thanks wejo
thanks wejo
WXC female top 50 at Aarhus 1:11:47 1/2 At 23 years of age.
High school aged boy 1:52/3:51 + 2 others 1:52, a couple fast high school girls as well. I'm American but coach in Austalia
nordic track wrote:
This is a very misleading post. First of all, a 5:27 mile in training isn't impressive at all, and saying that you could have run 47 seconds faster with no legitimate reason is a worthless argument. And by the way, 4:40 is still an unimpressive time, so your personal results are not really a strong argument defending easy running. I ran 4:21 with barely any easy running and a ton of hard intervals ... so does that mean that hammering every day is a good idea? No! You need a lot of good empirical data to back up a training methodology. The most prominent one for milers involves high intensity aerobic intervals, a moderate amount of easy running, and
Secondly, you seem to be misunderstanding what aerobic training is. Fartleks, tempos, intervals are still aerobic, just at a faster pace. Walking is also aerobic. Tempo training is a higher level of aerobic training vs easy running vs walking. Mixing higher intensity aerobic training with easier aerobic training as well as anaerobic and pure speed and muscular training is the way to go. Yes, easy jogging takes up a large proportion of your training, but it's not the most important piece. Anyone can run 8 minute miles, but very few can run tempos at 5:20 pace , 5:00 pace etc...and hit k reps in 2:55, 2:50 etc... Those workouts are what makes the difference, not the jogging.
Jogging a lot and doing a bit of speed is fun training, but it definitely isn't the best way to train for a miler. You need to suffer through some harder aerobic efforts if you want to really run fast. Take a look at Rubio's middle distance guide or read a running training book for more info.
What you're saying is correct. It's also orthogonal.
It's profoundly missing what the original guy is trying to say. The simplest way to get at what fastboy is trying to say is to take two young HS kids with 13:00 5k potential. Let's say A trains exclusively with threshold or faster, and B trains by building up to 120mpw done mostly at less than 70% of HRmax, with the occasional effort at 75-80% of HRmax + a long run.
In all cases A will run much faster than B. A is likely to run sub 14 doing that training. B would be lucky to get down to 15'.
Two things determine how fast you run. Aerobic capacity and anaerobic capacity. These consist of four things determine how fast you run: VO2 max, efficiency (economy), and fractional utilization set your aerobic contribution to power. Your FRC (anaerobic work capacity) sets the anaerobic contribution.
For an elite athlete running the mile, at best 25% of power comes from anaerobic component. 75% aerobic. Larger aerobic contributions as you go up.
So, whatever maximizes aerobic power is best. Over the long term, the greatest gains are seen in all aspects (VO2, economy, fractional utilization) from easy running. Aerobic intervals do improve the other values, and in fact do so faster over short time horizons. Over long time horizons, the gains stall and become sluggish for the harder stuff. Easy aerobic gains can continue over a decade or more.
Intervals, especially as you move above threshold, can then especially if you start to go to mile pace or faster, also have a benefit towards anaerobic capacity. This effect is small, because aerobic intervals are only lightly touching stressing anaerobic capacity, and this maxes out in 8 to 12 weeks.
Tl;dr - fastboy77 is fundamentally correct. He just didn't say it well. Nordic track is also correct, but was looking at the question holistically. Obviously, to run your best you peak everything, and need everything and Nordic is clearly correct there. However, if you were restricted to either training threshold or above OR never going above 80% of HRmax, the latter would take a runner much closer to peak potential than the former.
Another giver of +1 wrote:
MatthewXCountry wrote:
Same here. When I was in high school I was doing 15 -20 miles/week mostly hard. I was never under 20 for 5k and was doing "easy" runs at 8min/mile or faster.
This year I got back into running, at age 35 (masters level, old fogey). I focussed on easy running, getting up to 50 miles / week. I did occasional tempo runs, and workouts, maybe once per week, but almost all of my runs were easy. I mean 9-10 min/mile easy. I just ran 38 min for 10k and 1:25 for a half marathon and 4:40 for 1500m. This is as someone who never broke 12:00 for 3200 or 20 for 5k in high school. I used to think all of these easy running people were being stupid when I was a kid. Long slow runs leads to long slow runners. Now I see what they were up to. I am a convert for life.
+1
Of course you are. It works.
The evidence is obvious. Every elite runner bar none, running more than 1500m, does 10+ hours of week per training, with the vast majority (90% of it) done at VERY easy paces.
Few elite runners consistently run easy runs faster than 6:00 pace. None faster than 5:45. Many routinely 6:30-7:30. Assuming a race pace of 4:12 per mile, converting those ratios yields:
15:30' equivalent: 7:10 to 9:00 pace
18:30 equivalent: 8:30 to 10:45 pace
20:00 equivalent: 9:15 to 11:30 pace
Then realize that those are still overestimates of how fast you should run because the gap between 6:00 pace and 4:12 pace is MUCH larger than the gap between 8:30 pace and 6:00 pace, given the exponential aspect of wind resistance.
How many of you guys that are 18' guys are running 8:30 pace as your FASTEST speed for general easy runs? I doubt it.
