How many people could cut their mileage way down and get the same result if they stopped running trash miles

I know for a fact easy mileage (slower than Sal's time) helps significantly for race times.

His comment might mean the ideal pace, not any pace slower does nothing for you.

Reasonable enough estimate for elites running under 14. I would not view things so neurotically, as I like to relax when my body says to. He coached Galen to unprecedented longevity, so who am I to criticize?

hansen9952 wrote:

malmo wrote:

This is false. Those who do longer easy runs are doing them as fast, or even faster than those doing short easy runs.

Correct. They aren't longer "easy" runs, but longer "aerobic" runs. According to Lydiard and many others, this means running them at your maximum steady-state without dipping into the anaerobic side too frequently. They are by no means "easy", yet they aren't exactly runs where you should go to the well (relative to other workouts).

You are talking about something that's entirely different than my point, or the point of this discussion. Easy is a feel, not a distance. What's easy pace at five miles is the same easy at ten miles.

Kvothe wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

Are they? I know guys who do easy runs at 6 minute pace. I'd never consider 10 miles in an hour easy. Yet, it would be a bit too slow to be a tempo for me.

to clarify, I'd consider 10 a bit short for the typical daily run for a marathoner. A better example might be 6 miles at 530, just too slow to be a tempo but fast enough that it will keep you from running another 10. These runs have a place, but shouldn't be staples in a marathon training program.

Everything is relative , relative to your experience and background. Again, you've gone off the rails, the topic of this discussion is easy runs, and the only conclusion possible to make is that runners of all abilities do their easy runs at different paces. This has been known since, forever.

From my logs, an 8.5 morning loop that I used to do often. I would simply write down distance , time and the subjective effort. The first mile was usually 6:00 to 6:15. It wasn't until 20 years later that I bothered to calculate the actual pace of those runs. Here are the results:

45:45 5:23 hard

45:50 5:24 moderate-hard

47:30 5:35 moderate

49:00 5:46 moderate

48:00 5:39 moderate

54:00 6:21 slow

53:00 6:14 slow

52:30 6:11 slow

48:00 5:39 moderate

46:30 5:28 fast

46:00 5:25 fast

48:30 5:42 moderate

46:05 5:25 fast

49:00 5:46 moderate

49:00 5:46 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

49:30 5:49 easy

47:00 5:32 moderate

46:50 5:31 moderate

46:00 5:25 fast

47:00 5:32 moderate

44:07 5:11 very hard

52:30 6:11 slow

47:30 5:35 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

44:30 5:14 fast

48:30 5:42 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

46:00 5:25 moderate

43:28 5:07 very hard

50:00 5:53 easy

51:00 6:00 easy

48:20 5:41 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

46:30 5:28 moderate

47:30 5:35 easy

48:00 5:39 moderate

48:00 5:39 moderate

48:00 5:39 easy

48:00 5:39 easy

47:30 5:35 easy

48:00 5:39 moderate

48:30 5:42 easy

51:00 6:00 easy

49:00 5:46 easy

50:00 5:53 easy

47:10 5:33 moderate

48:00 5:39 moderate

50:00 5:53 easy

Easy is a feel, not a pace.

Alpina wrote:

HRE wrote:

In his autobiography Henry says that he got the idea for doing his distance runs as slowly as he did from watching how slowly Viren ran when Viren was on a training trip to Kenya. Yeah, you can dig out loads of examples of fast people who trained really slowly. Jim Pearson had the US 50 mile record for a while and a 2:22 marathon. In a training profile in Runner's World he said he really didn't know how slowly he ran but had a stretch where he trained almost daily with a ninth grade girl (he was a teacher, not a pedophile) whose best mile was 6:47. But there are plenty of examples of people who ran much faster in training and did well.

Didnt he and up marrying that girl (Tina)?

Maybe. I read somewhere that he married a former student but have no idea who.

HRE wrote:

I'm thinking of that legendary 10,000 race in Eugene where Henry Rono, who was not in good shape at all a couple months before the race, edged Salazar out at the finish. Henry ran VERY slowly on most of his distance runs, much slower than 1:30 above his 5,000 pace. Obviously that's not all that he did but it was a big part of it. Maybe that sort of thing wouldn't have worked for Alberto or some others but you cannot make a general statement like that.

I feel like we may be conveniently leaving out some of Rono’s training. From a letsrun article only a month ago:

“Later that month he decided that some consistent hard training might be the answer to his problems. He relocated to Germany and put in some solid sessions. The average day was made up of a morning run in the forest, followed by interval sessions each afternoon. No easy days, just constant hard sessions. Such sessions included standard repetitions of 400 metres. On July 19, the second day of his training in Germany, the best he could manage were twelve in 65-68 seconds. Four days later he could do the same session, with times between 61.5 – 63.2 seconds, with the last one in 58.5. Three days later, he could complete seventeen in 63 – 65 seconds, while the very next day he managed twenty four, with the last one in 57.7 seconds. Between these days were sessions of 5 x 1,000 m, 24 x 200m or similar. Things were looking up.”

Rono ran 13:06 shortly after this training block.

Yes, we are leaving out stuff about Rono's training, at least I was because the distance runs are the only bit relevant to the OP's post.

Watch the second video, he criticised Mo for running 7 min mile pace on easy days and said "It was wasted time, was just just basically burning calories out there"

According to Stephen Seiler's research ("Hierarchy of endurance training needs") there is no such thing as "trash miles"

Consistency and mileage are the most important determinants for a long and successful running career.

malmo wrote:

hansen9952 wrote:

Correct. They aren't longer "easy" runs, but longer "aerobic" runs. According to Lydiard and many others, this means running them at your maximum steady-state without dipping into the anaerobic side too frequently. They are by no means "easy", yet they aren't exactly runs where you should go to the well (relative to other workouts).

