Now I see why you can't get away with not doing speedwork

One possibility here is that your experiment is bearing out the value of the POV of what is traditionally taught and that your experiment here is just not working out too well. Maybe you need the sort of range that rekrunner is describing.

It's also possible that your 7:00 pace is less moderate than you think it is and you're working too hard too frequently and wearing yourself down. It's possible, though not definite, that you might find 7:30, 7:45 more "moderate" leaving you fresher and faster when you go harder. Over time, that pace would get faster without greater effort but now maybe 90 a week at 7:00 is harder than you know.

On the completely other hand, in my best years I trained a lot like you're describing here though with a good many more miles and eventually at much faster paces. But I did steady runs at moderate efforts and not much more. And like you're experiencing, I found that I didn't have much pace range. I could run for ages in the 5:40-6:10 pace range but 5:20 miles were really hard work for me. So maybe, if you're going to try to avoid workouts and recovery runs and just do steady, moderate efforts, you'll need those efforts to get faster in order to run comfortably at 5:30-6:00. It can be done but it takes years, not weeks.

You also haven't said what sorts of performances you've done. Five twenty pace for a half marathon isn't going to scare a Kenyan, but not a lot of people can manage it. Maybe you're just expecting too much of yourself.

Whatever is going on, I would bet heavily that "speed" is not your problem. You're talking about struggling at 6:00-6:15 pace, i.e., 90-94 seconds for a 440, 45-47 for a 220. Unless you're pretty old or crippled or some such thing, you have enough speed to sustain that sort of pace.

[quote]HRE wrote:

On the completely other hand, in my best years I trained a lot like you're describing here though with a good many more miles and eventually at much faster paces. But I did steady runs at moderate efforts and not much more. And like you're experiencing, I found that I didn't have much pace range. I could run for ages in the 5:40-6:10 pace range but 5:20 miles were really hard work for me. ]

So why would anyone choose this route if it's going to limit your ability to sustain faster paces? Unless it can be done by incorprorating strides (as another poster mentioned earlier) and lowering LT over time I can't see why you or anyone would advocate this method.

I went from someone who could run 16's for 5K to struggling to break 17:30...I go out at 5:20 pace and I'm toast...it's not a lack of speed as you say but a lack of speed endurance which I now believe you can only gain by breaking up the training into intervals.

So you're running 90 mpw at 7:00 pace and you're having trouble breaking 17:30? Recently I've run 40 mpw with five days easy at 7:45-8:15 pace and two workouts (one steady state run and one long repeat session (10min on / 10 min off for 70 min)). I do not consider myself to have much talent at all and I can go under 17:30 on just that. Not sure what is up, but it sounds like you might need SOME variability in paces (perhaps even beyond sprinkling in a few strides)- maybe you're just getting stale with all the moderate pace stuff? I don't mean to sound condescending but I'd be pissed if I was comfortably doing 90 mpw all at 7:00 pace and not able to go under 17:30. Your experiment is very interesting to say the least. Maybe HRE is right - it might take years for all those paces to come down if your doing moderate running all the time. Many paths to Rome...

you don't need to worry about speedwork. it's easy. since you are running 90 mile weeks, i'm assuming you're anything from 10k-marathon. just get on a track and do something as easy as 6x400 @ mile pace and there you have it! speed!

Its in your head. If you can run 90 miles at 7 minute pace, you should easily be able to do 5-6 mile repeats at 5 minute pace.

I don't know what "traditionally taught" means. I guess that varies depending on your tradition.What I'm saying:- Either you are a slow runner (e.g. 37:00 10K), then 90 miles "mostly" at 7:00 minute pace leaves you too tired to attempt sub-6:00 pace.- Or you are a faster runner (e.g. 34:00 10K), then 6:00-6:15 pace doesn't stimulate you enough to comfortably produce sub-6:00 pace.Let's say, hypothetically, that your 90 mile weekly experiment was like this:- 60 miles of 7:00 pace- 30 miles of 6:00-6:15 paceWhat I'm saying: If you ran 30 of those miles at 7:30 pace, and/or 15 of those miles at 5:45 pace (depends on your ability), you would perform better after this purely aerobic experiment.All I'm suggesting is that your conclusion about the lack of speedwork being the cause of poor performance is premature. Your performance was poor, because even in this pure aerobic phase, you simply did not include enough variety of paces. A pure aerobic phase, without speed work, can and should include recovery, easy, steady, and tempo paces. This might span 5:45 to 8:00 pace, over the course of 90 miles per week. Constraining it to 6:00 - 7:00 pace simply leaves you able to run about 6:00 - 7:00 pace (if you are lucky enough that these paces aren't too fast).

abort plan wrote:

You're responding from the POV of what is traditionally taught. But the premise of my experiment was to run at a moderate pace for most of the mileage and see how fast I could get off that type of training (eliminating workouts and the hard/easy mantra).