That's (part) of why you're not elite. Or as good as you could be.
The important part is that the H+ ions that are driven out of the cell into the extracellular matrix go back down their concentration gradient by going through the protein ATP synthase. This kinetic energy is used to drive the conversion of ADP to ATP, the energy source, since it is an endergonic process.
To build a house you need first to build foundation then you go on , you need block to build walls and so on, step , windows , door, roof. The foundation (easy running) is yes very important but without the other ingredients you will not have the house.
fastboy77 wrote:
Easy Running is by far the most important aspect in all of distance running, from the 500m up to the marathon. Nothing is even close to being more important; not tempo runs/steady state runs, not progression runs, not hills, not fartleks, not intervals, NOTHING.
Easy Running is the foundation of distance running. It is a known fact that easy running helps bud new capillaries. It is a known fact that easy running increases the stroke volume of your heart. It is a known fact that easy running helps build aerobic enzymes involved in the citric acid cycle (also known as the Krebs Cycle). This makes aerobic metabolism more efficient and delays the need for anaerobic metabolism, and thus running hurts less and you can run faster. So in other words, easy running increases your endurance. This is HUGE in distance running, people. Furthermore, easy running increases the number of mitochondria which means your body can produce more adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
Folks, anyone who says easy running is not important is WRONG. Folks, anyone who says that you're running too slow is WRONG. In fact, you can NEVER run too slow. Run 10 minute miles if you feel like it, and you'll reap all of the amazing benefits I mentioned above and you will become so much better of a runner.
I'm going to tell you guys a little story. Going into my first year of cross country (sometimes abbreviated as XC), I did NO workouts in the summer. All I did was easy running. I ran 8-10 miles a day VERY easy. As in very easy, I am talking about 9-10 minute miles. At an early season practice, our coach had us doing 3 x 1 mile with a rest in between (not sure what). My first mile was 5:27!!!!!!!! That might not seem significant, but this was my FIRST year of cross country. And furthermore, nobody on the team was even close to me. It was me against myself. Me pushing myself.
This goes to show how important easy running is. Off of ONLY easy running, I was able to run a very fast mile repeat in my FIRST year of cross country.
Now, imagine had i incorporated some speed work in. Imagine I had done amazing speed workouts like, but not limited to: 3 x 200m, 2 x 300m, 400m, 2 x 300m, 3 x 200m on 90 sec rest, 600m-500m-400m-300m-200m then back up on 2 min rest, straight 200m reps like Paarlauf style, 300m reps, 400m reps.
Folks, had I done this, we may have been looking at a 4:40 mile IN practice IN the beginning of the season. That's scary guys.
Now, I very much appreciate the ones who have read to this point. I mean that very sincerely. Now, let's get to the main point finally. What I am trying to say is that EASY RUNNING is by far the most important aspect of distance running because of its AEROBIC benefits. Forget tempo runs, progression runs, fartleks, and hills. None of them pose the same AEROBIC benefits as easy running.
Aside from the majority of your training being easy running, you need 200-600m reps like I discussed above to buildup some lactic acid. Actually, fun fact, it is really the accumulation of H+ ions that cause your legs to burn when you run. Lactate is the other ion but the hydrogen ions are what lower the pH in your muscles and causes the burning feeling. OUCH right? So anyways, yes. You need to run 200-600m reps to become comfortable (oxymoron, eh? LOL) running in an anaerobic state or with acid buildup. Run until your legs FALL OFF. Don't worry about pace, just like you don't on easy days.
So yeah, go for an easy run. Go as slow as need be. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The benefits go on and on, even beyond the ones I mentioned. Look at and come to admire the beautiful planet we live on as you're cruising along. I promise you'll thank me. Oh, and don't forget to accompany that with short 200-600m reps TWICE a week.
Easy Running (AEROBIC) + 200m-600m reps (ANAEROBIC) = Success
I want ya'll to be successful so I thought I would pass this along. Peace out, and enjoy some PLAYOFF FOOTBALL!!!!!
It's also a widely accepted fact that slow running causes the body to adapt to it which then prohibits protein synthesis within the muscle fibers due to the lactic acid accumulation effect which then makes the muscles smaller and weaker.
But yeah to compete in the mile and up you need to be small and weak. So makes sense. And I completely agree with your post. Thanks for all of the info.
Imagine I had done amazing speed workouts like, but not limited to: 3 x 200m, 2 x 300m, 400m, 2 x 300m, 3 x 200m on 90 sec rest, 600m-500m-400m-300m-200m then back up on 2 min rest, straight 200m reps like Paarlauf style, 300m reps, 400m reps.
Yeah just think. Instead of 5:27, you could of got a 5:06 mile if you actually did speed work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John_James_413 wrote:
It's also a widely accepted fact that slow running causes the body to adapt to it which then prohibits protein synthesis within the muscle fibers due to the lactic acid accumulation effect which then makes the muscles smaller and weaker.
Please explain?
John_James_413 wrote:
Imagine I had done amazing speed workouts like, but not limited to: 3 x 200m, 2 x 300m, 400m, 2 x 300m, 3 x 200m on 90 sec rest, 600m-500m-400m-300m-200m then back up on 2 min rest, straight 200m reps like Paarlauf style, 300m reps, 400m reps.
Yeah just think. Instead of 5:27, you could of got a 5:06 mile if you actually did speed work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disclaimer - The above sarcastic reply is from someone who records and compares 10 yard (yes 10 yard), personal bests hand timed on a track.
PTF wrote:
Interestingly...after many years of easy running...and I can't tell you when that is...it stops yielding the benefits it once did.
and here's why;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UrItzUPjXkyou've done the base for a long time and now harvest the fruits from all the boresome aerobic work.
Take it from someones who been running nothing but ultras for the past 5 years doing almost nothing but slow training in the 70mpw range, there is certainly things that beat easy running, that is if you want to be fast. If you want to run all day long and be able to get up and do it again then yes nothing beats easy running for that. Recently did a time trial and struggle just to break 6 minutes. I realize now I should have been doing some actual speedwork. With the likelihood there still wont be many races in 2021 I am going to focus on getting faster. Easy running is not how I plan on doing that.
fastboy77 wrote:
That is incorrect. In order to run fast, you have to possess the physiological adaptations written above, and they are only brought on via easy running. Those aerobic changes facilitate better aerobic energy production and delay anaerobic energy production. Aerobic feels good, anaerobic hurts like heck. Thus the stronger you become aerobically, the longer you can run without lactic buildup. Thus, in turn, you can run longer FASTER.
Aerobic leads to speed.
Train slow race fast, bro.
Also this is too much of a one size fits all blanket statement.
What do you mean by run fast? Which event specifically are you talking about here?
So in order to run the 1500 fast we must do as you say? Wow really? Nobody here knew that. You're so smart.
So they are ONLY brought on by slow running? Wow.
We didn't know this.
You should be an Olympic 1500 meter track coach.
I bet you would produce some really good 4:57.13 milers.
nordic track wrote:
This is a very misleading post. First of all, a 5:27 mile in training isn't impressive at all, and saying that you could have run 47 seconds faster with no legitimate reason is a worthless argument. And by the way, 4:40 is still an unimpressive time, so your personal results are not really a strong argument defending easy running. I ran 4:21 with barely any easy running and a ton of hard intervals ... so does that mean that hammering every day is a good idea? No! You need a lot of good empirical data to back up a training methodology. The most prominent one for milers involves high intensity aerobic intervals, a moderate amount of easy running, and
Secondly, you seem to be misunderstanding what aerobic training is. Fartleks, tempos, intervals are still aerobic, just at a faster pace. Walking is also aerobic. Tempo training is a higher level of aerobic training vs easy running vs walking. Mixing higher intensity aerobic training with easier aerobic training as well as anaerobic and pure speed and muscular training is the way to go. Yes, easy jogging takes up a large proportion of your training, but it's not the most important piece. Anyone can run 8 minute miles, but very few can run tempos at 5:20 pace , 5:00 pace etc...and hit k reps in 2:55, 2:50 etc... Those workouts are what makes the difference, not the jogging.
Jogging a lot and doing a bit of speed is fun training, but it definitely isn't the best way to train for a miler. You need to suffer through some harder aerobic efforts if you want to really run fast. Take a look at Rubio's middle distance guide or read a running training book for more info.
Ok great you figured out distance running.
Yay.
How come? wrote:
John_James_413 wrote:
It's also a widely accepted fact that slow running causes the body to adapt to it which then prohibits protein synthesis within the muscle fibers due to the lactic acid accumulation effect which then makes the muscles smaller and weaker.
Please explain?
He can't explain because it's not true. Muscle size is increased by doing more power training.
But for each event we have an optimal muscle mass specific to that distance.
fastboy77 wrote:
I never said it didn't take place in the mitochondria. Please, tell me where in my post I stated such??
You can't.
In any event, all of that information comes from a whole year of cell biology, buddy. Not everybody gets their information off of Yahoo! Answers like you.
Also, you said nothing to dispute my claim so am I right and you are wrong.
Take care now.
Wow one year of cell biology. You're so smart. And who cares if people get their answers on yahoo about this. It's probably alot smarter to do that then to waste a year of your life studying on how to become a faster distance runner when distance running isn't even cool in the first place.
So therefore since you're so smart then how do I get my 60 meter dash faster? Apply your knowledge to the 60 meter dash since it's way cooler. You're banned from studying distance running. From now on study only 60 meter dash training.
I need you to come up with a 60 meter dash game plan for me.
Does anyone else find it easier to run 6 or 7 pace compared to 9 pace?
My cadence is always around 170-180 and I find it very hard to not speed up.
I meant " than " instead of " then "....
Easy running is the best because you get to talk and joke around with your teammates, forged some great bonds with many teammates on those kinds of runs.
I was responding to a presumably younger runner who had a misconceptions about running and tried to give them some guidance...What's with the sarcasm?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion