Hello Fitness GURUS- In the past, I have done 30 minutes of weight training and 30 minutes of treadmill at the healthclub, every other day. The problem is sticking with this for any length of time because of various responsibilities. I went to the healthclub today, and instead of a brisk walk on the treadmill, I decided to see if I could run for any length of time. As it turns out, I ran the first mile in 12 minutes and finished 2.17 miles in 30 minutes. I did walk for .5 mile in the middle, but then felt that the time was dragging, so I started running again to the 30 minute mark. It really felt great. In fact, when I got home, I pulled the treadmill out of the garage and put it up in the house. If I can run 2 miles in 30 minutes in the morning before I go to work, I think that would be beneficial and also something I can really stick with long-term. Hopefully, I would see improvement, over time, in distance :) My question (sorry for the long intro) is this: Can I do this everyday without negative effects, or because I am not in good shape should I give my muscles a day to recover in between morning runs? Thank you in advance for your replies! Michelle

Running suggestion. Pick a total that you can do in a week, and do that for several weeks. Then increase the weekly amount slowly. On that basis I presently walk 3 miles, twice a day, with weight on my back. That's 42 miles a week at the rate of 1.5 hrs per day. Charlie

Hi Michelle, [quote:8b6a9c6db4="yikerszikers"]Hello Fitness GURUS- In the past, I have done 30 minutes of weight training and 30 minutes of treadmill at the healthclub, every other day. The problem is sticking with this for any length of time because of various responsibilities. I went to the healthclub today, and instead of a brisk walk on the treadmill, I decided to see if I could run for any length of time. As it turns out, I ran the first mile in 12 minutes and finished 2.17 miles in 30 minutes. I did walk for .5 mile in the middle, but then felt that the time was dragging, so I started running again to the 30 minute mark. It really felt great. In fact, when I got home, I pulled the treadmill out of the garage and put it up in the house. If I can run 2 miles in 30 minutes in the morning before I go to work, I think that would be beneficial and also something I can really stick with long-term. Hopefully, I would see improvement, over time, in distance :) My question (sorry for the long intro) is this: Can I do this everyday without negative effects, or because I am not in good shape should I give my muscles a day to recover in between morning runs? Thank you in advance for your replies! Michelle[/quote:8b6a9c6db4] Great Question, The principal for running is to have 1 intense day and a recovery day but BOTH are running days. If 2 miles in 30 mins is what you can do, on the second day run 1 mile in 20 mins. This aids recovery. IMO look to increase distance first up to say 4 miles one day 2 the next and, then work on speed. You should add in 1 LONG run a week when ready. Within 6 months of a good running program, your resting pulse will be in the low 60's and your energy levels will soar. Thank you so much for responding positively. In the unlikely event this thread is Hijacked by sharks, please re post on Anne-Marie's site Kind Regards, White Light

Hi Charlie and White Light- Ok, two days of running done! :) I ran a 17 minute mile today. I was sore from yesterday, but running felt good. More questions...Fat burning zone is 60%-70% of max heart rate (200 - age) and cardio zone is 70%-80% of max heart rate, right? Anything higher than that is considered anaerobic activity, correct? Is it ok if I am at an anaerobic activity level and/or above my max heart rate for part of the time I am running? [quote:f2c815451d="Charlie"]Running suggestion. Pick a total that you can do in a week, and do that for several weeks. Then increase the weekly amount slowly. [/quote:f2c815451d] Charlie, what would you suggest for me to start out at, as a weekly total? [quote:f2c815451d="White Light"]Great Question, The principal for running is to have 1 intense day and a recovery day but BOTH are running days. If 2 miles in 30 mins is what you can do, on the second day run 1 mile in 20 mins. This aids recovery. IMO look to increase distance first up to say 4 miles one day 2 the next and, then work on speed. You should add in 1 LONG run a week when ready. Within 6 months of a good running program, your resting pulse will be in the low 60's and your energy levels will soar. [/quote:f2c815451d] White Light, what would be a LONG run :shock: ? [quote:f2c815451d="White Light"]Thank you so much for responding positively. In the unlikely event this thread is Hijacked by sharks, please re post on Anne-Marie's site.[/quote:f2c815451d] I can always handle criticism, as long as it is constructive! :)

. .

White Light and Brian have already answered better than I can. But you seem to want a very specific suggestion. So here is a wild guess. Try jogging 2 miles and walking 2 miles on alternate days, and see how you feel after two weeks. I suspect you are more tired than you think. When you push hard 3 days in a row, you can crash pretty hard for the next couple days. Best, Charlie

