes. In addition to HIIT, now there's IWT (Interval Walking Training), which yields similar results. Also, slow running seems to be more beneficial, too [0].
I hated running and still do, but the only thing that makes it “fun” for me is running on the hills with intervals. On days I can sprint up a small hill the high afterwards is amazing. It does take a couple of nights of good sleep to recover though.
I find way more enjoyable zone 4-5 training, but i do shadow boxing in front of the mirror, so it might differ. It's intense.
zone 2 means it's a long thing that i don't want to do and i have time to think about it
I watch TV-series on the treadmill. The fastest walking pace where I can still keep up with the story and keep the shaking low enough to have a steady picture.
You can improve cardiac fitness by just walking an hour a day. the top distance runners are at bmi of 19 or lower. longevity is maximized at bmi of 26.
Yeah as someone who (unfortunately) has the habit of exercising on and off that's what I heard/did as well: cardio where you're pushing yourself a little, but not so hard you feel like you want to stop right now or that you couldn't have a chat with someone running beside you.
Its weird though because HIIT is meant to be amazing for your body as well.
I suppose a mixture of both is good, and if I really think about it, we pretty much evolved to do that - low energy wandering to find prey, medium energy to chase prey and exhaust it, brief high intensity to catch up and finish the job. Then you get dinner.
Then I overheard one of them (the fittest) say to a budding runner that he [should] do mostly easy sessions. Okay what’s easy to him? He said that so slow that it can feel awkward and unnatural. What?
Then I searched around and found out about Zone 2 and how you should do most of your work in that zone when building aerobic fitness. And that it is characterized by being able to hold a conversation, although strained.
I searched around and found atheletes like amateur ultrarunners say the same thing.
Then it hit me. I’ve probably been jogging a lot in Zone 3. Or higher? Because the harder you go the more benefit, right? That seems to be the basic logic for everything.[1] Relatively short, painful sessions. Have I been conditioning myself to associate cardio with more pain than is necessary for the average session?
So maybe I should just go on the stationary bike today, do a “conversatitional” (talk to myself) pace and listen to my audiobook for an hour? And try to not let my groin fall asleep.
[1] With nuances like go-to-failure for hypertrophy in weightlifting and more back-off-a-little for strength training.