I learned this the difficult way. Wasn't recovering from my easy runs and legs always felt stiff the next day. I had to not even take a watch on an easy run. Just completely forget about time and run like I did years ago before the Internet.
30-40 years ago? Pretty hammered the easy days. That’s the time period we’re schools like Arkansas were notorious for doing 80-90mpw and rarely being over 6 min pace. Go back farther and guys like Ron Clarke were harming 10 milers in like sub 55 mins every day.
Some people do run easy days too hard. But most are in that reasonable range of 90-180s off your 5k pace.
these things go in cycles. Remember 15 years ago where speeding up easy runs was AlSals special sauce in turning Mo into a world beater?
30-40 years ago? Pretty hammered the easy days. That’s the time period we’re schools like Arkansas were notorious for doing 80-90mpw and rarely being over 6 min pace. Go back farther and guys like Ron Clarke were harming 10 milers in like sub 55 mins every day.
Some people do run easy days too hard. But most are in that reasonable range of 90-180s off your 5k pace.
these things go in cycles. Remember 15 years ago where speeding up easy runs was AlSals special sauce in turning Mo into a world beater?
I thought there were some other special sauces.
“Special sauces” are rife within elite athletes. This primarily helps them recover better, and yet they still keep their easy runs very easy,
I personally know two elite runners that both have multiple national records between them that do not do many "easy" runs as the are defined here.
Further, you can't apply the same percentages to a hobby jogger running a 4 hour Marathon at 9 minute pace and tell them to spend the majority of their runs at 11 minute pace or whatever that works out to be (I didn't do the math for this group). It just doesn't work for all of them.
I have some runners I train fast and others need more recovery. It's about durability, adaptation periods, what limits them, etc. Even the tapers are different for my athletes.
In speaking generalities the adaptation graphs are correct and I have used them also many times with my athletes, but all are different. The art of coaching...
Listen to me, but you will not.
I'll accept that people will be able to find anecdotes of successful runners doing their easy days faster than what I've defined in the article.
However, the point of the article was to find the population average, based on a random sample of 24 elites. Perhaps you could argue that the sample size wasn't big enough, but if that's the case, I'm not sure why your 2 elites "beats" my sample of 24 (for whom the training is all documented, and I'm not simply relying on hearsay).
Also, why can't I apply the same percentages to slower runners?
Simply saying, "it won't work for them" isn't an argument. You need to support that statement with some evidence on why it wouldn't work, and then perhaps I'll listen to you.
I personally know two elite runners that both have multiple national records between them that do not do many "easy" runs as the are defined here.
Further, you can't apply the same percentages to a hobby jogger running a 4 hour Marathon at 9 minute pace and tell them to spend the majority of their runs at 11 minute pace or whatever that works out to be (I didn't do the math for this group). It just doesn't work for all of them.
I have some runners I train fast and others need more recovery. It's about durability, adaptation periods, what limits them, etc. Even the tapers are different for my athletes.
In speaking generalities the adaptation graphs are correct and I have used them also many times with my athletes, but all are different. The art of coaching...
Listen to me, but you will not.
Strava tells a lot. I see 4 hour marathoners running there easy runs at 180bpm plus. They are exhausted at the end of a supposedly easy run. They probably need to be running way slower than 11 min/mile.
Paul, would be really interesting if you could produce something similar for long runs.
I might do something along those lines in the future, though I'm not sure if the results would be as easy to interpret.
The thing with easy runs (at least among elites) is there tends to be a uniformity of purpose and execution, which the results of the sample reveal.
There tends to be far more variation with long runs, depending on the event an athlete is training for, the number of workouts they do in a week, and whether they're treating it like an additional workout (with plenty of recovery scheduled either side).
I did notice a tendency for the long run to be at a slightly faster pace (roughly 20 secs/km or 30 secs/mile) than an easy run while collecting the data set in the article though.
Paul, would be really interesting if you could produce something similar for long runs.
I might do something along those lines in the future, though I'm not sure if the results would be as easy to interpret.
The thing with easy runs (at least among elites) is there tends to be a uniformity of purpose and execution, which the results of the sample reveal.
There tends to be far more variation with long runs, depending on the event an athlete is training for, the number of workouts they do in a week, and whether they're treating it like an additional workout (with plenty of recovery scheduled either side).
I did notice a tendency for the long run to be at a slightly faster pace (roughly 20 secs/km or 30 secs/mile) than an easy run while collecting the data set in the article though.
