However, I do really well when I compete with myself. You'll see that when I record my results and compare it to the day before, it really motivates me to do more. That's the best way to handle me.
However, I do really well when I compete with myself. You'll see that when I record my results and compare it to the day before, it really motivates me to do more. That's the best way to handle me.
And when I say with myself I don't mean by myself. I really do need a coach to report my results to and encourage me.
To all those in the thread asking about easy running, just look at the training of almost any professional runner. They're all putting in the miles. Even the mid-d guys are running 60-80. You won't find a pro 10k+ guy who isn't putting running 100+ miles week in and week out. Mileage works, plain and simple.
That said, if you really can't stay healthy, then ya running faster, but less and really focusing on quality can yield good results too. But as an earlier poster said, you won't hit your true potential.
For those who were saying they can't stay healthy doing more than 30-40 a week, you're doing something wrong plain and simple. Maybe it's your shoes or running too much on the road, or not stretching/icing/strengthening...I don't know what, but you're doing it wrong.
Mileage is a necessary evil in our sport so when you ask if there is a benefit, yes. As mentioned if you look in the training logs of the best they all do mileage.
But it's not for everyone: Lets talk about the injury prone who started the thread. You will never be elite if you can't handle the mileage. So the question you have to ask is, how do you maximize YOUR talent without getting hurt? If it is getting rid of the easy 8 milers fine.
This also depends on your age. I've noticed about 95% of adolescent's fitness comes from just running. There is a reason everyone PR's at the start of xc and gets sick and injured by the end.
Running is hard, learn to enjoy those 8 milers. But if they aren't for you then they aren't for you.
Malmo, where art thou?????
Having more blood doesn't mean you have greater oxygen binding ability. More often than not, increasing blood volume means increasing blood plasma (ie. water and other solutes). Elite athletes dont continually increase BV, they have a realitively set amount of RBCs and blood volume changes on the basis of hydration. However regardless of blood volume only 4 oxygen molecules can bind to hemeglobin at a time. Having "extra" hemeglobin but the same number of oxygen molecules doesnt help in any way... I'm still not exactly sure what you're getting at.
is EPO not useful?
Easy running is of little to no benefit. Exercise must be hard in order to stimulate meaningful improvement. There is no reason to believe that easy running promotes recovery from hard training; if you want to recover, rest completely.
The main reason why elites run so many miles is the common BELIEVE of their coaches and other elites that the optimum training concept consists of as many miles as possible. Average runners try to copy this high volume method, aiming for glory. This kind of thinking is a real stressor and it´s very challenging to withstand based on other concepts.
Training science/research physiology points out:
- intensity and specificity play a much more important role than high mileage
- there´s simply no evidence that easy runs improve performance, they make it more difficult to avoid injury and overtraining
- real recovery/adaption makes you a better runner.
But deleting easy runs means you should be willing to make your training sessions HARDER.
we tried this in the 80s with "less is more". The method failed utterly. The belief among coaches of elite stems
from experience and not guesswork.
The many studies that show rapid improvement with higher intensity are typically carried out over a few weeks and do not have the long-term perspective of real running (years of training to reach the peak) and so is at best of little relevance. You could compare these studies with the tune up
that elites do in the pre comp period.
Easy miles improves running economy.
end of thread
end of thread [quote]
I don´t think so.
First, I am not sure what you mean with "less is more" and who is meant with "we" and what these guys did exactly.
Unfortunately "less is more" was the title in the RW-magazine years ago, and a few things were messed up there.
Take it for real: Easy runs are not beneficial and may impede recovery.
Deleting "easy runs" does not mean to make training less demanding (this would be the case if you would not rethink all residual sessions). You delete easy runs a) to maximize recovery and adaption and b) to ensure that you are really ready for your upcoming hard, challenging workout.
Elites perform so well due to their outstanding genetic capability to recover quickly. This leads most of them to train more than the average. But also elites should think about the possibility to delete easy runs while making key sessions harder than ever before.
The "long-term perspective of real running" you mentioned: Well, this is the mainstream argumentation that all runners who limit their volume while running faster can do so due to thousands of miles being run before. This is not exactly enough.
Fitness fades rapidly when the training stimulus is getting worser. Think about this.
end of thread [quote]
I don´t think so.
First, I am not sure what you mean with "less is more" and who is meant with "we" and what these guys did exactly.
Unfortunately "less is more" was the title in the RW-magazine years ago, and a few things were messed up there.
Take it for real: Easy runs are not beneficial and may impede recovery.
Deleting "easy runs" does not mean to make training less demanding (this would be the case if you would not rethink all residual sessions). You delete easy runs a) to maximize recovery and adaption and b) to ensure that you are really ready for your upcoming hard, challenging workout.
Elites perform so well due to their outstanding genetic capability to recover quickly. This leads most of them to train more than the average. But also elites should think about the possibility to delete easy runs while making key sessions harder than ever before.
