Jogging vs sprinting

Unless you're regularly running marathons it shouldn't be an issue. Still, weight training couldn't hurt.

Speed wrk will increase your speed, distance work will increase your distance.

Increasing distance, and thereby building aerobic base, increases your speed as well. It does a better job of it long term too.

Increasing distance, and thereby building aerobic base, increases your speed as well. It does a better job of it long term too.

This

The fast runners are the ones who run frequently and put on a lot of miles.

Run Less, Run Faster is a short term method to get some increase in speed. It is not long term. It's not sustainable. In order to continue to gain speed improvements, you have to have the aerobic base to support it. You get this my running lots of miles over time. Run Less, Run Faster works well for older runners that already have a base. If Run Less, Run Faster was the best way to develop speed, then elite runners would do it. They don't. They run lots of miles.

Have you read the program? Why would you think it is not sustainable?

And the reality is, elite runners have time to devote, many regular runners simply can't do upwards of 20 miles per week, not because their bodies can't handle it, but time constraints can't.

Run Less, Run Faster is a short term method to get some increase in speed. It is not long term. It's not sustainable. In order to continue to gain speed improvements, you have to have the aerobic base to support it. You get this my running lots of miles over time. Run Less, Run Faster works well for older runners that already have a base. If Run Less, Run Faster was the best way to develop speed, then elite runners would do it. They don't. They run lots of miles.

Have you read the program? Why would you think it is not sustainable?

And the reality is, elite runners have time to devote, many regular runners simply can't do upwards of 20 miles per week, not because their bodies can't handle it, but time constraints can't.

I have not read the program, but I am very familiar with the concepts contained within.

It's not sustainable because research shows that an aerobic base is required to continually gain speed improvements. Anecdotal evidence supports this. Without the base, you will reach a ceiling in your speed and you won't be able to break through without doing easy running over time to increase your base.

As for not having the time to devote to it, it just depends on how important it is. If you want it, you make time for it. I have a full time job, two active kids and weeknight obligations about 4 nights a week. I found the time to run 80 mile weeks to prepare for my marathon.

I'm not saying Run Less, Run Faster is a bad program, just that it's not the best way to set yourself up for continual improvements over you running lifetime.

Maybe it's not worth saying, but the OP is not an elite runner, she's someone who is thinking of getting into jogging

Duly noted, but still can't sit by and let the OP develop misconceptions about running.

Duly noted, but still can't sit by and let the OP develop misconceptions about running.

Oh I'm not debating that at all... I wouldn't want her to discount the idea of running because she's concerned about muscle loss. I just don't know if elite running is applicable to someone who doesn't even run yet

It's not sustainable because research shows that an aerobic base is required to continually gain speed improvements. Anecdotal evidence supports this. Without the base, you will reach a ceiling in your speed and you won't be able to break through without doing easy running over time to increase your base.

As for not having the time to devote to it, it just depends on how important it is. If you want it, you make time for it. I have a full time job, two active kids and weeknight obligations about 4 nights a week. I found the time to run 80 mile weeks to prepare for my marathon.

I'm not saying Run Less, Run Faster is a bad program, just that it's not the best way to set yourself up for continual improvements over you running lifetime.

With the three run workouts (including 1 long run per week), as well as 2 cross-training workouts, I don't see how that would not be enough to build a base.

I run a lot, I just did my first half marathon, and the training that goes into that. I do a lot of other races as well (obstacle/adventure). I put at least 15 hours a week into exercising. I still max out around 25 miles per week. There is no way I could ever do 80 mile weeks. But my goal also isn't sub-3 marathons either.

But with that mileage, when do you get to recover?

But with that mileage, when do you get to recover?

On the easy runs. As your fitness improves, your recovery doesn't have to be inactivity or cross training. Recovery takes place on aerobic run days.

I love Carson's posts, I always learn something

Speed wrk will increase your speed, distance work will increase your distance.

That's what I always thought, until I increased my distance significantly this year. I've learned that by increasing the amount that I'm running at an easy (conversational) pace that I'm getting faster even without doing much speed work. I'm faster than I've ever been and I hardly ever run fast. Instead, I run more.

OP, if you're just starting out running, you should spend some time jogging and then add speed work in after you've been consistently running at least 20-30 miles per week for a few months. I peaked at 50 miles per week this year and experienced zero loss of muscle or strength, without doing any sprinting or strength training on my legs. I didn't even eat a lot of protein. I don't think you need to worry about muscle loss unless you are seriously over-training (like a part-time job amount of time) and malnourished.

