File :-(, x, )
Running for distance CoitusInterruptus
Ok, /fit/, as with most posters who aren't trolling, I need help. I am a former sprinter, so distance training has never been my thing. Right now, 1 year out-of-shape, I have decided to take up running again. I run 10-minute miles without a problem for an indefinite length of time and I can barely run 1.5 miles at an 8-minute pace. What should I train more: distance at a steady pace for long periods (i.e. increase distance) or faster pace for a select number of miles (i.e increase pace).

tl;dr Which is more important to endurance train: increasing speed or increasing distance?
>> Anonymous
Depends on what you're aiming for. I prefer long distance runs, but I try to work in fartlek a good bit.
>> Anonymous
im no runner, but a logical move would be to train distance first, then speed.
>> Anonymous
I'd say increase pace now, since you say you can go distance at a slower pace. Doing fartleks on some of your runs is a good idea.

I don't really know anything I just run like a nub, but I'm improving. I could hardly run 5k last year around this time and now I can run a 5k at just under 8min/mile pace pretty easily. I didn't really do any specific workouts, just ran 5k 0-4 times per week.
>> Anonymous
>>296710
this

it doesn't mean shit if you can't even finish
>> Phidippides !!1Ul3u8GWmqI
     File :-(, x)
>>296695
Man, you've gotta have a goal to ask that. Do you want to go really far or do you want a new PR time?

Best option, however, is to get a balanced training in where you cover all your bases. You should run 4-6 days a week, ideally with one day each week where you do your distance run (at your 10min/mi pace, as long as you feel you can and increasing by 0.5-1 miles each week), one day where you focus on speedwork (as either fast and short intervals (@<8 min/mi, or mid-distance tempo runs (@ 8:30-9 min/mi)) and the remainder easy runs (10 min/mi) which should be kept very easy after any speed or long run day (for active recovery) and can be somewhat faster, but below your tempo pace at other times.

Work those speeds down while increasing your long run distance quickly and your other runs proportionally. Every 4 to 6 weeks of this plan, take a "rest week" where you run at your easy pace for a distance slightly under half your current long, for all your runs that week, then continue.

This plan gives you speed gains while increasing endurance in a manner where one promotes the other. Scale it up from what you can do now to just under the distance of an endurance race such as a half or full marathon over 8-16 weeks and you've got a standard training program. I guarantee it.

There's a great little tool that calcs out training programs similar to this for planned races/events at runners world:
http://www.runnersworld.com/cda/smartcoach/1,7148,s6-238-277-278-0-0-0-0-0,00.html
>> Anonymous
I think the best advice that can be given to you is this: first run the distances you want no matter what speed. You need to break down your cardiovascular limits first. When I stopped sprinting and started enduring, the first time I hit 10 miles I was absolutely devastated physically, namely due to heart and lung limitations. The next time was 16 miles. Anything past that, my heart and lungs quickly adapted to. Once you can run distance, then train speed on that distance.
>> Anonymous
>>296737
>>296710
If you do all your runs trying to increase distance each time, you are going to fail at proper recovery and train your lactate response for endurance to be relied upon too heavily with no separate speed training. Listen to the founder of the marathon up there. He speaks well.
>> CoitusInterruptus
Thank you all for your help. My goal is just to run. Sort of to get into better shape while I also enjoy it, but I don't want to be wasting my runs, ya know?
>> Anonymous
Go For Speed.

its healthier to be a sprinter, and looks better.

long distance runners look sickly, Sprinters a JACKED.

and when the lions go hunting, the turtle DIES first.
>> Anonymous
>>296745
All I said was discover your limits... but please do tell me more about the lactate response stuff. If I did it wrong and fucked myself up, I'd like to know what that explains about me right now.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>296766
>long distance runners look sickly
This an American Olympic-level marathoner
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>296766
>long distance runners look sickly, Sprinters a JACKED.

You realize that is the same shit as people fearing they'll get XBOX HUEG if they start strength training.

Take your idiocy and fuck off.
>> Anonymous
>>296774
I think he was talking about reaching your lactate threshold. The lactate threshold (LT) is the exercise intensity at which lactic acid starts to accumulate in the blood stream. This happens when it is produced faster than it can be removed (metabolized). This point is sometimes referred to as the anaerobic threshold (AT), or the onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA). When exercising below the LT intensity any lactate produced by the muscles is removed by the body without it building up.

If you don't include speedwork, you don't push your LT higher and you limit yourself to shorter distances before you bonk (get too much delicious lactate in your blood and impede your metabolism) unless you slow to a pussy jog (below thresh). Speedwork makes the long runs easier and allows you to put on the distance faster.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>296790
>>296798

Fuck off
>> Anonymous
>>296843
oh please, there are buff marathoners and skinny sprinters.
>> Anonymous
>>296846

There are no buff marathoners
>> Anonymous
>>296853

see

>>296790

if that's not buff, then let's see you, OH GREAT GOD OF MUSCLE.

or i'm just getting trolled
>> Anonymous
>>296857

He's skinny as shit, and yeah, pretty much
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>296843
Oh boy you found a nice extreme example!! Good work, that proves that 100% of those two groups look like that!