The result was a not being able to sustain sub-6 minute pace, whereas I can run around 6:30-7:00 quite easily. It's like you say, how could I expect anyhting else? When I start running 5:30-6:00 pace, my body has no idea how to handle that kind of stress.

But many people here are saying that it's possible to just work on LT and do striders and get the job done that way.

Now these are important questions. Why would someone chose that route?If you only run outdoor track and cross-country, there is simply no negative consequence to neglecting speedwork in winter and summer. You run slower in February and in August, but so what?"Aerobic only" training can be important, but will not bring you to a peak.Interval training is a powerful tool that can restore your speed in just a few weeks. But if you overdo it, you end your season prematurely.And of course, everything is colored by your ability and preferences. If you are an endurance type runner, then you respond better with less "speedwork". (If I'm not mistaken, HRE is more like this. Speedwork makes him do worse). But if you are a speedy middle distance runner trying to extend your range, then you cannot stray too far, or for too long, from interval training.

abort plan wrote:

So why would anyone choose this route if it's going to limit your ability to sustain faster paces? Unless it can be done by incorprorating strides (as another poster mentioned earlier) and lowering LT over time I can't see why you or anyone would advocate this method.

I went from someone who could run 16's for 5K to struggling to break 17:30...I go out at 5:20 pace and I'm toast...it's not a lack of speed as you say but a lack of speed endurance which I now believe you can only gain by breaking up the training into intervals.

I think it's such a misnomer that we should do all our running at one priority pace and then add something else to the program later. Good runners work all systems at all times in varying ratios dependent on what time of year. It's okay to prioritize slower aerobic running during base phase, but it is crazy to let any vital system go - whether that be glycolytic, anaerobic threshold, VO2 max, or easy aerobic.

Think of it like this. If you had a good friend move away in grade school and then didn't talk to him for four months, the ensuing conversation would be awkward. If you maintained some regular contact, the conversation will be much more fluid and clear. Such it is with the body's systems.

Brad Hudson calls this approach non-linear periodization, and I've heard Schumacher speak about it as a tenant of their training as well. You can never let a system go dormant and expect it all to work. All the parts need attention always.

Mix in some short hill sprints for the glycolytic (30-40 meter explosive with 3-4 minutes jog rest), do some progressing tempo on the back of long runs that brings you home at or faster than half marathon pace, and for god's sake add in some VO2 style intervals ever 2-3 weeks. Even if the point is maintenance of these systems, you'll find it much easier to hone them during the competition phase if the conversation doesn't become a long-distance relationship.

Why did I train that way? Because it worked better for me than anything else and the marathon was really my focus. I get slower with interval work and while I never felt great in short races, I did manage to hold something around 5:00 pace for short distances.

But yes, if you ran better with intervals than with what you're doing now why would you not do intervals?

I'm not disagreeing with what anyone is saying here. Working all the different energy systems worked very well for me in the past until reaching a point of diminishing returns. That's when I got curious and started tinkering but the current approach has failed misearbly.

What I still don't understand is how you, HRE, can abide by this philosophy and run as you say close to 5:00 pace for some of your races in the past. When would you practice 5:00 pace in your training? Am I missing something here?

I never "practiced" 5:00 pace at all. On very rare occasions, I'd run with some fast people and we'd really get to hammering each other. I know some of those runs got down to 5:00 and occasionally faster. But that was rare and it took my eyeballs a few hours to get back into their sockets after those runs. If I felt good on a run I'd get going pretty quickly, especially in the second half or maybe last quarter of the run of the run, but I rarely knew how fast I was going.

I think the guy I patterned most of my training after was Ron Clarke who pretty much just went for a run each day at what felt like a respectable effort. Over time, your "respectable" efforts will get faster which will allow you to race faster. If you're routinely doing 10-15 mile runs at 6:00 pace and handling that fairly comfortably dropping down to 4:50-5:20 for 2 to 6 miles isn't impossible.

HRE wrote:

If you're routinely doing 10-15 mile runs at 6:00 pace and handling that fairly comfortably dropping down to 4:50-5:20 for 2 to 6 miles isn't impossible.

OK, but this ^^^^ is where I see a disconnect. There's a leap in logic here or perhaps a gap in my scientific understanding of human performance.

I don't care how long you can run 6:00 pace for. There's a HUGE difference between 6:00 pace and 4:50 pace.

Could it be that you just had naturally good foot speed and "undertrained" for your potential?

abort plan wrote:

HRE wrote:

If you're routinely doing 10-15 mile runs at 6:00 pace and handling that fairly comfortably dropping down to 4:50-5:20 for 2 to 6 miles isn't impossible.

OK, but this ^^^^ is where I see a disconnect. There's a leap in logic here or perhaps a gap in my scientific understanding of human performance.

I don't care how long you can run 6:00 pace for. There's a HUGE difference between 6:00 pace and 4:50 pace.

Could it be that you just had naturally good foot speed and "undertrained" for your potential?

Read part 3 of this old thread by HADD:

It might help dislodge the disconnect you are seeing. I'd say the contrary - it appears that HADD was training right at his potential. If 6 min pace for 10-15 is comfortable then 5:30-5:45 would seem reasonable for HM pace and 5:15 would be reasonable for a 10k and 5:00 for 5k - exactly what he's suggesting. If you are really maxing out your aerobic capacity (which few people do - including myself) you should be able to add 15 seconds per mile to your mile pace to get your 5k pace. Add another 15 seconds per mile to the 5k pace to get the 10k pace. Add another 15 seconds per mile to that to get the HM pace and finally add another 15 s/mile to get the marathon pace. Example:

Mile: 5:00 pace

5k: 5:15 pace

10k: 5:30 pace

HM: 5:45 pace

M: 6:00 pace.

Most people deviate to slower paces than linear as the distance increases and HADD argues that this is simply a function of not developing your aerobic ability to its highest extent, i.e., your lactate threshold sucks. As an example, here is my progression:

Mile: 5:19

5k: 5:37

10k: 5:49

HM: 6:02

M: 7:01

It's reasonably linear up to HM and then the M pace is way off of that. I've only run 1 marathon so I hope to improve that. But based on what HADD believed, if I really got myself into the best aerobic shape I should be able to hold about 6:20-6:25 pace in the marathon. Problem is that the marathon has a whole host of other factors affecting performance beyond just aerobic capacity.

whoops,

"I'd say the contrary - it appears that HADD was training right at his potential."

That should read HRE not HADD.

All distance running above 1mi is much more dependent on your Aerobic / Anaerobic threshold than is is on speed. If you lower your threshold by running a lot of miles near that threshold, you will become a faster distance runner at all distances above 1mi.

Example: Aerobic Threshold is 6:00/mi, spend 3 months running distance where 2-3 times per week you run 5-10 miles in the low 6min range. Your threshold will drop a bit, lets say to 5:50/mi. This will improve your racing across all distances, but to reach a peak especially below 10k, you will need to do VO2Max and speed work for 8-12 weeks.

But remember, you can't run by the watch or GPS all the time. You have to run by feel. Some days you need to run easy to recover. That might be 8min miles, might be faster. Some of the harder days, you may struggle at 6:30 pace, other days flow at 6:10. This is the nature of the human body. Learn to listen to it. Do strides to keep in touch with your raw speed. Intervals are overrated, because the Aerobic system determines distance running success.

OK, it's making more sense now. To use an analogy, then, training is more like a process of "falling." Greater economy at current threshold pace will allow you to fall into a naturally faster pace at the same effort over time.

So how do I determine my threshold pace exactly?

For many LT will be HM pace or slightly faster (HM pace - 5s). Others claim 1 hour race pace to be LT. Maybe split the difference?

Depends on how long you are running for. For 20 minutes, your threshold pace will be a lot faster than if you were doing 10 miles. Basically, the idea is to be running "comfortably hard". For when I am in 16:20 shape, for example, I can run 5:50 pace for 20 minutes pretty comfortably, just like I can run 6:10 pace for 45 minutes with the same effort. If I were to do a 6 x mile workout with about a minute rest, I might be able to run 5:50 for all the miles without killing myself and staying comfortable. I could even go for a 13 miler and run the last 6 miles around 6:40 pace and get a similar benefit.

It's all about feel. I do like the longer thresholds though, usually 30 minutes plus. I also like the progression runs finishing faster.

You and I are/were pretty much is a similar boat. You're training at 7:00 pace and when you get to 45 seconds to a minute faster you really start to work. I was at 6:00 pace and also started really needing to work when I got to 45-60 seconds faster than that. I imagine that if I'd gotten the training pace down more I'd have gotten a progressively smaller gap between my pace and the point where I started really working would narrow, e.g, I doubt that I'd have run 13:30/28:00 if I'd managed to handle a 5:30 pace.

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that my 440 times from high school, then college and into my late 20s slowed as I got faster, 59.8, 61.4 and 66.1. I never ran under 13 for 100 yards so I'd pretty much reject the "naturally good foot speed" hypothesis.

I'd also suggest that you not let your scientific understanding of human performance get out of hand. Science has its place, but running is a sport, not a science experiment. When science contradicts what's happening with someone's running, it's the science that's incorrect. People like to look to science to tell them what they need to do and what they can expect as a result but science is not a good predictor.

If you're puzzled by how I occasionally managed to sustain 5:00 miles without ever going near that pace in training, what do you make of a guy like Bob Deines who ran a 4:17 mile and a 2:20 marathon while training a few seconds either way of 8:00 pace or a guy like Francie Burdett who can run under 4:40 for the mile in his late 40s without ever going under 9:00 pace in training? Compared to these guys I was a real underachiever.