Aside from the form, I also wonder about the distance. Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training?
As described in an article linked in the one posted, humans seem to have evolved to run long distances [1]. I wonder how we could reconcile that with the fact that long distance running at constant pace seems to be bad for our hearts [2].
> Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training?
It depends what you consider long distance. Marathons definitely are not healthy. 10ks probably are.
Intervals are great for actually increasing your VO2max without blowing out your cardiovascular system.
Funnily, when you run a raceday marathon, your heartrate (or at least mine) spends most of its time in the 160+ bmp cardio/anaerobic range. You won't be able to do that if your training doesn't involve at limit intervals that increase your cardio capacity.
From the abstract:
However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity.
I'll take low mortality and excellent functional capacity.
Sure, I'm not implying long distance running is unhealthy. I believe it is healthy, but there is some evidence some long distance running forms are unhealthy.
Thus, I wonder how that running humans hypothetically evolved with differs from what we practice as sport these days. Perhaps their pace was lower and broken into intervals.
It depends what you consider long distance. Marathons definitely are not healthy. 10ks probably are.
Intervals are great for actually increasing your VO2max without blowing out your cardiovascular system.
Funnily, when you run a raceday marathon, your heartrate (or at least mine) spends most of its time in the 160+ bmp cardio/anaerobic range. You won't be able to do that if your training doesn't involve at limit intervals that increase your cardio capacity.