As winter approaches my amateur running club mates are starting to get the base miles in. Usually this means long slow distance runs of something around 9:00/mile pace. We are no elites but our abilities are ranging somewhere in the 16:00-17:00 minute ball park range for 5k with me being the fastest even though I started running only in my mid 20s.
So I am thinking what benefit would a 16:00-17:00 5k runner get from a 13 mile run at 9:00/mile pace? Currently I am doing my long runs of 13 miles at around 6:30/mile pace (year before it was more like 7:00/mile pace). And while slowly I still keep progressing with each year while I see that my club mates are stagnating more or less for the last couple of years.
I have influenced a lot from Daniels, Tinman, Salazar, Canova and I just don't understand what benefit slow jogging would bring on the table that I don't get from the fast run. Can anyone explain the logic behind this?
I don't understand the concept of slow base training and I think LSD is waste of time. Prove me wrong!
Report Thread
-
-
Are you running more than 80 miles per week?
-
You should go by feel which for your ability would probably be 7:30 pace. 9 minute pace will feel more tiring due to change in form and the additional 20 minutes it would take to complete the run.
-
LSD can also mean long steady running i.e. around marathon pace to a bit slower. Base training doesn't mean just slogging slow miles. I.e. Lydiard original 100 mile week looked something like:
Monday 10 miles (15km) at 1/2 effort over undulating course
Tuesday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Wednesday 12 miles (20km) at 1/2 effort over hilly course
Thursday 18 miles (30km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Friday 10 miles (15km) at 3/4 effort over flat course
Saturday 22 miles (35km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Sunday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over any type terrain
So once a week they would run for about 10 miles at 3/4 effort. Which for his athletes was close to 5 minute pace. And than 2 times a week going 1/2 effort over hills. The point of base training is to build up your body to be able to handle hard track work during track season. P.s. his original runners would shake out their legs in the morning with a easy jog, except on their long run day. -
You ought to read the Hadd thread as it explains very clearly how slower running can increase mitochondria more effectively than faster running in base phase. More mitochondria will make your body more efficient so that the faster work (Hadd phase 2 for example) is more effective. As Hadd said, when you do phase 1 correctly you can't run as fast as you like, but you can run through walls. Add the requisite speed work and you will be in the best shape of your life
-
A long base is important as you will not be racing within those first few weeks of winter training. Especially if you not doing any speed workouts, there is no need to be going that fast in you base training. I myself have a personal best of 15:27 5k and I do most of base mileage around 6:50-7:30/mile pace. When I get close to racing weeks then I will eventually increase the pace to around 6:30/mile pace (13-15 long runs)
The slow base gives a solid foundation to build from and wont be beat up just after finishing your base phase -
Tetherball wrote:
You ought to read the Hadd thread as it explains very clearly how slower running can increase mitochondria more effectively than faster running in base phase. More mitochondria will make your body more efficient so that the faster work (Hadd phase 2 for example) is more effective. As Hadd said, when you do phase 1 correctly you can't run as fast as you like, but you can run through walls. Add the requisite speed work and you will be in the best shape of your life
Yeah, he was talking nonsense, as most people do when they blather on about mitochondria. -
I’m a 13:5x guy and most of my normal runs are 6:40’s - 7:10’s. Mileage looks like 80-90 most weeks
-
9:00 pace for the athletes you are describing does nothing to advance fitness in a base phase with no hard/track workouts. All it’s doing is promoting blood flow, relieving stress, and keeping them healthy relative to sedentary folks.
-
35_and_counting wrote:
As winter approaches my amateur running club mates are starting to get the base miles in. Usually this means long slow distance runs of something around 9:00/mile pace. We are no elites but our abilities are ranging somewhere in the 16:00-17:00 minute ball park range for 5k with me being the fastest even though I started running only in my mid 20s.
So I am thinking what benefit would a 16:00-17:00 5k runner get from a 13 mile run at 9:00/mile pace? Currently I am doing my long runs of 13 miles at around 6:30/mile pace (year before it was more like 7:00/mile pace). And while slowly I still keep progressing with each year while I see that my club mates are stagnating more or less for the last couple of years.
