I don't understand the concept of slow base training and I think LSD is waste of time. Prove me wrong!

9 min a mile is way too slow for you guys to really benefit from unless you are pushing out 120 mile weeks and have other days with higher intensity. neither of which I get the impression are true

im at a similar 5k level and on my easy easy days ill do 7:50-8:10 pace but thats usually day after a hard workout. During base phase for this ability ill more often be in the 7:20-7:45 range of pacing

6:30 pace is a bit fast imo but can be handled if done for 1 run a week and you accept that you are going to also have a slower run with it

Look into the work of Stephen Seiler and also the training of elite level cyclists. They are doing up to 90% of their training below the first lactate turn point, LT1. This is an extremely low level of intensity and for some can be as low as 55% of your vo2 max.

I would recommend you listen to this interview for an overview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MalYy-fDg

Now, this does not mean only doing slow intensity. You should have some upper end stuff in the mix and could change that intensity level year round, i.e. blocks around what we deem threshold intensity and blocks around vo2 max intensity.

The biggest finding Seiler shows is that the stress response from the moderate level intensity that everyone here is espousing is too much for too little gain. This is not opinion, his lab has shown a polarized approach to training to be superior.

This is essentially running at or below aerobic threshold. Surely no one is running their easy runs harder than this? This could be 85% of hr max for some. I suppose the debate is about how much below AeT easy runs should be. Daniels defines easy running as 65% to 79% of hr max, so well below AeT for most.

Jeezusss that was torture. No they don't spend 90% at low intensity, that is ridiculous.

And when he started blathering about "lactic acid" AAAAAAAAAHHGGG Shuddduuuupppp.

Alfie wrote:

This is essentially running at or below aerobic threshold. Surely no one is running their easy runs harder than this? This could be 85% of hr max for some. I suppose the debate is about how much below AeT easy runs should be. Daniels defines easy running as 65% to 79% of hr max, so well below AeT for most.

Easy running is recovery from very hard days.

Endurance base training is mostly the next level.

You can build up to training hard most days. This concept has been around since the 1950s and is still true and relevant.

Aerobic Threshold is a very vague term. It is not actually a threshold of anything.

Lactate threshold is essentially the same as ventilatory threshold, the intensity where you are no longer burning fat.

fizzyologism wrote:

Canefis wrote:

Lsd volume is for your heart, or more correct is for your stroke volume, or more correct is for your left ventricle. 60h+-10h is equal +1ml to your heart stroke volume. Simple and brutal for the same time, run more, dude ?

Not really. Stroke volume and cardiac output are just two more issues that people talk BS about. Along with capillarisation and mitochondria and VO2 max development.

Endless BS that people just repeat without actually thinking about what they are saying.

Could you then explain what the aerobic training benefits are and what exactly changes in the physiology as a result? And why faster is better?

need more information wrote:

fizzyologism wrote:

Not really. Stroke volume and cardiac output are just two more issues that people talk BS about. Along with capillarisation and mitochondria and VO2 max development.

Endless BS that people just repeat without actually thinking about what they are saying.

Could you then explain what the aerobic training benefits are and what exactly changes in the physiology as a result? And why faster is better?

You are trying to extend endurance. I did catch the part where Stephen Seiler said this in the podcast. But podcasts generally are utter tedium where the presenter loves the sound of his own voice like that one^

If you can skip to the parts where Seiler is talking, that would be much better.

Essentially, slow running helps you recover from fatigue whilst maintaining a balance of stress. But this is more relevant to the hard/easy concept closer to or during the racing phase.

The Endurance base involves building gradually (extension) with more medium paced running and a small amount of intensity to help maintain an elastic stride.

You are aiming to extend the amount of time you can run at a decent pace. You really can build up to a huge workload this way and recover very quickly most days.

Your statements are incorrect. Is this facebook?

"You can build up to training hard most days"

In between bouts of injury?

fizzyologism wrote:

Jeezusss that was torture. No they don't spend 90% at low intensity, that is ridiculous.