This first highlighted point is just something you've made up (or heard other people say, that has no basis in fact). Watch any elite runner on YouTube (Conner Mantz for example), and you'll see that they are absolutely shuffling on easy runs. That is, their mechanics while jogging are very, very different from their racing mechanics. They have to be, because they're running 2/3rds of the speed (sometimes slower) of their race paces, which means that unless their cadence slows to the point of a bound, they have to adopt a very shuffly stride.
To the second highlighted point, if you want a "tempo-type" stimulus, do a tempo run - and then program recovery around it. We're talking about recreational runners here, who often don't have miraculous powers of recovery - and yet you seem to be implying that they have a greater ability to recover (pound for pound) than elite runners; who aren't working full time jobs and who've built an enormous capacity for load, and who (as you say) are running much further below their first threshold on easy runs than 'rec-runners'.
Anyway, I give a fairly lengthy explanation on "supercompensation" in the piece - and why trying to squeeze in a moderate workout (which is what you're essentially recommending) in between hard workout days isn't an effective approach - and so I won't go into it further here.
I appreciate the comments, but unless you can produce some evidence for the claims you make, then I just have to take them as opinion.
Yes, the "different mechanics" is something I have heard people say. That was my point. I thought you were misarticulating the argument. Nobody, including you, has any evidence for the "different mechanics" argument, either pro or con. But for what it's worth, my personal take is that the mechanics for elites are indeed closer to race pace at their easy paces. Yes, I've seen elites on youtube, and I've also myself done more easy runs with more elite runners than I can count over the years. They look like they're actually running to me, not shuffling. Their stride isn't all that different from mine at an easy pace. Recreational runners, at the intensity that you're talking about, look like they're barely lifting their feet. Now, this a 100% anecdotal and visual assessment, so if you disagree with it, that's fine. That said, I actually disagree with the argument that it matters whether your easy mechanics are comparable to your faster mechanics. So I'm ultimately on the same page with you here.
As for the idea that recreational runners should be running lower total mileage at higher relative intensity than elites, I can't produce evidence for that. But, again, you can't produce evidence contradicting it. What you've offered is a theory, unsupported by data, that contradicts what you acknowledge is a common practice. I'm simply offering reasons why the theory might not be correct. Until there's good research, all either of us has is our experience coaching a lot of athletes over the years.
As for "supercompensation," that's also an unsubstantiated theory, though I'll grant that it appears in a lot of the athletic training texts, usually in the context of strength training. It really doesn't make much sense as applied to endurance training, where most adaptations to training stimuli don't manifest for 10+ days. No endurance athlete can wait for supercompensation before applying another stimulus.
I've written a fairly lengthy article on why running fast on easy days isn't a good approach.
In the article, I analyse the training of a random sample of elites, whose training I've accessed via Strava and this site, and demonstrate that elite runners are performing their easy runs at a much lower relative intensity than what is prescribed by some authorities in the sport.
I know it's a fairly trite subject, but I personally hadn't seen anyone quantify the real world training of elites - placing their easy runs into an intensity matrix - so that recreational runners can get a better picture of what the world's best are actually doing.
We tend to focus on big workouts, and adjust our paces accordingly, but we don't do the same for easy runs.
I agree with the premise but disagree with your calcs.
You should be able to prove the same time by taking seconds of RP vs seconds of easy pace. So for example, using Hannah Nuttall, a 2:58/km pace = 180s vs a 4:30/km = 270 = 66.67%. But when I compare I get 62%-67% and not 65-71% as you claim.
But the premise works, 'faster' people need to slow down, but the opposite is true too - the 'average runner' who basically only has one pace doesnt need to slow down futher, they need to do actual speed work to develop a "real 10km pace".
If you ignore that you get into the Maff method lunacy where you have normal people running like 7:00 kms just for shiit n' giggles hoping they'll 'improve'.
I learned this the difficult way. Wasn't recovering from my easy runs and legs always felt stiff the next day. I had to not even take a watch on an easy run. Just completely forget about time and run like I did years ago before the Internet.
Always ran easy days too fast. Worked when was younger but now I definitely need days of shuffling between even moderate workouts. Recently went watch-less and it's been great! Was getting an unhealthy "pace obsession" when knowing my runs would be on show on Strava. As someone already weak aerobically, was not a good mix. If I want to "feel fast," just do strides after easy run.
I agree with the premise but disagree with your calcs.
You should be able to prove the same time by taking seconds of RP vs seconds of easy pace. So for example, using Hannah Nuttall, a 2:58/km pace = 180s vs a 4:30/km = 270 = 66.67%. But when I compare I get 62%-67% and not 65-71% as you claim.