You are talking about something that's entirely different than my point, or the point of this discussion. Easy is a feel, not a distance. What's easy pace at five miles is the same easy at ten miles.

Wait...then how are they doing them "faster"? Presumably the two camps are of similar or equal fitness. If the mileage men do their runs at the same or quicker pace, then their runs are naturally harder, right...? Sustaining a given pace for longer raises perceived effort, or am I missing something? For example, a 10K race is not run at the same pace as a 1500m race. Or I could be entirely mistaken and you could be referring to a pace that is so "easy" that an increase in distance is negligible, but in that case we aren't talking about two presumably equal camps of distance runners any longer if one's perceived effort at that given pace is noticeably more relaxed than the other's.

How do you accurately discern between perceived effort levels? Usually for me, if I'm going slow enough on a recovery day, say 8min/mile or slower (17:23 5K and 4:57 mile), I get confused because after the run I may still feel a little out of breath and felt that I exerted myself decently. I also sweat ALOT, even if it's a small workout, so that doesn't help. Should a slow easy jog have felt comparable to a brisk walk? Or should it have felt moderate, but "easy" relative to maximum effort? I really need some clarification because it hardly seems that I'm either running too fast on my easy days or over training.

Yes you are mistaken and self-diagnosed correctly. Racing isn't the same as aerobic, easy running. If you go out for an easy mile or two, its easy. If you go out for an easy 6 miles its just as easy. Easy is a feel.

cheaterfly wrote:

According to Salazar easy runs should be no more than 1:30m per mile slower than 5k race pace.

Yet I see many like Seth James DeMoor from youtube running 8 to even 9 min miles on his long easy runs (even the road ones), for someone of his level isn't he just burning calories at that point since based on his 5k race pace he shouldn't ever be running slower than 6:30 even on an easy day!?

No such thing as trash miles.

hansen9952 wrote:

malmo wrote:

Easy is a feel, not a pace.

How do you accurately discern between perceived effort levels? Usually for me, if I'm going slow enough on a recovery day, say 8min/mile or slower (17:23 5K and 4:57 mile), I get confused because after the run I may still feel a little out of breath and felt that I exerted myself decently. I also sweat ALOT, even if it's a small workout, so that doesn't help. Should a slow easy jog have felt comparable to a brisk walk? Or should it have felt moderate, but "easy" relative to maximum effort? I really need some clarification because it hardly seems that I'm either running too fast on my easy days or over training.

Well, you learn to discern by training and paying attention. Here's a rule of thumb that usually works for me. When I aim to run easy, I start really slow, and I aim for an effort that I could hold for a few hours. Sometimes that means that the entire run is a crawl. Other times, I speed up a bit.

Don't worry about the pace of easy runs. Just try to go easy, and let the pace be what it is. It's working when the next day or whatever, your legs surprisingly want to go a lot faster than the easy crawl of the previous day.

hansen9952 wrote:

How do you accurately discern between perceived effort levels? Usually for me, if I'm going slow enough on a recovery day, say 8min/mile or slower (17:23 5K and 4:57 mile), I get confused because after the run I may still feel a little out of breath and felt that I exerted myself decently. I also sweat ALOT, even if it's a small workout, so that doesn't help. Should a slow easy jog have felt comparable to a brisk walk? Or should it have felt moderate, but "easy" relative to maximum effort? I really need some clarification because it hardly seems that I'm either running too fast on my easy days or over training.

Oh my goodness. There is no such thing as "accurate" feel, and there's no reason for you to strive to have an accurate measure for what is, by its very nature, subjective.

Easy is what feels easy to you. It's not rocket science. I posted that list of morning runs as an example to show you subjective efforts vary, empirically, day to day.

Why don't you try this: stop calculating your pace after you run. Over my entire running experience I doubt that I calculated per mile pace for even 5% of my runs. You can do that to. Try it. Good luck.

hansen9952 wrote:

malmo wrote:

Easy is a feel, not a pace.

How do you accurately discern between perceived effort levels? Usually for me, if I'm going slow enough on a recovery day, say 8min/mile or slower (17:23 5K and 4:57 mile), I get confused because after the run I may still feel a little out of breath and felt that I exerted myself decently. I also sweat ALOT, even if it's a small workout, so that doesn't help. Should a slow easy jog have felt comparable to a brisk walk? Or should it have felt moderate, but "easy" relative to maximum effort? I really need some clarification because it hardly seems that I'm either running too fast on my easy days or over training.

You're overthinking things. It's possible that you're not running enough for running to ever feel "easy" which might explain the problem. If you're only running 2 or 3 times per week, or your mileage is really low, then running might always feel hard.

With that said, if you train at varying paces you should have some idea what feeling is difficult irrespective of pace. For example, days where everything feels good vs. days where things feel bad. In general, a faster pace will feel harder, but it's not 100% correlated.

this site is notorious for promoting heavy mileage like 100 miles a week. there's nothing you can get from doing those extra 50 miles (i.e. maintaining general fitness, burning calories) that you can't get from other forms of cross-training (e.g. elliptical machine, swimming) which are less likely to cause overuse injuries.

HRE wrote:

I'm thinking of that legendary 10,000 race in Eugene where Henry Rono, who was not in good shape at all a couple months before the race, edged Salazar out at the finish. Henry ran VERY slowly on most of his distance runs, much slower than 1:30 above his 5,000 pace. Obviously that's not all that he did but it was a big part of it. Maybe that sort of thing wouldn't have worked for Alberto or some others but you cannot make a general statement like that.

bringing the wisdom as always ? i live for your posts