The "long-term perspective of real running" you mentioned: Well, this is the mainstream argumentation that all runners who limit their volume while running faster can do so due to thousands of miles being run before. This is not exactly enough.
Fitness fades rapidly when the training stimulus is getting worser. Think about this.
Need_speed wrote:
Fitness fades rapidly when the training stimulus is getting worser. Think about this.
Well now that you've told us all about fitness getting "worser", I think the thread HAS ended.
Thanks for the laugh.
readist wrote:
Need_speed wrote:Fitness fades rapidly when the training stimulus is getting worser. Think about this.
Well now that you've told us all about fitness getting "worser", I think the thread HAS ended.
Thanks for the laugh.
Need_speed, I'm guessing you were not an active runner during the late 80s? As has been posted several times here, there was an active movement to focus on quality running (no junk/easy miles). A whole generation of young runners wasted their development years thinking they could train without any easy running. Our sport has tried and proven again, and AGAIN,and AGAIN that you need to run lots of aerobic (easy) miles to become great.
On the other hand, if your goal is mediocrity. Carry on.
Agreed... As an 80's runner, i wish i had had access to the training logs you guys can check out. To have muliple years of BR training instead of a week on the last page of runners world would have made all the difference and resulted in a lot less frustration.The only exception, if your body is falling apart, some specific training consistently is better than losing months to injury. If thats not you, keep running.
yyy wrote:
we tried this in the 80s with "less is more". The method failed utterly. The belief among coaches of elite stems
from experience and not guesswork.
The many studies that show rapid improvement with higher intensity are typically carried out over a few weeks and do not have the long-term perspective of real running (years of training to reach the peak) and so is at best of little relevance. You could compare these studies with the tune up
that elites do in the pre comp period.
Easy miles improves running economy.
end of thread
there is a trade-off between hard and easy session.
The goal is not to run your hard sessions as hard as possible, as you seem to indicate.
Then people would just ran killer interval sessions 3-4
a week and have 2-3 rest days.
Over the years so many runners have tried various approaches and experience tells us what works and what not.
High mileage is a part of it as is easy miles.
What kind of injury you are prone to? What do you do in off-seasons, and how quickly do you ramp up to intensity? Injury can come from either doing too many miles too soon, or doing too much intensity too soon.Your approach is something similar to "FIRST". These "tri-athlete" guys figured that 3 days a week of running, plus 2 days of cross-training, is sufficient to perform well. They even claim it is superior. Their "proof" is not exactly scientific, but many people were satisfied with their results. It looked practical for people with busy schedules, who might not train adequately otherwise.I see a few people talked about mitochondria, capillaries, specificity, and recovery, so I won't go over any of that. Easy running contributes to these things, but if you replace them with cross-training, I'm not sure to what extent you lose these things, if at all.Some things easy running also do contribute to long term adaptations:- strengthening bones and joints. The repeated, yet light, impacts helps stimulate production of stronger bones, in a way swimming cannot. This is something that can help reduce injury.- contributing to long term efficiency, something that is a function of hours on your feet, that improves over the course of many years.- mentality: easy running allows you to run everyday, making it easier to become a habit, and less likely to start skipping days
middle distance duude wrote:
I've been working with a new coach the last half year, and because I have an injury history he only has me running 5 days a week.
We are getting in good work on the 5 days I do run - 45 mpw including tempo run, track workout, long run, strides, etc. All the important pieces are there, we have just replaced two easy run days with cross training (elliptical & bike). So I'm probably at 15 mpw less than I was doing before.
Except I'm getting the same results - he has me back to peak fitness. Actually the results may even be better, I'll be taking a swing at some indoor pr's in the coming month.
This has me thinking - what the heck is the point of easy runs?
Karma Police wrote:
I've always wondered why distance runners don't do more swimming.
Swimming is a skill. You can't just jump in the pool and swim for an hour.
It takes practice to get good at swimming. This is why I don't swim.
Then there is the additional issue of having access to a pool.
ex phys wrote:
Elite athletes dont continually increase BV, they have a realitively set amount of RBCs and blood volume changes on the basis of hydration. However regardless of blood volume only 4 oxygen molecules can bind to hemeglobin at a time. Having "extra" hemeglobin but the same number of oxygen molecules doesnt help in any way... I'm still not exactly sure what you're getting at.
Um, don't you think that having "extra hemoglobin" means "more collective oxygen" getting to the muscles (AND with greater ease, cause of greater capillarization)?
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue about. Of course there's other physiological adaptations happening, and you're welcome to share those. There's nothing incorrect though about what I originally stated.
Oh, that´s pretty bad indeed. I am used to producing mistakes like that.
readist wrote:
Need_speed wrote:Fitness fades rapidly when the training stimulus is getting worser. Think about this.
Well now that you've told us all about fitness getting "worser", I think the thread HAS ended.
Thanks for the laugh.