ShilohDoesntCare wrote:
Admit it, you just feel better about yourself when Strava lets everyone know that you don't do 8s and 9s.
Regarding the original question, 9-minute pace is REALLY slow for someone who runs in the mid 16s for 5k. I would never advocate such slow running during "base training," unless you're coming back from an injury or something. It's not a pace that facilitates aerobic development. In fact, of the aerobic adaptations that we are aware of (e.g., more capillaries, mitochondria, enzymes), most of them require you to be within about 10% of marathon pace. (See, e.g., Canova and Arcelli, page 49 ("As for runs at a speed that is lower than 80% of marathon speed, they will certainly not influence performance determining factor in athletes who have already achieved a good condition.")) That doesn't mean that there aren't benefits to running slower; it just means that we haven't pinpointed them with science.
There's a place for really slow running when necessary for recovery, but typically this is later in the training cycle, when the workouts are getting a lot harder. When you're a long ways from your goal race, typically you should be doing your everyday runs at a FASTER average pace (in conjunction with much easier quality days).
9 minute pace seems really slow for base building, especially for a 16 minute type guy. However, I do think that base building is very important for every runner. I went from 4:25 to 4:10 and 1:57 to 1:52 while upping my mileage during base building. A lot of those miles were done at 7:30 pace. Having a strong base is really important in training, it gives you the strength needed to run the workouts that you need to get faster. Just doing base alone wont make you fast, the point of building the base is to get fit enough to do the training and interval workouts the WILL make you fast. Without having a strong base you would start to struggle in the latter reps of the interval workouts that will actually make you fast.
run fast not hard wrote:
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
round and round wrote:
run fast not hard wrote:
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
Listen to this guy.
He’s not going fast on normal runs relative to his ability and weekly mileage.
Look, in response to the OP, your slow training is just killing time between the 'workouts', done just to remind your aerobic enzymes and other adaptations to remain elevated. If you run too slowly, you won't be boosting those enzymes in enough of your aerobic muscle fibers, so you are not maintaining full adaptation. All that should matter for "stress" are the workouts (any of the faster, higher intensity, stuff) and long runs. All the other EZ running is just to keep things adapted during the necessary rest time between the workouts and long runs. Simple.
As you get better, more 'elite', closer to the best you can do, the distinction between stressful workouts and recovery runs should narrow down to the point that "having a good day" is all that distinguishes a 'solid workout' day from a pretty stressful 'recovery' day. Hence, the confusion.
Did OP ever mention his mileage? 9:00 sounds like an OK recovery run if doing high mileage. Otherwise 7:10-7:40 sounds appropriate. 6:30 is unnecessary.
RyecorDone wrote:
As you get better, more 'elite', closer to the best you can do, the distinction between stressful workouts and recovery runs should narrow down to the point that "having a good day" is all that distinguishes a 'solid workout' day from a pretty stressful 'recovery' day. Hence, the confusion.
800 dude wrote:
round and round wrote:
run fast not hard wrote:
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
Listen to this guy.
He’s not going fast on normal runs relative to his ability and weekly mileage.
Still going significantly faster, even relative to his ability, than the OP.
isitnormal wrote:
RyecorDone wrote:
As you get better, more 'elite', closer to the best you can do, the distinction between stressful workouts and recovery runs should narrow down to the point that "having a good day" is all that distinguishes a 'solid workout' day from a pretty stressful 'recovery' day. Hence, the confusion.
What does this mean? Are you saying that every day is hard or moderately hard for elites?
RyecorDone wrote:
isitnormal wrote:
RyecorDone wrote:
As you get better, more 'elite', closer to the best you can do, the distinction between stressful workouts and recovery runs should narrow down to the point that "having a good day" is all that distinguishes a 'solid workout' day from a pretty stressful 'recovery' day. Hence, the confusion.
What does this mean? Are you saying that every day is hard or moderately hard for elites?
Marathon training at peaking stage necessarily entails training your neuro-musculo-skeletal system to adapt to an extreme pitch - unnaturally so. Such adaptations require at least twice a day reinforcement, and the intensity needed to maintain those adaptations has to be high. So, a warm up turns into a tempo or several tempos or a fast finish progression run on your "recovery" days...if your body can handle it.! That's why that n-th degree of training doesn't occur with most. Mere mortals can't maintain a marathon 4:35/mile pace unless every available fiber is well trained and synchronized. That requires training for that pace, adapting to that training, and then maintaining those chemical adaptations at least until the next training bout. The half life of those chemical adaptations might be on the order of hours - not days or weeks. So, wasting a day with slacker jogs won't help you. Your progress will be delayed, and eventually you will overdo a workout or race and your weaker links will fail.
All that said, I doubt that it happens to such an n-th degree for most...unless they follow the DANCAN system! Right Coach J.S.?
Running easy runs at 70% HRmax and 80% HRmax give you the same benefits in your progress, so why to run harder? As during harder run you increase energy consumption and give more stress to your body, but benefits are the same.
In cycling sport, for example, zone from 75% to 80% - most avoidable zone of training.
Zones are for practical purposes and is a simplification. Any training above some minimum intensity will have some effects and adaptations. There is no single effect on one intensity and a completely different one at another. There are certain effects at different intensities and the effects are spread out, some on lower and some on higher intensities. 75-80% is an intensity that will give something slightly different from 70-75% or 80-85%. The thing is to create the combination of different adaptations from variation and then ANY intensity can give its positive outcomes. It is just a matter of variation and how much of each ingredient. This is kind of impossible to measure scientifcially cause it would need perhaps 1000 runner, followed over 10 years, using many different training philosophies.
So what we have is practical experience and different theories that focuses on this or that. There are no hard facts, there are a lot of good experiences
sometimes wrote:
RyecorDone wrote:
isitnormal wrote:
RyecorDone wrote:
As you get better, more 'elite', closer to the best you can do, the distinction between stressful workouts and recovery runs should narrow down to the point that "having a good day" is all that distinguishes a 'solid workout' day from a pretty stressful 'recovery' day. Hence, the confusion.
What does this mean? Are you saying that every day is hard or moderately hard for elites?
Marathon training at peaking stage necessarily entails training your neuro-musculo-skeletal system to adapt to an extreme pitch - unnaturally so. Such adaptations require at least twice a day reinforcement, and the intensity needed to maintain those adaptations has to be high. So, a warm up turns into a tempo or several tempos or a fast finish progression run on your "recovery" days...if your body can handle it.! That's why that n-th degree of training doesn't occur with most. Mere mortals can't maintain a marathon 4:35/mile pace unless every available fiber is well trained and synchronized. That requires training for that pace, adapting to that training, and then maintaining those chemical adaptations at least until the next training bout. The half life of those chemical adaptations might be on the order of hours - not days or weeks. So, wasting a day with slacker jogs won't help you. Your progress will be delayed, and eventually you will overdo a workout or race and your weaker links will fail.
All that said, I doubt that it happens to such an n-th degree for most...unless they follow the DANCAN system! Right Coach J.S.?
This is just completely wrong. Don’t know where you’re getting that
Art or science, it does not matter. Your science is wrong or you’re painting a hideous picture. Marathon peaking does not require turning every single run into a marathon paced run. And if adaptions from a run only exist over hours, then we would see athletes run 30 minutes 4x5 times a day in the weeks proceeding. This does not happen because you are lying
round and round wrote:
I'm not sure you read it.
OP said his PB is 5:10 to 5:28 per mile (16-17:00 5k) and stated he's running 6:30-7:00 pace for 13 mile runs
@run fast not hard is a 13:50 guy (4:27 per mile pace) and runs at 6:40-7:10's.
So, he's running 2:10 to 2:40 slower per mile on normal days. OP is less than 90 seconds.
i've always been a skeptic of running slower = better. the reasons provided to encourage slower running is almost always stuff about heart rates, combining the word "aerobic" with other words, and occasionally stuff about capillaries and mitochondria. maybe that's true, but i look at that as junk science and throw it out the window.
i am of course not a skeptic of running MORE is better. why can't the explanation for slower running be as simple as "running slower makes you run for a longer time"?
Take two people with similar levels of talent. They run 6 miles every day. 42 miles a week.
7:30 pace - 45 minutes a day, 5 hours and 15 mins a week
9:00 pace - 54 minutes a day, 6 hours and 18 mins a week
i can easily see the 9:00 guy racing faster than the 7:30 guy, because he runs an hour longer a week. The benefit of running for that extra hour outweighs the the benefit of running faster. Simple to digest.
now take a counter scenario, where they run 45 minutes a day regardless of distance. Now the 7:30/mi guy still runs 6 miles a day, but the 9:00 guy is down to 5 miles. I would have to see the 9:00 guy race faster than the 7:30 guy to believe anything about optimal paces and mitochondria.
And feel free to change the numbers in my example scenario, but what I'm looking for is a clear indication that "running slower" is good advice if it doesn't somehow result in "running more". I have not seen that.
We should be encouraging athletes to run for longer time and longer distances... not just "slower". If running slower is how they manage to accomplish running for longer time and longer distances then it's reasonable advice.
Don't have to say anything about enzymes.
flvmmox wrote:
i've always been a skeptic of running slower = better. the reasons provided to encourage slower running is almost always stuff about heart rates, combining the word "aerobic" with other words, and occasionally stuff about capillaries and mitochondria. maybe that's true, but i look at that as junk science and throw it out the window.
i am of course not a skeptic of running MORE is better. why can't the explanation for slower running be as simple as "running slower makes you run for a longer time"?
Take two people with similar levels of talent. They run 6 miles every day. 42 miles a week.
7:30 pace - 45 minutes a day, 5 hours and 15 mins a week
9:00 pace - 54 minutes a day, 6 hours and 18 mins a week
i can easily see the 9:00 guy racing faster than the 7:30 guy, because he runs an hour longer a week. The benefit of running for that extra hour outweighs the the benefit of running faster. Simple to digest.
now take a counter scenario, where they run 45 minutes a day regardless of distance. Now the 7:30/mi guy still runs 6 miles a day, but the 9:00 guy is down to 5 miles. I would have to see the 9:00 guy race faster than the 7:30 guy to believe anything about optimal paces and mitochondria.
Your talking rubbish, how did you come up with this conclusion?
More time does need mean faster nor faster easy pace.
