Join this community!
› Share page: Email Digg del.icio.us Reddit icon StumbleUpon Technorati
Go
Search posts:

Matt M.'s Twitter Updates

Obesity As An Immune Disorder III http://bit.ly/4j3HJX 12 days ago
Test http://bit.ly/2IMLhV 12 days ago
Vitamins No More? http://bit.ly/2yJwzA 14 days ago
Vibration Roundup http://bit.ly/1OQbuQ 14 days ago
The Insoles Have Arrived http://bit.ly/4e2yJT 14 days ago
 

Running Versus Racing

Posted May 25 2009 10:45pm

 A reader sent me this interesting link a while back.  It shows that there is an optimal running speed for endurance running - a pace that has the lowest energy expenditure.  For the males tested, it turned out to be around 7 and a half minute miles, though there was variation due to body size and limb length.

The study really showed that there is a "sweet spot" for the speed of an endurance run.  At both faster and slower speeds than optimal, the metabolic cost increased.

All this led me to a thought: maybe it's not that distance running is so bad, but it's the attempts to run long distances faster and faster.  If humans ran long distances for endurance hunts, the focus was on endurance - not speed.

In modern culture though, the focus is on running long distances faster and faster, as well as training at these faster paces.  It could be that humans were built for moderate-speed marathons, but not high-speed marathons.

Today, the purpose of running is often to race, and over time get faster.  While this idea seems very logical (and very American), it may not be what we're built for. 

Post a comment
Write a comment: