The result of running easy all the time??

Smoove over butter wrote:

My teammate runs about 120 a week at 8:00 pace and then pops a 15:35 5k and negative split a 2:28 marathon

120 mile week at 8 minute pace is 16 hours of running, that is 2 hours 17 minutes per day. The 8 minute pace is nominally easy but running more than 2 hours is never easy. I wonder how often he races and what would his results be if he tried a structured training.

OGCz wrote:

What if you were to run easy everyday for say 6-8 weeks (running 50-60 mpw) and then go race a 5km at the end of that 6-8 week period. What would happen? I mean EASY everyday, no speed or tempo training at all. Not saying I do this but have always been curious what the results would be...

What about moderate training every day? Ron Clarke and Nenow did this. May be a good idea to take an easy day or two each week however.

moderate running wrote:

OGCz wrote:

What if you were to run easy everyday for say 6-8 weeks (running 50-60 mpw) and then go race a 5km at the end of that 6-8 week period. What would happen? I mean EASY everyday, no speed or tempo training at all. Not saying I do this but have always been curious what the results would be...

What about moderate training every day? Ron Clarke and Nenow did this. May be a good idea to take an easy day or two each week however.

This is an interesting article from a HS team that trains this way. Never tried it myself, but I am somewhat curious.

My easy pace is 4:50/km. My 5K is 17:45. I know someone with an easy pace of 4:30/km and a 5K best of 20:05.

At one point 4:30/km was my easy pace when I was doing 110mpw, I just got really good at running easy. However I got slower at 1K intervals and tempo runs. It was like a big difference between 4:30/km and 3:50/km.

Practice what you want your body to do before you ask it to do something.

It is interesting as it flies in the face against the 80 20 type training that is being talked about a lot these days.

halfhard wrote:

moderate running wrote:

What about moderate training every day? Ron Clarke and Nenow did this. May be a good idea to take an easy day or two each week however.

This is an interesting article from a HS team that trains this way. Never tried it myself, but I am somewhat curious.

http://www.coacheseducation.com/xc/jack_farrell_june_02.php

What a great article, filled with common sense. It is so opposite of what the modern experts say. For most of the last 2-3 years, I had been coached, and he used the typical type of training that is eschewed in this article. Coming off of an injury last year, I got myself back into shape on my own, using this moderate training approach, which I naturally tend toward liking anyway. After about three months, I put up a 17-second 5k PR, 18:57 down to 18:40. Then, I got back on the typical program (coached) and was disappointed in the marathon.

I am on my own now and feeling great, logging lots of moderate mileage. When doing the "expert" training, I felt miserable. It just seemed to burn me out. Also, I do not like having things so fixed and structured. Oftentimes I was stopping myself when feeling good, and pushing myself when feeling bad. Seems counter-intuitive to me.

As a side note, I am an adult runner (age 48).

It was a good read (and others by Farrell on the same page). It's the first time I've heard of primarily moderate/steady pace training. It seems like a bit slower than LT pace which is generally called no-mans land - not fast enough to stimulate lactate clearing, too fast for general aerobic. The kind of thing Daniels warns against (know the purpose of each workout...)

On the other hand, it's misleading as it isn't a diet of just moderate running. There's weekly race pace intervals / progressive run, weekly speedwork, and weekly 5K race. Plus 4-5 regular runs a bit slower than LT. That looks just like easy-hard/80-20 to me except for the pace of the regular runs.

Also, forgot to add that Daniels says you can use marathon pace instead of easy pace for regular runs - same benefits. But M pace is only a bit slower than LT pace - 10-15 secs/km. Yet Farrell's moderate/steady-state pace is also a bit slower than LT pace. Which means Farrell's plan is basically identical to Daniels, with all regular runs at M pace rather than E pace, and minus a long run. Hardly any difference.

abc6173 wrote:

Also, forgot to add that Daniels says you can use marathon pace instead of easy pace for regular runs - same benefits. But M pace is only a bit slower than LT pace - 10-15 secs/km. Yet Farrell's moderate/steady-state pace is also a bit slower than LT pace. Which means Farrell's plan is basically identical to Daniels, with all regular runs at M pace rather than E pace, and minus a long run. Hardly any difference.

