I don't understand the concept of slow base training and I think LSD is waste of time. Prove me wrong!

BlackCoach wrote:

Your talking rubbish, how did you come up with this conclusion?

Actually what he wrote is essentially the right way to look at it in my opinion. There are two variables involved: time and intensity. Intensity does not only mean pace, but pace is obviously a major factor, as is gradient.

You can run for longer at lower intensities, obviously. Once you are significantly below the aerobic threshold, it doesn't make much difference how slow you go. But running around the aerobic threshold is clearly a far bigger stimulus than running way below it. Thus it is a question of balance.

If someone can handle 100km a week of aerobic threshold/'steady' running, that is superior training to running the same distance significantly slower, no matter how good your aerobic system is. But not everybody can handle that, mentally or physically. One can get some of the same benefits by running much further at significantly slower paces; but how far is necessary, and how much of the same benefits one can obtain, is very individual. One will never obtain the same mechanical benefits from the slower running, though; of course one obtains mechanical benefits from quality workouts, but a combination of lots of slow running plus a few quality workouts is very unlikely to reach the same total quality mechanical volume as a lot of aerobic threshold/'steady' running.

BlackCoach wrote:

Your talking rubbish, how did you come up with this conclusion?

More time does need mean faster nor faster easy pace.

Amusing that "there's a benefit to running for a longer amount of time" is rubbish as opposed to "running at 9 minute pace when your body is capable of running much faster is good because that's the pace where your body decides it makes more mitochondria"

My 7:30/mi vs. 9:00/mi example may be too extreme. That's why I said the numbers can be flexible. But if I used more reasonable numbers, say 8:00/mi vs. 8:15/mi and the 8:15/mi guy runs an hour longer a week - I think it should be unquestionable that the 8:15 guy becomes more fit.

So for 35_and_counting - I run a fairly intense 35mpw (have not exceeded 40 in years) and I blow the 90mpw plodders out of the water in the local 5ks. You're right, those guys are aerobically maxed and not getting any better. But that's a talent thing. The question is to ask is - would you be scared to race against YOURSELF, who runs an hour longer per week but 15s/mi slower on non-workout days. I'd certainly get wrecked.

OP here.

Would I be scared to race against myself running 15 s/mile slower but an hour longer?

For me personally, no, I don't think so – as long as I do faster long run I am sure I would get fitter faster than running extra 2-3 hours per week.

But I understand your point of view and I think at some point it's worth running more time at slower pace to improve stroke volume.

It depends on the event. Extra 2-3 hours of easy running for middle distance, depending on what your current mileage is, could be the difference between making through the rounds or not. But for a single time trial type of a race for time, you can get away with less mileage. For 5k-10k, if your volume isn't already at what it should be, it's going help. For half marathon and above your legs are going thank you in the later miles for going out for a few extra easy runs. For me and my easy runs during base training I alternate between easy trots just putting time on my feet and going steady.

Once I'm doing good solid workouts, I'm just trotting for easy runs. Just saving the legs for the harder efforts. And you see this in elite athletes. Shelby Houlihan was asked on a podcast who goes the slowest on easy days out of the Bowerman Track club, she said it was her. That's just one example, a few other is Henry Rono who routinely jogged 8 min miles or slow. Craig Mottram did his easy runs so slow he would get dropped by the females in his training group. Ryan Hall and Scott Fauble do/did(did in the case of Hall since he's retired) their easy runs at 7 minute mile pace or slower. You'll see people with a 16-17 min 5k PB who do their easy runs at a 6:30 pace when they'd be better off going 1+ minute slower. Read Wejo "why I sucked in college", as another example of improvement via taking easy days easier.

Plus study after study showing the number one indicator of faster race times is more mileage and those with faster PBs are doing their easy runs at a relatively easier intensity than those with slower race times.

Now you're talkin'. If you aren't triggering recruitment of the fibers that you are actually going to use in a race, then you are not training them. I could jog for 6 hours, but that won't help me train half of the ST fibers and any of the FOG fibers I'll need in a race.

The usual strategy is to run far enough and long enough to force the recruitment of the lazy-assed fibers (both ST & FOG) that just set back and enjoy the ride during a shorter slower run. Long runs will kick them into gear, eventually, but if they aren't OFTEN trained, they won't develop much. So people put in tons of work slogging through marginally productive long runs, and volume eventually pays off. But you can't do long runs every day.

Doing intense (supra-VO2max) workouts trains FOG fibers, but the wrong way! You want them to adapt towards oxidative function, not glycolytic. So you need to recruit them and exercise them at a fast but not too fast pace. ..often. Not just during a long run.

And, to restate my prior points, since the margin between marathon pace and aerobic threshold pace narrows as training progresses, you'll find yourself doing more near threshold paces during your easy runs - because they are easy for you. But if you are fighting an illness or you are off your feed, you would find that "easy" pace as too hard. Thus, the wisdom of the OP running by feel.

Canefis wrote:

Try to do slow runs on hilly terrain.... magic?

Hilly trails are much slower than flat roads.

Both are good for building endurance in different ways.

You forget an important thing, running slowly and a lot of mathematical language is geometrically inappropriate to run faster but less, since long hours of running are necessary for your cardiovascular system, and fast running for the development of your muscles. So, it takes less time to develop muscles, and the cardiovascular system needs kilo-hours of running, that's the point.

As already noted here, quality workouts and fast running are necessary conditions for progress, but not enough. You need a balance: 1) run slowly and a lot of the right number of hours so that the cardiovascular system is able to support fast running.

2) quality workouts in order to train muscles to keep desired pace as long as need in a proper race distance

When you train one part mostly, another little suffering and vise versa. This is normal: you build base, but no quality workouts, muscles little loose power, when your base phase has finished, you work with quality workouts, your muscles become stronger, but aerobic base little loose capacity.

Modern training systems are designed so that the athlete does not have one or two clearly defined high peaks of form, and his form is smeared for the entire season, since the athlete needs to compete a large number of times a year. In other words, if you train for 1-2 peaks per season, the result will naturally be higher than multiple races during the season, but the athlete needs to live for something. For us Amateurs, the old system with 1-2 peaks is more suitable, since we do not need to compete often as pros.

Canefis wrote:

You forget an important thing, running slowly and a lot of mathematical language is geometrically inappropriate to run faster but less, since long hours of running are necessary for your cardiovascular system, and fast running for the development of your muscles. So, it takes less time to develop muscles, and the cardiovascular system needs kilo-hours of running, that's the point.

Yes. You are right. During base building you have to put in the time in order to develop everything you need to support more slow twitch muscle fibers and the fast oxidative fibers. But that support system only takes a few months. I think the OP concern is about carrying on that slow base building effort beyond the point of basic aerobic infrastructure development.

I believe that the key ingredient is the fast oxidative fibers (FOG) and of course all the lactate shuttling that East African runners are quite gifted with. FOG fibers naturally revert to fast glycolytic form and function when you spend too much time working them anaerobically, when doing lots of strength work (hill sprints), and even when you don't work them. You have to convert them to work oxidatively, and then reinforce that change with frequent bouts of sub-threshold running, or else they revert back to being fast twitch fibers that can work in sprints only.

Canefis wrote:

As already noted here, quality workouts and fast running are necessary conditions for progress, but not enough. You need a balance: 1) run slowly and a lot of the right number of hours so that the cardiovascular system is able to support fast running.

2) quality workouts in order to train muscles to keep desired pace as long as need in a proper race distance

How many races have you done?

Posting 9 minute miles on strava is ok as long as you give it a title like "super easy shakeout recovery jog" so everybody knows you're not really a 9 minute hobbyjogger.