Thanks that makes sense.
Thanks that makes sense.
We'll end up going around and around on this. I don't believe there is such a gray zone because easy is a feeling and if something feels easy it likely is.
HRE wrote:
We'll end up going around and around on this. I don't believe there is such a gray zone because easy is a feeling and if something feels easy it likely is.
Just trying to get you to understand the physiological difference between 80% and 65%.
Many push the pace on their "easy runs" closer to 80% which is going to be detrimental to their long term growth as an athlete.
The feeling of easy is clouded by many factors when training on a team. Numbers don't lie.
This high mileage fetish messed me up 10 years ago.
What you need to do is realize if you're a heavier runner and if you're fast twitch or slow twitch. If so, each impact is going to cause damage to your muscles and detrain your fast twitch.
If your race is 800/1500... you don't need a ton of miles. Work up your mileage in the offseason to a level where you can still get ample strides and hill sprints in without losing too much spring. If you still want to get aerobic work in, hit the pool and bike.
Yes the easier pace will improve aerobic endurance, but you need to train yourself to run fast and never lose that ability. Plodding out 70 mpw all cold winter is going to mess that up if you're a fast twitch or balanced 800/1500 guy.
10k yes you need to put the miles in.
I wish I would've capped myself at 40 mpw, high quality miles. Hit the pool the rest.
Swaglord_the_real_one wrote:
This high mileage fetish messed me up 10 years ago.
What you need to do is realize if you're a heavier runner and if you're fast twitch or slow twitch. If so, each impact is going to cause damage to your muscles and detrain your fast twitch.
If your race is 800/1500... you don't need a ton of miles. Work up your mileage in the offseason to a level where you can still get ample strides and hill sprints in without losing too much spring. If you still want to get aerobic work in, hit the pool and bike.
Yes the easier pace will improve aerobic endurance, but you need to train yourself to run fast and never lose that ability. Plodding out 70 mpw all cold winter is going to mess that up if you're a fast twitch or balanced 800/1500 guy.
10k yes you need to put the miles in.
I wish I would've capped myself at 40 mpw, high quality miles. Hit the pool the rest.
I agree. I don't know who mentioned this fetish of higher mileage.
No one is saying to get rid of quality workouts.
Raised in the 90s wrote:
The 90s called they want their crappy training, which equaled crappy performances back.
This is the answer to the thread title. Some will do well with less mileage, but fewer will reach their best performances.
To a high level runner an 8 minute mile pace is about as difficult as walking is to the average person in terms of the effect on heart rate. You are literally just burning calories at that point.
Why is this difficult for some people to grasp, there is a certain point where it becomes so easy for the cardiovascular system that it provides no stimulus at all and the extra pounding is just a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere. If you are that obsessed with "easy" efforts then at least resign them to low/zero impact cross training not more running.
cheaterfly wrote:
To a high level runner an 8 minute mile pace is about as difficult as walking is to the average person in terms of the effect on heart rate. You are literally just burning calories at that point.
Why is this difficult for some people to grasp, there is a certain point where it becomes so easy for the cardiovascular system that it provides no stimulus at all and the extra pounding is just a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere. If you are that obsessed with "easy" efforts then at least resign them to low/zero impact cross training not more running.
That's why we use %vVO2
cheaterfly wrote:
To a high level runner an 8 minute mile pace is about as difficult as walking is to the average person in terms of the effect on heart rate. You are literally just burning calories at that point.
Why is this difficult for some people to grasp, there is a certain point where it becomes so easy for the cardiovascular system that it provides no stimulus at all and the extra pounding is just a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere. If you are that obsessed with "easy" efforts then at least resign them to low/zero impact cross training not more running.
You keep saying this and just don't deal with the number of successful runners who run very slowly much of the time. Check innumerable Japanese marathon runnersSo it's not a very persuasive argument.
I'd like to get back to the topic. Recently my workouts have not been so great, and I'm now just wondering should I cut back "filler" miles or cut back hard workouts.
Numbers don't lie. But again, easy is not a number. It's a feeling. We can quit doing this.
pjrun wrote:
I'd like to get back to the topic. Recently my workouts have not been so great, and I'm now just wondering should I cut back "filler" miles or cut back hard workouts.
Take a down week. I advocate cutting 30% of mileage every 4th or 5th week. For myself, this allows me to maintain over 100 year round and freshen up for races/time trials/whatever.
Kvothe wrote:
pjrun wrote:
I'd like to get back to the topic. Recently my workouts have not been so great, and I'm now just wondering should I cut back "filler" miles or cut back hard workouts.
Take a down week. I advocate cutting 30% of mileage every 4th or 5th week. For myself, this allows me to maintain over 100 year round and freshen up for races/time trials/whatever.
over 100mpw average
HRE wrote:
Numbers don't lie. But again, easy is not a number. It's a feeling. We can quit doing this.
Sorry you can't comprehend. Good luck to you.
Kvothe wrote:
Take a down week. I advocate cutting 30% of mileage every 4th or 5th week. For myself, this allows me to maintain over 100 year round and freshen up for races/time trials/whatever.
Just found out from my logs I've been doing 10 weeks straight 80 mpw (that's pretty high for me), no down weeks. So maybe it's time!
Do you also cut back quality on your down weeks?
HRE wrote:
Numbers don't lie. But again, easy is not a number. It's a feeling. We can quit doing this.
The reason I use hr is because I don't seem to have a great feel for feel.
Running with a group, the same pace feels easier than running alone. Running alone, if my mind wanders off into some deep thought, I tend to speed up and am suddenly 5 bpm over. It is the same if running with someone and having a good conversation. I don't use music, but if I did I'm sure this would deaden the feel, particularly if it was uptempo. Some run with music, to make the run "feel easier".
I should know my hr pace very well, but if I run without the hrm, guess what, I go faster. There is very little difference in feel between 5 or 10 beats, but the cumulative daily effect must have an implication somewhere along the line.
It probably sounds like I'm going to slow, but I'm trying to max out at 75% of max hr on easy runs.
I often get the feeling that there is an element of snobbery, - good runners don't need a gadget to tell them how to run.
There are drawbacks to using hr, but are they more than the other methods? When ever running easy by pace is discussed, there is no common consensus as to what pace.
It is not just about the training stimulus, but also minimising injury.
I'm not trying to win any arguments, if I could run accurately by feel, I would.
ExPhys wrote:
That's why we use %vVO2
Is that 1 mile pace?
While you can gleam some information from the training of the super elite, for the most part it's not applicable to the rest of us.
You are always in danger when you start trying to extrapolate the training methods of the best in the world to regular people.
It's why people on here argue about Ryun's training vs Coe training vs Snell training vs Rupp.... those guys are super talented and probably would have been great runners in any structured training system that didn't get them hurt.
ExPhys wrote:
HRE wrote:
Numbers don't lie. But again, easy is not a number. It's a feeling. We can quit doing this.
Sorry you can't comprehend. Good luck to you.
Sorry you can't comprehend. Good luck to you too.
One answer might be that longer training runs tend to be at a faster pace because the slower warmup portion of the run takes up a smaller proportion of the run as a whole. For instance, let's say you get out at 1:45 per mile slower than your final pace. For an elite, let's say that he runs 7:15/6:45 and then 6:00 until closing in 5:45/5:30. On a 5M run, that would be 7:15, 6:45, 6, 5:45, 5:30 for 31:15 for 6:15/M average. On a 10M run, that would be 7:15, 6:45, 6, 6,6,6,6,6,5:45,5:30 for 1:01:15 or 6:07.5/M average. On runs where you need some really slow recovery at the beginning, maybe after a hard day, the difference might be greater. For me, this is even more exaggerated. I might be so sore or tired in the morning I start between 8:30 and 11:00 for the first mile, do the second in about a minute or two faster, and then cruise most of the run from 7-7:30 pace, with a few 6:30-7 miles toward the end. So, longer runs have faster averages.