WIsconsin doesnt do this at all...They use what are called "badger miles" 7:00 min pace for easy runs, and those are all the miles they count....say they run for 49 min, its 7 miles
WIsconsin doesnt do this at all...They use what are called "badger miles" 7:00 min pace for easy runs, and those are all the miles they count....say they run for 49 min, its 7 miles
Jersey Shore\'s Finest wrote:
why not do a shorter AT run a bit quicker? i know the 8 miles tempos at 5:20 are worthwhile, but i disagree that 8 miles should be the only one you do. i think 3-5 miles at a slightly faster pace can be even more effective in developing focus as well as threshold. let's be honest, a true AT run is supposed to get an athlete as close to a threshold as possible without going over the edge. so a bit shorter, but closer to the true threshold would seem to be beneficial.
No I agree. There are two thresholds, one at each end. AT and LT. I think LT is more beneficial during the season for sure, definitely.
Didn't they stop doing that?
The Inside Outsider wrote:
WIsconsin doesnt do this at all...They use what are called "badger miles" 7:00 min pace for easy runs, and those are all the miles they count....say they run for 49 min, its 7 miles
Yeah you're right. And your point............?
Right on. A slower recovery pace (6:45 for a good college guy) gives you nearly all the same benfits as a faster recovery pace (6:00), but you can get in more miles and better develop the aerobic system in the long term. My own experience is that you also greatly reduce injury risk at a slower pace, even with the additional mileage. Long term aerobic development has been a second thought in our college system. Perhaps that has something to do with our lack of success on the world stage.
For someone that can run these kinds of times:
1500m ~ 3:40
3000m ~ 7:50-8:05
5000m ~ 13:30-:55
10000m ~ 27:50-28:40
6-minute mile pace is probably not that fast, relative to how fast their times on here. Most of the people on this message board are 14:30-15:30 guys and we all run at 6:20-7 minute pace, so for someone running roughly 30+ seconds faster in the 5k on their easy days is not that big of a jump. I agree that some people may train too hard, but in terms of pace, it's all relative and if their bodies can handle 85-100+ mpw at this pace and continue to drop their times then they should do it. Then again maybe they would run faster had they slowed down on their easy days. Who knows, but like a previous poster stated, what do you think Geb, Bekele, and El G type athletes are running on thier easy days...8:00/M? I doubt it.
Some people report that East Africans DO run that slowly on recovery days. One story had Geb running barely 4 miles in 31 minutes on a group run.
I think I also remember reading that Jason Mayeroff does his at 8:00 or so, but I could be wrong, so I'd like him to confirm it either way.
Aren't we talking about training two very different athletes. If I remember from the Hadd thread, he was coaching a middle aged runner for his last shot at a marathon. That's pretty different from training 20 year olds for 8-10K.
The Hadd seems to structured for marathon training and AVOIDING injuries commonly incurred by 30+ year olds. I'm not saying that 35 year olds can't do the intense work of 20 year olds, it's just that the Hadd seems to take into account the wear and tear the older runner has already put his body through and makes allowance for that.
I ran in college and did pretty well (1:49/3:45) but we ran in a group on easy days and we all got too competitive and ran way too fast. Once I left college I began training on my own and my results got much better. I never run with people on my easy days and I've run 3:57 for the mile. I say slower recovery is a huge part of that. Just my opinion, but if I were a coach I'd seperate my distance guys on recovery days.
Idioteque wrote:
Most of the people on this message board are 14:30-15:30 guys
Surely you jest.
I'm tired of this argument. There is no one miracle way to train. You can be successful running six minute miles when you can only run 15:20 for 5k, and you can be successful running 8 mile miles when you can run 13:20 for 5k. Just know what you're doing, and why you're doing it. You can probaby find a hundred guys who were succesful using the LSD method, and you can probably find a hundred guys who were succesful running like maniacs everyday.
Stop looking for a miracle. Running is running - read about it, learn about it, study it, whatever, but you only really learn by doing it.