And when he started blathering about "lactic acid" AAAAAAAAAHHGGG Shuddduuuupppp.

Most elite XC skiiers and some Japanese runners spend about 90% of their volume at a stupid easy intensity. Like it's not uncommon to see elite XC skiiers jogging slow AF in the off season.

Exactly. Seiler talks about his light bulb moment when he changed his research focus seeing xc skiers and top level runners in Norway WALKING whenever they came up to a hill to control their intensity.

While it might intuitively seem like lots of running at a moderate clip might be more beneficial than slower super relaxed running, what is it actually accomplishing physiologically compared to just extending training at a super low level intensity WITHOUT incurring too much stress.

This way you can include some high intensity year round and not need a base phase focus because you are adequately recovering between your high intensity bouts.

Someone can correct me on this, but Seiler's research suggests something similar to the old (i.e. Amby Burfoot, Bob Deines, Ed Winrow) LSD training philosophy documented by Joe Henderson -- lots of very easy running with maybe one hard workout or race a week.

Also, I am surprised this thread has made it to page 3 without a mention of Maffetone.

Wrongologism wrote:

Your statements are incorrect. Is this facebook?

Do you want to know how elites train or Joe Average?

Alfie wrote:

"You can build up to training hard most days"

In between bouts of injury?

I never got injured in over 50,000 miles of running and racing.

You build up the training, so you don't break down.

This stuff has been around for decades.

puddin' wrote:

PROOF:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Snell

Not only this but also current elites run slower than you do more often than you think. This is because they know how to train. Get over yourself. Everyone on here saying running slower feels awkward and it should for you since you never do it! Guys at NAU are running a lot of miles 8+. Desisa is running huge mileage and does at least 6 runs a week far slower than 8 minute pace. His best marathon came at 4:45 pace and he is running half the speed in training. Does he make excuses and say it feels awkward no. Everyone on here complains and makes excuses saying they can't possibly run more and they never connect the dots as to why. Admit it, you just feel better about yourself when Strava lets everyone know that you don't do 8s and 9s.

Well said, SDC. I was proud of my son when he said that it doesn't bother him that all of his teammates are running 2 minutes/mile faster than him most days on, per Strava. "I run faster on race day."

And he does.

Aerobic running builds strength for the faster running that is the most important for the specific event. Without sufficient aerobic support from lots of mileage, you won’t be able to run as fast in races. That much is simple.

In order to reach max performance, you need to find the right ratio of volume and intensity. It’s like a bell curve, too little of one or the other and you under preform, but too much and the same thing happens.

We know that aerobic slow training is much easier on the body than intense sprinting, or similarly intense paces...say vvO2 or down. This is why volume usually decreases as intensity increases.

Considering that the events 800 and up are primarily aerobic events, it’s logical that we must primarily training the aerobic energy systems in our body to get closer to the maximization of performance I mentioned earlier. Generally for events 10k-marathon HIGHER mileage is better, but not for everyone. You can only train as much as you can recover.

This brings me to my second point. New runners will benefit from runs of virtually any reasonable pace because their aerobic system is underdeveloped, same with those who are coming back from injury. When speaking of the aerobic benefits, it’s rarely about intensity but of duration. So running 6 miles at 8 minutes pace gives more benefits than running at 7 minutes pace, if the two or both completely aerobic, because the purpose is the exact same. This continues for the first handful of years of a runners career.

When you’ve accumulated enough “lifetime miles” as some say, the focus shifts away from mileage and duration and into specific workouts. In this time, the pace of all running-sessions and daily runs-increase.

Skipping this progression may lead to short term success (as you mentioned you are a newer runner) but will eventually lead to overtraining. Injuries, iron deficiency, general fatigue, etc.

What are your goals? 800m? 1500m? 5k? 10K? half-marathon?

You mention 16-17 minutes for a 5K is your current level.

