Mistake #1: Running Too Fast On Easy Days

Yep.

I'm writing one at the moment that isn't specifically about my training, but more about the overuse of VO2 Max training.

Love this piece, and can't wait for the Vo2max article. I coach people who have been clamoring for this evidence.

Two suggestions:

1. You recommend appx 1.5 times pace rather than 67% of speed, since very few runners think in terms of mph or km/h.

2. You base easy pace on 30-minute race pace, not 10K pace. Most 18- or 20-minute 5K people will get a nice slow easy pace doing 1.5 times 5K pace, for that matter -- not much different from your elites doing 70% of 10K speed.

(e.g if you run 6:00/mile for 5K, - or by your method, in a 30-minute race - you can run appx 9:00/mile on easy days.)

I appreciate the feedback.

1. I agree, 2/3rds pace is close enough and might be an easier rule of thumb.

2. The only problem with 30-minute race pace is there isn't elite data available for that precise metric (and I wanted the conversion to be data-based - so as to avoid being accused of simply plucking figures out of thin air). 10k race pace was selected because it's a true reflection of an athlete's absolute in-competition capability.

However, I take your point, and I agree that if your 5k personal best is far closer to 27 minutes than 13, it might be better to use that as the basis of the 63-70% conversion. There'd likely still be a big overlap in the range.

I did try to avoid inserting my own opinions when interpreting the data. The conversions are what they are, because that's what elites are doing - and I didn't want to stray from this premise.

Generally, I keep my recovery runs within 70% of HRmax.

If fit, this correspondents roughly to 5k pace x 1.5 = max recov. pace

Yes, it is slow.

Nice article. My easy pace (6:40 to 6:00/k) roughly does fit in this range (if I interpolate my 5k/10k PB it lines up to about 4:10/k for 30 minutes), most days average around 6:20

You should not see an easy run in isolation. It all depends what was before and what comes after. If someone trains only 2 days a week why he/she should run that slow?

Pros need to be in that easy zone because they do much more volume and they basically can't handle more impact. As faster the pace as higher the load on the body.

This paper indicates at which intensities they train

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381295522_Training_session_models_in_endurance_sports_Norwegian_perspective_on_best_practice_recommendations

Using 10k pace as reference is subpar, as someone does it in 60min the other in 30min. Better is to use critical velocity (CV), and a fraction of it (%CV), as i often claim here. For pros 10k pace is about CV, which makes life easier, so the easy zone is about 60-70%CV as an orientation.

I address your first two points fairly explicitly in the piece.

To your second point, I'll give an excerpt:

"Others will argue that ‘of course elites run slower on their easy days, they’re doing such big mileage that they have to.’
But this is a self-defeating argument for two reasons:
· Firstly, if our intention is to improve as much as possible, and others who’ve managed to reach the highest level have done so by slowing down their easy runs (so that they can run more), then shouldn’t we all be following this process? If the argument then follows that ‘rec-runners can’t run more because they’ll get injured’, then surely running faster on easy days will only raise that risk. Running slower (but more) has obviously proven (in the eyes of elites) to not only be the more optimal way of training, but also the more effective way of managing load. And that’s before I point out the obvious inverted argument; ‘rec-runners have to do such low-mileage because they run everything too fast’
· Secondly, training load is relative to the individual. Athletes who regularly run 160-200kms a week have accumulated a much greater capacity for load than athletes running 70kms a week (for example). Given that the vast amount of the additional mileage carried out by high mileage athletes is done in the form of easy running, then each workout is a much smaller portion of their overall load. A hard workout is thus a much greater stress (relatively) for a lower mileage athlete, and therefore, recovery (running slower on easy days) is all the more necessary."

To add to this, elite runners aren't working 40 hours a week on top of running, so they can afford to be less conservative with their easy paces - and yet they aren't.

To your last point, which I've already addressed in this thread, there's no available data on an elite athlete's CV Pace- so you'd essentially just be making assumptions based on other available data. In addition, most amateur runners don't know with full confidence what their CV Pace is, but they know what their 10k best is - because they've tested it in a race environment and achieved a result that was as close to their maximum as possible.

You did not get my first point totally. It makes a difference if you have the training sequence E, R, E or Q, E, Q, E or Q,E,R,E, etc. you get the idea (R=rest day, Q=quality, E=easy)). It matters what happend before and after the easy run!

