4 ms·
> Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. “Does more” is hella vague. As a
by paulcole 4y ago
> Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world.
“Does more” is hella vague. As a 40-mile a week runner I find that low intensity runs “do more” for me because they’re more relaxing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- infamousclyde 4y agoI mean, I think I understand what they're saying. A thirty minute tempo will develop your aerobic capacity more than a thirty minute easy run-- more or less analogous to progressive overload in weightlifting. That's not to say that you can't grow/improve as a runner without challenging sessions, but I imagine the rate of improvement would be significantly lower. Pro runners would be doing as many workouts as possible per week if recovery weren't an issue!
- twawaaay 4y agoI used it in a "scientific" way. If you were able to put the same person to do two exercises, one 60 minute easy run and second time 60 minutes tempo run (and possibly also time travel inbetween both sessions so they are in the same state at the start) you would measure that in the universe where you did the tempo run you would improve your fitness more (unless you were somehow injured/overtrained and not ready for the tempo run). This is where the part "per hour invested" comes. Most people can't do an hour of tempo run every day without getting themselves overtrained and injured. And if they could do it physically, it would be enormous mental challenge. Switch to most of us like you and me -- an easy run provides most of the benefit per hour invested but in a sustainable way, meaning you will be able to invest more hours and do it consistently. And you will be more likely to stick to do it every day if you find it refreshing and relaxing rather.