Since we are on the topic of jogging. I recently took up jogging but with walking breaks because I am not at a level where I can consistently jog/run without periods of rest. I am working on incorporating more distance and trying to build up my stamina. My lungs handle it just fine but my legs hurt during the run, shins are sore and such. But what concerns me is I have soreness at the bottom of my calf where it connects to the ankle; it gets very tight feeling. My question to all of you more experienced runners is, is it safe to run when you are sore? Or do you risk injuring something? Because if I dont walk/jog when sore I'd have to take every other day off, which I feel slows my progress. But I dont want to rush the process and risk injury and then be out of commission all together. What are your thoughts? I really value the opinion of people on here who have "been there done that" and have already gone through what I am going through. So thank you in advance to all who reply.

Jogging or distance running for 40-60 miles a week does in fact cause the fast twitch muscle fibers in your body to decrease in size (and possibly even disappear from what I understand). That being said, that is a LOT of running to do. It depends on what you want to do with your body, if you want to develop explosiveness vs endurance, then sprints are the way to go (but only for about 20-30 minutes on workout days).

Show me where this research is. My average mileage is within that range and my fast twitch fibers are still there, still defined and still doing their job. As a matter of fact, part of distance running is a weekly long run. One of the primary purposes of this long run is to recruit fast twitch fibers to do the job of the slow twitch fibers when they become fatigued. If you want more information, read Daniels Running Formula by Jack Daniels or look it up in Tim Noakes' The Lore of Running.

Yeah, that one had me shaking my head as well.

There is little question that high volumes of endurance running can inhibit gains in muscle mass. I don't have the reference because the study is at work, but I recent study suggested that running itself inhibited muscle gains compared to other cardio exercises--e.g. cycling-- even at the same volume. The authors conclusion was that it was the eccentric movements of running that were the cause (as opposed to the mostly concentric movements of cycling).

However--and this is always the most crucial thing in these discussion -- "interfere with muscle gains" does NOT mean "eats muscle", nor does it mean "prevents muscle gain". And the "interferes with muscle gain" is ONLY significant if your only goal is ---maximizing muscle mass. And this is the problem--when extremes of the spectrum are posited as the "norm".

When it comes to competitive or performance athletes, then the goal of training qualitatively shifts from overall health to peak performance. And anything that interferes with peak performance is avoided. Competitive athletes do all kinds of things that aren't healthy (and I'm not even talking about PEDs) in order to maximize performance. Again, it is a mistake to generalize the results of that type of training or to recommend that type of training to everyone in the average population.

The average person can do lots and lots of endurance training, and lift weights, and realize all the strength and muscle gains they want. There is nothing wrong with wanted to put on large amounts of muscle (or to run marathons), but neither of those should be set as the "ideal" that everyone else should be encouraged (or browbeaten) to emulate.

Fast twitch muscles are NOT meant to take over when slow twitch muscles are fatigued . . . those muscles serve two different purposes e.g. slow twitch are for endurance, fast twitch are for strength. Now, when you lift heavy weights AND run a great deal, you slow twitch fibers DO increase in size, but they do not have nearly the same capacity to gain strength or size as fast twitch fibers do. This is why you have people that can be incredibly skinny (low bf %) and looked ripped AND lift a lot of weight. Distance running (in the range I mentioned0 does not work your fast twitch muscle fibers. Fast twitch fibers are recruited when feats of strength (e.g. deadlift and bench and back squat) are performed while slow twitch are recruited when feats of endurance (e.g. running at a steady pace for an extended period of time) are performed.

Fast twitch muscles are NOT meant to take over when slow twitch muscles are fatigued . . . those muscles serve two different purposes e.g. slow twitch are for endurance, fast twitch are for strength. Now, when you lift heavy weights AND run a great deal, you slow twitch fibers DO increase in size, but they do not have nearly the same capacity to gain strength or size as fast twitch fibers do. This is why you have people that can be incredibly skinny (low bf %) and looked ripped AND lift a lot of weight. Distance running (in the range I mentioned0 does not work your fast twitch muscle fibers. Fast twitch fibers are recruited when feats of strength (e.g. deadlift and bench and back squat) are performed while slow twitch are recruited when feats of endurance (e.g. running at a steady pace for an extended period of time) are performed.

Sorry, but you are just misinformed. Both slow twitch and fast twitch are recruited in distance running. Yes, it's primarily slow twitch and yes, slow twitch are more efficient, but fast twitch don't just sit there doing nothing.

Here is one article that a quick google search returned. You will also find the same thing discussed in two running books that I have read. "The Lore of Running" by Tim Noakes, Phd and "Daniels Running Formula" by renowned running coach Jack Daniels.

http://schubes1114.tripod.com/id1.html