Why thank you so much!
Why thank you so much!
vshui wrote:
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.
The best way to get good at running is to run.
Cross-training is an excellent alternative to running more but keep in mind that you would need to devote at least 20% more hours per week not the elliptical or the pool to achieve a similar training effect, which can be problematic. Plus, you can't adapt as efficiently to the pounding by doing zero-impact activities half the time.
Salazar's methods aren't for everyone. I've hit the form of my life since I started doing my runs at a variety of different paces. Sometimes I cruise at 6:30 pace, others I plod along at 8:30.
There are of course still benefits to the second 50 miles in a 100 mile week, just as there as there are still benefits to the third 50 miles in a 150 mile week, if the runner can handle it. But most runners can't, so you have to balance risk and reward.
If you are not training 2 hours per day for years on AVERAGE, you are not doing all you can to develop your aerobic system. Most runners should slot in somewhere in the 50-100mpw range and cross train the extra time that they are behind 10-15 hours a week. So if you run 60mpw and it takes 7 hours, you should cross train 3-8 hours per week. As with everything else in training, this needs to be built up to.
lancefan wrote:
There are of course still benefits to the second 50 miles in a 100 mile week, just as there as there are still benefits to the third 50 miles in a 150 mile week, if the runner can handle it. But most runners can't, so you have to balance risk and reward.
If you are not training 2 hours per day for years on AVERAGE, you are not doing all you can to develop your aerobic system. Most runners should slot in somewhere in the 50-100mpw range and cross train the extra time that they are behind 10-15 hours a week. So if you run 60mpw and it takes 7 hours, you should cross train 3-8 hours per week. As with everything else in training, this needs to be built up to.
You're missing the point that 2 Hours per day at 8-9 min pace isn't worth as much as 1 hour at 6:30 pace for someone who runs a 5 min pace for a 5k.
cheaterfly wrote:
You're missing the point that 2 Hours per day at 8-9 min pace isn't worth as much as 1 hour at 6:30 pace for someone who runs a 5 min pace for a 5k.
That is pretty debateable which is why these threads keep coming up. 90s-120s off 5k pace seems pretty like a pretty reasoanble range for most people. Would going to 4 mins slower help them? Only if it results in a huge volume upswing. Personnally I find that right around 8 mins is where I switch from a good running form to more of a jogging shuffle. If I need to run that slow, I am overdoing it elsewhere.
cheaterfly wrote:
lancefan wrote:
There are of course still benefits to the second 50 miles in a 100 mile week, just as there as there are still benefits to the third 50 miles in a 150 mile week, if the runner can handle it. But most runners can't, so you have to balance risk and reward.
If you are not training 2 hours per day for years on AVERAGE, you are not doing all you can to develop your aerobic system. Most runners should slot in somewhere in the 50-100mpw range and cross train the extra time that they are behind 10-15 hours a week. So if you run 60mpw and it takes 7 hours, you should cross train 3-8 hours per week. As with everything else in training, this needs to be built up to.
You're missing the point that 2 Hours per day at 8-9 min pace isn't worth as much as 1 hour at 6:30 pace for someone who runs a 5 min pace for a 5k.
So how do you account for a guy like Rono who often trained that slowly and that much and whose 5,000 meter pace was much closer to four minutes than to five?
Archimedes wrote:
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.
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.
Lol. Thanks for the advice but you obviously didn't catch my race times. My average mileage has routinely been around 65 miles a week with some even as high as 75. and I train 7 days a week, not 2-3. This has only been the case for the past year or so, but I still highly doubt that consistent exercise is the issue. Maybe I do need to get up on my feet a lot more if accumulated exercise is the most important factor. I typically do my runs then end up sitting down for the rest of the day.
Sorry malmo. I know you're a great runner yourself and get frustrated at times with people on here. The reason I get so technical with perceived effort is because people on here are always saying how terrible it is to go even slightly too fast on recovery days, which makes me anxious. But I will take your advice to heart and not worry about paces any longer for steady runs.
HRE wrote:
cheaterfly wrote:
You're missing the point that 2 Hours per day at 8-9 min pace isn't worth as much as 1 hour at 6:30 pace for someone who runs a 5 min pace for a 5k.
So how do you account for a guy like Rono who often trained that slowly and that much and whose 5,000 meter pace was much closer to four minutes than to five?
I think another poster already pointed out to you on another thread that Henry frequently went through crash training periods where he trained hard on the track nearly every day. Why do you deliberately ignore that piece of the Rono equation?
hansen9952 wrote:
Sorry malmo. I know you're a great runner yourself and get frustrated at times with people on here. The reason I get so technical with perceived effort is because people on here are always saying how terrible it is to go even slightly too fast on recovery days, which makes me anxious. But I will take your advice to heart and not worry about paces any longer for steady runs.
I'm not frustrated by you. I just think you need to see the whole picture, relax, and learn to feel your Kung Fu. Center yourself, and focus on what matters. Allow yourself to be free from unnecessary mental roadblocks.
The mindset that you allude to is all wrong. It's not healthy, and there's nothing positive that can come out from it.
I believe I answered that poster. I'm ignoring Henry's crash training periods because they aren't the topic of the thread. I'm certainly not overlooking them in my own thinking . They just don't seem to me to fit with this particular topic. I could also mention his use of "De heels" but that too seems off topic here, at least until now. I'm only using Henry here as a fairly dramatic example of someone who did a lot of running at much slower than 90 seconds per mile above his 5 km pace and did very well. And I mentioned it one more time because I really would like to know how someone who believes that an hour at 6:30 pace is better for someone who runs five minute miles for 5 km is better training than twice that distance at a much slower pace.
HRE wrote:
I believe I answered that poster. I'm ignoring Henry's crash training periods because they aren't the topic of the thread. I'm certainly not overlooking them in my own thinking . They just don't seem to me to fit with this particular topic. .
Context matters in this case.
malmo wrote:
HRE wrote:
I believe I answered that poster. I'm ignoring Henry's crash training periods because they aren't the topic of the thread. I'm certainly not overlooking them in my own thinking . They just don't seem to me to fit with this particular topic. .
Context matters in this case.
Exactly, context matters. You can't look at his crash training periods and conclude that was the reason for his success. The slow miles (running 18 miles every day at 8-9 minute pace) gave Rono the base to be able to absorb the track workouts he did later on. That's Lydiard 101.
malmo wrote:
HRE wrote:
I believe I answered that poster. I'm ignoring Henry's crash training periods because they aren't the topic of the thread. I'm certainly not overlooking them in my own thinking . They just don't seem to me to fit with this particular topic. .
Context matters in this case.
Are we arguing here? It seems like we might be but if so I'm not sure why because there's nohting you've said here that I disagree with, including that context matters, pretty much everywhere and not just here. So maybe not. Anyway, in a different context I may well have mentioned Henry's ability to get from not very to very fit in a short time and that doing hard intervals on successive days seemed a big part. In this context that information doesn't seem to fit. No one could agree with you more than I do when you say things like easy is a feeling and not a number. That's really the idea that got me to decide to jump into this thread. So I'm really not sure what we're doing with each other here.
HRE wrote:
Are we arguing here? It seems like we might be but if so I'm not sure why because there's nohting you've said here that I disagree with, including that context matters, pretty much everywhere and not just here. So maybe not. Anyway, in a different context I may well have mentioned Henry's ability to get from not very to very fit in a short time and that doing hard intervals on successive days seemed a big part. In this context that information doesn't seem to fit. No one could agree with you more than I do when you say things like easy is a feeling and not a number. That's really the idea that got me to decide to jump into this thread. So I'm really not sure what we're doing with each other here.
"So I'm really not sure what we're doing with each other here.."
We're having a discussion.
You made a statement about Rono's super slow easy runs, but completely left out the context of the intensity and frequency of Henry's reputation for Herculean training. Whether it's training, racing or drinking, Henry does things big. I simply made that point. That's what discussions are.
Okay, thank you. I hope I was clear as to why I did not mention Henry's intense interval work in this particular context.
Why can't "easy" be a number as well?
The 90s called they want their crappy training, which equaled crappy performances back.
ExPhys wrote:
Why can't "easy" be a number as well?
"Easy" can be a post facto number, e.g. "My run today was x minutes per mile and it felt so nice and easy." But how could any number be easy if it feels hard?