I highly recommend "80/20 Running: Run Stronger and Race Faster By Training Slower" by Matt Fitzgerald. Don't let the title put anyone off -- it's about performance, but most of the book is about the value of going SLOW.

Like you, I was never really a runner, although I did get into running when I met my current partner, who is a runner. I think what's complicated for most not-fit people is that they only have one running "speed'. I only had one running speed until I was almost 40. There was walking, and then there was running. Obviously there was also "sprinting" but we all recognize that's unsustainable. I think for most of us, "running" is what a runner would call a tempo run -- say 80% of your maximum heartrate, something you feel you can sustain more-or-less indefinitely, but that's hard.

When you're not-obese-but-out-of-shape, you might walk a mile in 15-17 minutes, and a run would be in the 10-12 minute range. It's hard to actually go any slower than that and still be running. And as you slowly get more fit, your runs get down to (say), a 9 minute mile, an 8 minute mile. But you never realize you can (and should!) scale back to that 10 or 12 minute mile. You'll be able to run every day instead of every few days. You'll get the health benefits without the injuries. And the side benefit is that, if you add speed work, you'll get faster more quickly than if you just ran at 'running speed' all the time.

The couch to 5k program listed mentions mixing walking and running -- this is a great alternative to a "slow run" for those who still only have 1 speed.

My "I can run forever" speed is more like 13 minute miles now, up from 14 minute miles. And it took me a long time to be able to motor for a 5k at a 14 minute/mile pace and not struggle mentally or physically at all. And I'm in the not-obese-but-out-of-shape category.

I think some of the ability to differentiate a light run from a hard run requires having a degree of baseline fitness. A lot of people who are not especially fit will find that they can run quickly for a minute or two, or very slowly for maybe ten minutes, but either way they find themselves completely winded and sore. Folks will read advice online about running at a pace where you can have a conversation, but find that there's literally no pace above a walk where this is possible for them.

I was interested in running for years, but found the walk breaks that the Couch to 5k program uses to deal with this issue to be tedious. I tried it a few times, but it didn't stick until years later after I'd started a gym habit and built a good base. When New Years came around, I was used to going to the gym before work every morning, and it was really disruptive when my gym was suddenly insanely packed with resolutioners, so I just put my stuff in a locker and tried going outside for a run. With the base I'd built in the gym, I found I could run quickly for a few minutes, but when running slowly I could go for 30+ minutes without a break instead of ten, and it finally stuck (that was 4 years ago).

Yep. This is the thing that I wish somebody told me when I first ventured to start running.

Light run is when I run with somebody else and I still can have a pleasant conversation.

I take phonecalls when I am running and I had situations where people were surprised when I told them I am running (they expected me to be panting probably).

IMO there is no need to run any harder than that if your goal is maximising your wellbeing (unless your wellbeing comes from winning races...)

The other option is run faster but intermittently.

It came as a surprise to me that many people are self-conscious about stopping to walk during running -- that's how I've always done it! I never thought anything of it because I have always been in shape as 100m / 200m sprinter... I'd encourage others to try this, because although I love running, I also could never really get into jogging.

A friend used to do ultramarathons. If we were out for a run and she didn't wish to run a hill, she would say, "ultra rules", and we would walk the hill. She covered 100 miles in less than 24 hours in one race I helped with, and she had not the least self-consciousness about walking.

> IMO there is no need to run any harder than that if your goal is maximising your wellbeing (unless your wellbeing comes from winning races...)

Interestingly the best (or second best) bike racer in the world, Tadej Pogačar, is very big into "zone 2" training, in which the idea is you optimize your aerobic engine by spending the majority of your training time in zone 2 and no faster.

While the zone 2 can be measured formerly with a lot of fancy equipment that monitors the gases you breath out and levels of lactic acid in your blood, the casual guideline for finding your zone 2 is a workout at the level where you can just barely hold a conversation while doing it. The casual definition of zone 1 is you can easily hold a conversation, zone 3 is you can say a few words but can't hold a conversation, and zone 4 is you are breathing so hard you can barely talk.

So basically, even if your wellbeing does come from winning races, zone 2 training might also be the best thing to do (at least for the majority of your workout times).

Two weeks ago I was heading to go for a run and my 8 year old declared he was coming with me (this was 630AM on a school day). We did 1.25 miles but the most interesting thing he said was that we weren’t running, we were just jogging. It was a slow 12’ pace… slower than I’d go solo but I didn’t want to wear him out.

Anyway, this bias you mention seems to be taught/ingrained at a young age!

Yes, this is exactly the pattern you see in the r/c25k subreddit. Lots of people hit a wall (usually around week 5 or 6, where you start running for longer stretches of time) because they’re running too fast. The most unintuitive part of this program is pacing yourself.