As a former runner for a university focused mainly on the 800, we hardly ever ran slower than 6 min. pace. However, with this high intensity training, our mileage was pretty low compared to many other big D1 programs. Practices were hardly ever comfortable and tempo training (much faster than 6 min. pace) was a very major portion of our schedule. This approach seems to have worked for many of my teammates, including recently a quite successful longer distance runner. The drawback, though, was a pretty high rate of attrition. Athletes were often injured, seemingly more so than at other schools. I think there are different ways to train and recieve good results, but some produce quicker than others. With higher intensity, the results seem to happen fairly quickly, but with lower intensity and longer running focused on building a stronger aerobic base, the results appear to take a longer time.
Hadd was talking about building a proper base and his thread was entitled "One Approach To Distance Running". This implies that he felt there was more than one approach.
When I compared college runners to BK, I said 10-20 seconds slower per mile, not per 5K. So you would have college runners running at 4:20-4:30 pace, where Bob did 4:10 pace, and for these, I don't think recovery in roughly 6:00 is particularly onerous (and if somebody here knows better than McDonnell, he needs to go out and prove it). There seems to have been a trend at the international level in recent years to push recovery runs to be probably as hard as possible--thus increasing the aerobic stimulus--and still allow recovery. This was certainly true in Kim's group, and I suspect that at least some college coaches have picked up on this (but I think high school is too early for this kind of thing).
Regarding 4:50 recovery runs, Abdelkader Kada, El Guerrouj's coach, has referred to running paces slower than 3:00/km as "jogging," and when John Mayock trained in Morocco with El_G a couple of years ago, he reported that El Guerrouj ran 10 miles in 50 minutes or less, at altitude, five days in a row. Joaquim Cruz ran 10 miles in 5:20 pace during base training. Coe has been reported to run portions of his distance runs at 4:30 pace. David Krummenacker has referred to Ethiopians who have joined his training group as flying on distance runs. So, yes, there are people who can recover at this kind of pace. For me personally, an 800 runner following Charlie Francis (but with 10.5 speed), a recovery run is 3000m in roughly 9:00 or 20X200 in 30-32 with 2:00 rest (extensive tempo)[for somebody with 21 sec 200 speed, the 20X200 is 70% speed or less, but, obviously, for someone with 12.5 100m speed instead of 10.5 speed, this is a workout, rather than recovery, and the slower person would not likely recover off this].
In regards to the base training of Augustine Choge and Isaac Songok.
"
Easy: On the basis of the runs I did with them — only when their schedule said "easy," that is — they really go really easy. These runs felt easy to me, in 17:45 5K shape at the time of my visit, even before I had acclimatized to the 8,000 feet of altitude, so imagine how easy they are for these guys.
"
See this article on mensracing. Its a good read.
http://www.mensracing.com/athletes/features/2005/kenyanrunningsidebar.htm
brettman10k wrote:
4:50 pace for recovery? I'm willing to bet, and yeah I'm going out on a limb, but there is no one on this planet that can run 72 second quarters and recover.
Sydney Maree would actually do all of his continuous runs at 4:30 to 4:40 pace. yikes! they said, that none of his teamates at Nova would run with him in the morning because he would not let up for anyone. i think that Sydney believed that slow running produced no benenfits, so he opted to go on at mid-4 pace. also, he never ran any longer than 12 miles at a time. go figure. i really cannot see how anyone could ever handle doing all distance runs this fast, while doing at least two quality workouts a week. it didn't seem to hurt Sydney though.
Speed Kills,
I know what you are saying. But I think you are mixing the two things such as "handling" and "recovering." If 4:40 runs are truly recovery, then why don't these athletes run this fast the day before tough workouts or the day before races?
Maree's training is a bit exaggerated. He claims he still runs 10 miles a day at 5 minute pace, 7 days a week, in South Africa.
Miles are shorter in the southern hemisphere.
Maree was a great runner. These claims about his daily runs are somewhat exagerated, but not as far off of the truth as many think. I don't know if I'd be confident saying that it didn't hurt him at all though. He did some of his best racing after having to take a couple of days without running while detained in immigration.
Or so I've heard.