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

That's how I do nearly all my runs.

Amazes me how some people can just get out the front door and hit their pace from the get go. I actually think some people have a set pace they think they should hit in their head and which they have to hit that pace from the off regardless.

Around the margins - and maybe pretty big margins - I can easily imagine that there is variability in what is "best" for each person. But in these discussions of the "right" easy pace, the huge range of paces suggests to me that someone is actually, objectively, physiologically wrong. And given that we have professional scientists studying such things (yeah, not a ton of people or funding, I know), I'm surprised that there isn't a pretty clear consensus on such a thing by now.

Put another way, how surprised would any of you be that rigorous physiological research were to determine that the optimal easy pace for world class distance runners RANGED from, say, 6:00 to 9:00/mile - i.e., 6:00 no less optimal than 9:00, and vice versa? Really? Such a huge optimal range seems awfully unlikely.

Put yet another way, I don't think that we should wave away our likely physiological ignorance by simply saying, "Everyone is different," or, "All good coaches/training approaches are equally physiologically accurate."

You're making a number your goal and trying to feel what the number feels like. No, that's not going to work. If you're running by feeling you aren't going to care about a 5-10 bpm difference in heart rate as long as the run feels easy. You might not even bother checking heart rate.

Is there an individual normal easy pace for the runner to reach optimum mitochondria and enzymes production ? If there wasn`t , then even a very slow jog should produce that optimum mitochondria and enzymes production

We know that high mileage systems have produced thousands of world class runners in history, so we know that approach functions

So a more interesting question nowadays is if it`s possible to reach the same or even better results on relatively low mileage , often half or less than the high mileage runners volume.

There is such an approach, but then the runner must change a couple of things when it comes to the pace and length of the easy runs to get the same or even better production of mitochondria

and enzymes.The pace of the easy runs must then mostly be at close to the sweet spot when the run still is most aerobic but not far from being anaerobic. And when it comes to the length of the run it sometimes have to be 60-80 min to get a sharp increase in enzyme production to get at least the same effect as the runner doing doubles.

HRE wrote:

You're making a number your goal and trying to feel what the number feels like. No, that's not going to work. If you're running by feeling you aren't going to care about a 5-10 bpm difference in heart rate as long as the run feels easy. You might not even bother checking heart rate.

Please stop providing poor advice not backed by evidence.

ExPhys wrote:

HRE wrote:

You're making a number your goal and trying to feel what the number feels like. No, that's not going to work. If you're running by feeling you aren't going to care about a 5-10 bpm difference in heart rate as long as the run feels easy. You might not even bother checking heart rate.

Please stop providing poor advice not backed by evidence.

I'm not giving advice. I'm explaining an idea. And it's backed by all sorts of "evidence." drawn from very successful runners. Go back a few decades and everyone just ran at whatever pace felt easy when they wanted to run easily. We didn't have formulas and didn't need them to tell us when we were tired or not. Snell's advice, that you were running too hard if you routinely needed to shorten or slow succeeding runs but otherwise were fine was based on a fair amount of study. and experience

One of the most useful ideas of Lydiard's was the idea that once you were up to your 100 miles a week or the later version of ten hours a week, or whatever approximation of those ideas you used, was that once you were covering the distance you'd run it faster as the weeks went on. Snell told me that at the start of a cycle they'd run about 7:00 pace on their 22 mile runs but by the later part of the period they'd be running the low to mid sixes. They didn't strive to run any of those paces. They just happened naturally as they all got into better shape.

That's not going to happen if you're artificially making yourself run to any particular pace. Now, you do not necessarily need to do it the way Lydiard's original guys did. Arthur did say that you can never run too slowly but you can run too fast. He also said that you can get very fit using slow running but it will take longer than if you run to your "best aerobic pace." He never, ever, defined that pace in terms of a number. It was always determined by feel. The only thing he ever told me about pace on distance runs was "Enjoy yourself."

I appreciate Snell and Lydiard for who they were during their time. However, science and technology have come a long way and we can now prescribe precise paces that are determined to have specific physiological results without having to just "feel" our way through training.

Are there times when we should just go by feel? sure! But we can now get exact and precise with training to better help athletes in the long term. Especially that feeling is subjective and people tend to overdo easy runs. Running slow enough to recover is a skill that needs to be practiced with most developing athletes. They typically run too hard which diminishes long term results.

Please stop providing poor advice not backed by evidence. If you need to run slower to recover know yourself and discipline yourself. If you want to use numbers that's fine but numbers alone cannot tell you whether you're running easily or not.

