Disclaimer: This is by no means a peer-reviewed, systematic review. This is simply an excerpt of the few hours of research I spent on PubMed looking up ideas that excite me as a recreational distance runner.

So recently, I’ve been procrastinating by watching some running YouTubers talk about their running experiences. And the more I watched, the more I realised how many fallacies about running I’ve subconsciously fallen prey to. Since then, I’ve spent a good amount of time in denial and looking up journal articles to either confirm or refute the ideas that I’d come across. One finding in particular surprised me, which has since completely changed my approach to distance running. Here it is:

Run slow to run fast

Ever since I can remember, my philosophy to becoming a faster runner was this: run as much as you can and as fast as you can, recover well, avoid injury, rinse and repeat. Voila! Over time, your body will get used to the physical stresses you’re putting on it, improving your VO2 max and aerobic threshold.

Turns out, it’s a lot more complicated than that. A key finding which rejected the run until you drop notion was a 2011 study by Karen Van Proeyen et al. which discussed the effects of training in a glycogen-depleted vs. glycogen-replenished state in 20 male cyclists [1]. What they found was that enzymes associated with fat metabolism increased significantly in the fasted group, allowing them to recruit fat as an energy source during a race, known to be a slow-burning but a more efficient source of energy (9 calories vs. 4 calories in a gram of fat vs. carbohydrate).

But how does this relate to running pace? Well, the key link is that the more time spent using fat as an energy source, the greater the levels of enzymes associated with fat metabolism, allowing one to metabolise fat more efficiently. That means if you spend more time running in a fasted state, you’ll become better at using fat as energy. And of course, if you run fast, you fatigue easier and run less, meaning you’re not training this ‘fat-metabolism system’ as much as you could.

This finding (as well as various others) has lead into what are now well-established training regimens such as the 80-20 rule, where 80% of one’s training should be slow and above the aerobic threshold, with the other 20% spent for faster workouts to keep the legs turning over. This maximises development in speed as well as aerobic capacity, while keeping one relatively injury-free.

For my own training, most of my runs now are well above my aerobic threshold with the exception of one or two workouts a week. I can say, I’m enjoying my runs more than ever by running slower – it’s nice to run without a sense of urgency but just getting out and enjoying some solitude with nature. Yet, the more cynical part of me says that despite the evidence, this method of training is pure garbage and entirely placebo. Who knows? We’ll just have to wait until the next race to see.

But this eye-opening discovery does make me wonder: what other narratives are there in my life which are actually complete fallacies? I was convinced for over 3 years that my approach to running was correct, and while I have gotten fitter over time, all the research seems to suggest my approach was not the most effective. Maybe even this new running approach could actually turn out to be garbage, which would be a little sad. Fear ushers me away from this road of examination which will inevitably lead to pain, but curiosity tells me to head down this road. Right now, curiosity seems to have the upper hand.