I have influenced a lot from Daniels, Tinman, Salazar, Canova and I just don't understand what benefit slow jogging would bring on the table that I don't get from the fast run. Can anyone explain the logic behind this?
You have the right idea for endurance building.
More medium paced work more days per week than other times of the year. Some short sharp stuff to keep your legs supple too but not too much slow running. Save that for when you need to recover from the high intensity work that comes later. -
For most runners, the pace of 'easy' running should naturally get faster while increasing mileage via a gradual and patient schedule.
Jack Daniels' training tables show an easy run pace of 7 to 7:22 per mile for 5k runners between 16 and 17 minutes.
An easy pace of 9 min per mile is more appropriate to a runner capable of a 21+ min 5k. -
Tetherball wrote:
You ought to read the Hadd thread as it explains very clearly how slower running can increase mitochondria more effectively than faster running in base phase. More mitochondria will make your body more efficient so that the faster work (Hadd phase 2 for example) is more effective. As Hadd said, when you do phase 1 correctly you can't run as fast as you like, but you can run through walls. Add the requisite speed work and you will be in the best shape of your life
I have read a lot on the subject and as far as I have understood it the main goal is to improve the mitochondria density in both ST and FOG fibers as well as develop vascular network to support oxygen delivery and also improve muscle ability to store glucose.
As far as I know to achieve any adaptation you must stress the particular system involved. Since all muscle fibers are always recruited incrementally starting with least amount of ST fibers until they are fatigued or can't provide enough power for the necessary work do be done it means that the only way how long slow running can trigger adaptation to max number of ST and FOG fibers is if you run for extremely long time. But I can recruit the same number of fibers just by running at faster pace for sufficiently long time (as long as the pace is aerobic). Thus as far as I understand this I can achieve the same or even better mitochondrial adaptation in ST and FOG fibers just by going faster and not necessarily longer. Tinman has actually described this in detail with giving exact VO2max points which trigger specific fiber recruitment and I am using this information to guide my training paces. -
I am not running hard. I'm more like running moderate pace on the long runs – it's still 100% aerobic pace but closer to the Daniels M pace or what Tinman calls an easy tempo pace. I still do my easy runs easy – at 7:20-30/mile pace.
-
parkerjohn wrote:
9:00 pace for the athletes you are describing does nothing to advance fitness in a base phase with no hard/track workouts. All it’s doing is promoting blood flow, relieving stress, and keeping them healthy relative to sedentary folks.
This is exactly how I feel. Most of the time I don't feel any difference between running 7:30 or 8:30/mile pace. Actually 8:30/mile pace feels somewhat unnatural unless it's the recovery day after race. -
How are base training and LSD in any way related?
-
Lsd volume is for your heart, or more correct is for your stroke volume, or more correct is for your left ventricle. 60h+-10h is equal +1ml to your heart stroke volume. Simple and brutal for the same time, run more, dude 😄
-
Canefis wrote:
Lsd volume is for your heart, or more correct is for your stroke volume, or more correct is for your left ventricle. 60h+-10h is equal +1ml to your heart stroke volume. Simple and brutal for the same time, run more, dude 😄
Not really. Stroke volume and cardiac output are just two more issues that people talk BS about. Along with capillarisation and mitochondria and VO2 max development.
Endless BS that people just repeat without actually thinking about what they are saying. -
puddin' wrote:
PROOF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Snell
Peter Snell did not do Long Slow Distance -
puddin' wrote:
PROOF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Snell
This is actually an argument against yourself. Peter Snell was a Lydiard athlete who had the vast majority of his training done at high end aerobic paces during base. You have done the classic misinterpretation of Lydiard as lots of long slow running, the majority of Lydiard base schedules were at close to steady state every day. Snell used to run 22 miles on Waiatarua hills at sub 6 pace on the weekends during base.