But the premise works, 'faster' people need to slow down, but the opposite is true too - the 'average runner' who basically only has one pace doesnt need to slow down futher, they need to do actual speed work to develop a "real 10km pace".
If you ignore that you get into the Maff method lunacy where you have normal people running like 7:00 kms just for shiit n' giggles hoping they'll 'improve'.
For uniformity's sake, the paces were calculated based on the athlete's 10k best, as I explain in the piece.
2:58/km is Hannah Nuttall's 5k pace. The data would get distorted if I were basing the calculations on 5k pace for some, and 10k pace for others.
As I allude to in the article, there was no 10k personal best listed on Hannah Nuttall's World Athletics profile or the Power of Ten site, so I used a running calculator to get an equivalent 10k time based on her 5k personal best of 14:52. I admit, this isn't ideal, but it allows us to keep uniformity in the equation and we still get a fairly close proxy for Hannah Nuttall's ability as an athlete.
Also, I give an explanation on how I'm defining an easy run, and my recommendation is specifically for people in a 2-3 workout a week cycle. Therefore, if you aren't doing workouts, then this prescription for "easy pace" doesn't really apply to you.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Yes, the "different mechanics" is something I have heard people say. That was my point. I thought you were misarticulating the argument. Nobody, including you, has any evidence for the "different mechanics" argument, either pro or con. But for what it's worth, my personal take is that the mechanics for elites are indeed closer to race pace at their easy paces. Yes, I've seen elites on youtube, and I've also myself done more easy runs with more elite runners than I can count over the years. They look like they're actually running to me, not shuffling. Their stride isn't all that different from mine at an easy pace. Recreational runners, at the intensity that you're talking about, look like they're barely lifting their feet. Now, this a 100% anecdotal and visual assessment, so if you disagree with it, that's fine. That said, I actually disagree with the argument that it matters whether your easy mechanics are comparable to your faster mechanics. So I'm ultimately on the same page with you here.
As for the idea that recreational runners should be running lower total mileage at higher relative intensity than elites, I can't produce evidence for that. But, again, you can't produce evidence contradicting it. What you've offered is a theory, unsupported by data, that contradicts what you acknowledge is a common practice. I'm simply offering reasons why the theory might not be correct. Until there's good research, all either of us has is our experience coaching a lot of athletes over the years.
As for "supercompensation," that's also an unsubstantiated theory, though I'll grant that it appears in a lot of the athletic training texts, usually in the context of strength training. It really doesn't make much sense as applied to endurance training, where most adaptations to training stimuli don't manifest for 10+ days. No endurance athlete can wait for supercompensation before applying another stimulus.
If we remove the arbitrary classifications of "elite runner" and "recreational runner", I have produced data on 24 human beings - who have the same flesh and blood as any other human being - for whom running "easy paces" at around 63-70% of 10k pace has worked fairly well for them, insofar as they all produced performances that placed them in the top 10 continental lists in their event for 2024.
The insistence that this wouldn't work for other people (who may be a little slower), just seems like cognitive dissonance to me.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
When you started this thread, did you have any idea that you'd end up spending this much time explaining and defending the premise of your article? It certainly has been provocative!
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
When you started this thread, did you have any idea that you'd end up spending this much time explaining and defending the premise of your article? It certainly has been provocative!
I knew people would have certain counterarguments, and so I spent a lot of time trying to preempt and defend against those lines of attack.
Little did I know that people wouldn't even bother to read them, but would still chime in with those same criticisms nonetheless.
51M recent 39 10k and 2:59 marathon. Clearly my easy pace running should be not faster than 5:30min/km (8:50min/mile) which means I may have to slow down a little bit.
If I feel good I run 5:10 min/km, when tired I do run 5:30 which feels like true recovery pace.
I tend to do my long runs at around 5min/km (8min/mile) which is in line with what your elite athletes do.
Strava tells a lot. I see 4 hour marathoners running there easy runs at 180bpm plus. They are exhausted at the end of a supposedly easy run. They probably need to be running way slower than 11 min/mile.
If some are running their "easy" runs at 180+bpm, what bpm are they running at their marathon pace or 5k pace?
Strava tells a lot. I see 4 hour marathoners running there easy runs at 180bpm plus. They are exhausted at the end of a supposedly easy run. They probably need to be running way slower than 11 min/mile.
If some are running their "easy" runs at 180+bpm, what bpm are they running at their marathon pace or 5k pace?
180+bpm
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.