Does "slowing down" only work after a lot of "running fast"?

I've never thought of that, but it does make sense.

so your telling me if i run really fast to train and then run really slow to recover, i'll get better?

this is news

flaminghipster wrote:

so your telling me if i run really fast to train and then run really slow to recover, i'll get better?

this is news

You're an idiot.(No you're not. sorry for calling you that)

He's talking about people that ran all their runs at 6:00 pace or faster for years. Then after a few years they decided to start doing more LSD runs and slow their pace down, they improved leaps and bounds.

No, I mean you hear stories like wejo's of guys who ran all their runs full out for several years, then got religion and slowed down their easy runs .. and suddenly got better. As opposed to a middle aged guy like me who never ran years of fast miles. Will lots of slow miles work for me or do I need to overtrain a few years, then slow down?

that's a good question. i guess it's go by feel. instead of struggling to keep up with what pace others are doing, go with a good but controlled pace, high-end aerobic effort, pleasantly tired, as Lydiard describes it?

Great question. I have had many friends who have had the problem of running ridiculously fast. They would go on claiming how fast they ran their 100 mile weeks, pushing sub 6 pace almost every run. It worked in the beginning, and they would be workout warriors. They would run well in the beginning of their season, then quickly die out. By the time regionals came around they were done.

Yet, recently one of those friends finally slowed down. He was tired of the countless days running so fast he couldn't function in workouts. His sub 6 minute days, slowed down to hover around 7 min pace, and even slower on doubles. He said he never felt fresher. He kept his mile up all through season, ran his workouts just as fast as he did before, but he felt great all the time. He had the season of his life, and is only to seem to be feeling better and better.

Now, as he did have improvements in his "fast" days, they died quickly. Yet, he would keep up with the "fast" days. So after a few years of these days, he finally slowed down, and has seen more improvements and feels fresher. This seems to be more long term.

So maybe a more complex version of the question is, when he slowed down after his "fast" years, was he only maintaining his fitness from then? Would he be just as fast now, if he had never had those few years of what seemed like detrimental running?

No Chance Kid wrote:

Would he be just as fast now, if he had never had those few years of what seemed like detrimental running?

That's exactly what we're trying to figure out. Who will be better in the future: an 18 year old male running 7 minute pace now all the way untill he's 20, and then continue to run 7 minute pace? or, the 18 year old running 6 minute pace until he's 20 and then slowing his pace down to 7 minutes?

(Paces are relative, could be 5:30 pace and 8:00 or whatever)

We always hear of the guys who slowed their roll and got better because most people haven't had the proper coaching to do the right thing from the start. Think about it, in most cases the best coaches are at the professional and collegiate level. Then you've got some decent high school coaches who may have read Daniels or Lydiard. Then there's a bunch of middle school coaches who don't know what the f*** is going on. That's not to say that all middle and high school coaches are garbage but it's a hell of a lot easier for a dumbass to get those jobs. And being an impatient society, someone who doesn't know dick will probably tend to have their guys run fast all the time. Normal people can understand running around a track a few times really fast but most can't wrap their heads around the purpose of a long slow run. Hell, a lot of people on this site can't even do that. So if you're looking for an example of someone who's the opposite of the "slowed down" example, maybe look for someone who has had a legitimate knowledgeable coach throughout their entire career. And when it comes to that I can only think of Galen Rupp. Obviously I don't know exactly what Rupp's training has been but from what I gather from Salazar interviews, it has been a slow steady progression with an eye towards preventing burnout. And we know that Salazar believes in volume, I think he said Rupp is somewhere around 120 miles per week and I vaguely remember Salazar saying that he's been bumping the mileage up 5 miles every year. So I just decided that I'm going to start my kid at 10 mile weeks when he's 2 years old, and he's going to be the savior of American distance running.

OK, back in the 70's-we were in high school. One guy who ran like 5:10 in 10th grade and was mediocre in XC spent the winter running 6 miles a day, 7 days a week-November, December, January, Feb, March. He ran pretty slow-real easy every day.

He ran 4:36 in the spring and made it to states in XC the following fall.

He was too young to have a lot of hard training behind him.

I think just the mileage is enough to help you improve.

Obviously, 6 a day isn't mega, but it was for him at that time.

You don't know what the f*** you are talking about. Galen is only running 85 miles a week.

My guess is that they stopped overtraining.

I've found that running slower on my easy days, has allowed me to run faster (and faster for a longer time) on my hard days. I'm fresher on my hard days. This consistent balance of very easy with very hard, is what has allowed me to continue to improve.

jaguar1 wrote:

I've found that running slower on my easy days, has allowed me to run faster (and faster for a longer time) on my hard days. I'm fresher on my hard days. This consistent balance of very easy with very hard, is what has allowed me to continue to improve.

That's not what this thread is about.

And to the poster saying Galen runs 85 miles a week. IDIOT. He was at 115 before he went under the old american record in the 10k. I don't know what he's at now.

#*CK a curseword wrote:

jaguar1 wrote:

I've found that running slower on my easy days, has allowed me to run faster (and faster for a longer time) on my hard days. I'm fresher on my hard days. This consistent balance of very easy with very hard, is what has allowed me to continue to improve.

That's not what this thread is about.

And to the poster saying Galen runs 85 miles a week. IDIOT. He was at 115 before he went under the old american record in the 10k. I don't know what he's at now.

Ass/white, the last five years was only 85 miles.

#*CK a curseword wrote:

That's not what this thread is about.

I'm disagreeing with the OP. Those prior "fast years" has nothing to do with it. You're running faster cause in the 'present' (and future), those slower miles rests your legs and allows you to run hard workouts (and races) even faster than you did during the "fast years".

jaguar1 wrote:

#*CK a curseword wrote:

That's not what this thread is about.

I'm disagreeing with the OP. Those prior "fast years" has nothing to do with it. You're running faster cause in the 'present' (and future), those slower miles rests your legs and allows you to run hard workouts (and races) even faster than you did during the "fast years".

Ahh. I understand what you were saying now. Sorry.

I completely agree with OP.

Of course these runners improved with their "fast" years. At first their improvement and success was probably due to running fast. And of course they overtrained. But when they slowed down, and their improvements were again dramatic, they only got their because of their past. Their capillaries and cardiovascular system were much more efficient because of that. When they slowed down, they were still getting aerobic benefit and maintaining what they had gained.

Running is about making mistakes. Everyone at sometime in their lives run too fast on their easy days, and takes a mature runner to figure out slow doesn't necessarily cancel out quality. But, it also takes a mature runner to figure out that they need to do more to be better.

The "fast" years are necessary, maybe not as fast as some do, but it has to happen sometime.

I gracefully accept your rebuke.