I am almost at the point of saying, "Science be damned"-- or at least science as it applies to other people. Everyone is different. Certainly, mileage is necessary. But in other areas, people respomd differently to different types of training. I did two years of the Daniels-ish dogma, and never really felt that good. I made some gains, but was disappointed greatly in the marathon.

To me, a program of running much be much more "custom-tailored," much more runner-specific, than the lock-step, closed, structured approach of Daniels. That type of training mostly left me burned out and miserable. I much rather train hard when the time is right, and log the big miles when it is appropriate. I need a much more open-ended program. Trying to do higher mileage and higher intensity over the summer just left me tired and angry, with no pot of gold in the fall marathon. Summertime weather is just flat-out limiting. There is no way around it.

I just attained my highest week of mileage ever using a moderate/open-ended approach--basically run by feel--and I feel great, both physically and mentally. Not only did I surpass my previous weekly high, but I did it in fewer days, six instead seven. With decent weather, I exploded in my last run of the week today, going 17.25 miles at an overall 6:54 pace, finishing fast and feeling good throughout. For reference, my pace in my marathon PR was 6:57.

I now run by feel and weather, and it mostly ends up being moderate running, with some fast finishes. As the article states, it can be done day after day. I love it.

Not a huge fan of the article.

He states in it that after running 1000 miles during the summer, he thinks that you begin to lose this base fitness as soon as you transition to faster work. He believes that by November all benefits of this work is gone, it starts to go within 48 hours.

He also states that he believes that he doesn't believe periodisation is the best way to train, despite (every?) professional athlete and nearly every single coach believing the opposite.

Maybe I mis-interpreted, but from what I can tell he seems to think his way of training is superior to everyone else, despite the evidence to indicate the contrary is true?

What do you really mean easy running? Is running a 4 hour mountain run at 8000 feet easy at a 9 min pace?

If he got better results from the approach he describes than from a more conventional approach why WOULDN'T he think it's superior?

HRE wrote:

If he got better results from the approach he describes than from a more conventional approach why WOULDN'T he think it's superior?

I agree.

HRE wrote:

If he got better results from the approach he describes than from a more conventional approach why WOULDN'T he think it's superior?

I can understand someone training themselves thinking this, however, a coach doing so? It would indicate he is unable to apply periodisation successfully to athletes year after year so has now moved onto this system, or am I putting 2+2 and getting 5?

For him to suggest periodisation isn't the best approach when it comes to training to run competitively is bizarre. If you can find me someone who trains for peak performance at a high level who doesn't use a periodisation model I would be pretty surprised. I'm not from the US but I'd also be surprised if you could pick many coach from the top colleges/schools in your country who also don't use the periodisation model.

Bear in mind, we're not longer at a stage where people are just doing whatever because nobody knows better, like, say 100 years ago. Has it not been conclusively proved at this stage that for peak competitive performance that periodisation is the way to go?

Like I don't want to say that it's the only way to go, because I'm sure for the above poster their steady milage is doing the job, but would I be wrong in saying it's the best way to go, nearly all the time?

It depends on you mean by a "periodization model", but you might read up on the training of Rob DeCastella.

Again, if you coach runners one way, then change to something else and get better results from that what could you conclude other than "something else" is superior. Why would you not? Why would you conclude that periodizing is better than what you've succeeded with just because you've read that it is?

PS

Farrell's article goes a bit off topic for this thread. His system is not easy running all the time and it actually doesn't eliminate periodizing as races serve to sharpen runners as the season goes along.

moderate running wrote:

What about moderate training every day? Ron Clarke and Nenow did this. May be a good idea to take an easy day or two each week however.

+1

You could become an easy man every guy wants to have.