Brogan Austin proves that slow miles lead to fast times

Is this a common theory? I thought only a few believed this! I believe it, after organizing 5 transcons & seeing my runners get WRs subsequently.

hmmm, yes he ran slow sometimes. But majority of his long runs were sub 3:40 per km and he was doing tough sessions 2 times a week.

Kipchoge runs his easy miles at 7:00. That is like a 3:00 mrathoner doing 11:00-12:00's. People who always push the pace are idiots who never fulfill their potential. Women are often the worst on this. Racing 7:00 miles and training 7:30. Daniels and MacmIllan calculators do as much damage as good. You can't run too slow on your easy days as long as you get the quality sessions in.

Look at the stickied posts from Hadd training and from wejo "Why I sucked in college"

Wolfgang Schwerk did a lot of 10-12 minute miles across Australia. Too slow, I think, to improve his speed (age being also a factor), but his stamina went way up.

You are seeing the mile pace but not looking at the details behind them. He not stopping his watch on his recovery. Lots of runs that average to 7:xx have fast running mixed in.

Run Slow to Run Fast wrote:

Austin posts on Strava so you can see all his runs. He averaged 5:03/mile at CIM yet the vast majority of his training runs were over 7 min/mi. According to McMillan's Calculator his easy runs should be between 5:29-6:19/mi and recovery runs 6;24-7:06. Just an observation and gives me some solace running my 10 min/miles most days

Not surprising since Tinman coached him. He is all about easy runs being easy.

Look deep. So deep. wrote:

You are seeing the mile pace but not looking at the details behind them. He not stopping his watch on his recovery. Lots of runs that average to 7:xx have fast running mixed in.

I don't think the original poster is saying he never ran fast. But he only does one workout a week (a very doable and not overly long workout at that) and a moderately paced long run. A couple other days he throws in some strides (so maybe 5+ minutes of fast running). All the times surrounding those moments of fast running he's running pretty darn close to 7 minute pace.

Also, who stops their watch on recovery?

Keep in mind that there a big difference in fuel consumption between a marathon and say a 5k. For a 5k fuel is not much of a concern and the body needs to be efficient at turning glycogen into ATP and managing the anaerobic glycolitic demanded of the shorter faster distances. For a marathon fats need to be regularly available, since running out of fuel is a concern for a 2+ hour race.

Training at slower paces will teach the body to more effectively use fats as the primary fuel. This is advantageous for marathons, not necessarily for peak performance in the shorter aerobic power events run in college.

or you can just eat more during the race. i don't believe training your body to burn fat moves the needle that much in a marathon if your gut is strong.

Anatoly Kruglikov used to get through 100K on half coke, half water. Just don’t drink it when not running - it tastes terrible then.

i didn't say it wasn't possible. i didn't say it wasn't important for ultras. so i'm not sure what your point is, other than to provide a random fact of the day.

More like he proves that a LOT of miles leads to faster times. The volume of them is more important than the pace. But people will choose to focus on the slow pace to validate their own training, rather than the high volume

He also proves that’s USA marathoning is a joke and a half.

Hardloper wrote:

More like he proves that a LOT of miles leads to faster times. The volume of them is more important than the pace. But people will choose to focus on the slow pace to validate their own training, rather than the high volume

I think this is definitely true. One cannot pull out a single aspect of a runner's trainer without looking at all of it.

It looks like he runs a lot of miles. He mostly doubles (lots of 60 minutes/30 minutes kind of days). He does strides a couple days a week. He does one classic Tinman workout mid-week. And he does one long run a week, which is mostly moderate and only once included miles@MP.

I know most of LR thinks this guy sucks. 2:12. Who cares? Hundreds of people are faster than him. But I'm quite happy for him. He's got a job. He trains hard. And he just won a big race. That's awesome!

And the hobby jogger in me wonders how his training could work for me. Or if it could. Does one need to run 100 miles to get away with (relatively) slower runs? Do long runs need to be different for someone who will be out there racing 45 minutes longer? Is one better off with consistent, doable and simple workouts, or should one plan everything out and follow percentages that funnel you towards race specificity? I don't know.

Since when is 2:12 fast? Only on LRC is Rupp slow while Brogan is fast.

Since when does one data point prove a damn thing?

Hardloper wrote:

More like he proves that a LOT of miles leads to faster times. The volume of them is more important than the pace. But people will choose to focus on the slow pace to validate their own training, rather than the high volume

This isn't quite true. His mileage was mostly 85-100, with plenty lower than that, and one supercompensation week of 120. That's high for a recreational runner, but fairly low for a marathoner. Kipchoge isn't a super high mileage runner and stays in the 110-120 range. Other marathoners go way, way higher.

Mileage is extremely important. But it's not everything.

Hardloper wrote:

More like he proves that a LOT of miles leads to faster times. The volume of them is more important than the pace. But people will choose to focus on the slow pace to validate their own training, rather than the high volume

Nobody at advanced hobbyjogger level ( approx2:30-2:45 marathon for ales) would run 10-minute miles for the majority of their weekly distance. I'd say most won't run such paces at all and a few would go that low on recovery runs but that's it. So what's there to validate?

ShipYard wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

More like he proves that a LOT of miles leads to faster times. The volume of them is more important than the pace. But people will choose to focus on the slow pace to validate their own training, rather than the high volume

This isn't quite true. His mileage was mostly 85-100, with plenty lower than that, and one supercompensation week of 120. That's high for a recreational runner, but fairly low for a marathoner. Kipchoge isn't a super high mileage runner and stays in the 110-120 range. Other marathoners go way, way higher.

Mileage is extremely important. But it's not everything.

Nothing is everything. But the thing that may well matter most is running enough miles. Exactly how many miles that is will vary from runner to runner.