Mistake #1: Running Too Fast On Easy Days

Can you explain, in lay terms, your post about paces for slower runners based on easy pace as the dependent variable? Also, should the age of the runner be a consideration in the equation, given the physiologic changes associated with aging?

My alternative hypothesis (based on OP's data) is that the optimum easy run pace for runners at different speed may not be a simple function of "percentage of 10k pace."

If OP's hypothesis is correct, then the equations I posted should have very small "constant" (the first number after the equal sign.) Instead, what we are seeing is a relatively large constant, followed by a small variation that correlates with their 10k pace. That means, their easy pace is likely to be xx sec/km slower than their 10k pace, with relatively little variation based on their 10k pace. (I don't know the reason for this. That's just observation based on data.)

We need samples from slower runners to see if this relationship holds up. And the top masters runners in each age group are probably ideal samples for this purpose. Those people are slow not because they are undertrained, but because they have less speed. Those top masters might be doing their easy runs faster than the pace OP recommends. But we will not know that unless we have more data.

I want to congratulate OP: a well-written article that made us think and talk about training.

Although some disagree with your conclusions, everybody appreciates the article you have written.

It was a very good article. As far as disagreeing, you could say "water is wet" and there would be people arguing with you in the LRC. It's the nature of the place.

I'm not digging my heels in, but in general, people don't tend to change their view unless they're presented with convincing evidence to the contrary. You haven't provided any, as I've previously stated.

And I'm not "strawmanning" your argument, I'm simply reaffirming the premise of mine - which you obviously take exception to.

You also continually repeat yourself with regard to mechanical stress, but you always seem to ignore the other parts of the equation (the tolerance of mechanical stress that higher mileage athletes have built), and additional factors that add to fatigue (running close to or above LT1 and the resultant byproducts).

And let's take a look at the example you give. Firstly, 45 secs/km is not a slight increase in pace. Going from 6:30/km to 5:45/km is a 13% increase in pace. That's hardly "slight".

Secondly, I coach an athlete (who runs roughly 75kms/wk) whose PB is 42 mins for 10k, and she does a lot of 5-8 minute LT1 intervals (on a flat road) at around 5:10/km. If we factor in the additional 12 secs/km for the 44 minute runner, the increased fatigue and dehydration that comes with a continuous run, the likely uneven surfaces, hills, and we also consider that this runner is performing this run the day after a hard workout (while still fatigued), then it is very, very likely that this 44 minute runner will be exceeding LT1 towards the back half of that 5:45/km run. The elite athletes (including all of the females) are getting nowhere near LT1 (likely not within 40 secs/km) on any of their runs.

Also, quite a few posters on this thread don't seem to know what the term "outlier" means. These athletes are not outliers. There are performers close to them and the next person all the way down the performance continuum. They may be at the far end of the performance spectrum, but that doesn't make them outliers. An outlier would be someone who performs at a level far above the next performer. An example would be Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon performance in 2003, which was 3 minutes faster than the next performer.

I know why you use the term outlier though, it's to support this idea that somehow these people are almost a difference species. They are not. They are made of the same stuff as you and I; and the things that mostly work for them in training, will mostly work for anyone else. In fact, that's the thing with professional athletes - they are far more incentivised to discard things in training that are wasteful, ineffective and/or offer far greater stress than what they are worth.

And lastly, just to cover my bases with other posters, if I chose to collect a study of amateur athletes (to make it somehow "more relatable"), then the sample would've been completely insignificant, no one would know who they were, and no one would care. The line of criticism would've likely been "Why should anyone follow the lead of amateur runners, who've not demonstrated that their training is particularly effective and/or capable of taking them to the highest possible level?"

You may argue that elite runners have reached the highest level due to talent, but when there's lots of talent, the thing that separates the talented is training. You can't be one of the best runners in the world without extremely effective training.

Anyway, this is the last comment I'll leave on this thread. I'm trying to work on other things, and this is quite a distraction.

Good luck with your training.

Maybe I misunderstood this question.

I took the seconds/km as the pace, since minutes/seconds is not suited for calculation.

So for a 40min runner, that's 240sec/km as the 10k pace. 240 x 1.059 + 92.27 = 346.43. And that's five minutes and 46 seconds. The same way with the faster end for the same runner. 240 x 0.899 + 92.68 = 308.44. Five minutes and 8 seconds.

P Luttrell, this has been a good discussion.

Looking forward to your next thread, Mistake#2

I like this article, because I wrote a nearly identical one a few month's back (complete with the exact same graphs!) regarding threshold pacing (which is another thing most people do too fast). I never finished, but maybe this will be my motivation to finish it up!

Please do. I'd love to see what you come up with.

I got ya! Do you know if this linear regression formula would be the same if you calculated it based only on male runners, or only on female runners?

I think many recreational runners, do thresholds too fast, and intervals too hard. I also suspect many make the long run too long, and the long run is probably overrated.

I actually should never have suggested that you listen to me. My purpose in my response was to let others know that what you are suggesting is not at all the norm for elite runners.

In addition to the two I personally know that have National records I know several others (you can dismiss this as anecdotal... that's fine) that do not train the way you are preaching. When athletes have extremely high fitness the less easy runs they need. Basically, it's important to not have knock out type training where you need a long time to recover but you need to keep as much of what you do as high end aerobic with the ability to recover and adapt. If they are able to adapt faster because of their fitness than they can go back at it again. I would agree with some differences that the regular person needs more rest.

Let's talk about the science on the ground level. Everyone has a percentage of fast twitch fibers even those who are predominantly slow switch. The body always chooses slow twitch first. When enough force is applied fast twitch fibers are engaged OR you can engage fast twitch fibers by completely wearing out the slow twitch with very high volume.

So, if in a polarized training model the only time you engage those fast twitch fibers is when you are doing hard intervals which as you know are not long enough or aerobic enough to build any mitochondria in those targeted fibers.

The only way for your average runner to engage those fibers aerobically is through a faster threshold type run. If they have more fast twitch fibers like if for example you have a male runner that used to run 23-24 back in high school for a 200 than you need even more of this kind of work.

Do elites have these very easy runs as slow as you were touting? I only believe that if they were recovering from something.

I haven't read every post so sorry if this was addressed already but...

When it comes to marathon training and easy pace, I contend that marathon pace IS easy pace for those of us running approx 4 hour marathons (late 60's here). If I can run that pace for FOUR HOURS is it really much faster than easy? That's not 70% of 10K pace.

I can see why the elites wouldn't call their marathon pace easy. My 2 hour race pace wouldn't be very easy either.

What do you think?

Luttrell: your premise is that if elite runners run their easy pace as a certain percentage of 10k pace, that non-elites should run that percentage as well. I personally think that's a good idea, but you didn't have anything in your article to prove that's true. People are going to get hung up on your premise because it's unproven and it may not be backed up by someone's personal experience. It's still a good article and a good rule of thumb to use.

I am that male runner who used to be a sprinter back in school, and now training for 5K-HM. Your idea is that I would need more of what? LT pace, a bit under, a bit over? Continuous or intervals? Short or long rest? If you have any thoughts in mind it would be good to hear as I don't see a common consensus on what is better for FT types trying to run distance. In Daniels terms, T pace feels very comfortable to me, and I pace kills me.

What is mistake #2?

For 5k/10k training, short aerobic intervals with short rest. It allows the fast twitch runner to run closer to race pace, while achieving similar benefit to longer threshold intervals/tempo runs. In my opinion, fast twitch runners need more work near race pace and continuous LT efforts are too slow to be used regularly.

Steve Magness book The Science of Running, has a section on how best to train FT types.

Basically:

Easy runs need to be slower to avoid fatiguing ST and avoid recruiting FT.

Long runs need to be slower and not as long to avoid the above and glycogen depletion.

Threshold runs should be done as intervals, rather than sustained runs.

Intervals should be shorter rather than longer, and with short standing rest.

Lower overall volume than ST runners.

Thanks Alfie and former, good to see such close agreement between your posts. My easy runs are too "fast" in that case (fitting the thread title) but otherwise I'm in line with what you say.

Maybe there's scope to develop a fast twitch version of the Norwegian Singles Approach by shortening and quickening the intervals and seeing how much can be done in a week while keeping recovered. Food for thought.