There is not a single paper showing that training in zone 2 (in a 6 zone model) is better than zone 3, if you analyse it isolated without considering what training happend before and after. It is possible than zone 3 is more efficient.

It is even likely that a lot of slower hobby joggers (=going for a run 2-3 times a week) train intuitive in a correct way, because the push the envelope a little bit more. This is in exactly in contrast what you wrote in your article. Happy weekend.

A few more excerpts from the piece:

"There’s plenty of vague advice, such as to run at a “conversational pace” or stick to “Zone 2”. This is all well and good for a new runner, for whom simply running more will yield rapid improvement. But as we develop, our training zones become more distinct, and improvements become more difficult to eke out. Therefore, we need to be more deliberate and precise with our training intensities."

"Now, there may be certain periods of the year when an athlete isn’t following a strict system of 2-3 hard workouts (plus a long run) a week. Perhaps they’re in a base period with no formalized hard sessions. In this instance, recovery may not be as much of a priority for general runs, and so license is given to push the pace. But this isn’t the structure that most runners adhere to for most of the year. The structure does tend to revolve around 2 or 3 hard workouts a week, and most runners do recognize that when running easy, there is a threshold of intensity, beyond which they’ll further delay their recovery from the previous stress. The problem is - this threshold is at a much lower intensity than most runners estimate."

-----------------------------

The entire point of the piece was to simply shed a light on what elite runners are doing in relation to easy paces, and to demonstrate that they're running much more slowly than what is commonly prescribed. Whether there's a study saying running at a slightly faster pace is better or not is irrelevant - the proof is in the real world results. If running at a slightly faster pace worked better, then we'd see elites doing it - but we don't.

I wasn't trying to convince the "time-crunched" runner - but I'm not convinced that running faster on easy days is more efficient anyway (which I address in the piece). My concern was with the willing and capable runner who's looking for the best possible way to train - which involves running slower on easy days, as is evidenced by elites.

You must be new around here. Just ignore everything lexel says

I think you are providing a great message. Most runners with competitive goals are very tempted to push the pace a bit on easy runs, even when it feels "easy", because it still feels relatively easy, plus it feels better mentally, plus it is still well within their comfort zone, but your research strongly suggests that it probably isn't easy enough to optimize competitive goals. It is simply counter-intuitive that going easier than your mind and body tells you to is actually better with respect to becoming a faster competitor.

Not trying to be antagonistic but you haven't answered my question about the calculation of % paces.

I use the RunningWritings pace percentage calculator which comes up with different paces based on a % than you do.

I'm very open to this being user error or a misunderstanding on my part, but could you share your view?

Very interesting and insightful article, thanks! But sticking to only pace (in min:sec) seems to narrow the approach to athletes who train on routes similar to those where races take place.

E.g., I am training mostly on trails in the forest, varying routes to avoid bore. Speed very much depends on weather and particular paths and differs greatly from road. For example, the same effort (and HR) for 5:00/km on the road results in 5:20-5:30 on the trails I am using. Therefore, I usually monitor HR, not speed.

What is 70% of say 7 min/mile?

it is 7 min/mile times 1.3 =(9.1) I.e. 9:06 min/mile

This is how the %age should be calculated.

Yes I agree, 70% of a 7 minute mile is 9:06/mile using the RunningWritings calculator.

OP said in response to me "If you take the 63-70% figures, your easy pace range would be around 5:55 - 6:35/km."

Using the same calculator, 63 - 70% of my 10k pace (4:10/km) gives me 5:43/km to 5:25/km.

So I am questioning why I get a different easy pace range using the same percentages.

Based on the figures you just posted, the calculator is incorrect.

63% of 4:10 min/km is:

1.37 times 4.1666 = 5.708, which is 5:43 min/ km.

The calculator is correct.

See my post above. 2/3 of a speed is equal to 1.5 X a pace. So 2/3 of 10 mph (a 6:00/mile) is ~6.67 mph (9:00/mile).

So Canova looks at 5:00, converts to 300 seconds, and thus 1% = 3 seconds. Then he either adds 3 seconds per 1% or subtracts 3 seconds per 1% from the pace. So 110% of 5:00 is 5:30. And 90% of 5:00 is 4:30. The way Alfie is doing the calculation is consistent with this.

There are other ways to do it so you need to understand how someone is calculating it when they're giving a recommendation.