Running Pace - Energy Relationship?

I think your overall fitness level allows you to run at a particular given pace/effort for a particular amount of time. That’s why the same person will run 5ks so much faster than a marathon (at the same fitness level).

So if you ran faster, you would not be able to run as long before you ran out of gas. How much less distance would depend on how much faster you were running.
If you ran slower, you would be able to run much longer before you ran out of gas. How much more distance would depend on how much slower you were running.

Increasing pace over a distance happens by becoming more fit. Generally-run more, and run more slowly (80+% of your runs should be “easy”-nowhere near draining the energy tank).

Hi @deannalfisher ,

Could you pls clarify what Z1, Z2 and Z3 are?

Thanks,

Kita1818 wrote: »

Hi @deannalfisher ,

Could you pls clarify what Z1, Z2 and Z3 are?

Thanks,

You can also think of it as color zones...Z1 blue, Z2 green, Z3 yellow, Z4 orange, Z5 red. It is what I did before I got my HRM.

zamphir66 wrote: »

What I think I'm getting at is, is there an optimal strategy for increasing distance related to pace? Does any of this make sense lol?

Yes there is. 80% of your training should be low intensity, mainly zone 2, some zone 1 for warm up and cool down. 20% of your training should be focused of intensity, which means speed, in zone 4 and 5. Doing this allows you to do more volume, which will build more endurance, because it is minimising stress on our body, while the 20% will grow your speed. Zone 3 is to be avoided because it is not effective for endurance or speed, but is still stressing our body a lot.

zamphir66 wrote: »

This is a physiological question that maybe doesn't have an answer -- or the answer is totally individual. But I thought I'd ask anyway and get some perspectives.

Anyway: This morning I ran 45 minutes, and I know it was about 4 miles total. While my tank wasn't empty, I was pretty close to it. Which got me to thinking -- is there a predictable relationship between energy, pace, and distance? In other words, if I'd gone a bit slower, could I have:

* Ran longer before hitting the same low energy level, maybe hitting the same distance but of course taking more time;
* Ran faster and maybe covered more distance but not run for quite as long;

What I think I'm getting at is, is there an optimal strategy for increasing distance related to pace? Does any of this make sense lol?

For me if I run slower I can run for a lot longer, meaning I can cover a much longer distance in a much longer time without tanking out.

eg, If I'm sprinting I can maybe last a minute before I feel like I'm dying and I have to stop.
If I'm doing a threshold interval, then 10 min is my max
at Tempo 30min is my max

then I have different paces for 10k, ten miles, half marathons and long slow runs.
With long slow runs I can do upto a marathon (5.5-6hrs for me) and still have enough energy to attempt a sprint finish

zamphir66 wrote: »

This is a physiological question that maybe doesn't have an answer -- or the answer is totally individual. But I thought I'd ask anyway and get some perspectives.

Anyway: This morning I ran 45 minutes, and I know it was about 4 miles total. While my tank wasn't empty, I was pretty close to it. Which got me to thinking -- is there a predictable relationship between energy, pace, and distance? In other words, if I'd gone a bit slower, could I have:

* Ran longer before hitting the same low energy level, maybe hitting the same distance but of course taking more time;
* Ran faster and maybe covered more distance but not run for quite as long;

What I think I'm getting at is, is there an optimal strategy for increasing distance related to pace? Does any of this make sense lol?

There are two issues here, the relationship between running pace and energy consumption, and the relationship between running pace and your aerobic capacity. Whilst there is a distinct difference between energy consumption when running cf walking, once you're running there isn't really much in it at different paces. Energy consumption is more a function of mass and distance.

Aerobic capacity does affect your endurance, and this is where different types of training have different physiological effects. As others have mentioned, slower paced running helps build aerobic capacity, the strength of your heart, over time, running at threshold pace helps build your ability to sustain that faster pace, processing fuel, and running short intervals into the anaerobic range improve your lungss ability to saturate oxygen in the blood. Doing each type of training over time will generally build your capability.

As an example, I'll do four runs per week at the moment; one long slow, and one shorter recovery both at a lower pace to build the heart strength and endurance. One progression, building from just below my threshold pace to just above it over the distance. One cruise intervals of about half a mile each fast interval at a fairly hard pace. I don't do sprint intervals because for my objectives the oxygen saturation objective is both very short term and not really needed; I'm a marathon and ultra-marathon runner. If I was focussed on 5K I might do them in the final stage before a key race, but in truth it's not a particularly valuable training mode.

The main thing is to do different types of session, to give yourself some generally rounded training.

Your question may relate to your lactate threshold - that point where your body becomes unable to recycle the lactic acid generated by your muscle as it works. In theory running at just below your LT is the optimum for speed/distance over time. Training will increase the speed ( and hence the distance) you can maintain before crossing the LT.