Daniels' easy pace v. jogging

SlowFatMaster wrote:

cbenson4 wrote, in part:

"For the general running community, though, people run too slow on easy days."

Umm, no.

I don't have much patience for people who post like you. You offer nothing to further the discussion.

I'm absolutely right. Most runners slog easy days at an effort that is an absolute joke for them. Many of them could run faster while still holding a conversation and remain as healthy as they normally do, but they don't. Why? Because boo hoo, they ran a hard workout 2 days ago. Better be careful!

Fast forward years later when their 5k PR is a minute faster and their easy runs are still the same. They're leaving more on the table. They could get more out of themselves with proper recovery.

Lydiard basically answered this question. Going slower is fine but it will take longer to get fit.

His runners jogged 5-6 miles in the morning in addition to their evening runs where the pace was a lot more honest. Those high-end aerobic runs were key.

To cbenson’s point, I think nowadays we try to run our workouts so terribly hard that you end up trashed and have no choice but to keep the easy days very very easy. Lydiard always said though...train, don’t strain.

That's debatable how much of a difference increasing the pace of his runs had on mo. As he never improved on his 5000m PR and was averaging 7 minute pace or so until he moved to train with NOP. I think the push ups Salazar had him do had a bigger effect on him than Salazar increasing the pace of his easy runs.

What added phsysiological benefit comes from a 15:00 5k runner running at 6:10 pace instead of 6:40 pace? Especially if you subscribe to a Daniels approach to training, faster does not necessarily mean faster.

I'd also make a distinction between men and women. I think it is far more common for decent but non-elite women (18:00-20:00 5k runners) to run too fast than it is for them to run too slow.

too hot 3 wrote:

Lydiard basically answered this question. Going slower is fine but it will take longer to get fit.

His runners jogged 5-6 miles in the morning in addition to their evening runs where the pace was a lot more honest. Those high-end aerobic runs were key.

To cbenson’s point, I think nowadays we try to run our workouts so terribly hard that you end up trashed and have no choice but to keep the easy days very very easy. Lydiard always said though...train, don’t strain.

This is an excellent point. It's fine to run some days really slow and easy if you're trashed, but in all honesty, you should not be trashed very often (only after very rare workouts and races) and it's important to hit the "high-end aerobic runs," as you said.

Run for 1 hour at 60-65% of max HR. The next day, run for 1 hour at 75-79% of max HR. I bet you wake up the next morning feeling the same even though you stressed your cardiovascular system more. And you will reap more benefits assuming you are doing the proper things for recovery (sleep, foam roll, etc.) and are not destroying yourself by racing tempos and intervals on hard days.

Smoove wrote:

What added phsysiological benefit comes from a 15:00 5k runner running at 6:10 pace instead of 6:40 pace? Especially if you subscribe to a Daniels approach to training, faster does not necessarily mean faster.

I'd also make a distinction between men and women. I think it is far more common for decent but non-elite women (18:00-20:00 5k runners) to run too fast than it is for them to run too slow.

We're discussing the easy pace range that the VDOT calculator spits out. For a 15:00 5k runner, that's 6:19-6:42. So I see nothing wrong with that runner doing 6:40/mi on easy days. 6:10 would be too quick in general, but 15:00 runners still won't find 6:10 to be difficult. That's why I was surprised people found Daniels' easy pace to be too fast earlier in the thread.

The problem is that a lot of people seem to think a 15:00 5k runner is making the right choice by running 7:30+/mi even if their legs feel good. Some of this can't be helped since a lot of runners are on a team and want to run easy with their teammates who are significantly slower than them, and I truly believe that's valuable and should be done every now and then because there's more to running than being a physiological robot, but not 4 days out of the week.

Running faster relative to your fitness level stresses your cardiovascular system more, but at the intensity Daniels prescribes, there still isn't much anaerobic energy contribution at all. The more you can stress the upper end of your aerobic metabolism, the more efficient it will become.

OK, here you go:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2006/09/wejo-speaks-why-i-sucked-in-college/

Scroll down to Tinman's post:

http://www.therunzone.com/viewtopic.php?t=3040&p=17128

Read the first post on Nick Willis:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5137889

Some of your posts you mention running in a HR zone while others mentions running a specific pace relative to fitness. Those two things are contradictory and don’t go hand-in-hand. A lot of variables can impact heart rate, so your actual “pace” will vary. If we are talking about easy running paces being based on relatively same conditions as previous runs...that just doesn’t happen. Even if you run on the same route every day there are other impactful variables. Anecdotally, most of what you say is wrong in my opinion. I have been coaching at the D1 level for quite awhile now and most of my team doesn’t run at the level a calculator says they should. Most successful teams in my conference don’t do it. Most successful teams in my region don’t do it. My national qualifiers in the past and their qualifying teams/individuals don’t do it either. The number one thing we often do is SLOW DOWN high school runners. Most inconsistent programs I see think like you do. From a certain standpoint it makes sense, but a lot of real world performances and stories (what actually matters) it doesn’t often compute. I think most people could benefit from doing more, slowing down, and training the right way. Not trying to run “the right pace” on easy runs. People are too afraid to train easier and instead feel good about training harder. Training harder can feel really good in the beginning and not even feel “hard,” but it’s a fine line you ride. Don’t know why I am actually responding to you because you are set in yours ways. Just hope you revel in mediocrity. Cause that’s all you will ever achieve with your attitude.

P.S. in high school I had a program who trained me based off of STRICT VDOT paces. In college a lot of that went out the window. I never broke 9:25 in HS but ran sub 13:50 my last year. You underestimate what easy running really does for you.

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. I believe he’s saying that you don’t have to adhere to a strict easy pace. Sometimes slow, sometimes faster. Depends on the day. If anything it’s an argument against polarized training methods.

Your suggestion seemed to go beyond that and suggested that your fitness would improve by running your easy days faster.

My question was simply this: how does that happen? The essential premise of a Daniels approach is to identify the intended benefit of your run and to get that benefit with the least possible stress. Your post indicates that you think running on the high end of the pace range (I originally was left with the impression that you intended even faster paced than the Daniels prescribed ranges, but your subsequent post clarified that for me) will get you more benefit. But I don't see anything in Daniels work to support that.

Now you can certainly take issue with the underlying premise of a Daniels approach. Former Sub 14:00 does with respect to at least some issues (like advocating getting in some work at some "in between" paces, I believe), but that doesn't seem to be what you're doing. And it certainly does go to the OP's question.

As an aside, I don't pay attention to Daniels E pace at all. Most of my runs start off slower than his prescribed pace for someone of my fitness level before eventually settling in somewhere in the middle to slower end of the range. Other days when I'm running with a fast training partner, I'm just faster the faster end of the range, but will tell my friend to slow down if things get too fast.

All other things being equal a faster aerobic pace does yield more benefit actually quite surprising that there is nothing in Daniels work to support that

SlowFatMaster wrote:

OK, here you go:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2006/09/wejo-speaks-why-i-sucked-in-college/

Scroll down to Tinman's post:

http://www.therunzone.com/viewtopic.php?t=3040&p=17128

Read the first post on Nick Willis:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5137889

1: Wejo did insane mileage (up to 170 mpw) so he had to do it slow. Wejo also had his career cut short by injuries, so I don´t think he is an example of good training.

2. Cabada trains at altitude, so his runs will be slower.

3. Willis is only doing one day of really slow running.

well,, wrote:

1: Wejo did insane mileage (up to 170 mpw) so he had to do it slow. Wejo also had his career cut short by injuries, so I don´t think he is an example of good training.

Wejo ran a 28:06 10000m PR. 98th fastest American ever at 10000m. There have been plenty of low mileage runners who had their careers cut short by injury. Wejo injuries probably came from imbalances in his form and lack of strength(didn't look like he could deadlift much in his prime).

too hot 3 wrote:

All other things being equal a faster aerobic pace does yield more benefit actually quite surprising that there is nothing in Daniels work to support that

It actually doesn’t. Your body doesn’t even understand pace. All it understands is how hard it is working for how long. Daniels work doesn’t support it because he found that “the maximum force of each stroke of the heart is reached when the heart rate is at about 60 percent of maximum. As you run faster, the heart rate and the amount of blood pumped with each heartbeat (referred to as stroke volume) both increase, but stroke volume increases minimally.” (3rd edition, page 48). The point of easy running from his perspective is to get to the point where stroke volume is reached and worked on (aerobic improvements), but not past that point as to start slipping into one of his other training zones. Suddenly it wouldn’t be easy running. He has a lot of paces he throws in there but if you actually ready the book a lot of your pace improves with your fitness. The average “pace” to reach your maximum stroke volume will probably drop over time but never the effort.

