The fact you use sub-4 high school kids as your "evidence" reflects the flaw in your argument. These are the elite of the elite, and those three years are basically professional training. They have done nearly all they can during that time, and as you say they are then chasing marginal gains.
For most people who aren't high school elites but keen "recreationally competitive" runners, the training during their first three years of running is likely to be organized but far from optimal.
e.g. For 5k I ran 19, then 18 high, then 18 low in my last three years of HS. Even being that slow, my coach had the gall to direct thresholds, intervals and long runs, and I kept improving while also studying and improving my training.
After some more years of steady improvement I am much faster than that, and last year's big PBs don't suggest to me that I am plateauing. Though I suspect I would have by now if all I did was jog at a conversational pace!
It doesn’t matter that they are elite of the elite. It’s about how close they are to their potential. They just happen to have an abnormally high aptitude for the sport.
if you want to reach your potential, you have to do professional level training. For most a professional commitment is not worth amateur rewards. It’s a rational decision as opposed to “settling for mediocrity.” If it is worth it for you, go for it.
Btw, the difference between pro and amateur training is significant but not huge.
Grant Fisher wouldn’t be a 20min 5K guy on 30mpw. Probably could break 15.
You are actually arguing against the OP here, and in my favor.
OP says runners should not to threshold, intervals, or long runs. Just run easy a lot for the most part. (Unless they are within 10% of their biological potential, which he seems to suppose everyone will just know.)
I say that it ridiculous.
You say "if you want to reach your potential, you have to do professional level training."
Hm. Do professional and HS elites just jog for their first three years?
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read here, and that is saying a lot.
As a 16:xx / 33:xx/ 1:14:xx runner I highly doubt I am "close to my full potential" and "within a minute of my biological potential" in the 10k.
But I would be even further off if I didn't do "thresholds, intervals, long runs..."
You call yourself "Think Like a Kenyan" ... and yet you have the loser mentality of a country ten times as big with zero sub-2:05 runners. LSD is a joke.
No you wouldnt be much further off if instead of wondering if you should 10 minutes at LT + 30 minute at MP + 7 minutes at 5k pace... you would just run 2-3 times a week faster than easy pace, just based on feelings.
The idea that "just running faster based on feelings" for several years is as good as an organized program is one of several major flaws in your argument.
I'm a very slow and very overweight runner, I'm currently struggling with breaking 30 mins in the 5k, but part of the enjoyment in running for me is using data and trying to figure out what the optimal way for me to get better is, even though I know I could stick to nothing but easy runs for years before I stop improving and need to figure out how to improve more optimally.
It's also a hell of a lot more fun to have some variety in your training and have some workouts you do even though you strictly don't have to.
I agree with what a previous poster here said, if you're not an elite then you're a hobby jogger, and it's a dumb thing to have a superiority complex over unless you're actually making serious money from running.
First, great work and good luck with your running!
I am one of those people who would say that studying training approaches, creating, revising and following a program is JUST MORE FUN.
OP seems to suppose that planning to run this week (for example) 5 miles at 5:45/mi on Tuesday, 8x800 at 2:35 on Thursday, and a steady 10-miler on Sunday is some extremely stressful operation. It's not.
For many if not most runners it is actively enjoyable to plan week-to-week, block-to-block, compare and see progress across logged workouts, etc etc.
"Just run, sometimes faster -- maybe speed up to the next lamp post sometimes" bores me out of my skull.
I don't care if you run 5k in 30:00, 20:00, or 15:00 -- people should do what they enjoy most because for all of those groups it is simply recreation (unless you're an actual pro or a scholarship runner).
It's like telling a great home chef not to think about the best ingredients and specialized techniques, because they can get 90% of the way to pro cooking with a basic cupboard. Kindly screw off.