Are you trying to break 15 minutes? That is a worthwhile goal, especially at 35+ years of age.

My HS coach trained under Dellinger (and Bowerman) with the Oregon CC team during his graduate studies. I think the year was 1967. We did the Lydiard training in HS. I read "No Bugles, No Drums" in HS, which is Peter Snell's book. In college, I read Percy Cerutty's book, which I thought made it easy to understand why Herb Eliott quit at 22 years of age, although I don't think that was the goal of the biography. I also read Murry Halberg's book.

The leading distance athletes were people like Emil Zatopek in the 50s and Ron Clarke in the 60s. Lydiard becomes dominant, but Snell was an unusual runner who responded to the over distance with a minimum of injury. In 64, he was injured and had broken from Lydiard, so that Lydiard predicted John Davies would win the 1500m at the Tokyo Olympics. Snell won. Snell did a long 22 mile run once a week on a trail, just as he had when Lydiard was coaching him. I don't think there was much pavement on this trail, but Snell's focus after the break from Lydiard was more speed, less distance base.

Lydiard is based on the two racing seasons that NZ and Australia can enjoy. They have a mini-peak in late DEC, then during JAN - MAR they can race overseas and above the equator indoors (if good enough), or at home if not good enough. Afterward is another base period, then the racing season above the equator.

Lydiard thought that long, slow distance built up capacity for intervals later in the season. It involves systematic increases in tempo, while reducing the week's mileage.

For tempo runs in HS, we would often do "Lydiard" fartlek, which was long builds to a fast pace, sustained, then slowing down, which we would do several times in a 6-8 mile run. "Homer" fartlek was a good pace (6:30 - 7 min per mile) with stopping and doing several short sprints, then repeating.

When peaking, it is all about racing and intervals, which can only be sustained for a few weeks, and Halberg discusses this problem when racing Herb Eliott in Europe. Halberg said that one day the runners did a hard 15 miles (about 5 min pace) during this time over in Europe, and this seemed to reset the base and they could continue very fast intervals and racing a bit longer. This run included Herb Eliott

Lydiard is not about continued slow runs, and I don't see the point of 9-10 minute pace, except for the reason mentioned in another post, which is that is serves for general fitness for the members of your running club.

Gerry Lindgren did crazy mileage, and if he had backed off some, maybe he wouldn't have injured his ankle and would have won the 64 Olympic 10K.

Jim Ryun trained hard.

Other high schoolers were doing crazy mileage.

Kenyan distance runners (then others) came from a background of crazy mileage, but

Kenya eventually was rife with runners on PEDs--still is, but that does not exempt the other African countries who mysteriously produce such phenoms, nor China's women runners many years ago who were both forced onto drugs and forced into extreme training. The Soviet bloc countries had PEDs are part of the athletes training tables.

So...why are you running 13 miles. In high school, our Sunday run was 1 hour at about 6:40 pace; so about 9 miles. In college, we capped our long runs at 10 miles, and this is standard. It is true that I did them all under 6 minutes per mile in college, but that is also standard.

Years later, I made the mistake of doing 100 mile weeks. I lasted 6-7 months, all under 6 minutes. Then an injury from all the mileage, which I could have run through, but I was wise enough to stop and never exceed 50 miles per week again. Once the body breaks down from the mileage, it never really heals and will break down again.

I was not a good distance runner (middle distance when younger), but in my late 20s I did run under 14:50 for 5K and 30:12 for 10K, 51:28 for 10 miles and on a training run I did 5:10 pace for 12 miles before slowing down the last 3 miles for 5:15 average for 15 miles. Yet even I think 13 miles at 6:30 pace is excessive, especially once a week, unless you have some long race in mind.

Tetherball wrote:

You ought to read the Hadd thread as it explains very clearly how slower running can increase mitochondria more effectively than faster running in base phase.

But HADD was wrong.

Don't mean to rip on the guy. He was by all accounts a very good coach (in spite of some misconceptions about the science of training) and a class act.