HRE wrote:

Please stop providing poor advice not backed by evidence. If you need to run slower to recover know yourself and discipline yourself. If you want to use numbers that's fine but numbers alone cannot tell you whether you're running easily or not.

Poor advice? Your hilarious HRE.

Your "sources" are Seb Coe & Arthur Lydiard. Those two couldn't be further polarized from their training philosophies. Please pick up a book and educate yourself.

Seb Coe? Where have I mentioned Seb Coe?

HRE has this 100% correct for me.

OK. Hypothetically speaking (well typing), lets say we could -by some scientific method- establish what everyone's ideal easy pace should be.

Lets say Joe Smith based on his/her physiology, race times, age, weight etc etc, has an optimum easy pace of 7.30 a mile. What if he/she has a bad night didn't sleep well, ate poorly, weathers terrible - hot, or windy, too cold/icy. What if he/she is ill, or stressed. A million other variables. Should they then still go out and run 7.30 pace even if that feels much harder than it should?

Really? No, he should learn what easy feels like and adjust. What if some days he/she feels amazing, should they shuffle back their stride, include walk breaks whatever just to keep it at 7.30 pace? The idea of having a specific ideal easy pace is silly.

Then simply run more, more you run better you'l get, that has been proven. Can great piano players get better if they play less but faster?

One of the drawbacks, that keeps getting mentioned, about using hr, is that hr is too influenced by the sort of things that you have listed.

Is this not a plus for hr?

Alfie wrote:

One of the drawbacks, that keeps getting mentioned, about using hr, is that hr is too influenced by the sort of things that you have listed.

Is this not a plus for hr?

It is, but then your relying on a piece of technology to gauge effort. What if it's wrong? (i.e. like most wrist based sensors often are).

Also reading a high HR isn't necessarily a reason to slow down, or vice versa speed up if its slow, a muscle, mental and other fatigue need to be addressed too. Hence I prefer to use my head, if it feels easy it probably is. I don't think you need a number on a watch to tell you that. Sure look at it afterwards to compare runs etc for a bit of stat porn, but I wouldn't fret about it during a run.

Think we are drifting away from the thread a little now, sorry OP. But I think a large part of this obsession with what pace to run at, what 'junk miles' are etc is due to the friggin internet, and people sharing the details of their runs with everyone, and knowing (or thinking) that everyone is looking at it.

Honestly people are determining what pace to do their runs based on what will look good on their shared Strava feed. I can almost see what they are mentally doing...'oooh i'm running x pace i'd speed up a bit so its looks better when i post it...'. This did not happen in 1985 when people wore short shorts and didn't really even know how far they ran, let alone exact pace.

I agree with Alfie here. HR is very variable to all sorts of factors which people often claim as a drawback but it's actually a positive.

If, for example, a runner knows that under 130 is truly easy, let's say it's 70% of max. If that runner has had a good nights sleep, isn't stressed and the weather is good that may equate to 4:45 per km. On another day, the same runner may be tired, slightly run down or stressed and so their HR is elevated. As long as they keep to that sub 130 then they are still training in the right zone but it may just mean that the pace is 5:00 per km for that day.

Someone who puts a pace on easy runs may run the risk of going too 'hard' even if the pace is the same simply because that pace was easy last week. Your HR never lies but our ego can cloud our judgement and what may feel easy isn't always quite as easy we perhaps think. Using a HR monitor is just another metric we can use to keep disciplined as well as 'feeling' the pace.

Fair comment. I suppose it all hinges on "if it feels easy it probably is".

I see many runs on Strava, described as "easy 6 miles" etc etc. When the detail is clicked on, a significant portion of the run may be at threshold hr or above. The hr zones may not have been set up correctly, it may have been a hilly route etc, but generally the hr shows it could not have been as easy as described.

I suppose the crux is, does this matter from the point of view of, sustainabilty, development, and longevity?

In my experience this is not a plus for HR. In my best years I would have occasional days when there simply was no easy pace. I was totally wrecked and no matter how slowly I ran it was still a struggle. And there were occasional days when there was essentially no hard pace. I felt great.

In my mid forties I got John Parker's book about heart monitors and got one hoping to arrest the slowing that came with getting old. The numbers showed exactly the same thing I mentioned above. There were days when even the "very easy" HR range felt really hard and others when I was sure, before looking at the monitor, that I must be in the lower range because I felt so good and easy but found I was somewhat into what should have been the moderately hard range. These sorts of days were fairly occasional but significant to my thinking.