Wednesday 10 miles

10 miles in 1:20 (8:00 pace/ 2000+ ft of climbing all between 8200-9000ft altitude) I expected this to be an easy run with my HR at 140-155 (I gave myself 5 beats just to get a little more muscle stress) but holding my HR above 140 turned out to be difficult. And here in lies the benefits of using a specific range of HR. The old 'LSD' or long slow distance idea had (has) many faults. With MAF training or using 20-30 beats below LT you eventually get to a point where you are running very aerobically but not easy or slow. Where long slow distance is always slow. People say that always running slow makes for a slow runner and I completely agree. But when they say that in response to MAF training they only show how much they don't understand. I do think there has to be either a minimum intensity OR minimum volume for a run to benefit a fit runner. If someone is averaging 90 miles per week and they do a 10 mile run at HR 120, they maybe could get a much bigger benefit by running either longer (to the point of fatigue or glycogen depletion) or bump the HR up to a point that actually stimulates growth. You will never see a power lifter in the gym doing body weight squats. And if said runner is too tired to elevate HR then they need to just run 4-5 miles at HR 120 which would be a recovery effort (a recovery run has a maximum volume that defines it, a 10 mile recovery run is an oxymoron). Anyway, my pace is dropping quickly and effort is increasing at my HR of 140-150 which is what I want to see.