I run 70 miles a week with doubles 4x a week and a long run of only 12 or so miles. Am I doing it wrong?

I understand that entirely. Run on effort. However, effort is not the same as speed. your earlier post said: "Aerobic training speeds are the same", but I guess you meant effort, which makes more sense

wilfredo wrote:

I understand that entirely. Run on effort. However, effort is not the same as speed. your earlier post said: "Aerobic training speeds are the same", but I guess you meant effort, which makes more sense

Yes, both effort and speed.

I you run a 5 mile run at 7min or a 10 mile run at 7min, it should be at same effort. Likewise, if you do those runs at 6:30 pace they should be the same effort. If they aren't the same effort then you are not doing aerobic training, you are racing.

"Grasshopper need learn feel Kung Fu, not think Kung Fu"

I'm not understanding why you are so hung up on pace? To me, pace is irrelevant. An aerobic training run at 5 miles or 10 miles on any given day should feel exactly the same. In some respects the 10 miler might even feel easier since it takes a while to get warmed up.

Here are real entries from one of my training logs. This is a measured 8.5 mile loop that I did frequently in the mornings one year. I recorded the times on about half of them and added a subjective assessment of effort in my logs. NOTE: I did not calculate the pace, nor did I care what the pace was. The minutes/mile calculations that you see below were only done recently -- 25 years after the fact.

As you can see, subjective effort and pace varies day to day, but if I had extended the loop to 10 miles, or shortened it to 5 miles on any given day, the subjective effort wouldn't have changed. An easy run is easy, a moderate run is moderate and a hard run is hard.

45:45 5:23 hard

45:50 5:24 moderate-hard

47:30 5:35 moderate

49:00 5:46 moderate

48:00 5:39 moderate

54:00 6:21 slow

53:00 6:14 slow

52:30 6:11 slow

48:00 5:39 moderate

46:30 5:28 fast

46:00 5:25 fast

48:30 5:42 moderate

46:05 5:25 fast

49:00 5:46 moderate

49:00 5:46 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

49:30 5:49 easy

47:00 5:32 moderate

46:50 5:31 moderate

46:00 5:25 fast

47:00 5:32 moderate

44:07 5:11 very hard

52:30 6:11 slow

47:30 5:35 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

44:30 5:14 fast

48:30 5:42 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

46:00 5:25 moderate

43:28 5:07 very hard

50:00 5:53 easy

51:00 6:00 easy

48:20 5:41 easy

48:30 5:42 easy

46:30 5:28 moderate

47:30 5:35 easy

48:00 5:39 moderate

48:00 5:39 moderate

48:00 5:39 easy

48:00 5:39 easy

47:30 5:35 easy

48:00 5:39 moderate

48:30 5:42 easy

51:00 6:00 easy

49:00 5:46 easy

50:00 5:53 easy

47:10 5:33 moderate

48:00 5:39 moderate

50:00 5:53 easy

malmo wrote:

"Grasshopper need learn feel Kung Fu, not think Kung Fu"

I'm not understanding why you are so hung up on pace? To me, pace is irrelevant. An aerobic training run at 5 miles or 10 miles on any given day should feel exactly the same. In some respects the 10 miler might even feel easier since it takes a while to get warmed up.

For the record I'm not hung up on pace. As I've gotten older I've come to very similar conclusions as you about the use of pace charts, watches etc. Today I'm trying to understand some contradictory statements you've made.

Since you've qualified your last post with "on any given day" it makes more sense. Yes, a 5 miler and a 10 miler on any given day run at the same pace would be the same effort, and I agree that miles 6-10 of the 10 miler would likely feel better than the 5 miler. But as I tried to explain, it doesn't hold up day-to-day.

T-man wrote:

For the record I'm not hung up on pace. As I've gotten older I've come to very similar conclusions as you about the use of pace charts, watches etc. Today I'm trying to understand some contradictory statements you've made.

There's nothing contradictory. Your mind is wandering.

