Laughing at all these warriors saying people aren't tough enough, not enduring enough pain. Show me your gold medals tough guys. No self reflection at all. Or maybe a lack of commitment, eye of the tiger?
Let the downvotes rain, I don't care. Just had to be pointed out. Bring it on, oh keepers of the pain.
Exactly. The reason why hobbyjoggers are hobbyjoggers is the lack of talent. If they had the talent they could endure "more pain".
I woke up thinking of an analogy. What do you think?
Let's assume someone is a "marathon shuffler" and they're stuck at their pace.
I'm sure everyone has seen a few massive guys at the gym who walk around with their elbows always bent. It's because they've done thousands of curls without a full range of motion. If they tried to do curls with a full range of motion, they'd probably do 10-20% fewer reps because their muscles have been trained to move in a limited range of motion.
The "marathon shuffler" has run tens or even hundreds of thousand of steps with a limited range of motion. Serious training includes intervals and tempos to move outside this range of motion, but marathon shufflers aren't willing to do tempos and intervals. They're looking for a simple fix that they can do within their current running program.
Oh well, maybe it's not a great analogy. I like the rubber band analogy better. <leaves to get 2nd cup of coffee>
No, it's not that. What I'm thinking is that one of the limitations of, let's call them hobbyjoggers, is the inability to move their legs in a wider range of motion because they have NEVER done it. Not only that, but their muscles lack strength in that range of motion. So even if they attempt intervals, they just wind up shuffling, but at a faster pace. They barely lift their feet off the ground.
I found that forcing myself to run for a very short distance nearly as fast as I could go for 5 seconds or so paid tremendous dividends in less than a month. Once I could hit my goal pace for around 30m, I gradually increased the distance to 100m. One surprising benefit is that my long intervals improved dramatically as I did these speed/form/range of motion short running efforts.
Using this approach, a recreational runner would run flying 30 meter repeats until they could do several in 8 seconds... a 7min/mile pace. Once they could do that, they would increase the distance to 50m and then to 100m. My unproven premise is that many slow runners would benefit from this approach.
It would be interesting to take some runners who are stuck at a 35 minute 5k and see how much they could improve in 3-4 months using this approach.
You're probably right.
Now, let me ask you this: will the world become a better place because a group of 35 minute 5kers became 30 minute 5kers? Will their lives become better? If so, how?
Most people running 35 minute 5ks are just fine with getting some exercise, being outside, and enjoying the movement, the better health, and being a part of a community event. Improvement isn't even on their radar, and that's okay.
I'm going to assert, AGAIN, that mild strides are one thing, inserted into a run. However, for aging runners who have decades of miles under their belts, any sort of sustained speedwork at anything approaching Daniels' R and T paces is a recipe for disaster.
Ask me how I know.
Muscle mass has decreased, small previous injuries have accumulated, muscles (especially hammies and calves) become 'brittle', recovery becomes much less effective, there is a REASON people slow as they age, and you cannot beat it, only work within it.
Instructing the older runner to add track work, repetitions, even too much racing, to their regimen is greatly increasing the chance they'll be sidelined. As far as posters denigrating the old-man shuffle, YOU TOO will be doing the old-man shuffle if you stick with running into your 50s and beyond. Those of us still out there are STILL OUT THERE, healthy, running (or shuffling as you call it), enjoying running for what it was and still is.
You old cranks who still want to do track work, good on ya. Eight out of ten of you will be injured and on your bicycle or couch soon enough, and the shufflers among us will still be out there running, albeit slowly.
I'm going to assert, AGAIN, that mild strides are one thing, inserted into a run. However, for aging runners who have decades of miles under their belts, any sort of sustained speedwork at anything approaching Daniels' R and T paces is a recipe for disaster.
Ask me how I know.
Muscle mass has decreased, small previous injuries have accumulated, muscles (especially hammies and calves) become 'brittle', recovery becomes much less effective, there is a REASON people slow as they age, and you cannot beat it, only work within it.
Instructing the older runner to add track work, repetitions, even too much racing, to their regimen is greatly increasing the chance they'll be sidelined. As far as posters denigrating the old-man shuffle, YOU TOO will be doing the old-man shuffle if you stick with running into your 50s and beyond. Those of us still out there are STILL OUT THERE, healthy, running (or shuffling as you call it), enjoying running for what it was and still is.
You old cranks who still want to do track work, good on ya. Eight out of ten of you will be injured and on your bicycle or couch soon enough, and the shufflers among us will still be out there running, albeit slowly.
Now, let me ask you this: will the world become a better place because a group of 35 minute 5kers became 30 minute 5kers? Will their lives become better? If so, how?
Most people running 35 minute 5ks are just fine with getting some exercise, being outside, and enjoying the movement, the better health, and being a part of a community event. Improvement isn't even on their radar, and that's okay.
1) It is well known that a flat sprint has some risk for injuries. That's why some prefer hill sprints first.
2) Supercompensation: As older we get as more rest is needed. Therefore we have to adjust the training in a way to fit for that. A longer rest is required.
3) In really all studies which are comparing training systems, the control group is often the low intensity group, which are always the loser of the study. -> easy alone does not do the trick.
Why don't recreational runners improve? Because they simply have no clue what they are doing or how to train properly.
I am connected with a running group in my city through the Garmin connect app. It would bring a tear to your eye to see what people are doing to themselves. I took some screenshots of examples just from this week:
1) This person went out and ran 1.5 hr, with over an hour above threshold and the rest in zone 3. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, you'd think "okay - this was an attempt at a hard tempo workout but obviously he overdid it. I bet he takes it easy tomorrow"
2) Same person, next day. Now he goes even faster, spending 26 min in zone 5 and another 30 minutes in threshold. I can't see the last time this person did a recovery run or easy run - instead just tons of off days with no activities because this must be absolute misery
3) This is a different person. This dude did a workout, spending an HOUR AND A HALF in Zone 5. You wouldn't think it was possible until you see how often he stopped to walk, presumably to suck as much air into his lungs as possible. Assuming he didn't straight injure himself, this person won't be able to walk for a week. In fact, he hasn't posted any activities since.
How can recreational runners improve when they hammer every single exercise, never recovery, never build base? All these people on this group have stagnant PRs, never go above 20-30 miles per week, and every run must feel like pure misery.
I was in a training group for many years that had a very wide range of abilities. We would do hill circuits (fast up the hill, slow jog recovery) on a course in the park with everyone running together. The course was short enough that the faster runners would lap the slower runners multiple times over the course of the workout. When I would get to a fast hill interval alongside some of the slower runners, some would try to keep up on the fast interval. These were 25 min 5kers. In general, they could keep up well enough on a single sprint interval. But over the course of a 10-15 min session of hill repeats, I would probably go almost a mile further than they would. And the slower runners were very dedicated and were training hard for marathons, etc.
For recreational runners, I do not think that range of motion is what is holding them back. I think for most, they simply lack the genetics to accel at distance running. They don't have the "big running engine" or are just too big boned or a combination of the two.
For older runners (50+), the shuffle is often a symptom of inadequate recovery and poor training techniques. If you try to keep the same training schedule that you had 10-20 years ago, you will get into a spiral where your legs are always dead and even jogging easy for a few days does not help you recover. Almost everyone I know who was able to run fast times 50+ was a dedicated pool runner (or some other cross training) and ran minimal mileage compared to 10-20 years ago.
Ran reasonably fast at 60+ - 11:32 two miles at 60, and this year at 65, 11:32 3000m and 19:45 for 5000m on road.
Have been doing Easy Interval Method, with up to four interval sessions a week, and then just three or four miles at around 8:00 min pace on alternative days to recover.
I haven't done any x-training (although I do intend to have a look at doing some weights and xtraining for recovery days).
Do have the odd day off - not planned, but just don't worry if something comes up.
I do some fast strides before track sessions - fast now being about 17 sec per 100m pace.
I do get down to 40-41 sec per 200m for 16x200m with 200m jog.
Biggest difference might be that I've been training and racing for about 50 years.
I've posted this multiple times but, especially among older runners who don't want to hear it, it gets ignored. Running THAT much slower than previous baseline is almost entirely explainable by loss of functional muscle mass. To maintain any particular stride length and cadence requires a particular amount of power, resilience, flexibility and capacity for recovery. As we age, we lose muscle mass and muscle resilience, so stride shortens. We become less flexible and recover more slowly.
But this process can be slowed down by targeted training.
Lifting weight can slow down the process of losing muscle mass and muscle resilience.
Another reason older runners have shorter strides is the loss of range of motion at hip and ankles. Stretching hip flexor and calves will slow down that process.
Some runners just like running, and don't want to do any other exercise. You may get away with that if you have won a genetic lottery. But for the rest of us, doing auxiliary works is beneficial.
Ran reasonably fast at 60+ - 11:32 two miles at 60, and this year at 65, 11:32 3000m and 19:45 for 5000m on road.
Have been doing Easy Interval Method, with up to four interval sessions a week, and then just three or four miles at around 8:00 min pace on alternative days to recover.
I haven't done any x-training (although I do intend to have a look at doing some weights and xtraining for recovery days).
Do have the odd day off - not planned, but just don't worry if something comes up.
I do some fast strides before track sessions - fast now being about 17 sec per 100m pace.
I do get down to 40-41 sec per 200m for 16x200m with 200m jog.
Biggest difference might be that I've been training and racing for about 50 years.
I’m training for the 5k, for now (I think), without a lot of mileage. You’re doing great, but can you clear up some confusion? How and where do the 200m reps fit into the Easy Interval Method, because 40sec seems a tad faster than ‘easy’ for a 19:45 guy, no? What do the four interval sessions/week consist of? Thanks!
I woke up thinking of an analogy. What do you think?
Let's assume someone is a "marathon shuffler" and they're stuck at their pace.
I'm sure everyone has seen a few massive guys at the gym who walk around with their elbows always bent. It's because they've done thousands of curls without a full range of motion. If they tried to do curls with a full range of motion, they'd probably do 10-20% fewer reps because their muscles have been trained to move in a limited range of motion.
The "marathon shuffler" has run tens or even hundreds of thousand of steps with a limited range of motion. Serious training includes intervals and tempos to move outside this range of motion, but marathon shufflers aren't willing to do tempos and intervals. They're looking for a simple fix that they can do within their current running program.
Oh well, maybe it's not a great analogy. I like the rubber band analogy better.
Its not because they haven't curled with full range of motion, its because they have a strength imbalance between biceps and triceps, lol. Why is it allways the people who dont hold full knowledge so eager to make theories?
Its not because they haven't curled with full range of motion, its because they have a strength imbalance between biceps and triceps, lol. Why is it allways the people who dont hold full knowledge so eager to make theories?
Having decent range of motion is good, but it has nothing to do with why people are stuck being slow. Our body is very good at compensating it with increased stride rate if needed. Short choppy stride vs long loping stride - you can see it even in elites, drastic differences in biomechanics. Don't believe it? Make those slow people sprint 50m. They will probably be still relatively slow, but if they could keep that speed for 10k, they might be called very fast, even elite. Why can't they? Obviously fitness is not there. Mostly aerobic endurance.
Sure, speedwork is good. There certainly is some minor effiency to be gained with improved range of motion. Likely not so minor for sprinters, because they can't go past certain stride rate - leg turnover has its limits. But for a lot of (recreational) distance runners the reason is probably they don't train their intermediate muscle fibers at all! They are running too little, too short and too slow and all they use is their slow twitch fibers. And even those are undertrained.
Ran reasonably fast at 60+ - 11:32 two miles at 60, and this year at 65, 11:32 3000m and 19:45 for 5000m on road.
Have been doing Easy Interval Method, with up to four interval sessions a week, and then just three or four miles at around 8:00 min pace on alternative days to recover.
I haven't done any x-training (although I do intend to have a look at doing some weights and xtraining for recovery days).
Do have the odd day off - not planned, but just don't worry if something comes up.
I do some fast strides before track sessions - fast now being about 17 sec per 100m pace.
I do get down to 40-41 sec per 200m for 16x200m with 200m jog.
Biggest difference might be that I've been training and racing for about 50 years.
I’m training for the 5k, for now (I think), without a lot of mileage. You’re doing great, but can you clear up some confusion? How and where do the 200m reps fit into the Easy Interval Method, because 40sec seems a tad faster than ‘easy’ for a 19:45 guy, no? What do the four interval sessions/week consist of? Thanks!
Hi,
The session I've been doing on the EIM method are-
16x200m - average 41.x with 200m jog/walk recovery in 90 sec (EIM allows short walk in part of recovery.
12x400m - average 94-95 sec. with 400m jog in 2:30.
6x1000m - average around 4:15-4:20 with 800m jog in 4:30
3x2000m - average around 9:00 - 800m jog in 4:30
I was doing these with recovery at 8:00 per mile, but apparently that's a little quick for EIM, so I added 30 seconds.
Pre race I did some sessions at race pace 6x800 with 2 min recover, and 5x1000m with 2 min recovery, and for the 3000m, 4x800m (averaged 3:01 on fastest session) and 3x1000m in 3:50 (both with 2 min recovery).
I was doing these every other day, with 3 or 4 miles anywhere from 7:45 to 8:15 (or 8:30 if very tired) in between.
Didn't include a long run, but with warm-up/warm-down and strides, some of the EIM sessions are over an hour.
Off that I recently ran the 3000m in the World Senior Games in 11:52, which with altitude conversion (from Tom 'Tinman' Schwartz's calculator) came out at about 11:28, faster than I ran at sea level in Eugene in May.
Fisky, I agree with you. I don't think I do enough shorter, faster stuff, but whenever I add 6-8 x 30 seconds hard, my stride feels better the next day.
I, too, was forced to take a year off from running, and when my back relented, I returned about a year ago. What I remember is that it was hard--weirdly, surprisingly hard--to get much below 9:00 pace, even when warmed up. But slowly, over the weeks and months, that speed came back. My midweek runs often took the form of progression runs with a fast, or faster, last mile or two. And bit by bit, those high-end miles speeded up. 8:45, 8:35. I run a hilly 8-mile loop sometimes, with the hills in the middle and the last two miles rolling gently but consistently downhill. I used those downhill sections to recoup my stride length and form.
Last spring I ran a series of 5Ks, with 7:47 pace as the best average. Still, when I'd do 6-8 x 30 secs, it was hard to get to 7:30 pace. Last Wednesday, though, I had a sort of breakthrough and average 7:08 pace for 6 x 30. That's basically my current one-mile pace. It feels impossible to go much faster than that right now.
BUT: two days ago I ran a 5K and all the pieces came together. I ran 7:52, 7:56--that middle mile was up and down a couple of low hills--and then threw down a 7:34 on the final mile, with zero form issues, feeling smooth, averaging almost 97% of max HR for that mile, and ran (my Garmin tells me) 6:33 pace for the last 40 seconds, hitting max HR of 185 as I crossed the line.
7:44 pace average. Average HR of 175, which is 95% of max--and a notch or two above the average HR of every race of this past year. Mission accomplished.
Part of the mix that enabled this flat-out performance was clearly those faster strides. They smoothed out my high-end stride, so that, rather than pushing the limits of my form in that final mile, I could focus exclusively on pushing to the limits of my heart's ability. I know I did this because I felt nauseous for a few second right after crossing the line--something that almost never happens, and something that indicates a truly flat-out finish.
So yes, you're onto something. I would urge older runners to give the speed-recuperation process the time it requires. Keep pushing at that edge, striving to roll it back bit by bit, but don't hurry it.
Last spring I ran a series of 5Ks, with 7:47 pace as the best average. Still, when I'd do 6-8 x 30 secs, it was hard to get to 7:30 pace. Last Wednesday, though, I had a sort of breakthrough and average 7:08 pace for 6 x 30. That's basically my current one-mile pace. It feels impossible to go much faster than that right now.
So yes, you're onto something. I would urge older runners to give the speed-recuperation process the time it requires. Keep pushing at that edge, striving to roll it back bit by bit, but don't hurry it.
It feels impossible to go much faster than that right now.
That's exactly how I felt coming back from my year off!
I was running maybe 13 min/mile pace and when I tried to go maybe 10min/mile pace, I could only go maybe 20m. My legs just didn't want to keep moving.
In desperation, I stop trying to run intervals and and I decided to go as hard as I could go for 20m. At first, it was maybe 10 min/mile pace and I did maybe 4-6 reps. That first day was rough and I was sore the next day, but it wasn't an injury soreness.
After a couple of weeks, I could hold that pace for 50m. After a couple more weeks, I could do 6 progressively faster with the last one being under 11 seconds. Then, I added a couple of 100m reps at the end. There's no way I could have started out at 6-8x30 seconds like you're doing!
Fast forward to this weekend, I did 16x100 averaging 19.7 seconds with an average walk recovery to HR<130bpm (about 70 seconds). This is sort of a no-mans-land workout so I probably won't do it again. It's too long to be pure speed. Still, it was fun to see what I could do. I'll probably do it again in a couple of months.