FIRST HOW DO I FIN DMY RECOVERY ZONE AND 2ND WHO IS WEJO??????
FIRST HOW DO I FIN DMY RECOVERY ZONE AND 2ND WHO IS WEJO??????
TO wrote:
One thing that I often try to keep in mind, however, is that training at 8 minute pace is very irrelevant to running a 5k at 4:45 pace. Running 6-12 miles at 6:20 pace is pretty relevant to running a 5k at 4:45 pace, though of course, running a 6-8 mile tempo at 5:20 is even more relevant. Obviously the hard workouts that are probably in the pace range of 4:00pace to 5:20 pace are the most important with respect to running a sub 15 5k, but I still maintain that running at 6:20 pace is better for your 5k than 7-8 minute pace, as long as you aren't compromising your hard workouts by doing it.
You have a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of training. You're thinking "pace," when you should be thinking "effort."
And you're failing to ask yourself a question that no runner should start a workout without asking: "What is the purpose of this workout?"
An easy distance run on a non-interval/non-tempo/non-hard day serves two purposes:
1) It does (as cited by other posters) help you to recover. Active (versus passive) recovery pumps blood through areas that need to be rebuilt and helps relieve inflammation left over from your hard workouts.
2) Easy distance both maintains and improves your oxygen transport system (heart, lungs, blood). The fact is, you only need to run at about 65-75% VO2 max to get 100% benefit for this system. If you're running harder - say, 6:20 mile pace - you get NO more benefit. In fact, you get less! Because your 10 mile run takes you 62 minutes, while someone running 7 minute pace gets 70 minutes of work at 100% benefit (and someone running 8 minute pace gets 80 minutes!). Plus, the latter runner gets this extra benefit with less impact on his/her legs. To sum up, the slower runner gets a better workout with less chance of injury.
Your "hard" workouts, on the other hand, will more keenly focus on your oxygen uptake system - the transfer of oxygen and utilization of non-aerobic energy systems at the cellular level. These workouts (and bridge workouts like tempo runs) will help you to develop the "speed" and "race endurance" necessary for running a faster 5K. Add in workouts like hill repeats (for knee lift, stride length, and Type lla fast twitch development) and technique drills (for turnover and stride length), and you should have all the tools you need to embark on your race season.
And here's something to keep in mind: these "hard" workouts need to be done at around 85% VO2 max to give you a 100% benefit - meaning that you're fooling yourself if you think your 6:20 mile pace on EZ days is actually improving your 5K race pace! Remember, your body can only recover from 2-3 "hard" workouts per week. Why would you waste that recovery on a sub-par workout?!
Rule: It's not how much work you can do; it's how much work your body can recover from.
Finally, remember that any time you run 100% it's a race. And no one has unlimited "races" in them for any given season. Parcel them out wisely ... That is, save them for actual races! Used wisely, races are the "workouts" that ultimately clear the path for the faster times you want. If you use them up in workouts, expect to have a short season and a string of useless workout PRs.
Good luck!
I'm having fun with this thread. No time to weigh in with my usual profundities--maybe later--but I'm enjoying reading this.
You're all gey. Cept the last guy.
SoCal Pete wrote:You have a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of training. You're thinking "pace," when you should be thinking "effort."Exactly. "Pace" is all over the charts for a given individual depending on weather, terrain, relative health, etc.
LUCY DO wrote:
FIRST HOW DO I FIN DMY RECOVERY ZONE
It's hiding under your caps lock key.
Useful discussion, especially points raised by prevail and SoCal Pete.
Question: Accepting the notion that recovery runs should be performed at very easy effort, what do you think about duration of recovery runs? Benson and Ray in Run With the Best state that anything much longer than 45 minutes begins to stress the body in a manner inconsistent with the goal of recovery. Personal experience tends to confirm this for me.
On the other hand, allowing for a gradual warmup (say 15-20 minutes), running for much less than 45 minutes seems to have rather low yield in terms of any beneficial training effect.
Thoughts?
Running on Empty wrote:
Useful discussion, especially points raised by prevail and SoCal Pete.
Question: Accepting the notion that recovery runs should be performed at very easy effort, what do you think about duration of recovery runs? Benson and Ray in Run With the Best state that anything much longer than 45 minutes begins to stress the body in a manner inconsistent with the goal of recovery. Personal experience tends to confirm this for me.
On the other hand, allowing for a gradual warmup (say 15-20 minutes), running for much less than 45 minutes seems to have rather low yield in terms of any beneficial training effect.
Thoughts?
Agreed. 5 miles seems to work best for me on pure recovery runs. Anymore seems stressful and any less feels less than optimal. Five miles very easy is usually 39-41 minutes. Sometimes if I feel better than expected I'll run an extra mile or so, but never less than 5.
'Not to mention, by running your easy runs at a fast pace, you are permanently destroying any potential for sprint speed'
not doubting what you said here at all, just would like an explanation as to how running slower can improve/not harm sprint speed? i would've thought running faster would help it?
thanks
5k runner wrote:
'Not to mention, by running your easy runs at a fast pace, you are permanently destroying any potential for sprint speed'
not doubting what you said here at all, just would like an explanation as to how running slower can improve/not harm sprint speed? i would've thought running faster would help it?
thanks
Congrats you just bumped a 5 year old thread.
There's no such thing as a run that makes you recovery better.
I had the same reaction; I have no idea why this would be true.
Hello ... the 80's called and they want their training plan back.
TO wrote:
One thing that I often try to keep in mind, however, is that training at 8 minute pace is very irrelevant to running a 5k at 4:45 pace. Running 6-12 miles at 6:20 pace is pretty relevant to running a 5k at 4:45 pace, though of course, running a 6-8 mile tempo at 5:20 is even more relevant. Obviously the hard workouts that are probably in the pace range of 4:00pace to 5:20 pace are the most important with respect to running a sub 15 5k, but I still maintain that running at 6:20 pace is better for your 5k than 7-8 minute pace, as long as you aren't compromising your hard workouts by doing it.
For instance, a question to the people of this thread, what about base training? Do you still advocate 7-8 minute pace and just lots of it? I've known several people to run 100-125 miles per week at around 7:30 pace, but the best runners I've run with have been doing somewhere between 50-90 miles per week mostly between 6:10 and 6:30 pace, though some of them did start running very slow when workouts started getting very hard.
Still not sold on either idea over the other... We have Farah joining the group (going from 7:00 to ~5:40) and going from European Champ to Double Gold Medalist and obviously what Rupp has done, not to mention the Hansons and Solinsky, and then we have the Wejo-led slow mileage proponents.
My conclusion is that it's different for everyone, and you need to find what works best for you...
Pre is my favorite wrote:
Still not sold on either idea over the other... We have Farah joining the group (going from 7:00 to ~5:40) and going from European Champ to Double Gold Medalist and obviously what Rupp has done, not to mention the Hansons and Solinsky, and then we have the Wejo-led slow mileage proponents.
My conclusion is that it's different for everyone, and you need to find what works best for you...
Wait, wait. You're saying you have the world beaters on one side, and Wejo on the other?!!?
HAHAHA. Really? How is that wejo even worth of consideration in this comparison?
NEXT!
It's not just Wejo, stupid. It's like this entire thread.
h2o2 wrote:
Wait, wait. You're saying you have the world beaters on one side, and Wejo on the other?!!?
HAHAHA. Really? How is that wejo even worth of consideration in this comparison?
NEXT!
HAHAHA, There are plenty of world beaters who run slow too. NEXT!