"As you can see, subjective effort and pace varies day to day, but if I had extended the loop to 10 miles, or shortened it to 5 miles on any given day, the subjective effort wouldn't have changed. An easy run is easy, a moderate run is moderate and a hard run is hard." - Malmo

To me, the 10 miler would be harder neuromuscularly (in tha I would be more tired after), but not harder to achieve cardiovascularly. I wouldn't be breathing any harder at the end of 10 than the end of 5 at a given easy day pace, certainly. Ha, the "getting warmed up" problem I jsut solve by starting most of my runs slow. A few weeks ago, I did a very comfortable easy day 10 miler averaging 6:52 pace, but my first 2 miles were 7:30 and 7:12. I didn't speed up effort-wise, just got warmed up. Me easy runs are always easy breathing-wise - it is the waist down achiness that dictates my slower-than-most easy runs.

Snakedoctor09 wrote:

Woah woah woah, why the agression? I'm just saying 10 miles is a lot for beginning runners. Most of the top HS runners say they run low mileage. Jay Johnson had a blog post about being a 40ish mpw guy in HS with a long run of like 7 miles with a 3200m PR in the 9:40 range

First Boom Runner wrote:

If the 10milers feel easier you can run them a little faster. Hence your fitness improves, a$$hole. w

Yeah and 9:40 isn't impressive for a high schooler. He probably could have gone 9:20s had he run 70 mile weeks.

Chris Solinsky worked up to 80 mpw in HS. He says he trains Lydiard-style, always exploring the edge between aerobic and anaerobic. Solinksy has always been a fairly indestructible specimen, so it would be foolish to try to train like him (others at his level just shake their heads).

But the principles of Lydiard might help a HS runner. Do a long run at medium aerobic pace (~ just under 80% MHR after a good warmup; run according to feel and back off from that pace on days when it feels too pressed).

Run 1-2 times a week for a shorter distance at just under the aerobic threshold, as Solinsky does. For average runners, that's probably ~ just under 85% MHR. Lydiard's runners did 10 very hilly miles twice a week in 60 minutes or less (as fast as 52 min), but then, they weren't average. Lydiard's idea was the these runs gradually raise the aerobic threshold without going anaerobic, as in a true "threshold" or "tempo" run (85% to 92% MHR). AL believed in "pushing up from below." He felt that threshold/tempo runs degrade the aerobic base and require too much recovery.

Those are the three key runs during aerobic base building under AL's system. All the rest is very easy running for recovery. He also advised doing 3-4 10-second sprints during the easy runs to keep the fast-twitch muscle fibers in the game during the base phase.

Anyway, I'm just parroting Keith Livingstone's (excellent) book, Healthy Intelligent Training: The Proven Principles of Arthur Lydiard.

runbei wrote:

Lydiard's idea was the these runs gradually raise the aerobic threshold without going anaerobic, as in a true "threshold" or "tempo" run (85% to 92% MHR). AL believed in "pushing up from below." He felt that threshold/tempo runs degrade the aerobic base and require too much recovery.

You don't "go anaerobic" that's pure mythology. What has been termed "anaerobic threshold" is the hypothetical point where you are using 100% carbohydrate metabolism, but paces much faster than this are still mostly aerobic.

As middle and long distance runners, most of our fast twitch fibers are oxidative fiber, they have a high aerobic capacity, and the faster you run, the more of them you are using. So it's a mistake to think of very fast paces as being "anaerobic"

The point of all this is that every training pace is relevant in base training, the faster paces support the slower paces in developing pace over a long running time, and the slower paces over a long running time support the faster paces by helping to improve speed endurance.

If we concentrate on developing running skills at every pace, then all of the physiological variables that we require for racing are trained to their optimally.

Yeah, probably. But he graduated in like 1993, and went to CU, so you have to take into account the time and place. (maybe it was at altitude?)

Why would tempo runs degrade the aerobic base? Don't they improve the aerobic system?

It's an old myth that refuses to die. And it won't as long as so many people repeat that myth.

To understand all that Lyrdiard "1/4" "1/2" and "3/4" pace business, you have to find the training tables book. It is had to find - but some of that was surely AT effort, to hear Snell talk about the paces involved. A friend of mine got if through Interlibrary Loan once.