Most hobby joggers don't do what you are saying. Fast/slow or otherwise, most hobby joggers run in the gray zone all the time. We do it because we believe the no pain no gain theory. If I'm running 10 miles, I should do it around 10K pace because it will hurt and I know I worked hard for it. That's just the way it is. I hired a running coach, not because I'm going to light up the world as an almost 60 year old. I hired him so he could help me become the best runner I can be without blowing myself up. I've learned quite a bit, I'm trying new things, and enjoying running again. I'm not an ex-pro, I'm not fast enough to run a BQ, but I'm a better runner than I was before I hired the coach.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that most hobby joggers run the majority of their miles in the gray zone? I believe some do. And some don't.
As a proud hobby jogger, I run most of my miles 3-4 minutes slower than my 5K pace. I don't think I'm unusual.
I have never been able to go that much slower. Typically, I go two minutes per mile slower.
I just laugh when I hear about a 4 hour marathon person.
Dude, that is right at 9 minute miles for four hours. I know it sounds easy for every other poster on here, but that is impressive for a hobbyjogger like me.
I just laugh when I hear about a 4 hour marathon person.
Dude, that is right at 9 minute miles for four hours. I know it sounds easy for every other poster on here, but that is impressive for a hobbyjogger like me.
Dude, that is right at 9 minute miles for four hours. I know it sounds easy for every other poster on here, but that is impressive for a hobbyjogger like me.
It is a BQ time for females 55 and over.
We laugh that “sub-elites” make the same money as 4 hour marathoners, $0, 😂
I pretty much agree with that. It's why all the lifting threads drive me crazy, people see the best in the world doing X in the gym and immediately want to do that when they are no where near maximizing their time actually running.
My personal experience interacting with hobby jogger friends is that they're trying to find ways to be a better runner without running.
This x 100
They want to jump rope, squat, hike, ruck, pretty much anything but actually running.
As a proud hobby jogger, I run most of my miles 3-4 minutes slower than my 5K pace. I don't think I'm unusual.
I have never been able to go that much slower. Typically, I go two minutes per mile slower.
My easy running is about 2:00-2:30 slower than my 5k pace, depending how I feel.
This seems comparable to a lot of elites, although following their Strava accounts there is a LARGE range.
(And at 100-150 mpw I would think their "easy" would be more easy than a 60-80 mpw guy. Think of cycling pros riding fairly slowly in zone 2... for 25-35 hours per week!)
I have never been able to go that much slower. Typically, I go two minutes per mile slower.
My easy running is about 2:00-2:30 slower than my 5k pace, depending how I feel.
This seems comparable to a lot of elites, although following their Strava accounts there is a LARGE range.
(And at 100-150 mpw I would think their "easy" would be more easy than a 60-80 mpw guy. Think of cycling pros riding fairly slowly in zone 2... for 25-35 hours per week!)
When I was younger, my runs that weren't workouts or a long run were 5-6 miles at low 6:00s, and 5k race pace was about 4:50.
At 65, didn't do long runs, but alternated EIM (Easy Interval Method) sessions with 3-4 mile runs at around 8:00 per mile, with race pace for 5k being around 6:20.
I have never been able to go that much slower. Typically, I go two minutes per mile slower.
My easy running is about 2:00-2:30 slower than my 5k pace, depending how I feel.
This seems comparable to a lot of elites, although following their Strava accounts there is a LARGE range.
(And at 100-150 mpw I would think their "easy" would be more easy than a 60-80 mpw guy. Think of cycling pros riding fairly slowly in zone 2... for 25-35 hours per week!)
That is what I am saying, but still got down votes. Two minutes per mile is very comfortable. Any slower would feel awful.
To clarify (and this is one story)- we have a woman in our running community who is always posting how running is life and she loves to run and she's an ultra marathoner, etc etc
She runs about 2-4 A big week is 10 miles.
She once said that she wishes she could move to Colorado, hire a coach and find out what the secret is to running ultras.
Ummmm, maybe run? I'd take her money but I don't think she's like my advice.
To clarify (and this is one story)- we have a woman in our running community who is always posting how running is life and she loves to run and she's an ultra marathoner, etc etc
She runs about 2-4 A big week is 10 miles.
