Easy run pace - Is faster better?

lIKE I SAID EARLIER YOU COULD GO 2 WAYS.

conditioning around 7'/mile pace each run but zero runs at faster pace nothing but strides. And long runs also shorter.

You won't get recovery but the pace will get easier. Also you are not to go faster then but slower is ok.

The second is hard easy. And hard takes down the immune system (the above does to in a more long term way) it also takes down the sugar your muscles has. You worsen your condition to improve it. This is called SUPERCOMPENSATION.

If you run at such a stupid pace while still recovering from a hard workout you will keep yourself from supercompensating or improving.

It is how it is.

The advantages from slowly running versus no running. Slow runs will improve if you do them the pace at low heart rates. You will improve some markers more that you wouldn't if you where training hard exclusively, namely burning more fats in relation to (whilst this effect is smaller then most think) the second is you will learn to run more economical at low heart rates.

The first approach is used sometimes where you run moderately hard every day but those runs are generally short as they otherwise become to stressful. And they are done when on really low mileage programs or in pure base.

Know this for professional runners 6'/mile is the same stress as 8 - ' per mile would be for you. You couldn't hold 6'/mile even at an all out effort longer then an hour.

70 mpw is not low mileage and running 7' miles is not appropriate unless you want to get every cold in town and get all the injuries you can. And especially not improve.

I'm an old guy too. I don't do recovery runs. If I can't run hard, I take the day off. All intervals-all the time is my motto.

I think this all depends on what type of run is being considered an easy run. If you are running a low key race and look at it as an 'easy' run then I think faster is better. This is because the opject of a race is to win. The odds of winning a race race exponentially with the speed at which the competitor runs. For example, suppose you (the runner) decides to run an local 'easy' mile race. Several others are also entered in the stated mile race. Now let us say that you run this race at a 7:00 muniute pace. You could have run at @4:30 pace but decided on a 7 to see if faster was better. Well you, most likely, will not win this race because 6 guys went sub-5. Now unless several of the time keepers make fairly significatnt errors it would have been better to run the 'easy' race a bit faster. So in this case yes faster is better. Obviously there are several permuutations regarding this happinstance, but to answer you question in this instance, yes Faster is better.

Don't listen to all these people that think you should be running 8-9 minute pace. If you are happy always being a bad runner keep running that. If you want to get better run 7 and under. Don't do stupid pointless miles. Just run faster.

From an elite marathoner wrote:

Going too hard on easy days is a BIG mistake many younger runners make.

lkajdf:Don't listen to all these people that think you should be running 8-9 minute pace. If you are happy always being a bad runner keep running that. If you want to get better run 7 and under. Don't do stupid pointless miles. Just run faster.

This is what I'm talking about. The key to getting faster is all in the recovery. The best in the world are putting everything into their recovery so they can go faster on hard days and in races. This is key. Don't listen to the idiot above. I've trained with some of the best, and seen many of the Japanese/African teams training over here (in Boulder), and it's the same commonality: they're all running slow on their easy days, in large packs, and most often with a full track suit on (at high altitude in the summer). Good article and quote from Bob Kennedy about the Japanese:

"Easy Days are Easy. It can't be stressed enough: While the Japanese system encourages extreme mileage, the athletes and coaches also know the value of easy days. Recovery days are no time for pride; 2:25 women and 28:00 men will shuffle along at 8:00 pace. There is a reason they are called "recovery" days. Bob Kennedy once offered the opinion that one reason Americans hadn't run better in his era was that they were running too hard on their easy days. Even within the team framework, there will be kakuji training, when the athletes can go off on their own and run where they want and as slowly as they want."

Here's an article about the Kenyans:

"All Kenyan women, and Ndereba is a champion at this, adhere to the notion of running easy on the easy days. "On easy days, if you start pushing then the next day you cannot give 100 percent," says Olympian and 2:27 athlete Alice Chelangat. "And nowadays if you speed and it is not 100 percent, then you better say goodbye to have any chances to win races."

Running with Ndereba on an easy session you will find the pace does not creep any faster than 7 minute per mile--slow considering her 5:17 per-mile PR marathon pace. Catherine is easily able to run a hard session one day and the next morning come out and burn a 10-miler at 6-minute pace. But she does not, and therein lies a Kenyan secret to success. It's no different for most Kenyan men. Isaac Songok and Augustine Choge, for example, rarely break 8-minute pace on their easy runs."

Recovery runs can't be run too slow. I was amazed as how slow the Africans I used to run with in El Paso in the 70's would run easy/recovery runs. 8:00 to 9:00 is just fine.

Too fast, too slow wrote:

I'm a high school boy, I have a PR of 17:46 in the XC 5K and although I was injured this track season my goal time is 17:00 in the XC 5K this upcoming season.

How fast should my easy/recovery/double runs be? I've always just gone by what I feel is "easy" which is 8:00-9:00 pace depending on the day. But other runners on my team have told me this isn't fast enough to get aerobic improvement, they say I should be running around the 6:30-7:30 pace area.

So what are the disadvantages/advantages of doing these runs faster or slower? Does it matter whether they're recovery runs (the day after a meet, for example), easy runs (normal days), or double runs (after a hard workout)?

6:30 is only a minute faster than your GOAL 5k pace. That is really all you need to know. Train the runner you to become the runner you want to be.

The sooner you learn to run slower, the quicker you will be faster.

Too fast, too slow wrote:

Ugh, so nobody really knows which way's better? Does anybody have any EVIDENCE?

Oh and in my case I'm doing 3-4 hard workouts a week and 3 doubles a week, 1 day off a week, ~70 MPW. But I'd really like to see some sort of generalized theory of easy run pacing.

Most people here are really saying the same thing, but false dichtomies are just so much more interesting. Here is what you should do:

1. Don't run 6:30 pace- its way too fast unless you are some kind of aerobic freak who can't move his legs faster than 5:40 pace.

2. You should RUN easily when you are looking to recover. I emphasize run because your motion (as some have already mentioned) should still be similar to your natural running form. This will ensure that you avoid injury by overcompensation or excess pounding. Perhaps you can run naturally at 8:30 pace, sweet- do it.

Physiologically speaking, the cellular adaptions you want from aerobic running don't increase significantly if at all by running faster.

Very good discussion here- clearly there are many variations you can apply to the hard easy principle, and it won't be the same for every runner. The key I think may be to evaluate your method of recovery by focusing on your key workouts (intervals, tempo runs, or races). It is there is where you will be able to tell immediately whether or not your recovery runs are too fast or too long. Another twist to consider- not everybody responds to high miles or might be injury prone- if you are one of those then hitting the bike on recovery days after particularly hard workouts is not a bad idea. I think you'll find triathetes in agreement that to some extent cycling can improve running (Ed Eystone has done some decent research on the benefits of cross training). I like to take a mountain bike and find a hill someplace- 2-3 minute climb, and do repeats. Your running muscles get to recover while you can still give your aerobic/anaerobic system a decent workout. I've also heard of ancedotal evidence of spinning classes improving running performance. You can also use other forms of cross training-

http://betterrunner.com/crosstraining.pdf

You may have read about Lukas Verzbicas- the freshman from Illinois that ran 14:18 for 5K indoors and 8:53 for 2 miles-his primary sport is triathlon.

"But I'd really like to see some sort of generalized theory of easy run pacing."

My Generalized Theory: Running fast beats you up. The faster you run, the fewer mile you will be able to run. There is always a trade off. You don't run slower simply for the sake of running slower. You do it so that you can run more. In your case, the trade off might be that you can only handle 60 mpw at the faster paces.

There is a sweet spot between running too fast and running too slow (liek 12 minutes a mile) where you get the biggest bang (improvement) for your buck (tissue damge requiring rested recovery).

For your training paces, look here:

www.mcmillanrunning.com

Use the pace calculator. For 17:40 5K:

recovery runs - 8:05 to 8:35

Long runs - 7:05 to 8:05

Easy runs - 7:05 to 7:35

Run your easy days alone and don't worry about the pace. You'll run the right speed unless you're a maniac.

Here is my story, maybe it will help a little.

When I was in college I was pretty good, D1, a few AA awards, sub 8 indoor 3k and well sub 14 outdoor 5k. I heard from several people who had been to or coached athletes to this level that I had the tools to run 3:38-39 and 13:15-20 or so. Generally speaking I ran 7:00-7:30 pace on all my in season easy runs and long runs. This was two workouts, 3ish doubles a week, and a long run, pretty standard.

When I finished college I thought maybe I had what it took to go to the next level. I joined a group of like minded athletes, and trained harder than I ever had. Three workouts a week, 4ish double days sometimes two hard workouts a day, and I was running all my easy mileage at 6:30 or so pace, this includes my long run, 15, 16, 17+ mile runs at 6:30 or faster pace. What happened you ask, big prs, serious runs at national titles, world cross teams, road race glory?

I got slower, a lot slower. I would consistently hit 3200 in a 5k or 5k in a 10k at pr pace feeling like I was jogging, and then immediately fall apart. It was extremely frustrating, and as a compulsive runner I just kept training harder, and racing slower. This problem was compounded by that fact that I was surrounded by other athletes who did this too, with varying levels of success, and a coach who encouraged training as hard as you can always. Ultimately it's my fault as I should have known better, but here's the lesson, harder is not always better.

This applies not only to easy days, but to workouts. To my mind, and when I was doing it, 6:30 pace felt no different than 7:30 pace. Also, there's not a huge difference between say 5:00 pace tempos and 5:10 pace when you're running it, but your body knows better, and it will come back to you later. When you're doing a great interval session, stop with one repeat left in you. Here's why, your body only has so many all out efforts in it per year, if you're using them in workouts, you'll have great workouts but come up short when the real racing starts, like I did.

Take what you want from this, it's just one story.

ExCoastRanger wrote:

The general consensus seems to be your easy runs should be easy. They should feel easy. Not so slow as to feel awkward. Not so fast as to cause stress. Easy enough for recovery Easy.

Exactly.

Read John Kellogg's chapter in Kevin Beck's RUN STRONG.

Three points need to be made here. For the record, I'm 19:30-20:00 5K runner:

1) Trust subjective effort. It's sad to see somebody speaking about being unable to hold the "easy" paces that they're "supposed" to be able to run. If you can't easily hold a pace, it's not easy. Full stop.

2) There's a difference between "easy" and "recovery" paces. The difference can partly be assessed through heart rate. My max HR is right around 200. My recovery pace lies in the 126-134 range, which is 63-67%. My pace at that HR varies, depending on many things. My recovery runs may be as fast as 9:30 pace and as slow (on a hot day after a race the day before) as 11:00 pace. Easy pace is wherever I stabilize at a HR of 140-150, or 70-75%. And even 80% of max HR can feel easy during some runs, although never near the beginning of runs. On certain days, recovery runs can ease into easy run territory, but on other days they're quite distinct. Recovery runs are exactly as the name suggests: I'm quite palpably recovering from a hard workout the day before. I may have a little quad soreness; I'm probably a little tired in a lingering way. So I shorten my stride and notably moderate my HR. I'm jogging, essentially. That's a recovery run. Sometimes the jog modulates into something a little faster, but at no point am I the slightest bit breathless, nor does my breathing rate even become noticeable. Easy runs are a little different. If I'm going out for "9 miles easy," just putting in aerobic miles, I may run the first few miles slower than 9:00 pace, but often the second half of the run is more in the 8:30-8:40 zone. It's certainly more than a jog, it's just basic aerobic mileage. If I start pushing and get my HR to 160 or higher, I'm at what I'd call a steady pace. On some planned easy days, it turns out that I never really get much faster than 9:00 pace. I'm just putting in the miles. Easy pace miles.

Bottom line: distinguish between recovery pace (you're actively recovering from a hard workout the day before) and easy pace (you're creating an aerobic base but keeping the pace moderate, rather than cranking HR up into steady pace, marathon pace, tempo pace, etc.

3) JK's main point is that keeping easy/recovery runs truly moderate puts money in the bank for later in the season. The problem with running easy/recovery runs too fast is that you're at least potentially incurring a small but continuing recovery-debit. That can jump on you at the worst possible moment, when you're digging down into the well in your big race(s). Van Aaken knew this. He'd say that a runner on an easy/recovery day (he didn't use the word "recovery") should feel as though he's actively storing up energy for the next hard workout.

ticktock wrote:

Run your easy days alone and don't worry about the pace. You'll run the right speed unless you're a maniac.

This may be a good idea for some, but I tend to run slower when I'm with people (except workouts). This is simply because we're talking the whole run. If I'm alone, I won't kill myself, but I do find that I'll go quicker.

During my sophmore year in high school, I would stick to 8:00 pace for my easy days and I didn't improve at all that year (5:11 1600m, 11:12 3200m). Next year, however, I started hammering most of my "recovery" runs during indoor and outdoor track at 6:40-7:00 pace (usually 7-8 miles) and I made tremendous improvements after a horrible cross country season. My body adapted to the constant demand of hard and medium days and I began to recover much quicker than I ever had while running 8:00 pace. During indoor track I dropped my 3200m pr from 11:05 to 10:47, and I ran a 4:46 1600m in outdoor track. I never got injured as a result either and I am convinced that I would not have improved nearly as much if I had continued to do my "recovery" days very easy.

Improvements from sophomore year to junior year of high school are the result of a lot of variables. The main ones are maturation and simply having run for another year. You can't really say for certain that your recovery paces were the main factor. Besides, your story can be countered with countless other ones.

In fact, you are clearly very aerobically undertrained, as your 1600 was way better than your 3200 in both years. So no offense, but your anecdote isn't very relevant.

Personally, I say that you should run your recovery runs at the fastest pace at which YOU CAN STILL RECOVER. On some days, that can be very slow. On others, it can be pretty moderate.

I wonder if so much of the disagreement is caused by a difference in training focus. Many of those defending 9 min paces talk a lot about recovering from workouts, as if the workouts were the focus. Great. But what if you're not having 3 hard sessions a week and don't need that extra rest - like during a base building block? Then there is little reason not to run on the faster side of easy. Different "easy" speeds for different phases in the season.

This is consistent with Renato Canova's opinion. Medium distance and medium pace during the fundemental period so that each day is not too hard or too easy, then during more race specific phases, the pace slows down on these continuous runs to aid recovery from the hard sessions.

I understand what youre saying, but probably dont agree with the cause and effect. The cellular/metabollic adaptations that occur dont happen quickly. Thats why monthly,yearly/lifetime mileage(s) are a factor. What you did during youre poor XC season may have paid off later on. And what you did during winter and spring was certainly not wasted effort. But most likely the most efficient way of getting faster. I see this sort of thing sometimes. Its easy to interpret your results the way you do. But in my oppinion it probably is the wrong conclusion. Good luck with your running tho.