Malmo once recommend that tempo runs be informal and impromptu and not thought of as "workouts" exactly. He termed them "run to the barn" efforts where you might be feeling decent on a run, get a bit froggy with your buddies, and just start rolling on what started out as an easy run. I think that is a perfectly sound plan for what is being termed "base" training here. If you get warmed up good an you aren't rolling for too long, you might be able to do this sveral time a week if you are young and aren't all feeble and achy yet.

Snakedoctor09 wrote:

Yeah, probably. But he graduated in like 1993, and went to CU, so you have to take into account the time and place. (maybe it was at altitude?)

DC is in castle rock co- at over 6000ft. Jays XC coach was Mike Varone (totally awesome guy - rather be coached by him than an a-hole that could make me fast) and his track coach was John Alseike (RIP) John was a pretty darned good steepler in college. Both coaches were fantasic individuals and very very good role models but neither would be considered the greatest at developing talent. However, where they did excel was instilling the love of the sport - several of their former athletes are very actively invloved in CO running.

Colorado in the last decade has seen a great increase in viable coaches. In this atmosphere, Jay would have been much faster. His time placed him second in state, it would not have scored this year.

Thanks for the info, I agree he would have been much faster today. Better to stay healthy and enjoy the sport than be injured and pissed.

I agree - wouldnt change my situation and my former training for the world. One should never underestimate the value of a good role model, and we were fortunate to have great ones. We had coaches that coached because they love the sport and if you have ever listened to Jay speak, you can tell how much he loves the sport.

Those that know me know that I have never claimed to be a good runner, nor a good coach, but my wife would tell you that I spend too much time watching track and field / cross country.

malmo wrote:

[quote]yoyo x wrote:

I was thinking of starting an official SOM training camp at the Track at Riverside Park in NYC. I Might do it next year.

Welcome to the camp, I guess you all know why you're here

My name is malmo, and I wrote this down last year

If you want to follow me, you've got to run a lot,

So pull on your Nikes, throw out your ipod, you

know how to wear your socks.

Hey you doing singles, so sorry I've got you sussed

Hey you doing those long runs, this is a bust

Hey hung up old Mr. Fartlek, don't try and win my trust

'Cause Summer of Malmo ain't any of those things,

although you think you must.

(Whispered)

We're not doin' doubles

We're not doin' doubles

We're not doin' doubles, never did and never will!

...and that's about as far as I got with the camp theme song on my run in the woods today. Feel free to improve on it and extend it.

Malmo,

I think a lot of people don't get it because they really don't get the concept of running/training comfortably hard. I have run with a lot of people who always believe they should somehow be hurting or killing themselves in workouts and/or every single training run. People don't understand that cumulative stress over a day, month, or years is what develops a runner. There is a time to thrash yourself...but it is not something that is supposed to be repeated often...certainly not daily.

I had a group that I ran with when I was living in SF bay area and some members of the group were workout champions. Always wanting to best previous workout times (most likely feeling that if they didn't they were not going to improve). Very impatient and short-sighted view of running.

I really appreciate you always taking the time to post and thoroughly explaining what real training is.

For me, I run my easy days super slow for waist-down reasons, not cardiovascular reasons. I am achy and stiff all the time. Malmo's log calls a 1:00 difference the difference between slow and fast. For me, 7:00 pace or slower is super, super easy cardiovascularly, but I might be stiff and achy and thus running that slow. 6:00 pace would still be easy breathing-wise, but I am too achy to run that hard every day. For me, I have a much wider difference between hard and easy because it depends on whethwe we are talking about how my legs feel or how I am breathing. Plus I have a fairly flat effort curve. 7:00 pace is a HR of maybe 125 and 5:30 pace a HR of maybe 153.

I might go running with someone who is a minute slower than me over 10k and they might say my easy day pace is too slow and they may mean it and be breathing as comfortably as I am, but we speed up 1/min. mile and I am only working a bit harder and they are at that point working much harder. I have gone running with people who comment about how slow I am running early in the run and I suggest we "run to the barn" and they get left. I never got how a person could go from subjectively easy to hard in just 1 min. per mile. I have a broad range I consider medium. Maybe I am just particularly biomechanically compromised beause I am almost 40 - I don't remember what it was like when I was younger. I do know in college I ran easy days faster without racing any faster than I did when I was much older and running easy runs slower.