I don’t like Daniels for a lot of reasons but I think it is important to understand this notion. A lot of people think “faster” on easy runs means slightly harder running. Don’t think in terms of “faster.” Just understand what an easy run feels like and do that every day for your easy runs. Sometimes you might be sick and it will be north of 8:00 pace. Sometimes you feel well rested and it might be 6:40 pace. The key is to never focus on the pace and just allow the fitness to come to you. So no, trying to go faster on easy runs don’t benefit you at all.

P.S. really wish Daniels charts would reflect his writings. His actual thoughts about E run effort doesn’t line up that often with the paces listed under the VDOT values. Smoove figured that out

Culpepper says run faster on easy days. Kellogg says run slower. Scroll down to rojo's post:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6489957

This article has both sides also. Scroll down to the chart (which is stupid since it compares easy pace to marathon pace for the men but compares easy pace to 5000 pace for the women) and then down to Ian Dobson's comments just under the chart:

https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20835578/the-easy-day-pace/

My own belief is that many runners have been harmed by going too fast on their easy days . My own belief is that only a few runners have been harmed by going too slow on their easy days.

Former sub 14...

I don’t think in terms of pace either, I prefer to use effort with my runners so I agree with you there. But I think we’re mistaken if we think that stroke volume is the only variable we need to consider as far as the cardiovascular system is concerned.

Daniels made that finding of 60% HRmax being the max stroke volume a while ago, where it was believed that above 60%, the heart rate increased to meet oxygen demands rather than stroke volume. I was taught within the past ten years that this was once a popular idea but is now believed to be false, see Starling's Law. The force of contraction of the heart increases with the volume of filling all the way to HRmax. It's still a valid question, is 60-70% HRmax ideal for daily endurance development or should we run closer to marathon pace, but this old physiological explanation has now been outlived. We need to find another explanation. My assumption is it has to do with fast twitch or slow twitch recruitment, that endurance athletes can train slow twitch everyday but require more than 24 hours' recovery after a fast twitch day. That isn't based on lab data.

too hot 3 wrote:

Former sub 14...

I don’t think in terms of pace either, I prefer to use effort with my runners so I agree with you there. But I think we’re mistaken if we think that stroke volume is the only variable we need to consider as far as the cardiovascular system is concerned.

I agree with you that there is much to figure out. I was more so using his writings as yet another example of why you should not push easy runs, whether it is now valid or not. There are no definite studies that shoos away all the anecdotal evidence that NOT pushing your easy runs generates better results in most runners. I know anecdotal evidence isn’t scientific, but the overwhelming amount of this type of evidence out there leads me to believe in the wisdom of someone training in a different way until something else comes out to back that up. The only successful athletes I have personally known or read about that thrive off of faster easy runs are genetic freaks or severely underdevelop runners where any stimulus, no matter how ill-advised, will improve them. Most people won’t benefit from doing that. This thread was originally about how fast easy running should be so I’m doing my best to throw my opinion in there since I have seen success as both athlete and coach doing it as many others have done.

Genetic freaks and those with pharmacologic assistance benefit from faster easy runs. It seems like only Rupp and Farah have run 530-540/mile daily as men and survived to tell the tale. Lauren Fleshman on chronic exhaustion and non-specific reductions in training load: "I felt like somehow I deserve to have some superhuman thyroid that can handle anything. So I talked to my coach, Vin Lananna: I think my thyroid is suppressed. He said that could very well be it, you're not responding to the training anymore, you're tired all the time. And I was like people go to this doctor, Alberto knows about him and I'm thinking about reaching out. And this was the most embarrassing moment, but the really important turnaround for me: my coach looked at me and he goes: "Ya know, you could do that, and if you want to do that, it's your career, and I don't think there's necessarily anything illegal about it, but the reason why your thyroid is as messed up as it is because you're not resting enough, you're sleeping in an altitude tent, and you're training too hard. And you have to back off, you have to change those things, you have to take responsibility."https://www.propublica.org/article/elite-runner-had-qualms-alberto-salazar-asthma-drug-performance