Hi Michelle, [quote="yikerszikers"]Hi Charlie and White Light- [quote:b4a5a36593] Ok, two days of running done! :) I ran a 17 minute mile today. I was sore from yesterday, but running felt good. [/quote:b4a5a36593] The theory is that the slow run every second day removes the soreness. Charlie's idea of walking on the second days is also fine for a start, the key thing is to get the blood moveing to remove any lactic acid (Which is what likely causes your soreness) [quote:b4a5a36593]More questions...Fat burning zone is 60%-70% of max heart rate (200 - age) and cardio zone is 70%-80% of max heart rate, right? [/quote:b4a5a36593] The Female MHR is generally 220 less age (Males are slower with 212 less age) Fat burning zone has more to do with insulin levels. Cardio is generally regarded as the 70 to 90% MHR but it varies for individuals. To start I favour the lower end say 70 to 75% with short bursts (up hills) around the 90% mark (Higher when you are conditioned) [quote:b4a5a36593]Anything higher than that is considered anaerobic activity, correct?[/quote:b4a5a36593] Above 90% is considered anerobic but we do all vary. [quote:b4a5a36593] Is it ok if I am at an anaerobic activity level and/or above my max heart rate for part of the time I am running? [/quote:b4a5a36593] It is HIGHLY beneficial but ensure this is NOT within 15 mins of the end of the run. [quote:b4a5a36593="White Light"]Great Question, The principal for running is to have 1 intense day and a recovery day but BOTH are running days. If 2 miles in 30 mins is what you can do, on the second day run 1 mile in 20 mins. This aids recovery. IMO look to increase distance first up to say 4 miles one day 2 the next and, then work on speed. You should add in 1 LONG run a week when ready. Within 6 months of a good running program, your resting pulse will be in the low 60's and your energy levels will soar. [/quote:b4a5a36593] [quote:b4a5a36593]White Light, what would be a LONG run :shock: ? [/quote:b4a5a36593] Well your starting point is on average less than 30 mins a day, I believe 1 hour on the long day is about right. In an hour of running like this you would likely burn 400 calories, 200 on the half distance day so for the week that is 2200 calories. Your starting point is 1100 calories. As you Know, Dr Sears recomends 2000 every week. The long run should be about 1/3 of your weekly mileage You can reduce the time involved when running efficiency improves (distance would increase tho.) [quote:b4a5a36593="White Light"]Thank you so much for responding positively. In the unlikely event this thread is Hijacked by sharks, please re post on Anne-Marie's site.[/quote:b4a5a36593] [quote:b4a5a36593]I can always handle criticism, as long as it is constructive! :)[/quote:b4a5a36593] My intention was certainly to help White Light

HI White Light [quote:14e89f6fc1="White Light"] My intention was certainly to help[/quote:14e89f6fc1] And help, you certainly have :) Thank you very much. I am sure that I will have more questions as I go. I am grateful for your expertise and precise answers! Michelle

[quote] The theory is that the slow run every second day removes the soreness. Charlie's idea of walking on the second days is also fine for a start, the key thing is to get the blood moveing to remove any lactic acid (Which is what likely causes your soreness) [/quote] This is fine, but so far as I know, soreness the day after is not caused by lactic acid. Lactic acid is usually eliminated in a couple of hours. Soreness is more due to micro-traumas. I'm sorry, but I can't bring reference in English about this. Perhaps somebody else can if requested. Paola

[quote:2aa1f83331="ppecchiols"][quote:2aa1f83331] The theory is that the slow run every second day removes the soreness. Charlie's idea of walking on the second days is also fine for a start, the key thing is to get the blood moveing to remove any lactic acid (Which is what likely causes your soreness) [/quote:2aa1f83331] This is fine, but so far as I know, soreness the day after is not caused by lactic acid. Lactic acid is usually eliminated in a couple of hours. Soreness is more due to micro-traumas. I'm sorry, but I can't bring reference in English about this. Perhaps somebody else can if requested. Paola[/quote:2aa1f83331] Ok but the Micro Tramas are cased by stopping with high lactic levels. White Light

Hi all. Clarification on the micro-traumas. After intense exercise you want to cool off gradually, to prevent damage from lactic acid? If you keep exercising gently, your body can better remove the lactic acid? Is that correct? Thanks, Charlie

Michelle, good for you for dusting off the treadmill! Charlie, you ask good questions, but know that lactic acid is not what 'causes' damage to muscle tissue, exercising is. Lactate is present, and increased circulation will help flush it out, but no amount of 'cooling down' will stop the soreness. I know White Light says: [quote:10d247b6b7]Ok but the Micro Tra[u]mas are ca[u]sed by stopping with high lactic levels.[/quote:10d247b6b7] but there is no current study that supports this statement. Lactate is actually not a waste product, nor is it responsible for muscle soreness. To say it IS would be like saying the snow on the ground is the reason the air is so cold. The recent literature (in running, swimming, cycling...no, not just weight training) has more frequently been suggesting intervals, alternating between intense cardio workouts and easier recovery days. Running at the same intensity for the same duration every day will only make you very good at running at that intensity and for that duration; to gain any improvement, it's gotta hurt. (This means the school-of-aerobics is realizing the value that improved skeletal muscle strength plays in cardio-vascular efficiency.) Soon it will be acknowledged that days of complete rest are even better. When you work muscles at an "anaerobic" level by performing steady-state "aerobic" activity to a level of intensity where oxygen can no longer be delivered adequately (what they call the "anaerobic threshold", or your "VO2 max"), the muscles are going to be sore. Lactic acid, or lactate, will also be created. So if your muscles hurt, the question is: Do you rest completely until they are fully recovered, or is it better to workout at a very slow "recovery" pace, or do you go ahead at full intensity? -If your goal was to improve the strength of your skeletal muscles (which many contend [i:10d247b6b7]should[/i:10d247b6b7] be the primary aim of any exercise), complete rest is the fastest way to accomplish it. -I've read where Tour de France cyclists take a 'recovery ride' on their weekly day off from competition. They claim it's better for recovery than total rest because increased circulation flushes out the lactic acid and feeds fresh blood to the healing muscle. Their coaches continually yell at them to "slow down!" The coaches seem to appreciate the value of rest. -It is known among marathoners and their trainers that, at an elite level, an athlete's muscles learn to metabolize lactic acid, recycling it for energy. It is a fact that muscle tissue uses some lactate to produce more glucogen (fuel), and not just at an elite level. Michelle, I would suggest that you experiment with yourself. Charlie's advice to set a [i:10d247b6b7]weekly[/i:10d247b6b7] goal is good. Try a week where you have intense interval running days alternated with easier running days. Then try a week where, instead of the easy recovery runs, you rest completely for the day. I'm sure you'll find the total rest to be a much more effective way to improve your performance.

Nobody has ever determined exactly what causes delayed muscle soreness, but I believe the most likely cause is inflammation resulting from structural damage (micro-trauma) to the muscle tissue. If you've ever sprained an ankle before (or had a similar injury), you may have noticed that it hurt worse when you got up the day following the injury... this illustrates the "delayed" effect of inflammation folling trauma, and it explains why you typically experience the most soreness a day or two after your workout.

[quote:4bf2130585="adam_h"] The recent literature (in running, swimming, cycling...no, not just weight training) has more frequently been suggesting intervals, alternating between intense cardio workouts and easier recovery days. Running at the same intensity for the same duration every day will only make you very good at running at that intensity and for that duration; to gain any improvement, it's gotta hurt. [/quote:4bf2130585] Not a bad explanation but a few caveats: Because interval training is more specific to the demands of actual racing, it does tend to produce [i:4bf2130585]faster[/i:4bf2130585] performance improvements than “steady-state” training. However, as running coaches have known for years (having learned through trial and error), interval training is more limited in its capacity to elicit improvement. The anaerobic energy system simply isn’t very trainable; after 8-12 weeks of interval training, performance generally plateaus or declines. On the other hand, while steady-state training generally does not result in improvement as rapidly as interval training, it has a much greater capacity for long-term improvement. The aerobic energy system is by far the most trainable of the metabolic pathways, and steady-state training conditions the aerobic pathway more directly than interval training or weight training. [quote:4bf2130585] (This means the school-of-aerobics is realizing the value that improved skeletal muscle strength plays in cardio-vascular efficiency.) Soon it will be acknowledged that days of complete rest are even better. [/quote:4bf2130585] First, you are making the common mistake of equating endurance performance with “cardiovascular efficiency” (which nobody seems to even know the definition of). The most important factor with regard to endurance performance is the energy production capacity of the muscles, not the “efficiency” of the cardiovascular system With that said, improving muscular strength probably has very little, if anything to do with improving endurance performance. The most common rationale for strength training is that improving strength reduces the relative intensity of running at a given speed. For example, let's say a runner requires 50% of his maximum force production (MFP) to run at a pace of 5:00/mile. If he doubles his leg strength, the same pace will only requires 25% of his MFP . So, running at that pace should be much [i:4bf2130585]easier[/i:4bf2130585], and therefore he should be able to continue running at that pace for much [i:4bf2130585]longer[/i:4bf2130585], right? Wrong. This rationale is flawed from the ground up, because the percentage of MFP has zero bearing whatsoever on the demand for energy production. To produce X amount of force requires Y amount of energy, and Y is fixed regardless of whether X represents 1% or 100% of one’s strength capacity. If your metabolic capacity is not sufficient to sustain production of Y amount of energy (per unit of time) for the duration of the run , then you will inevitably become fatigued and slow down regardless of how strong your muscles are. Therefore, the limiting factor in endurance performance is energy production capacity, NOT strength. I am aware that several studies indicate that strength training does in fact improve endurance performance, and I do not doubt the results. However, people are extrapolating the wrong things from these studies. The studies show that WEIGHT TRAINING improves endurance, not that IMPROVING STRENGTH improves endurance. They do not distinguish between improvent due to increased strength and improvement due to other factors. Furthermore, the studies are somewha lacking/flawed in my opinion, because they compared running-only groups to weight training groups that were running the same amount at the running-only groups. If the weight training groups had performed less running than the running-only groups, the results might have been different.

Michele asked the Forum about the importance of recovery versus running every day.

[quote:86c4386e85="adam_h"]Michele asked the Forum about the importance of recovery versus running every day.[/quote:86c4386e85] Right, and you replied by saying that interval training is superior to steady-state, and that that improving muscular strength is important for endurance performance. Then I explained that the former statement is overgeneralized and that the later is wrong. As always, you were happy to learn.

Sigh. :roll: