Benefit of a 8min run?

Gringo78

Looking on the running streak thread, there was a bit of banter at the start about the minimum distance to count as having run. 1 mile was the agreed distance.

So how beneficial is a 1 mile run? I have a treadmill on the way so will finally have the opportunity to run every day. Some days it might literally be 5-10min on the treadmill when I wake up before I hop in the shower. Is it worth pulling on the shorts for 10min? Is it worth it for 5min?

If 2 runners do the same 3 runs of 40min each week, but one of them does an additional 4 runs of 1 mile on the other 4 days, will the person doing the additional 4 miles be noticeably fitter?

ThePiedPiper

Gringo78 wrote: »

Looking on the running streak thread, there was a bit of banter at the start about the minimum distance to count as having run. 1 mile was the agreed distance.

So how beneficial is a 1 mile run? I have a treadmill on the way so will finally have the opportunity to run every day. Some days it might literally be 5-10min on the treadmill when I wake up before I hop in the shower. Is it worth pulling on the shorts for 10min? Is it worth it for 5min?

If 2 runners do the same 3 runs of 40min each week, but one of them does an additional 4 runs of 1 mile on the other 4 days, will the person doing the additional 4 miles be noticeably fitter?

Gringo, it's probably relative to the degree of fitness and training that the person in question does. For example, if you're talking about somebody who is overweight, and does little or no exercies, then a daily 10 minute run is of huge benefit to such a person and will make a big difference to their health and fitness. If you're talking about a sub 3 hour marathoner who might be clocking over 60 miles a week, the benefit would be very small.

Given the situation you describe above, I would definitely think that all other things being equal, the person running the additional 4 runs of 1 mile will be noticeably fitter. This is the reason why most training schedules would have running on 5-6 days of the week, not 3. The shorter distances and times act as recovery runs or sharpening/pace/tempo runs.

BeepBeep67

Not sure - I never do less than 20mins (day before a race) and my recovery run (normally my shortest) is 6k.
I think 3k was agreed for the streak.

kennyb3

To me it all comes down to enjoyment. We aren't pro athlethes - yes we all want to get better, but most of us do this because we enjoy it.

So if you're going to enjoy the threadie for 8-10mins more times than not go for it, if not surely you are turning running into a chore just to be a tiny bit fitter.

And im sure there is a small fitness to be gained but i doubt it is very noticeable

RubyK

Following injury, I finally get to do an 8min or so run this weekend on grass! It's been 7 weeks since DCM and I'm like a caged animal.

So for me there is benefit in an 8min run. I might even find a bit of my sanity in those few minutes :pac: Woo hoo!

Sorry, that's not really what this thread was about, but I'm just delighted to have been given the nod from the physio to start moving again.

tunney

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Not sure - I never do less than 20mins (day before a race) and my recovery run (normally my shortest) is 6k.
I think 3k was agreed for the streak.

4k was the min I believe.

--amadeus--

RunForestRun wrote: »

Gringo, it's probably relative to the degree of fitness and training that the person in question does. For example, if you're talking about somebody who is overweight, and does little or no exercies, then a daily 10 minute run is of huge benefit to such a person and will make a big difference to their health and fitness. If you're talking about a sub 3 hour marathoner who might be clocking over 60 miles a week, the benefit would be very small.

Given the situation you describe above, I would definitely think that all other things being equal, the person running the additional 4 runs of 1 mile will be noticeably fitter. This is the reason why most training schedules would have running on 5-6 days of the week, not 3. The shorter distances and times act as recovery runs or sharpening/pace/tempo runs.

/close thread basically, there's your answer.

Gringo for someone at your level an 8 min run is going to do as much for your fitness as walking up the stairs instead of taking the lift will; it's such a tiny % of effort in comparison to your regular routine that it will do you a tiny % of good.

Now if you are just about to start C25K then an 8min run is well worth it, but not for a sub 3 mara runner.

[edit] incidentally that's why I would personally have my doubts about running "streaks"; I would worry they would become an end in themselves and would end up distracting from the bigger picture. So people end up doing stupid things like running on injuries rather than rest just to maintain a streak

BeepBeep67

^^ tut tut

tunney wrote: »

Name |Days |Start |Distance (km)
Tunney |1 |22nd Nov |10.5
Condo131|21 |22nd Nov |206.95
BeepBeep67|22|31stOct|220.58


Some clarification.

3km is the minimum distance that counts as a "run" for the purposes of this streak.

A poster can have two streaks at anyone time - the present one and their previous best.

If a poster is presently on a streak (like Condo131, BeepBeep67 above) then this is valid and can be entered.

Threadmills count but only when inclination is 1% or above.

Units are in kms.

Happy streaking.

***Can someone change this to reflect the ordering based on days run??

tunney

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

^^ tut tut

Oooops, ah well, 3-4 km same difference really.

GoHardOrGoHome

--amadeus-- wrote: »

/close thread basically, there's your answer.

Gringo for someone at your level an 8 min run is going to do as much for your fitness as walking up the stairs instead of taking the lift will; it's such a tiny % of effort in comparison to your regular routine that it will do you a tiny % of good.

Now if you are just about to start C25K then an 8min run is well worth it, but not for a sub 3 mara runner.

[edit] incidentally that's why I would personally have my doubts about running "streaks"; I would worry they would become an end in themselves and would end up distracting from the bigger picture. So people end up doing stupid things like running on injuries rather than rest just to maintain a streak

Have to agree with Amadeus and RunForestRun.

On the streaking argument I'd also agree. I'm on a streak at the moment and it's what got me out at 11:25pm night before last for a 21 minute 4k. There wasn't much benefit to me in doing the 4k at that time of night. It was basically penance for not having gone out in the morning/lunch/early evening when I had the time but I was lazy. The streak for me stops me being lazy. If I'm injured or sick I'll be the first person to take a rest and get over the illness/injury.

Really good piece here by Rene Borg where - as you said Amadeus - the streak becomes the goal in itself instead of the means to an end i.e. performing better during your racing season.

http://www.mountain-runner.com/2010/11/training-worshipping-false-idols.html

My goal is July next year. I'm prepared to accept slightly less than optimal race performances as I increase my mileage and my body adapts.

dtf

For me this is an interesting thread. I've often been stuck for time and not been able to get a proper run in. I've always used a 20min minimum as my benchmark (nearly always end up running for longer once i'm out). But i've wondered what is the shortest time / distance you need to be running for to get any benefit?

RayCun

I'm sure that you get some benefit when you run long enough to start breathing hard/working up a sweat. But who can be bothered changing into running gear, running for ten minutes, and then changing back?

Sosa

I pay no attention to streaks whatsoever...no interest.
I just try plan my training around a mix of key sessions,easy runs and rest days....and i generally do them as hard or easy as i feel...so an easy run could be 7:00p one day and 7:30p the next...as with recoveries....7:30 - 8:15p sometimes

huskerdu

dtf wrote: »

For me this is an interesting thread. I've often been stuck for time and not been able to get a proper run in. I've always used a 20min minimum as my benchmark (nearly always end up running for longer once i'm out). But i've wondered what is the shortest time / distance you need to be running for to get any benefit?

As was said before, it depends on how fit / unfit you are and what your weight is and what benefit you are looking for - get healthier or get fitter ( health and fitness are two different things).

Lets assume that we are talking about an average person who has average cardiac health, needs to lose a bit of weight and doesn't take much exercise.

It used to be assumed that you needed to take 20 minutes of exercise to benefit your cardiac health, but this has been disproved. I read an interesting article in New Scientist about this. They have proved that even 5 minutes at a time is beneficial.

However, if you already fit and take lots of exercise, I agree with what was said before - an 8 minute run is not going to make you fitter.

But, being fit and motivated enough to run or walk every short journey that you take burns more calories and is better than taking the car everywhere....

Gringo78

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Gringo for someone at your level an 8 min run is going to do as much for your fitness as walking up the stairs instead of taking the lift will; it's such a tiny % of effort in comparison to your regular routine that it will do you a tiny % of good.

Now if you are just about to start C25K then an 8min run is well worth it, but not for a sub 3 mara runner.

For the quantity of training I'm doing at the moment 8min ain't such a small % as you'd think :eek:

What triggered my thoughts on this was I woke up early this morning and had opportunity to do 10-15min max in the hotel gym. I figured since I may not run again until Monday, I'd go for it as I had done a tempo yesterday evening and felt the recovery run (only 12min in the end) would actually do some good.

I have seen it said though, and I think Tergat has posted here before about it, that you should aim to run every day, that every day you don't run is a step backwards. So does a 10min run stave off this backwards step?

I should point out, running never feels like a chore to me. I don't run every day because I don't get the opportunity to but look forward to the day when I can.

My own view would be, if someone is clocking 60 miles a week over 5 days, I think there would be a definite improvement in doing 58 miles over 5 days and 2x1mile on the other 2....at a minimum from injury prevention perspective but I think additionally from endurance & running efficiency. Huskurdu referred to article in New Scientist supporting 5min as being beneficial, I wonder are there any more studies out there?

menoscemo

Gringo78 wrote: »

I have seen it said though, and I think Tergat has posted here before about it, that you should aim to run every day, that every day you don't run is a step backwards. So does a 10min run stave off this backwards step?

This.
Tergat's definately posted saying that a run every day, howvever small, is of more benefit than doing nothing. It was from his post that the whole idea of the running streak grew legs from.
The body will actively recover better with a short recovery run than it will from complete rest.

TheRoadRunner

Gringo78 wrote: »

So how beneficial is a 1 mile run? I have a treadmill on the way so will finally have the opportunity to run every day. Some days it might literally be 5-10min on the treadmill when I wake up before I hop in the shower. Is it worth pulling on the shorts for 10min? Is it worth it for 5min?

As all things this is relative, for you Gringo however 8 minutes isn't going to do much. My suggestion is to get up 17 minutes earlier and run for 25 minutes.

Pisco Sour

I'd reckon it depends on how fast you run the mile. If you jog along for 1 mile there is probably little point. If you run the mile flat out then I can't see how it doesn't have any benefits. I feel like I have gained more from some very fast 1 mile runs than I have from an easy 10k run!

Gringo78

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

As all things this is relative, for you Gringo however 8 minutes isn't going to do much. My suggestion is to get up 17 minutes earlier and run for 25 minutes.

HTFU in a nutshell

Ciaran500

Amazed no one mentioned HIIT. 8 minutes of HIIT running would be massively beneficial to anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

ecoli

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Amazed no one mentioned HIIT. 8 minutes of HIIT running would be massively beneficial to anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

I think because this form of training (from what i have read there) doesnt seem to develop aerobic capacity. It seems to be based on a fat burning emphasis. Even when addressing athletic performance it repeatedly stresses the fact that improvements are seen in well trained athletes.

To me this says it is similar to that of interval training in that it can be useful but only after an aerobic base has been established. Also this form of training would compromise the PH balance within the muscle and as a result it wouldnt be something which could be carried out on a day to day basis.

As far as i can remember from many of Tergats post he seemed to be of the opinion that 15-20 min easy runs on recovery days. Personally i would be of the opinion that 20-30 min is ideal for optimum aerobic maintenance and 40+ plus for optimum aerobic development. This does not mean that you may not see benefits at lower time frames and indeed if these times are closer to your usual run you will see fairly similar benefits my references are rather to that of optimum performance in an athlete with a decent aerobic base already established over a longer period of time

Ciaran500

ecoli wrote: »

I think because this form of training (from what i have read there) doesnt seem to develop aerobic capacity. It seems to be based on a fat burning emphasis. Even when addressing athletic performance it repeatedly stresses the fact that improvements are seen in well trained athletes.

To me this says it is similar to that of interval training in that it can be useful but only after an aerobic base has been established. Also this form of training would compromise the PH balance within the muscle and as a result it wouldnt be something which could be carried out on a day to day basis.

As far as i can remember from many of Tergats post he seemed to be of the opinion that 15-20 min easy runs on recovery days. Personally i would be of the opinion that 20-30 min is ideal for optimum aerobic maintenance and 40+ plus for optimum aerobic development. This does not mean that you may not see benefits at lower time frames and indeed if these times are closer to your usual run you will see fairly similar benefits my references are rather to that of optimum performance in an athlete with a decent aerobic base already established over a longer period of time

The link I posted shows intervals are good at increasing aerobic and anaerobic performance...

"HIIT increases the resting metabolic rate (RMR) for the following 24 hours due to excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, and may improve maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) more effectively than doing only traditional, long aerobic workouts."

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392
"this study showed that moderate-intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly"

Gringo78

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Amazed no one mentioned HIIT. 8 minutes of HIIT running would be massively beneficial to anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

I'm talking purely easy recovery running, typically morning after an intensive intervals or tempo session. I'm wondering is 5-10min enough to get the blood flowing and accelerate the recovery and is that standalone 10min far more effective than lengthening an easy run by 10min on another day.

Take another example: runner A & B both train 7 evenings a week, 45min each time. Runner B however also runs 5-10min each morning....is runner B's extra 35min each week going to tell? If A adds the extra 5min to his evening runs to even things up, is there any difference now between A and B?

ecoli

Ciaran500 wrote: »

The link I posted shows intervals are good at increasing aerobic and anaerobic performance...

"HIIT increases the resting metabolic rate (RMR) for the following 24 hours due to excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, and may improve maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) more effectively than doing only traditional, long aerobic workouts."

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392
"this study showed that moderate-intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly"

I would not debate that but you have to look at the effects of running as a high impact sport you cannot isolate the physiological without weighing up the injury risk associated with running compare to the likes of cycling (which the second study was conducted under cycling conditions)

In running doing intervals without developing a base before hand increases the risk of injury exponentially despite the cardiovascular benefits

This is the reason why practically every runner begins their season with a base buliding period

menoscemo

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Amazed no one mentioned HIIT. 8 minutes of HIIT running would be massively beneficial to anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

OP is talking about 8 minutes on easy running days as a recovery session. I assume he does HIIT or intervals for 40 minutes + on other days.
To do a HIIT session effectively, you would need at least a mile warm up and then the 8 minutes are passed.