She once said that she wishes she could move to Colorado, hire a coach and find out what the secret is to running ultras.
Ummmm, maybe run? I'd take her money but I don't think she's like my advice.
The Running Boom was talking off when I was doing my best running. Now and again someone I knew who had taken up running, maybe doing three or four mile runs three or four times a week, would tell me they'd like to run a marathon in three hours and asked me for advice. I'd get them to tell me what their running was like and then write up a progressive schedule usually getting them to seven or eight hours of running a week. They'd ALWAYS respond by saying they didn't have time to run that much. I'd redistribute running time on the schedules loading up some days and having only very short runs on others. Same response, "don't have time for that."
At that point I'd usually explain that for most people running a marathon in three hours or so is a hard thing to do and doing it generally requires a serious time commitment and if they didn't have time to run as much as most schedules required they probably didn't have time to become a three hour marathoner. Usually they'd get a bit mad at me.
They seemed to want stuff like "eat yogurt mixed with granola, hold your breath in the shower, do push ups and sit ups while you're watching TV, buy a particular running shoe," etc. It was fine with me that they didn't want to invest the time I thought they needed to, that they were doing their three or four mile runs. I could have done without them getting mad at me. And I remember one guy in particular who taught where I did and who had the same free period I did. In those days network TV was a big thing and there were shows everyone watched and then discussed the next day, "Dallas" was one, I never watched them. This guy was always up on each episode of most of the shows. I thought about mentioning to him that he actually did have plenty of time to follow a schedule like the ones I'd written up but he might not be up to speed with the TV shows. Maybe if VCRs had been around then he would have gotten under three hours for the marathon.
When Kayoko Fukushi ran her first marathon in 2008, she was already a highly accomplished track runner with 14:53/30:51 PB and a top ten finish in the World Championships.
She blew up after 30km and ended up finishing with 2:40. After the race, she revealed she had never run more than 30km in training. She went on to winnng a bronze medal in the 2013 World Championships and improving her PB to 2:22 in 2016.
So she did not come within 10-15 minutes of her lifetime best in her first marathon. (I don't know how close 2:22 was to her "genetic potential.") And the biggest reason seems to be she didn't do enough long runs before the race. She was already a top elite on track and was doing everything else in her training.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read here, and that is saying a lot.
As a 16:xx / 33:xx/ 1:14:xx runner I highly doubt I am "close to my full potential" and "within a minute of my biological potential" in the 10k.
But I would be even further off if I didn't do "thresholds, intervals, long runs..."
You call yourself "Think Like a Kenyan" ... and yet you have the loser mentality of a country ten times as big with zero sub-2:05 runners. LSD is a joke.
No you wouldnt be much further off if instead of wondering if you should 10 minutes at LT + 30 minute at MP + 7 minutes at 5k pace... you would just run 2-3 times a week faster than easy pace, just based on feelings.
Grant Fisher would easily break 14 minutes on just easy run and some faster run. Again just based on feelings.
Most sub 13:00 runners would also be sub 14 minute runners if they would just run easy and do some faster run a few times a week.
The point is just run more, and sometimes a bit faster is enough. Faster can be just run fast every other poles / run fast every hills on your way / run fast the other half of your run etc.
But wondering if you should add 7 minutes of LT pace instead of 15 minutes of MP at the end of a given training session is not going to make a big difference for you.
I think a lot of the people disagreeing with you missed the part where you said they should run fast sometimes. I think a lot of runners aren’t versed in exercise physiology. They don’t understand that unless you are seeking marginal gains at the higher levels of your potential that running is VERY simple. And some people like a plan so they don’t have to think about it. Or they like being told what to do. Or they like doing workouts they plan or that they do with a run club. Or they like paying someone to do a very simple job. Most likely, they are doing what you prescribe. Run as much as you can or want to at conversational pace , do some stamina work(moderate running) when you feel good , and mix in a little short fast stuff, be more specific close to a race.